University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content T his d is s e r ta tio n has been 63— 6323 m ic ro film e d exactly as re c e iv e d C L E M E N T S, T h o m a s H ubbard, 1926- A STUDY TO CO M PA R E THE E F F E C T IV E N E S S O F INDIVIDUAL AND G RO U P COUNSELING A P PR O A C H E S WITH ABLE UNDERACHIEVERS WHEN COUNSELOR TIM E IS H ELD CONSTANT. U n iv e rsity of Southern C a lifo rn ia , P h.D ., 1963 E ducation, psychology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan A STUDY TO COMPARE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP COUNSELING APPROACHES WITH ABLE UNDERACHIEVERS WHEN COUNSELOR TIME IS HELD CONSTANT by Thomas Hubbard Clements A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) June, 1963 UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA GRADUATE SC H O O L UNIVERSITY PARK LOS A N G ELES 7. C A L IFO R N IA This dissertation, written by Thomas Hubbard Clements under the direction of ..Dissertation C o m mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate S c h o o l, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y Dean TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES.................................... vii Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS........ 1 Introduction ............................ 1 The Problem............................ 3 Assumptions...................... ^ The Scope and Limitations of the Study ... 5 Definition of Terms..................... 9 Organization of the Study............... 12 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE— IINDERACHIEVEMENT .... 13 Introduction ............................ 13 The Basic Problem of the Underachiever ... l4 The Basic Social Problem............... l*f Incidence............................ 16 Onset................................ 1? Underachievement, A Myth?............. 18 Needs of Talented Students............. 20 Reasons for Underachievement ............. 21 Personal Adjustment ................... 21 Home Conditions....................... 22 Impact of Society..................... 23 Motivation............................ 25 Characteristics of Underachievers ........ 26 Generalized Summary ................... 26 Sex Differences....................... 27 Studies on Individual Characteristics . . 28 Comparative Studies of Achievers and Underachievers ..................... 30 Significant Differences on Personality Tests.............................. 30 Personal, Home and Sex Factors......... 33 School Factors ......................... 37 Studies Which Have Not Shown a Significant Difference between Achievers and Underachievers ..................... 39 ii Chapter Page Approaches to Underachievement with Able Pupils......................... 41 Summary................................ 43 III. REVIEW OF LITERATURE— SELF-CONCEPT......... 45 Introduction ............................. 45 Definitions............................ 45 Self or E g o ........................... 45 Phenomenal S e l f ....................... 47 The Development of the Concept of Self ... 48 History of the Concept................. * < - 8 Position of Various Authorities ........ 49 Factors Affecting the Development of S e l f .............................. 54 The Effects of Self-Concept on the Learning Process..................... 58 Self-acceptance ....................... 60 Various Methods and Procedures Purporting to Measure Self-Concept ............. 61 The General Problem in Studying Self ... 61 Coding Plans for Interview Material ... 62 Instruments Purporting to Tap Self-Regard Directly............................ 63 Instruments Utilizing Mainly a Real-Self Versus Ideal-Self Discrepancy Score . . 64 Instruments Utilizing Self-Ratings on Scales with Assumed Favorability Values............................. 64 Projective Instruments and Self-Concept. . 65 Q , Methodology ........................... 6? Definitions.......................... 6? Principles and Purposes of the Q Technique......................... 68 Assumptions Underlying Forced Choice ... 70 How Q Technique is Adapted to Self- Concept Studies..................... 70 Validity and Reliability............... 71 Q Sort Studies......................... 76 Summary................................ 84 IV. REVIEW OF LITERATURE— GROUP COUNSELING .... 87 Definition of Terms..................... 87 iii Chapter Page Philosophical Assumptions Underlying Group Counseling............... 89 Characteristics of the Group Counseling Process....................... 90 The Meeting of the Basic Needs ..... 90 Membership....................... 91 Role of the Group Leader......... 92 Advantages of Group Counseling.. ....... 93 Disadvantages of Group Counseling .... 95 Phases of the Group Counseling Process. . 96 Homogeneous Versus Heterogeneous Groups . 96 Research Findings........... 98 General Statements Regarding Research Findings....................... 98 Research with Children ............... 99 Research with Young People ........... 101 Research with College Students.. ....... 108 Research with Adults and Families .... 110 Summary............................ ll*t V. RESEARCH DESIGN: INCLUSION OF STUDY IN DISTRICT NDEA TITLE V PROJECT, PROCEDURE OF EXPERIMENT, METHOD OF ANALYSIS... 11? Inclusion of Study in District NDEA Title V Project................... 117 Selection of the Sample Population .... 120 Procedure of Experiment.................. 126 Method of Analysis................. 130 VI. COMPARISON OF GROUP COUNSELING, INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING, AND CONTROL GROUPS IN Q SORT FINDINGS AND GRADE POINT AVERAGE......... 133 Purpose............................ 133 Findings.......................... 135 Summary of the Findings as Related to the Stated Hypotheses ................. 13? Hypothesis I ......................... 137 Hypothesis I I .................... 13? Hypothesis I I I ................... 137 Hypothesis I V .................... 160 Hypothesis V .................... 160 Hypothesis V I .................... 160 iv Chapter Page Significant Card Selections by Total Study Population Based upon Probability of Selection ........... 161 Real Self............................ 161 Ideal S e l f .......................... 163 Teacher S e l f ......................... 166 Parent Self.......................... 169 Significant Card Selections by Group Counseling Groups Based upon Probability of Selection ........... 172 Real Self............................ 172 Ideal S e l f .......................... 175 Teacher S e l f ......................... 177 Parent Self........................... 179 Significant Card Selections by Individual Counseling Groups Based upon Probability of Selection ........... 181 Real Self............................ 181 Ideal S e l f .......................... 183 Teacher S e l f ......................... 186 Parent Self.......................... 188 Significant Card Selections by Control Groups Based upon Probability of Selection......................... 190 Real Self............................ 190 Ideal S e l f ........................... 193 Teacher S e l f ......................... 196 Parent Self........................... 198 Summary of Card Selection D a t a ......... 200 VII. RESULT OF STUDENT AND PARENT INTERVIEWS ... 203 Introduction ........................... 203 Homework ..................... ..... 203 Students............................ 203 Parents ............................ 205 Educational and Vocational Goals ..... 206 Students............................ 206 Parents ............................ 207 Assigned Responsibilities ............... 209 Students............................ 209 Parents ............................ 210 v Chapter Page Expression of Feeling ................... 211 Students............................ 211 Parents ............................ 212 Change in Behavior..................... 214 Reactions to Counseling Received During the Project....................... 215 Students............................ 215 Parents ............................ 218 Summary .............................. 219 VIII. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS.............. 223 Q , Sort Procedure....................... 223 Possible Reasons for Q Sort Findings . . 223 Evaluation of Q Sort Procedure...... 225 Grade Point Average Results ............. 226 Evaluation of Grade Point Average Findings....................... 226 Possible Reasons for Lack of Change . . . 22? Results of Student and Parent Interviews. . 22? Subjective Judgments of the Three Parti cipating School Psychologists Comparing Group and Individual Counseling......................... 229 IX. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 234 Summary .............................. 234 Purposes............................ 234 Method.............................. 234 Findings.................. 236 Conclusions............................. 240 Conclusions Relating to the Hypothesis. . 240 Conclusions Relating to Student and Parent Interviews ................. 241 Recommendations for Further Research . . . 242 BIBLIOGRAPHY........ ............................ 245 APPENDIXES...................................... 254 Appendix A - Butler Q-Sort Card Statements. . 255 Appendix B - Q Sort Tally Sheets......... 259 Appendix C - Interview Forms ............. 264 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Sixth Grade Groups ......................... 122 2 Ninth Grade Groups ......................... 123 3 Eleventh Grade Groups ..................... 124 4 Total Study Population ..................... 125 5 Before and After Mean Correlations of Real- Self Q S o r t ............................ 138 6 Before and After Mean Correlations of Ideal- Self Q S o r t ............................ 139 7 Before and After Mean Correlations of Teacher- Self Q S o r t ............................ 140 8 Before and After Mean Correlations of Parent- Self Q S o r t ............................ 141 9 Mean Correlations Between Real-Self and Ideal-Self Q Sorts....................... 142 10 Mean Correlations Between Real-Self and Teacher-Self Q Sorts ........... ..... 143 11 Mean Correlations Between Real-Self and Parent-Self Q , Sorts ..................... 144 12 Mean Correlations Between Real-Self and Psychologists'-Self Q Sorts ............. 145 13 Mean Correlations Between Ideal-Self and Psychologists'-Self Q Sorts ........ 146 14 Comparison of Group Counseling and Control Groups on Before and After Identical Sorts . 147 15 Comparison of Individual Counseling and Control Groups on Before and After Identical Sorts . 148 vii Table Page 16 Comparison of Group Counseling and Individual Counseling on Before and After Identical Sorts.................................. 1A9 17 Comparison of Group Counseling and Control Groups on Initial Real Self— Ideal Self, Real Self— Teacher Self, and Real Self— Parent Self Sorts ...................... 150 18 Comparison of Individual Counseling and Control Groups on Initial Real Self— Ideal Self, Real Self— Teacher Self, and Real Self— Parent Self Sorts ............... 151 19 Comparison of Group Counseling and Individual Groups on Initial Real Self— Ideal Self, Real Self— Teacher Self, and Real Self— Parent Self Sorts....................... 152 20 Comparison of Group Counseling and Control Groups on Final Real Self— Ideal Self, Real Self— Teacher Self, and Real Self— Parent Self Sorts....................... 153 21 Comparison of Individual Counseling and Control Groups on Final Real Self— Ideal Self, Real Self— Teacher Self, and Real Self— Parent Self Sorts................. 15^ 22 Comparison of Group Counseling and Individual Counseling Groups on Final Real Self— Ideal Self, Real Self— Teacher Self, and Real Self— Parent Self Sorts................. 155 23 Comparison of Group Counseling and Control Groups with Psychologists’ Sorts Before and After the Project ................. 156 2k Comparison of Individual Counseling and Control Groups with Psychologists' Sorts Before and After the Project........... 157 25 Comparison of Group and Individual Counseling Groups with Psychologists' Sorts Before and After the Project....................... 158 viii Table 26 Change in Grade Point Averages CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS Introduction Educators have long been concerned about the problem of the able underachiever. The failure of the able student to achieve in the school situation, and the unfortunate early termination of his formal education, is a source of deep frustration to parents and educators and, ultimately, constitutes a real loss of potential to society. Much theorising and some practical steps have taken place in an effort to meet this problem. Due to the complexity of causa tive factors in this problem, it does not lend itself readily to study or solution. One of the most common methods employed in attempting to cope with the problem of the underachiever is grouping. The somewhat naive reasoning behind grouping is that the able student will be challenged by being grouped with other students of comparable ability, and that the teacher will be able to do a better job of teaching because of a reduced range of ability in the classroom. Although the adherents of grouping feel that positive results may be seen through this approach, it does not seem to be the answer for many able underachievers. The able underachiever probably is not underachieving simply 1 because he is not being challenged but because of a number of inter locking reasons, most of which are not of school origin. A better answer appears to lie in counseling and related guidance techniques, although this possible answer is difficult to prove. While indi vidual counseling is very helpful in many cases, it has certain basic limitations when used exclusively in working with the able underachiever. Since the etiology of underachieving in the able student appears complex, it could be assumed that a great deal of counselor time would be involved in the attempt to remedy the situation. Counseling time will always be at a premium in the public school setting. Even if the desired counseling ratio of one counselor to three hundred students, as recommended by the California State De partment of Education, is reached, the amount of time available for long term counseling will be limited. Individual counseling alone also has the disadvantage of dealing individually with students who not only are not seeking help but often resent any adult who is attempting to help them. This attitude, which makes him somewhat less approachable and receptive than the average student, seems to be quite common with the able underachiever. A combination of individual and group counseling seems to be particularly suited to the problems of the able underachiever. Group methods are not a new phenomenon but, as one author put it, they have a long past but a short history. Group counseling allows a group of students with similar difficulties to discover that they 3 are not unique and to help each other in terns of reality testing. This approach loses much of the artificiality of the individual coun seling situation and becomes more life-like and real to the partici pants. Adjunctive individual counseling with group counselees is still necessary, however, in the preparation for group membership, in the selection of well balanced groups, in dealing with highly personal problems that are recognized through the group process, and in in jecting personal desire for group progress. The Problem This study sought to investigate certain questions regarding the comparison of the effectiveness of individual and group coun seling approaches with able underachievers when counselor time is held constant: (1) Will a group counseling approach be associated with a measurable change in the self-concept of the counselees? (2) Will a group counseling approach be associated with a measurable improvement in the grade-point average of the counselees? (3) Will an individual counseling approach be associated with a measurable change in the self-concept of the counselees? (h) Will an individual counseling approach be associated with measurable improvements in the grade-point average of the counselees? (5) Will a group counseling approach be associated with more 4 positive change in self-concept and grade-point average than an individual counseling approach? Based upon the above questions the following hypotheses were tested: (1) Group counseling will be associated with positive change in self-concept. (2) Individual counseling will be associated with positive change in self-concept. (3) Group counseling will be associated with improvement in the grade-point averages of the counselees. (*0 Individual counseling will be associated with improvement in the grade-point averages of the counselees. (5) Group counseling will be associated with more positive change in self-concept than individual counseling when counselor time is held constant. (6) Group counseling will be associated with greater improve ment in grade-point averages than individual counseling when counselor time is held constant. Assumptions The present study was made with the following assumptions: (1) Human behavior is learned and modifiable. (2) The behavior of the individual depends on his perceptions of his environment and self. (3) The individual's perception of self organizes his behavior. 5 (4) Behavior change, therefore, depends on perception. (5) Healthy growth and development must be characterized by changing perceptions. (6) The factors affecting perception affect the development and the behavior of the individual. (7) An able, underachieving child with group test achievement scores at grade level or above is underachieving in his school work because of some degree of distortion in his perception of himself. (8) A positive change in self-concept will allow a child to work closer to his potential. (9) A child with an I.Q. score in the upper quartile is potentially a "B" or better student. (10) The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Vfechsler- Bellevue I, and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale are valid measures of intelligence. (11) The Blacky Pictures, Sentence Completion, Thematic Apperception Test, Symonds and Drawings are valid measures of personality structure. (12) The Butler Self-Concept Q-sort is a valid measure of self-concept. The Scope and Limitations of the Study The study was conducted in the Santa Ana Unified School Dis trict as a National Defense Education Act Title V Project. The total population of the study consisted of 144 students in grades six, nine, and eleven. The forty-eight students at each grade level were divided into six matched groups of eight students, two group counseling groups, two individual counseling groups, and two control groups. Each student selected for this study was tested individually to ascertain as closely as possible his level of scholastic aptitude, the causative factors of underachievement, the degree of overt hos tility present, the degree of emotional maturity, and the degree of overt anxiety present. Although it is impossible to control the great number of variables present when conducting comparative studies at the human level, the investigator attempted to reduce the number as much as possible through matching. Groups were matched for I.Q., grade-point average, racial group, chronological age, language back ground, socio-economic level, sex, degree of overt hostility, degree of emotional maturity, degree of overt anxiety, and achievement level based on group test results. This study was begun at the beginning of the second quarter and was concluded at the end of the third quarter of the school year 1961-62. During the period of the study the six group counseling groups met weekly on sixteen occasions plus each member received two one-half hour interviews with the group leader. The students selected for the six individual counseling groups received three one-hour counseling sessions during the period of the study and the six control groups received no counseling during the same period. By this 7 approach both the group counselees and individual counselees received the equivalent of three hours of counselor time. The purpose of the control group was to see whether or not the amount of change that took place in the two experimental groups would have occurred without any counseling help. Each member of the pro ject was given the Butler Self-Concept Q-sort before and after the sixteen week period. Individual grade-point averages were also com puted before and after the sixteen week period. This material was studied to see if there was any significant difference between indi viduals and groups in terms of positive growth in self-concept and improved grade-point average. There were several delimitations to this study. First, the groups included in this study were limited to boys. All project members met the minimum requirements of having an I.Q. score of 110 or higher on one form of the Wechsler Intelligence Scales. Each pro ject member also was operating at grade level or above on group achievement results and was a member of the Caucasian race from an English speaking background. While counselees with varying degrees of emotional disturbance were included in this study, students with severe emotional problems were excluded. The study of change within individuals and groups was limited to the areas of self-concept and grade-point average. Among the possible limitations of the study was the teachers' awareness of student participation in the project which may have biased their grading practices. Also, groups had to be chosen from 8 large elementary schools in order to have a large enough sample to study. This eliminated the majority of Santa Ana Unified School District's elementary schools and possibly biased the sample. Further, it is possible that being singled out for this study with the resulting attention may have been the key factor in the improve ment shown, rather than any particular counseling method or approach. One limitation in any study involving grading would be that of grading practices of teachers, in that actual achievement was not necessarily reflected by the letter grade. Another limitation as suggested by one self-theorist was that the Q sort approach to self- concept is actually a form of self report and does not necessarily reflect the actual self-concept of the individual. Although grade-point average was included in this study, the major interest and concern was with the possibility of change in the self-concept of students. The theoretical position of self-concept as used in this study was that of several self-theorists, i.e., the self is the nucleus of personality. These authors assume the posi tion that if the self changes as a result of maturation or learning, the personality has changed. It is the position of the investigator that if through counseling learning can take place, the self-concept and, therefore, the personality of each student would be altered. While measured change in self-concept may not necessarily be accompanied by concomitant change in behavior, this study made an effort to see if measured change in self-concept would be associated with concomitant improvement in academic achievement. The term 9 "self" in the original thinking of the concept has been credited to Rainy by Rogers in his writings. However, the investigation on this subject can be generally dated from Rogers' study on non-directive counseling in 19* * 0- Many instruments have been used in the attempt to measure self- concept with the more recent emphasis being placed upon the 3 sort technique which was first proposed by Stevenson and later modified by Butler and Haigh and others. This basic approach was used in the Rogers and Dymond Study. The present study was based on the assump tion that this Q technique and Q , sort test provide an accurate indi cation of changes in the self-concept. Definitions of Terms Self-Concept In this study Rogers' definition of self-concept was used. He described self-concept as an "organized, fluid, but consistent conceptual pattern of the characteristics of the 'I' or 'me' which are admissible into awareness, together with the values attached to these concepts." Real Self-Concept The term "real self-concept" relates to the conceptual pattern of characteristics which the individual perceives as being most des criptive of himself as he actually is now. Ideal Self-Concept The term "ideal self-concept" relates to the conceptual pattern 10 of characteristics which the individual perceives as being most de sirable for him; those characteristics which would describe the type of person whom he would most like to be. Teacher Self-Concept The term "teacher self-concept” relates to that conceptual pattern of characteristics which the individual perceives as being what his teacher or teachers consider him to be; those characteris tics that describe the student not as he is but as he thinks his teachers would describe him. Parent Self-Concept The term "parent self-concept" relates to that conceptual pattern of characteristics which the individual perceives as being how his parents would describe him; those characteristics which are not as he would describe himself but as he feels his parents would describe him. Q Technique This is a method of systematically studying the concepts that a person has of himself; it is a technique for objectifying subjec tive opinions, feelings and attitudes, and of making them available to statistical analysis. Q . Sort Test The Q Sort Test is an instrument which is derived by Q , tech nique. With it, an individual describes himself by sorting a certain number of self-referent statements into an approximately normal dis tribution, ranging from those statements that are most like him to 11 those that are least like him. Individual Counseling In this study Froehlich's definition of individual counseling was used. He describes individual counseling as "a situation in which the counselee is stimulated, (1) to evaluate himself and his opportunities, (2) to choose a feasible course of action, and (3) to accept responsibility for his choice and for initiating a course of action in harmony with his choice. The core of counseling is one of assistance in decision making." Group Counseling The investigator used a modification of Froehlich's definition of multiple counseling in defining group counseling for this study. Group counseling is a process in which counselees with identified common problems meet in a permissive atmosphere with a counselor who functions as a member of the group. In this setting there is oppor tunity for interaction. The Investigator differed from Froehlich's definition in that there was a conscious effort to structure the topics of some meetings and to provide some instruction. Able Underachiever In this study the term "able underachiever" refers to a student having an I.Q. score of 110 or higher, who, in spite of grade level or higher achievement on group test results, is re ceiving a grade-point average of "C" or less. Organization of the Study The organization of the following chapters represents the logical process of this investigation. Chapter Two reviews the literature and reports on evidence already available concerning the able underachiever. Chapter Three is designed to investigate the research findings in regard to self-concept as they pertain to this study. Chapter Four deals with the review of literature in the area of group counseling. Chapter Five deals with the research design of the investiga tion. Consideration is given to the means of selecting the popula tion sample, the various counseling methods employed, the methods employed for the gathering of data, and the statistical and computa tional methods utilized in analyzing the data. Chapter Six presents a comparison of before and after measure ments of "real," "ideal," "teacher," "parent" self-concepts and grade-point averages of the group counseling, individual counseling, and control groups. Chapter Seven presents the findings of the student and parent interviews. Chapter Eight discusses the findings, possible meanings, and implications of intergroup comparisons. Chapter Nine summarizes, draws conclusions about, and presents recommendations concerning the findings of the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE— UNDERACHIEVEMENT Introduction Since the review of literature for this study falls into three rather distinct categories, the investigator has chosen to write a separate chapter on each area. These three areas are under achievement, self-concept, and group counseling. The first of these three areas, underachievement, is covered in Chapter II. Chapter II does not attempt to deal with the overall problems of underachieve ment, but more specifically with the problem of the able under achiever. As stated in Chapter I, the investigator defined the able underachiever as a student having an I.Q,, score of 110 or higher, who, in spite of grade level or higher achievement on group test results, is receiving a grade-point average of "C" or less. This definition seems to coincide closely with that given by Shaw* who stated, "The underachiever with superior ability is one whose per formance, as judged either by grades or achievement test scores, is significantly below his high measured or demonstrated aptitudes or *Merville C, Shaw II, Guidance for the Underachiever with Superior Ability. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Bulletin (Washington, D.C., 1961), No. 25( P» 15- 13 14 potential for academic achievement." Shaw2 stated further that he felt any method of identifying bright underachievers was an arbitrary process; however, he felt it would be reasonable to consider any child an underachiever if he fell in the upper twenty-five per cent of his class with regard to intellectual ability and fell below the class average with respect to the academic grades he received. It was Shaw's feeling that in the actual school situation a practical rule of thumb such as this is probably more helpful than a more sophisticated definition. The Basic Problem of the Underachiever The Basic Social Problem Bowman^ personalized the problem of underachievement by noting that a bright underachiever is not only a waste of talent from the standpoint of national security, but even more important is the individual frustration when he does not utilize his full capacity. It was his position that human beings are not natively inert and inactive. People have drives and needs on one hand and certain strengths and abilities on the other. When these abilities are utilized, there is satisfaction and personal fulfillment. Without satisfaction and personal fulfillment there is frustration and 2Ibid.. p. 18. 2paul H. Bowman, Freeing Capacity to Learn. Papers and Reports from the Fourth ASCD Research Institute. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, A Department of the National Education Association, (Washington, D.C., n.d.), p. 40. 15 unhappiness. Impellisseri^ felt that the American achool system is squan dering a resource that ia already in short supply when it is unable to meet the needa of the bright underachiever. She pointed out that forty per cent of the high achool students who rank in the top third in intellectual ability do not go to college, and, of those who do enter college, sixty per cent do not finish. She stated that the American school system is unrealistic about students and is wasting them, our conventional measures of intellectual ability are poor, or achievement in high school and college depends on something besides intellectual ability. She stated further that until we know what is wrong and what to do about it, it is possible we are wasting some of the most creative minds of the rising generation. Several authors have covered the problem of underachievement and noted the threatening nature of this problem to the school people. Xmpellizseri^ stated that one of the prime motivations for special school programs has been the fact that this group of students challenges the assumptions on which most schools base their programs for academically talented, and that the problem of able under achievers appears to be one of the major causes for attrition among able students. ^Irene Impellizzeri, Guidance for the Underachiever with Superior Ability. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Bulletin, (Washington, D.C., 1961), No, 25, p« 2. 5Ibid. 16 Kough^ stated that while many students identify themselves as having outstanding ability, there are a great number of able young people who present a more difficult problem in identification. They are often frustrating to school people. Their grades are low, and they may be non-cooperative in performing achool assignments. Also they may be chronic behavior problems of one type or another, and may be regarded as irritants to teachers because of their non conformist attitudes or seeming laziness. In his writings Gowan? has stated that the underachieving gifted child is one of the greatest social wastes in our culture. This problem can lead to undesirable social or personal behavior, and as such presents a definite challenge to counselors, teachers, and other personnel workers. Incidence Q Kurtz and Swensen0 in their study of several intelligence groupings found statistical differences between ability and achieve ment at all levels. Gowan^ made two studies regarding the incidence of underachievement with gifted students. In a study in 1955 in one ^Anna R. Meeks, Guidance for the Underachiever with Superior Ability. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Bulletin, (Washington D. C., 1961), No. 25, p. 32. ?J. C. Gowan, "The Underachieving Gifted Child— A Problem for Everyone," Exceptional Children. Vol. XXI, No. 7 (April, 1955)i p. 2h7. ®John J, Kurtz and Esther J. Swensen, "Factors Related to Overachievement and Underachievement in School," School Review. (1951), P. W . ^Impellizzeri, op cit.. p. 2-3. 17 California, high school he found that seven per cent of the students were regarded as gifted, and that forty-two per cent of these were regarded as underachievers, i.e., they were falling below the top third in scholastic ranking. In another study,dated 1957, in three high schools, he found that twelve per cent of the gifted students were underachievers in one building, sixteen per oent in another, and forty-two per cent in a third. Impellizseri** reported that the conference on Identification of the Academically Talented Student in Secondary Schools, 1953* indicates that fifteen to twenty-five per cent of the gifted students in most school systems fall into the category of underachievers, and in some schools the incidence is even higher. 1 ? In his sociologically oriented study, Havighurst*'*' reported that within the top quarter of the boys graduating from high school, all boys in middle class or above go to college, however one-fifth of the boys in the top quarter do not go to college, and these boys come from the working class. Onset In an intensive study with a small number of gifted children, Barrett*^ found that a pattern of underachievement was present by l O j o h n c . Gowan, "Dynamics of the Underachievement of Gifted Students," Exceptional Children. XXIV (1957), pp. 98-101. 11Impelli*zeri, op. cit.. p. 2. 12Ibld.. p. 9. ^-^H, 0. Barrett, "An Intensive Study of Thirty-Two Gifted Chil dren," Personnel and Guidance Journal. XXXVI (1957), pp. 192-19^. 18 grade five, but did not pursue the investigations to the grades below the fifth grade level. Shaw and McCuen in their I960 study found that underachievers began receiving lower grades than achievers in grade one, and that this difference became significant at the .01 level by grade three. This difference continued to increase in significance every year from grades three through ten, where it tended to decrease somewhat. It remained significant at the .01 level, however. They stated further that notwithstanding the superior intellectual ability of both groups, that their ninth year school record left little doubt that the achievers and underachievers performed very differently in terms of academic achievement. The achievers continued to maintain their high scholastic record while the performance of underachievers deterio rated . Underachievement. A Myth? There are some who feel that there is some question about the whole concept of underachievement. Among those who question this concept is Dulles.He felt that by defining lack of learning as underachievement, the student, rather than the person making the pre diction, is assumed to be responsible for what discrepancy occurs between performance and prediction and that the student is criticized Merville C. Shaw II and John T. McCuen, "The Onset of Aca demic Underachievement in Bright Children," pie Journal of Educa tional Psychology. Vol. LI, No. 3* (June, I960), p. 179. Robert J. Dulles, "The Myth of Underachievement,” The Journal of Educational Sociology. Vol. XXXV, No. 3. (November, 1961), pp. 121-122. 19 or praised on this basis. He recommended simply changing the termi nology from underachieving to overpredicted, which perhaps would eliminate some of the value connotations related to the student. It was Dulles' feeling that underachieving students are alternately warned, tested, punished, encouraged, counseled and tutored, but the problem still persists. By lessening the judgmental aspect of the school situation these students would be relieved of considerable and undesirable pressure. Many authors have questioned the concept of underachievement from the aspect of teacher grades. Carter,*^for example, in a series of eight studies found no significant difference between intelligence and achievement in algebra but did discover significant variation between intelligence and the assignment of grades in algebra. Alexander*^ was very critical of teacher grading and found that there were marked discrepancies between teacher's judgment of pupils' intelligence and achievement. 18 Russell and Thalman investigated the relationship between personality traits and success in school and concluded that teachers' marks were contaminated by hidden sources of variance, therefore did l^Robert S. Carter, "How Invalid are Marks Assigned by Teachers?" Journal of Educational Psychology. XLIII, (1952), pp. 218-228. *?A. M. Alexander, "Teacher Judgment of Pupil Intelligence and Achievement is Not Enough," Elementary School Journal, LIII, (19*0), PP. 396-401. *®Ivan L. Russell and W. A, Thalman, "Personality: Does It Influence Teachers' Marks?" Journal of Educational Research. XLVIII, (1955), PP. 561-564. 20 not reflect academic achievement to the extent that Is widely accepted. Needs of Talented Students Many writers In the field have written their Ideas concerning a program for helping gifted and talented students. It would appear that many feel that there needs to be a concerted and well thought out plan of attack that would center around the basic needs of this particular group. One such person Is Woolcock^ w^o listed six basic needs for all gifted and talented students: 1. "The first of these is the Importance of early discovery of the gifted and talented.1 * 2. "The second need is that of honest and reliable diagnosis developmentally speaking— that Is, the child should be examined carefully in the four major areas of developmental growth, mentally, socially, emotionally, and physically." 3. "The third need is for honest prognosis." 4. "The fourth need is for parent education and cooperation in the educational programs for the gifted and talented." 5. "A fifth need is to alert and better educate teachers and school administrators about the gifted and talented." 6. "The sixth and last is the need to establish state laws to reimburse schools having special programs for the gifted and talented." l^Cyril W. Woolcock, "Needs of Gifted and Talented Students," School and Society. Vol. LXXXVIII, No. 2180, (November 5, I960), pp. 413-15. Reasons for Underachievement 21 Personal Adjustment Many psychologists who had been studying the problem of under achievement, and who had been making comparative studies of achievers and underachievers, took the position that underachievement is a symptom of maladjustment. This view was held by DeHaan and Havig- hurst^O and also by Shaw and Grubb.21 After reviewing the findings of their study on able high school underachievers Shaw and Grubb con cluded that underachievement among bright students was not a problem which had its origin within the educational framework but rather was one which the underachiever brings with him when he enters high school. yy Broedel, Ohlsen, and Proff concur with the above hypothesis. They stated that underachievement among high school students is not a simple phenomenon which is easily modifiable, but rather is one related to the basic personality matrix of the individual. The New York City Talent Preservation Project^ wa a special ^Robert F. DeHaan and Robert J, Havighurst, Educating Gifted Children (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. lol. 2*Merville C. Shaw II and J. Grubb, "Hostility and Able High School Underachievers," Journal of Counseling Psychology. Vol. V (1958), pp. 263-66. 22j. Broedel, M. Ohlsen, and F. Proff, The Effects of Group Counseling on Gifted Adolescent Underachievers. Paper read in American Psychological Association (Washington D. C., August 29t 1958). 23impeiii«eri, op* cit., p. k. 22 inquiry made into the psychological health of 315 gifted or poten tially gifted adolescents of whoa 255 were low achievers. Results indicate that emotional disturbance may underlie many of their learning disorders. Interviews by a psychiatrist indicated that underachievers fell into four categories. Approximately thirty per cent were found to have learning disorders associated with poor motivation and poor conditioning without any serious psychopathology. For ten per cent the learning disorder was associated with acute situational reactions such as illness, problems with teachers, and difficulties during one examination period. Fifty per cent of the non-achievers showed evidence of relatively serious chronic neurotic problems. The remaining ten per cent showed urgent need for im mediate treatment. This latter group included students with serious problems of depression, promiscuity, and delinquent behavior. Home Conditions 24 Conklin noted in one study the basic problem that many school people share, namely, that failures with bright students were often associated with emotional problems, and that the school is unable to deal effectively with family problems which are often the 25 basis of maladjustment. Kirk's findings substantiate the findings ^Agnes Conklin, "Failure of Highly Intelligent Pupils," Encyclopedia of Educational Research (New York: Macmillan Company, 19M), p. 590. ^^Barbara Kirk, "Test Versus Academic Performance in Mal functioning Students," Journal of Counseling Psychology. Vol. XVI (1952), pp. 213-16. 23 of Conklin'8 study. She suggested that underachievement satisfies an unconscious hostility motive which is directed toward a member of the student's family, usually one who demands success of the under achiever. She suggests that the underachiever is unable to express this hostility directly and uses this indirect route which lacks the masculine character. Impellimeri2^ said that underachievement may be a direct reflection of the attitude of the home towards school, in that a high school student who develops a strong desire to further his education in the face of opposition or apathy on the part of his parents is the exception rather than the rule. 27 In her study of 537 cases of maladjusted children, Robert found that thirty-eight had intelligence quotients of 130 or above. The majority of these children like school, and their problems center around the home situation. Those who were school problems stated they were not interested in school, they did not like their teachers, the work was too easy, they did not have any friends, and they liked to stay home with mother. Impact of Society Raths^® concluded from his study that students' attitudes and beliefs must be clarified if students are to be taught effectively Impelli**eri, op. cit., p. 6. 2?Lucile Robert, Findings from the Clinical Reports on the Behavior Problems of Gifted Children (unpublished paper. 1952). 2®James Raths, "Underachievement and a Search for Values," The Journal of Educational Sociology. Vol. XXXIV, No. 9 (May, 1961), p. 423. 24 at the secondary level. In Rath's opinion if the student has not received a proper set of values from the hone or the church or else where, the school must fill in this area for him. Cole^ waa even more critical of society, stating that there is little incentive for youth of high ability who find that medi ocrity is rewarded in many walks of life. He stated further that a culture that puts high value on financial status, physical beauty, second-rate professional entertainment, and the accumulation of material things creates a world that is alien for the brilliant student. Rosen*^ reported that racial and ethnic origin also seem related to achievement. In his study of achievement motivation among five ethnic groups he consistently found that Jews, white Protestants, and Greeks scored higher in achievement motivation, and Negroes, French Canadians, and Italians scored lower. He con cluded, however, that ethnic differences do not tell the whole story, and that social class accounted for more variability than ethnicity. In a comparative study of graduates of two schools Liddle-^ found that the school records of the predominately lower class 29c. C. Cole, Jr., "Encouraging Scientific Talent," College Entrance Examination Board (New York, 1956), p. 31. •^Bernard C. Rosen, "Race, Ethnicity, and Achievement," American Sociological Review. Vol. XXIV (1959), pp. 47-60. -^Gordon P. Liddle, "An Evaluation of Special Classes for the Mentally Handicapped in the Area of Mental Health," Exceptional Children (accepted for publication). 25 school showed no student had made an "A" in an academic subject over a three year period while forty-five per cent of the graduates in the upper-middle class had made "A's." Conversely, no student from the upper-middle class school made an "F“ during the same period while forty-four per cent of the lower social class school made "F's." The records also indicated that far more children from the lower groups had been failed or retained in the lower grades. Mulligan-^ concluded that the absence of talented students from farming, semi-skilled, and unskilled groups in institutions of higher learning is due to cultural factors rather than to purely economic factors. Motivation B o w m a n 3 3 has identified five motivational factors that are involved in the development of academic interest and achievement. He states that in some people there is a basic unconscious need for achievement that drives them to achieve maximum success in anything they attempt. A second element of motivation is a need to know, which he described as a basic curiosity about life. The third ele ment in the motivation is the recognized social values of the family or neighborhood. He particularly stressed the importance of parents1 urging their children to be independentf The fourth factor in moti vation is the way an individual perceives other people. The fifth 32Raymond A. Mulligan, "Socio-Economic Background and College Enrollment," American Sociological Review. Vol. XVI (1951)# pp. 188-96. 33Bowaan, op. cit., p. 43-50* 26 and last, and in his ayes the most important aspect of motivation, is an individual's perception of himself in the understanding of human behavior. It is Bowman's feeling that self-perception would prove to be the most significant factor in the prediction of future behavior. Some educators appear to adopt a rather shallow point of view in the motivation of students in the opinion of the investigator, in that they seem to assume that the bright underachiever is simply not challenged. Taulbee, Isacksen, Veit, and Woodbury*^ in a panel made some of the following statements: The first step in motivating the underachiever and the indiffer ent learner is to choose the right teacher, then segregate the pupils into small classes so that the teacher can give necessary and individual attention to each pupil. . . . The high I, Q. underachiever may be inspired to do outstanding work by appoint ing him as a tutor to a group of average or below average pupils. . . . Placing the underachiever on a committee and insuring in every way possible that it be successful may be effective. . . . The reluctant reader needs a program rich in occupational inter ests and geared to individual aptitudes. Characteristics of Underachievers Generalized Summary In reviewing a number of studies comparing achievers and underachievers in school and college DeHaan and Havighurst*^ found that practically all of the studies pointed to underachievement as ^Calloway Taulbee, Roy Isacksen, Charles Veit, Stephen Wood bury, "How Can We Better Motivate the Underachiever and the Indif ferent Student?" The National Association of Secondary School Prin cipals Bulletin. Vol. XLIV (April, I960), pp. 17^-80. -^DeHaan and Havighurst, op. cit., p. 160. 27 a form of personal and social maladjustment. They summarize these studies by stating that underachieving able students appear to have the following characteristics: (I) They see themselves as inadequate persons; (2) they have lower aspirations than achievers; (3) they do not like school as well as achievers do; (4) they do not enjoy learning from books; (5) they have lower popularity and leadership status in the eyes of their age mates; (6) they tend to come from homes that are broken or emotionally inadequate in other ways; (7) they tend to come from homes of low socio-economic status; (8) their vocational goals are not as clearly defined as those of achievers; (9) their study habits are not as good as those of achievers; (10) they have narrower interests than achievers; (II) they have poorer personal adjustment than achievers. Sex Differences Anastasi and Foley-^ in their review of research on sex dif ferences found that girls excelled in general school achievement over boys whether measured by achievement tests or school grades. They found further that performance on the separate parts of achievement tests revealed a hierarchy of abilities which corresponded closely to that found with tests of intelligence and special aptitudes. Both Gowan^? and Curry3® found similar results in attempting to determine the number of underachieving boys as compared to under achieving girls. Both found that underachieving boys outnumber Anne Anastasi and John P. Foley, Differential Psychology (New York: Macmillan Company, 1954 Revised), pp. <>12-42. 3?J. c. Gowan, "The Underachieving Child— A Problem for Every one," Exceptional Children. Vol. XXI (1955)» PP» 247-49. 3®Robert L. Curry, "Certain Characteristics of Underachievers and Overachievers," Peabody Journal of Education. Vol. XXXIX, No. 1 (July, 1961), pp. 41-45. 28 underachieving girls by two to one. C u r r y aiao found that girls outnumber boys more than two to one in the overachieving group. A primary difference in the general pattern of academic under achievement between male and female underachievers was found by 40 Shaw. He found that chronic male underachievers tended to display underachieving behavior in the primary grades, while very few females showed this characteristic. Females appear to begin to demonstrate serious underachievement behavior in their late elementary and junior high school grades. Studies on Individual Characteristics Several studies have been run on various personal problems found in able underachievers. Wedemeyer,^ for example, found the prevalence of personal and financial problems as factors affecting achievement of superior students. Gowan^ found that the gifted underachiever tends to have fewer salable skills either to offer for part time jobs to bolster his economic situation, or to gain eligibility for a college scholar ship. Gowan also found that the underachiever tends to be self- sufficient and unsociable, and therefore harder to reach and harder to interest in social activities. He appears to learn less from 39ibid. ^Shaw and McCuen, op. cit.. pp. 103-108. ^^Charles A. Wedemeyer, "Gifted Underachievers and Non achievers," Journal of Higher Education. Vol. XXIV (1953). PP* 25-30. . c. Gowan, "The Underachieving Child— A Problem for Everyone," op. cit. 29 exposure to normal socialising effects of his peers because he has less contact with them. Gowan^ concluded that because gifted under achievers are less sociable and because their teachers are basically overachievers they tend to find few surrogate parental models among their teachers. He feels that this added lack of identification with adult models makes their behavior still more difficult to influence. Mason^ and Rezler**^ stated that immaturity is very prevalent among able underachievers. This immaturity is demonstrated by a lack of self-discipline which is often manifested in the inability of the underachiever to undertake and complete tasks which are not pleasant to him. Associated with this, the underachiever has a difficult time in working toward a distant goal. Several studies have been run attempting to determine the re lationship between parental influence and achievement in school. This influence is apparent in several studies mentioned by Impelliz- zeri^ in which she quoted the findings of Cole, Terman and Oden, Wolff, and Hollingshead, which showed that children of professional and highly educated parents are far more likely to attend college and to show before college positive attitudes toward advanced education. 43ibid. ^^^erville C. Shaw II, op cit.. p. 23* ^ a . G. Rezler, "Personal Values and Achievement in College," Personnel and Guidance Journal (October, I960), pp. 137-^3* ^Impellizzeri, op. cit., p. 9. 30 Gowan^ found that the gifted underachiever has identified less with hie parents who themselves seen to be less active than the parents of achievers and less supporting of him and of his personal needs. Shaw^ quoted the studies of Ford, Roe, Ryan, Pierce and him self in studying the effects of broken homes, working mothers, and other family disruptions. Their results show a higher proportion of these incidences among the parents of underachievers. There is at least a suggestion in some research that female underachievers may be rejected children. Family size and constellation also appear to have some bearing upon the existence of underachievement as under achievers tend to come from larger families. Comparative Studies of Achievers and Underachievers Significant Differences on Personality Tests Many comparative studies have been run on achievers and under achievers, using a variety of personality tests. Shaw and Grubb^ used the Primary Test of Mental Ability, The Social Scale of Dale Preference Inventory, the Hostility Scale of Guilford-Zimmerraan Detriment Survey, and the Cook Hostility Scale of the MMPI. In an effort to compare these two groups they found no significant differ ence between male achievers and underachievers on the PKA scores, ^Gow&n, "The Underachieving Child— A Problem for Everyone," op. cit. ^®Merville C. Shaw II, op. cit. ^9shaw and Grubb, op. cit. 31 although the .01 level of significance was found between female achievers and underachievers. In comparing male achievers and under achievers on the other measures a significant difference at the .05 level was obtained on the Social Scale of the Dale Preference Inven tory and Hostility Scale of Guilford-Zimmerman with a .01 level of significance on the Cook's Hostility Scale. Shaw and Brown^ found no relationship between scores on the Bell Adjustment Inventory and underachievement in a combined male and female college population. Using a Q , sort technique approach Butler^ found that the Index of Adjustment of overachievers was significantly higher in respect to Real-Self and Ideal-Self, but no real differ ences were found in relation to Teacher-Self or Parent-Self. Both overachievers and expected-achievers were also contrasted with under achievers in the direction of the concept of Parent-Self. While the direction was positive, it was not significant. Several studies have been attempted using projective instru ments such as the Rorschach. Marguliea^ worked with thirty-two underachieving and twenty-one overachieving junior high school ^^Merville C. Shaw II and D. J. Brown, "Scholastic Under achievement of Bright College Students," Personnel and Guidance Journal. Vol. XXXVI (1957), pp. 195-99. 51john Joseph Butler, "Differential Factors in the Self- Concepts of Overachieving, Underachieving, and Expected-Achieving Adolescents" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California, 1957). Margulies, "Rorschach Responses of Achieving and Non achieving College Students," Archives of Psychology. Vol. CCLXXI (W2), pp. 1-16. 32 students. She concluded from her data that underachievers were sig nificantly more anxious both in handling external stimuli and estab lishing human contacts. She also confirmed the superior productivity of overachievers in number of responses. The Rorschach was also used by McCandless53 who matched thirteen officer candidates having low grades with thirteen officer candidates having high grades. An in tensive study yielded only one decisive difference. The high group had significantly more popular response than the low group. This was interpreted to mean that high achievers were more "solid, conforming and willing to cram.N The MMPI was used by G o u g h 5^ in working with twenty-seven high school overachievers and twenty-four high school underachievers. The statements characterising the overachievers showed a conformity to social norms, rigidity, submissiveness to parental standards, moder ate tension, anxiety, insecurity, a suspicious attitude toward others, and inefficient interpersonal skills. In another study employing the MMPI Brown55 studied fifty-five overachievers and twenty-two underachievers. He concluded that the underachiever could be described as an individual who was inclined to deny personal problems, to see others in a favorable light, to 53b. R. McCandless, "The Rorschach as a Predictor of Academic Success,” Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. I ( 1 9 3 3 )» pp. ^1-50. 5i *Prederick M. Lord, Prediction of Scholastic Achievement from Noncognitive Factors (Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1950), p. 10. 55lbid.. p. 21. 33 Minimise somatic complaints, and to be self-satisfied. Owens and Johnson^ used an MMPI to compare a group of fifty underachievers and fifty-four overachievers at the college level. They concluded that underachievers were better adjusted than over achievers socially, more extraverted and tended to spend their time socially rather than studying. Personal. Home and Sex Factors Terman and Oden^? studied one hundred and fifty of the most successful and one hundred and fifty of the least successfully ad justed within a group of gifted persons. They found a consistently positive correlation between success and variables such as mental health, emotional stability, and social adjustment. Shaw and Blackfound that underachievers tend to have stronger ego defenses than do achievers thus supporting the idea that underachievers tend to have a more negative self-concept. They also conclude that while underachievers tend to be strictly honest in owning up to their mistakes, they then proceed to rationalise their errors in such a way that they are not personally responsible. Con versely, the achievers tend to simply deny that they had made any error, thus no rationalisation or defense is necessary. Shaw^? also 56w. a . Owens and W. C. Johnson. "Some Measured Personality Tests of Collegiate Underachievers," Journal of Educational Psychol ogy. Vol. I (1940), pp. 41-46. 57lmpellisseri, op. cit.. p. 4. 5®Merville C. Shaw II, op. cit.. p. 24. 59Ibid. y* discussed several studies concerning the emotional maturity of under achievers . He concluded that the findings in these studies indicate that the underachiever demonstrates behavior considered to be less mature than that which is shown by his achieving peers. Haggard^ supported Shaw's findings in his study comparing high with low achieving children in the area of arithmetic. He found that high achievers had by far the better developed and healthier egos, both in relation to their own emotions and mental processes and in their greater maturity in dealing with the outside world of people and things. Strodtbeck 81 took a slightly different tack and attempted to isolate characteristics of high achievers. He summarized his findings in four statements. He stated that high achievers are characterized by: (1) a belief in the efficacy of human effort in planning; (2) freedom from the type of family loyalty which might inhibit occupational mobility; (3) the desirability of working for oneself rather than in a cooperative team; and (4) the postponement of immediate pleasures for the sake of future goals. Shaw^Z summarized the findings of Alves, Mason, Portland Public Schools Project, Shaw, Edson, Bell and others, who were ^^Emest A. Haggard, "Socialization, Personality and Academic Achievement in Gifted Children," School Review. Vol. LXX (Winter, 1957), pp. 388-414. 6lp. L. Strodtbeck, "Implications of the Study of Family Inter action for the Prediction of Achievement" (New Haven, Connecticut, 1953), P. i *8. (Mimeographed.) 82Herville C. Shaw II, op. cit. 35 dealing with the problems of underaohievement using the self-concept as a focal point of their study. He stated there is general agree ment that underachievers generally are more negative in their atti tude toward themselves than are achievers. There is also evidence to indicate that they tend to be more negative in their evaluations of others, and that underachievers tend to show a higher degree of hostility than do achievers along with stronger feelings of inferi ority. Passow, Goldberg^3 and associates at Teachers College, Colum bia University, conducted a study of self-attitudes at two high schools. They found that achievers and underachievers have no signi ficant differences on what they wish to become, but did find that underachievers scored significantly lower in how they judged them selves at present. Underachievers saw themselves as being weak in the intellectual and problem solving areas. However, they did not see themselves as inferior in the personal-social area or in the area of special talents. Passow concluded that this would seem to indi cate that the underachiever is seeing himself rather accurately as this is precisely the way he is operating. The personal relationship between an underachiever and his parents has been an interesting problem to several examiners. Shaw^ summarized the findings of Bishton, Gowan, Hobbs, Drews, and Winter- ^3a . Harry Passow and Miriam Goldberg, "Study of Underachieving Gifted," Educational Leadership. Vol. XVI (1958), pp. 121-25. 6^Merville C. Shaw II, pp. cit.. pp. 22-23 36 bottom who found that the relationship between an underachiever and his parents tends to be a more distant one, psychologically speaking, than that which exists between the achiever and his parents. The parents of achievers tend to show a greater inclination to push their children toward achievement, not only in school, but in other areas as well. The parents of underachievers not only appear to demand less in the way of specific performance from their children but de mands tend to be made at a later date than the parents of achievers usually do. Berdie^5 ran a comparative study with parents of students planning to go to college and parents of those not planning to go. The study revealed that while both groups of parents recognized the financial rewards of a college education, the parents of the college- bound youngsters had emphasized a love of learning and the values of higher education in the personal development of their children, while the other parents as a group had not done this. As has been stated before in other sections of this chapter, Shaw66 found that underachievers tend to come from homes where the parents have had less formal education than parents of achievers. Shaw summarized the studies of Granzow, Pearlman, Ratchick, Terman, and Westfall in making this statement. ^Impellizzeri, op. cit.. p. ?. 66Merville C. Shaw II, op. cit. 37 Frankel67 in his comprehensive study indicated that in the area of the home, more fathers of achievers than underachievers were found in the top three professional groups. He also found that sig nificantly more working mothers were reported by underachievers than achievers. In the area of social activities Franks1^8 found that underachievers belonged to significantly more athletic and social clubs and were somewhat more interested in the scouting movement. In surveying studies made by Altus, Bishton, Gough, and Owens and Johnson, Shaw^9 concluded that the study of the social behavior of underachievers leads to a common finding that underachievers en gage in social activities to a far greater extent than do achievers. School Factors In his study, Frankel70 spent considerable time comparing the achiever and the underachiever in terms of various aspects of the school program. He found that the achiever showed significantly greater aptitude than underachievers in verbal and mathematical areas of the D.A.T. Achievers also appeared to be more interested in the computational while underachievers scored higher in the artistic areas of the Kuder Vocational Preference Record. On the Mooney ^Edward Frankel, "A Comparative Study of Achieving and Under achieving High School Boys of High Intellectual Ability," Journal of Educational Research. Vol. XXXV, No. 5 (January, I960), p. 177* 68Ibid. 69Merville C. Shaw II, op. cit.. p. 26. 70prankel, op. cit.. pp. 173-77. 38 Problem Check List, on the other hand, the school area was the only area in which the underachievers presented significantly more prob- lems than achievers. There were no significant differences in the other six areas. Underachievers reported significantly more days absent from school for health reasons. Conversely, achievers regis tered significantly more health complaints, such as acne and aller gies . The difference in attendance between the two groups showed that underachievers were absent from school significantly more than achievers, this difference being significant at the .01 level. In a school situation achievers ranked mathematics as the easiest and mathematics and science as liked best among the subjects, with English as the most difficult and liked least. The under achievers, inversely, selected science as the easiest and best liked subject, and foreign language as the most difficult and the least liked. Significantly more achievers than underachievers plan to follow a liberal arts college program, majoring in science, whereas more underachievers than achievers expected to enter non-science fields, such as business administration, etc. Carter?^ compared overachievers and underachievers in a junior high school situation using the California Study Methods Survey. He concluded that overachievers are happier in school, have more self- confidence, and better morale. Overachievers appear to have more intellectual curiosity. In the matter of study habits he found that 7!-Harold C. Carter, "Over-achievers and Under-achievers in the Junior High School," California Journal of Educational Research, Vol. XII, No. 2 (March, 1961), p. 56. 39 overachievers have significantly better study habits and that they are more planful and systematic about getting their school work done. Battle?2 attempted to study the relationship between values and scholastic achievement with matched groups of forty-four high achievers and forty-four low achievers. He found that in ninety-five per cent of the matched pairs the high achievers were significantly more similar to their teachers than were low achievers. Studies Which Have Not Shown a Significant Difference Between Achievers and Underachievers A great many studies have been completed which have not shown significant results in terms of differences between achievers and underachievers. S h a w ? 3 stated that when the McClelland Achievement Motivation Test and the Need Achievement Scale of the Edwards Person ality Preference Inventory were used, the results indicated no signi ficant difference between achievers and underachievers. This finding was substantiated by the studies of Atkinson, Bendig, McClelland, Morgan, Weiss, Wertheimer, Groesbeck, and Uhlinger and Stephens. In one of the early reviews on this topic, Stagner?^ discovered only negligible relationship between personality tests and grade averages. Some slight tendency occurred for students with higher ?2H, F. Battle, "Relations Between Personal Values and Scho lastic Achievement," Journal of Experimental Education. Vol. XXVI (1957), pp. 27-41. ^^Merville C. Shaw II, op. cit.. p. 24. ?**R. Stagner, "The Relation of Personality to Academic Apti tude and Achievement," Journal of Educational Research. Vol. XXVI (1933), PP. 648-60. 40 scores on tests for introversion, dominance and self-sufficiency to obtain higher grade averages than those with lower scores. At about the same time, T h o m p s o n ? ^ found that he could not ascertain a sub stantial correlation between the personal history, personality inven tory, and either scholarship or achievement. Uhlinger and Stephens?** summarised the studies of approxi mately fifteen authors and stated that most research has failed to show any significant difference in overall adjustment among over-, under-, and moderate-achieving students. They state that various biographic and demographic variables have failed to show consistent relationships with achievement. They conclude by stating that "the most perplexing and vexing of all has been the inability to rate actual achievement to the measures of motivation to achieve." Shaw?? concurs with Uhlinger and Stephens' findings and states his position as follows: Personality characteristics of underachievers have been the subject of wide and intensive study. There seems to be no con clusive agreement among the results of various studies on the question of whether or not underachievers are more poorly ad justed generally than are achievers. The results of studies on this question are so conflicting that no final conclusions can be drawn at this time. ?^Lorin Thompson, "Personal History, Intelligence and Academic Achievement," Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. V (1934), pp. 500- 506. ?^Carroll A. Uhlinger and Mark W. Stephens, "Relation of Achievement Motivation to Academic Achievement in Students of Superior Ability," Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. LI, No. 5 (October, I960), pp. 259-&>. 77Merville C. Shaw II, op. cit.. p. 23- ifl Approaches to Underachicvement with Able Pupils Relatively little has been written on approaching the problem of the able underachiever; although some conjecture has been given the subject, apparently very little has been done in terms of re search study. Some authorities such as Witty and Wilkins?® suggest that keeping the bright underachiever in classes with students of lesser ability is a factor leading to underachievement, and they re commend the practice of acceleration in an effort to challenge the student. Engle?9 also suggested the possibility of acceleration, stating that accelerated boys stayed in school longer and earned higher median salaries in later employment. His studies showed an overall improvement in later achievement of accelerated as compared with nonaccelerated students. Other authors have suggested various forms of grouping within the school situation, either with special teachers or in a group guidance situation. In an experimental program at DeWitt Clinton High School in Hew York City,®® underachievers were grouped under an especially warm and accepting teacher for one year, and a second year ^®Paul A. Witty and Leroy W. Wilkins, "The Status of Acceler ation or Grade Skipping as an Administrative Practice," Educational Administration Supervision. Vol. XIX (1933)* PP» 321-^6. ^^helbum L. Engle, "Achievement of Pupils Who Have Had Double Promotions in Elementary School," Elementary School Journal. Vol. XXXVI (1935). pp. 185-89. ®®DeHaan and Havighurst, op. cit., p. 291. under a teacher not particularly outstanding in these respects. It was found that while the students made considerable progress in all areas during the first year, that this progress did not continue in the second year under the more formal teacher who insisted upon more rigid standards. Smith®* reported a study in which bright underachievers were placed in a special guidance class for one period each day. The group guidance approach in this particular hour was designed to build up the students' belief that they were able to achieve academi cally. In evaluating the results of the study, Smith indicated that in addition to an improvement of marks, other gains were also indi cated by the teacher. It was reported that the students gradually tended to lose less desirable characteristics, such as lack of self- confidence, and lack of a sense of responsibility, initiative, and stability. In another approach to the situation Winbom and Schmidt®^ attempted to measure the effectiveness of a short-term group coun seling approach, working with the potentially superior but under achieving college freshman. They found that students who did not participate in the short-term group counseling program made signi- ®*Mark C. Smith, "Underachieving Gifted Pupils in Junior High School," Journal of Secondary Education. Vol. XXXVI, No. 2 (February, 1961), pp. 80-81. 8^Bob Winbom and Louis B. Schmidt, "The Effectiveness of Short-Term Group Counseling upon the Academic Achievement of the Potentially Superior but Underachieving College Freshman," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. LV, No. 4 (December-January, 1962), pp. 169-73. *3 ficantly higher grade-point averages than the participants in a coun seling program. They conclude that this indicates that short-term group counseling tended to produce a negative effect upon academic achievement of potentially superior freshmen as reflected by their academic subjects. Summary The many authors who have written on the subject of under achievement have generally agreed that it appears to be a two-pronged problem. First, there is a definite loss to society as a whole as a result of losing able children from a school situation. Second, there is a personal loss to the individual which lowers the proba bility of achieving self-realisation. It has been shown in a number of studies that among able stu dents from twelve to forty-two per cent will be classified as under achievers . The onset of this problem appears to occur at an early age. Studies indicate that underachievement becomes somewhat appar ent in first grade and becomes increasingly significant throughout a student's school career. There is some agreement among the researchers that there should be a specialized approach to meet the needs of the able under achiever. These needs have been identified as early discovery, reliable diagnosis, honest prognosis, a cooperative parent education program, better informed teachers and school administrators, and further to have state funds available for underwriting a special program for the able student. kb A number of reasons for underachievement has been given by various authors. The most common reason stated is that underachieve ment is a symptom of personal maladjustment. Other causes have been stated as possibilities, e.g., disruptive home problems, low societal standards and values, and varying motivation based on ethnic and social class background. The underachiever, in comparison with the overachiever, has been characterized as a student who sees himself as an inadequate person, and one who has a lower aspiration for him self than the achieving student. He appears to like school less, enjoy learning from books less, have lower popularity and leadership status in the eyes of his age-mates than the achieving student. He tends to come from a home which is broken or emotionally inadequate, and having lower socioeconomic status than an achiever. His voca tional goals are less clearly defined, and his study habits are poor. He has narrower interests and poorer personal adjustment than an achiever. In spite of these findings by some authors, a large number of studies have found no significant differences between achievers and underachievers. Relatively little has been written recently regarding approaches to the able underachieving student. The studies which have been completed, some of them a number of years back, have in dicated that varying techniques should be employed to improve the motivation of the underachiever. The following chapter will deal with the review of literature in the area of self-concept. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF LITERATURE— SELF-CONCEPT Introduction This chapter is designed to investigate the research findings in regard to self-concept as they pertain to this study. This chap ter is limited to four major areas: definitions, development of the concept of self; various instruments purporting to measure self- concept; and Q methodology. Definitions Self or Ego Brownfainl quoting James in discussing the area of self, stated that each individual has many selves, and that a person's self was the sum total of all that an Individual can call his. At about the same time, Freud had begun to work on his concept of ego. Lorand^ defines ego as "the part of the personality of which we are constantly aware and is that part which we think we know and feel as our actual personality." The extensive studies of Sherif and 1 J, J, Brownfain, "Stability of the Self-Concept as a Dimen sion of Personality," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. XLVII (1952), p. 597. 2 Sandor Lorand, Psychoanalysis Today: Its Scope and Function (New York: Covici-Friede Publishers, 1933)• PP« 18-25- 45 1 * 6 Cantril^ led than to the conclusion that ego consisted mainly of those attitudes formed during genetic development, namely those atti tudes related to one's body, parents, family school, church, class, property, etc. Ralmy^ is generally credited with being the first to define self as a concept. In his 19^3 definition he stated that "the self- concept is the more or less organised perceptual object resulting from present and past self-observation . . * (it is) what a person believes about himself. The self-concept is the map which each per son consults in order to understand himself, especially during mo ments of crisis or choice.1 1 It appears that Raimy viewed the self- concept as serving a kind of shorthand approach by which the indivi dual may symbolize and reduce his own vast complexity to workable and usable terms. In reviewing the literature, Allport5 concluded that there were eight main conceptions of the self or ego. He summarized these as follows: as knower; as object of knowledge; as primordial self ishness; as dominator; as a passive organizer and rationalizer; as a fighter for ends; as one segregated behavioral system among others; and as a subjective patterning of cultural values. ^Muzafer Sherif and Hadley Cantril, The Psychology of Ego In volvements (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 19**7). p. 15©. ^Arthur W. Combs and B. Snygg, Individual Behavior: A Per ceptual Approach to Behavior (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959). p. 127. ^G. W. Allport, "The Ego in Contemporary Psychology," Psychological Review. Vol. L (19^3). PP» ^51-78. *7 Jersild^ also examined what was meant by modern authors when describing the self and reported that it has been seen variously as the individual as known to himself; the sum total of all that he can call his; a perceiver and a thing perceived; a knower and a thing known; a person's inner world as distinguished from the outer, a distinctive center of experience and significance; and the custodian of awareness which notices what goes on in its own and other fields. To this summary statement, he added his own definition"When we speak of the self we mean, among other things, a system of ideas, attitudes, appraisals and commitments to one's own person. The per son experiences these as distinctly belonging to him and all of them together constitute the person's awareness of his individual exist ence and his conception of who and what he is." Phenomenal Self Combs and Snygg® took a slightly different tack on their approach to self. It was their position that each individual has literally hundreds of thousands of more or less discreet perceptions of self. This myriad of self perceptions does not exist in the per ceptual field as a mere enumeration of ways of seeing one's self. Rather, the concepts of self which each individual possesses in an organization which is the individual's own private conception of ^A. T. Jersild, In Search of Self (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952), p. 9. ?A. T. Jersild, "Self Understanding in Childhood and Adoles cence," The American Psychologist. Vol. VI (1951)» PP* 122-26. ®Combs and Snygg, op. cit. 48 himself in all his own complexity. Combs and Snygg refer to this organization of all the ways an individual has of seeing himself as the phenomenal self. They also refer to it as the perceived self. Combs and Snygg? pursued the subject and delineated several characteristics of the phenomenal self. They stated that like all other perceptions, the phenomenal self has a feeling of reality to the individual. Secondly, the concepts which make up the perceived or phenomenal self have a definite relationship to each other. The fact that the phenomenal field is organized requires a high degree of consistency in the perceived aspects of self. Combs and Snygg incorporate Lecky's position in that they feel the goal for which each individual strives is the maintenance of a unified organization or self consistency. The last characteristic is that once estab lished in a given personality, the perceived self has a high degree of stability. The phenomenal self with the self-concept as its core represents our fundamental frame of reference, our anchor to reality. Even an unsatisfactory self organization is likely to prove highly stable and resistant to change. The Development of the Concept of Self History of the Concept Early in the history of American Psychology there was a great deal of interest in the self. As quoted in the Definitions section, William James accorded this topic an important place in his thinking, 9 Ibid.. pp. 129-130 ^9 and to a certain extent the study of self was pursued by the intro- spectionists.1® Freud developed his concept of ego during the early twentieth century, and gradually incorporated it into his tripartite system of id, ego and super-ego. In his system the ego was doomed to a conflictual position, i.e., goaded by the id, hemmed in by the super-ego, and rebuffed by reality.** Wylie*2 stated that during the second, third, and fourth decades of the twentieth century constructs concerning the self did not receive much attention from the behaviorists and the functional ists of the period. She notes, however, that recently there has been a marked increase in self theories, traceable to, among other things, the influence of the later writings of Freud and the neo-Freudian point of view which stresses the importance of the self picture and the ego-ideal. Position of Various Authorities There has been a rapid increase of the acceptance of self as a concept during the period of the last twenty years. Much of this appears traceable to Rogers*3 and his incorporation of self in his theory of personality. Of his nineteen postulates on the personality theory, he includes eight which relate directly to self. These *®Ruth C. Vfylie, The Self Concept (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961), p. 1. **Lorand, op. cjt. *2Vfylie, op. cit.. p. 12. *3carl R. Rogers, Client-Centered Therapy (Boston: Houghton- Mifflin Company, 1951). pp. 508-13. 50 propositions stated that: (1) A portion of the perceptual field becomes differentiated as the self; (2) the self structure is formed from an interaction with the environment, including other people; (3) values are perceived as directly experienced, whether they have been intro- jected, experienced directly, or attached to experiences; (*t) the organism either denies, ignores, or incorporates experi ences into its self-concept; (5) the individual behaves in con gruence with his self-concept; (6) sometimes behavior is incon sistent with the self-concept, and as such is not ’owned1 by the individual; (7) maladjustment exists when the individual denies to awareness significant sensory and visceral experiences, thus creating psychological tension; (8) adjustment exists when the concept of the self is such that all visceral and sensory ex periences are consistent or incorporated on a symbolic level into the concept of self. Another man who has had wide influence in the area of self is Prescott Lecky. Hall and Lindzey^ summarized Lecky's position as follows: All of man's activities serve the sovereign aim of personality, to maintain self-consistency. . . . Personality is conceived as an organization of values which are consistent with one another. . . , In general, the individual resists experiences that do not fit his structure of values and assimilates those that do. . • • He always tries to adjust himself to his environment in a manner that will be harmonious with his structure of values. Lecky*5 applied his concept of the self to the learned in the school situation. He felt the self of the learned was a complicated, subjective system which the learned brought with him to school. Learning and behavior is perceived as an active rejection or accept ance of ideas which were either inconsistent or consistent with the self rather than a matter of passive response. A pupil showed S. Hall and G. Lindzey, Theories of Personality (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1957), P- 328. l^prescott Lecky, Self Consistency (New York: Island Press Cooperative, Inc., 19^5), pp. 175-286. 51 resistance to learning only when it was inconsistent for him to learn. He concluded, therefore, that "laziness, lack of concentra tion, etc., were merely symptoms that revealed an acceptance of definitions that were at cross purposes with one another.” Allport's^ position reflected the general acceptance of the self in literature today. He stated that the self or ego is one of the most difficult concepts in the realm of psychological literature and that its elimination would undoubtedly simplify psychological explanations. He felt, however, that no one has been able to devise a way of writing sensibly without using this concept or its equiva lent. He summarized his position by stating that "the existence of one's own self is the one fact of which every mortal person— every psychologist included— is perfectly convinced." The behaviorists, Guthrie and Edwards,17 adopt the position that an understanding of a person's self-image is essential to under standing his defenses against guilt. The phenomenologists, Snygg and Combs,have supported the position of Allport in that they have unequivocally asserted that the observation of behavior from the internal frame of reference of the individual was both inevitable and natural. l^Allport, op. cit. ^Ernest R. Hilgard, "Human Motives and the Concept of Self," American Psychologist. Vol. IV (September, 19^9), pp. 37^-62. l®Combs and Snygg, op. cit.. p. 10. 52 Sherif and Cantrll^9 preferred to avoid both the term "self" and the term "ego" in their writings because they felt that both terms have indefinite connotations. Redl and Wineman^O sketched out the ego's four basic tasks or functions. They referred to the first function as cognitive. This cognitive function, externalised, con cerns the ego's responsibility in establishing contact with both the physical and social world on the outside. Also, the cognitive func tion, internalized, refers to the necessity for the ego to perceive the impulsive demands of the id and the value demands of the super ego in the interest of self-harmony. The second basic function is called the power function of the ego. This function assumes that the task of an ego in good working order is not only to know what reality demands are, but also to influence behavioral strivings in accordance with that knowledge. The third function of the ego is that of selec tion. When confronted with an outside danger or inner conflict, it is not enough for the ego to be aware of the situation and to block inadmissible impulses, it also is essential in the interests of good judgment for the ego to select the best means of meeting the problem on the reality level. Fourth, and finally, is the synthetic function of the ego. This function encompasses the necessity for the ego to balance the various demand systems and to keep this balance reasonable on all sides. *9sherif and Cantril, op. cit.. p. 92. 2(>Fritz Redl and David Wineman, Children Who Hate (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1951). PP* 61-68. 53 Ego development and development of self were perceived as the product of biosocial interaction by Ausubel.^l He differentiated between body, self, ego, and personality and considered them as an ascending hierarchy of inclusiveness. The ego, in contra-distinction to the self which Included the image of the body and a continuity of memories responsible for the maintenance of self-identity, was an abstraction referring to the interrelated sets of experiences, per ceptions, attitudes, motives and values which revolved about the awareness of self. However, the ego was more than a derivative pro duct of experiences related to the self. A crucial role was played by the ego in the hierarchial ordering of experience, serving as the center of gravity about which objects, persons and events could be arranged in a gradient of affactivity. Several authors have taken the position that self has a social origin. Thompson^ for example, stated that the child, given a biological substrate, is the product of interaction with other human beings and it is out of the personal and social forces operating upon him from the day of birth that the self emerges. Mead23 vas among the first to emphasize the social sources of self. It was his position that the self has a character which is different from that of the 2lDavid P. Ausubel, Ego Development and the Personality Disorders (New York: Grune and Stratton, 1952), pp. 12-52. 22ciara Thompson, Psychoanalysis: Evolution and Development (New York: Hermitage House, 1950)* P» 211. 23George Mead, Mind. Self and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 193*0. p. 35. 5^ physiological organism proper. The self was sanething which has a development. It was not initially there at birth, but arises in the process of social experience and activity, that is, develops in the given individual as a result of his relations to that process as a whole and to other individuals within that process. This social point of view has also been underlined by the neo-Freudians such as Horney and Sullivan^ who emphasized the impact of social relation ships on the development of self. Factors Affecting the Development of Self Combs and Snygg25 hold that the self-concepts held by a person seem to vary in at least two important respects. First, some self- concepts appear to be much more central, or basically part of us, than others; and secondly, concepts of the self vary in sharpness or clarity. Perceptions about the self may range all the way from con cepts which are vague and barely discernible to concepts which are clear and sharply in focus. Brandtstated that at least five intrapersonal elements affect the direction and amount of change of a person's self-concept: (1) the urge to learn; (2) the need to feel comfortable; (3) the changes in perception; (*0 the consistency of motivation; and (5) the degree of self-integration. 2**Patrick Mullahy, Odeiros: Myth and Complex (New York: Hermitage Press, Inc., 19*^8), pp. 208-37• 25combs and Snygg, op. cit., pp. 12*1-25. 26r. m . Brandt, "Self: Missing Link for Understanding Be havior," Mental Hygiene. Vol. XLI (January, 1957), pp. 2**-33- 55 Several authors have underlined the importance of the parent- child relationship in the development of self. Wylie2? feels that this emphasis is based upon the position that the self-concept is a learned constellation of perceptions, cognitions, and values, and that an important part of this learning comes from observing the re action that one gets from other persons. It is the position of many authors that since parents are the persons mho are present earliest and most consistently, they are probably the most important to the child in terms of self-concept. An example of such studies is that of Jourard and Rerny2® who found significant correlations between college students and students' perceptions of how their mothers and fathers cathected their own selves and bodies. Another example is Manis29 who reported, without giving a specific quantity of data, that adjusted subjects felt they were more highly esteemed by their parents than did maladjusted sub jects. Two authors emphasized the importance of maturation in self- concept . Sarbin30 held that change in self-concept is dependent upon maturational factors, and that such change is usually in the direc tion from low order inferences about simple perceptions to higher 2<fyylie, op. cit.. p. 121. 28Ibid.. p. 126. 29lbid.. p. 12?. 3°R, R. Sarbin, "A Preface to the Psychological Analysis of the Self," Psychological Review. Vol. LIX (January, 1952), pp. 11-12. 56 order inferences about complex cognitions. Engel^l suggested that self-concept change might depend upon whether it is positive or nega tive. Her study of adolescents revealed that those with negative self-concepts showed more self-concept change over a two-year period than those with positive self-regard. Her study also indicated that maturation may influence change in self-concept because the subjects' positive self-concept statements increased significantly between the tenth and twelfth grades. Majlis32 hypothesised that self-concept changes in a group of subjects would be in the direction toward what other individuals thought about them. However, his study offered only partial support for his hypothesis. Several authors have written concerning the relationship of level of aspiration and self-concept change. Murphy33 said that there were always two selves: a self observed with whatever degree of realism one could muster, and a self clearly or dimly glimpsed as something to be realized. The irrelationship of these two selves has been studied under the term "aspiration level." 3*M. Engel, "The Stability of the Self-Concept in Adoles cence" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1957), pp. 170-178. Manis, "Social Interaction and the Self-Concept," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. LI (November, 1955), p. 370. ^^Gardner Murphy, Personality (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1W), p. 539- 57 Hoppe's^ classical experimentation showed that an individual undertook only the amount and kind of labor that maintained self esteem at a maximum. The studies of Frank35 showed that when the situation had meaning for the individual in terms of self-reference, the level of aspiration tended to remain high despite the immediate realities of the situation. They also revealed that some subjects who dreaded self-competition lowered their level of aspiration to avoid the risk of humiliation. Frank concluded that the level of aspiration was determined by the ego-demand of the individual. In following up the studies of Frank, S e a r s 36 found that self- confident, successful children reacted to the level of aspiration in a like manner, suggesting a similarity in self-concept. Combs and Snygg37 have outlined several steps that they stated show how self-concept changes according to their particular point of view. They said that first the acquisition of new concepts must be an experience which is inconsistent with existing self-perceptions. The ability to perceive difference between the self that the situa tion requires and the phenomenal self is dependent upon one's ability to see himself as others see him. Unless awareness of discrepancy between the perceived self and cultural demands occurs, it is certain that the chances of change in the self are very slight. The 3**Allport, op. cit.. p. 169. 35sherif and Cantril, op. cit.. p. 120. 36Ibid.. p. 123. 37combs and Snygg, op. cit., pp. 157-63. 58 stability of the phenomenal self makes change difficult by causing an individual to ignore his experiences which are inconsistent with it, and to select perceptions in such a way as to confirm the concepts of self he already possesses. Combs and Snygg felt that while changes in the peripheral aspects of the self-concept may sometimes occur fairly quickly, changes in the important or fundamental concepts of self usually change only slowly and gradually. They stated that whether or not a change is likely to occur in the perceived self seems to be dependent upon at least three factors. These are: (1) the place of the new concept in the individuals* present self organization; (2) the relation of the new concept to the person's basic need; and (3) the clarity of the experience of the new percep tion. The Effects of Self-Concept on the Learning Process The client-centered group of therapists under the leadership of Rogers38 have conducted a number of counseling experiments to test the assumption that changes in self-concept would be accompanied by changes in overt behavior. Several cases were cited in which a revi sion of a child's self-image apparently effected an increase in ability to cope successfully with reading and other academic problems. In the book by Rogers and Dymond39 a number of studies were reported which included data favorable to the thesis that the modification of 38Rogers, op. cit.. pp. 136-41, 236-77. 39carl R. Rogers and Rosalind F. Dymond, Psychotherapy and Personality Change (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954), PP. 55-349. 59 the self-concept is an important corollary of the constructive modi fication of behavior* including learning. Some of Lecky*s^ writings appear pertinent to this point in that he pointed out that a person perceives in ways that are consis tent with his concept of self. A given phenomenal self perpetuates itself only by permitting such perceptions as are consistent with its already existing structure. He states further that when individuals are confronted with events inconsistent with their self-structure, they may seek consistency of perception by doing violence to the facts. Rogers^* commented on the self-concept and the learning process when he stated that any experience that is inconsistent with the or ganisation of the structure of self may be perceived as a threat. The more of these perceptions there are the more rigidly the self structure is organised to maintain itself. In an experiment by U2 Wallen rather clear-cut evidence was gained that the selective forgetting of ego-involved materials differed significantly from the selective forgetting of materials unrelated to the self. To support this finding Alter and Spoon1 *^ indicated that subjects had superior recall for self-characterizations that agreed with their own self- ^ Combs and Snygg, op. cit.. p. 153. ^Rogers, op. cit.. p. 515. w . Wallen, "Ego Involvement as a Determinant of Selective Forgetting," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. XXXVII (W2), pp. 20-39. ^Allport, op. cit.. p. 469. 60 judgments. Using a draw-a-person test as a measure of self-concept, Woolf and Woolf^* recorded changes in the self-concept of remedial readers that paralleled progress in reading. The therapeutic treatment was a combination of remedial reading and group discussion. The lay analyst and sociologist, Dai,^ working with neurotic patients con cluded that conflicts in these individuals were fundamentally con flicts with roles or self-concepts which have their roots in the conflicting sociocultural environments with which the individual had identified in the course of development. In spite of the con flict he saw the individual as striving incessantly for a consistent self-picture. Self-acceptance Rogers^ summarised the studies on self-acceptance. He con cluded that the following three essential elements characterised the self-accepting individual. First, he perceived himself as a more adequate person with more worth and more possibility of meeting life. Second, he permitted more experiential data to enter his awareness and thus continually achieved a more realistic expectation of him self. Third, he tended to place the basis of standards within ^^^^Maurice D. Woolf and Jeanne A. Woolf, "The Case of the Tired Reader," The Personnel and Guidance Journal. Vol. XXXII (1955). pp. 29^96. ^^Bingham Dai, "A Socio-Psychiatric Approach to Personality Organisation," American Sociological Review. Vol. XVII (1952), pp. Mf-^-9. ^Rogers and Dymond, op. cit.. p. 139. 61 himself, recognizing that the quality and interpretation of an ex perience or object was inherent in the self-value placed upon it rather than in the thing itself. Various Methods and Procedures Purporting to Measure Self-Concept The General Problem in Studying Self Wylie**'? pointed out that although the alleged configurational properties of the self-concept have received much theoretical empha sis, little empirical work has been done to define these properties operationally and relate them to theoretically relevant variables. It is her feeling that this is probably due in part to the vagueness of the theoretical formulations concerning such constructs as "organization," "configuration," "differentiation," and "consist ency ." Combs and Snygg**® have accepted the position that unless it is more precisely defined the self is not very useful as a scien tific construct. They felt that the question of whether or not a real self exists or does not exist is primarily an academic or philosophical question, and that it is probable that no one can observe a self, his own or anyone else's, directly. However, Combs and Snygg do not accept the position that all is lost in the study of self-concept in that the ways in which the self is perceived can **?Wyiie, op. cit.. p. 113. **®Combs and Snygg, op. cit.. p. 123. 62 be studied and that is all that is necessary to deal effectively with it. Coding Plans for Interview Material Raimy**'? seems to have been the first psychologist to introduce this method. Everything the subject said between two counselor re sponses was counted as a unit* and six categories were used for classifying units: positive self-attitude, negative self-attitude, ambivalent self-reference, ambiguous self-reference, other or exter nal reference, and informational question. Bugental^O extended Raimy's idea to develop a conceptual matrix method which calls for the distribution of thought units into six categories: self-polar, self-on-self, not self-on-self, self-on-not-self, not self-on-not- self, and not self-polar. Haigh^ analyzed verbatim transcripts of ten counseling cases in terms of defensive behavior. Defensiveness was said to occur if in the experimenter's opinion threat existed in the form of incon gruence between one of subject's particular values, concepts or experiences, and another particular value, concept or experience, and the individual reacted to this perceived incongruence in such a way as to distort the reality which he perceived. In line with Haigh's hypothesis, seven of the ten subjects exhibited a decrease in defensiveness through the therapeutic process. 49wyiie, op. cit., p. 107. 5°Ibid.. p. 108. 51Ibid.. p. 175. 63 Rasmussen and Zander^2 found that discrepancies between a teacher's expressed personal ideal and perception of the group's standards correlated negatively with her reported attraction to the group. Instruments Purporting to Tap Self-Regard Directly Berger53 has made an omnibus-type questionnaire purporting to measure self-acceptance and acceptance of others. As a basis for question construction, he used Scheerer's definition of the self- accepting and other-accepting person. Phillips^*' developed another omnibus-type questionnaire by converting Scheerer's descriptions of the self- and other-accepting person into simple statements. Twenty-five of the statements concern the self, and twenty-five of them concern others. Some of the self- report instruments utilize a real-self versus ideal-self discrepancy score as well as a direct self-acceptance score to index self-regard. Bills'3^5 Index of Adjustment and Values is a well-known example of this type of instrument. It was designed to measure variables of importance to self-concept theorists. One hundred and twenty-four trait names were selected from Allport's list of 17,953 traits as representative, in the opinion of the test's designer. 52Ibid., p. 152. 53ibid., p. 66. 5i f Ibld., p. 66. 55ibid.. p. 69. 64 Instruments Utilizing Mainly a Real-Self Versus Ideal-Self Discrepancy Score Worchel^ has developed a fifty-four item Self-Activity Inven tory as a self-concept measure which purports to describe ways of coping with hostility, achievement, sexual and dependency needs, and their frustration. The rationale behind the choice of item content was that these four need areas are apt to be major sources of con flict for men adapting to military life. The Interpersonal Check List of LaForge and Sucsek^ was developed to measure a number of variables defined by the Interper sonal Personality System of Leary. The check list is used to get a self-description, an ideal-self description, and a measure of "self- acceptance" in terms of discrepancies between self and ideal-self descriptions. Instruments Utilising Self-Ratings on Scales with Assumed Favorability Values Brownfain^® has developed a two-part index of self-evaluation called "stability of the self-concept." On each of twenty-five items the student or subject rates himself four times to indicate his most favorable realistic self-concept, his most unfavorable realistic self-concept, his "realistic private self-concept," and his most accurate estimate of concept. ^Ibid.. p. 75- 5?Ibid.. p. 79- 5®Ibid., pp. 82-83. 65 Cowan and Tongas^9 used the Bills-Vance-McLean Index of Ad justment and Values in a study to see if the subject’s self-concept and ideal-self-concept might be free of the influence of social desirability. They found, however, that there was a high correla tion between the self-ratings and the item social desirability values. They also found that item mean ideal-self ratings corre lated highly with item social desirability values. This study, along with many others, has led Vfylie^ to comment that for most of the instruments of this type, there is very questionable relia bility and validity. There is very little published information as to what universe of self-conceptualizations is represented by the items included in various tests and the rationale and procedures for item choice have often not been indicated. She stated further that the ease of falsification and possible influence of response sets seem greater for the rating-scale and questionnaire techniques than on a Q sort. Protective Instruments and Self-Concept A number of studies have been run using various projective instruments in an effort to ascertain adjustment and/or self-concept. Among these studies is one by Bills^1 who obtained a significant correlation between self-ideal discrepancies and Rorschach signs of 59Ibid.. p. 28. 6°Ibid.. p. 104. 6lIbld.. p. 226. 66 depression. Crandall and Bellugi^ obtained a significant correla tion between adjustment scores derived from the Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank and favorability of self-concept as revealed on a specially devised instrument. Paralleling the findings of many other workers in the field, the findings in this study indicate that ad justment was unrelated to the ideal-self. Using the MMPI test, Haymaker** 3 concluded that maladjustment was significantly correlated with large self-ideal discrepancies. The three MMPI scores showing the highest correlation with these discrepancy scores were psychasthenia, schizophrenia, and depression. Walker^*- compared self consistency scores of fifty male college students with their adjustment scores according to projective tests and the ratings of specialists. He found that he was not able to support the hypothesis that there is a positive correlation be tween consistency of self-concept and adjustment. DeSoto, Kuethe and Bosley^^ asked three groups of college students to respond to thirty-nine MMPI items that are included in Edwards' Social Desira bility Scale. Results suggested that Edwards' Social Desirability values may reflect the subjects' judgments of the "well-being" 62Ibld.. p. 227. 63h. J. Haymaker, "Relationship between the Self-Concept and Maladjustment" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt Univer sity, 1956), p. 110. • H. Walker, "The Relationships between Consistency of Attitude toward the Self and Personal Adjustment" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1956), p. 160. ^^Vtylie, op. cit.. p, 29. 67 indicated by an item rather than the "social approval value" of the item. Berdie^ attempted to see if counseling increased the realism of self-concept. Using an experimental and control situation, sub jects received vocational and educational counseling. Their findings indicated that college men, but not women, improved in accuracy of their estimate of probable college achievement and of vocational interests. However, no differences were found between experimentals and controls in accuracy of judging aptitude as measured by the ACE test, or personality characteristics as measured by MMPI scores. Q Methodology Definitions Stephenson^? has described the Q technique as a procedure for systematically studying the concepts a person has toward himself; it is an attempt to objectify subjective opinions, feelings, and atti tudes. Stephenson's procedure has been followed by most investiga tors. Based upon certain postulates, a sample of statements is taken from a population of statements and presented to a subject who sorts the sample into a specified number of piles according to some criterion. 66Ibid.. p. 168-69. ^?William Stephenson, The Study of Behavior (Chicago: Univer sity of Chicago Press, 1953)* p. 58* 68 Aft Stephenson defined the tera "Q sort1 * as the sorting of a given population of statements by a single person on a forced choice basis. In using Q methodology, Rogers and Dymond^9 identified three indices to facilitate the comparisons of data. The first of these were referred to as an Index of Adjustment. This Index was obtained by the intercorrelations between the Psychologists' Criterion Sort and any one of the individual's self-sorts. Their second Index was referred to as Self-Esteem. This was ascertained by measuring dis crepancies between the subject's Real-self and Ideal-self on all the characteristics of the Q sort, and was designated by a single Q cor relation coefficient. The last Index was referred to as Stress. This involved the discrepancies between the individual's Real-self and each of his other selves on all the characteristics of the Q sort. It is also denoted by a distinct Q correlation coefficient. In using these Indexes, Rogers?® hypothesized that great differences among concepts within the same individual would seem to reflect psychological discomfort or strain. Principles and Purposes of the Q Technioue Stephenson?* names six important principles of the Q tech nique. He stated that the main objective is to allow studies to be 68Ibld.. p. 58. ^Rogers and Dymond, op. cit.. pp. 55-169. ?°Ibid. ?*Stephenson, op. cit.. pp. 1-17. 69 done on single eases (individuals or single groups of interacting persons). Rather than studying separate aspects of behavior, the emphasis is upon the study of the total person in action. Subjective behavior such as thinking, as well as overt behavior, may be studied objectively. No use is made of measurement, scales, tests in the objective study of subjective behavior. The conclusions drawn about single case is not affected by the operational facts about other persons. Finally, factors may be made on single persons by corre lating individuals1 responses or the same individual's responses at different times, instead of tests. Stephenson?^ stated further that the Q technique may be used to fill four basic purposes: 1. Hypotheses may be tested empirically in terms of operations performed by the subjects. 2. The subject's own dynamic processes may be ascertained by the manner in which he performs or operates with these statements. 3. One general hypothesis can be broken down into individual, more easily testable propositions, and have the subject offer self descriptions under different conditions of instruction. 4. The results can be compared with the phyothesis and tested through the Fisherian small-sample technique. Combs and Snygg?3 maintained that several considerations must be taken into account when using technique or any other form of self-report procedure. They felt that the usefulness of such an instrument depends upon the following conditions: (1) the clarity of the subject's awareness of himself; (2) the inadequacy of verbal symbols for the expression of self perceptions; (3) the social ex pectancy factor; (4) cooperation of the subject; (5) freedom from ?2Ibid.. pp. 252-55. 73Combs and Snygg, op. cit.. pp. 440-42. 70 threat and the degree of personal adequacy; and (6) possible change in the individual's phenomenal field due to being requested to reveal his self-concept. Assumptions Underlying Forced Choice In their study Butler and Haigh^*’ stated that the use of forced sorting was based on several assumptions* The first was that the self-concept consists of an organized conceptual pattern of the "I" or "me,” together with the value attached to these concepts. Secondly, this pattern of organizations can be mirrored respectively in terms of ordinal scale placements of the statements according to the degree that they are "like me," and ordinal scale placements of the statements according to the degree to which they are like "I wish to ben; and in terms of discrepancies between the scale value assigned to an item on the self dimension as contrasted to the Ideal- self dimension. How Q . Technique is Adapted to Self-Concept Studies Hall and Lindzey?^ provided a concise description of how Q technique is generally adapted to self-concept studies: The person is given a packet of statements and is asked to sort them into a prearranged distribution along a continuum from those most characteristic of the person doing the sorting to those least characteristic of him. The distribution approxi mates a normal distribution and is exactly the same for all sub jects in a given experiment. This constant feature expedites the statistical handling of the results since all sortings are forced into a distribution whose mean and standard deviation ?^lie, op. cit*. p. ?5Hall and Lindzey, op. cit.. p. k92. 71 are the sane. Validity and Reliability Following their work, Rogers and Dymond7^ stated that as of the tine of their writing that the validity and reliability of Q technique had not been ascertained completely. Rogers stated, "* . * we prefer to live with this dilemma until we understand it more deeply and perhaps can develop more sensitive theories as well as better instruments to deal with it." W|ylie77 covered several studies regarding the reliability of the Q technique. In terms of reliability and consistency she stated that as far as separate items are concerned no information seems to be available on the Butler-Haigh or any other Q sorting instrument, not have there been empirical explorations of the pertinent questions concerning scores based on single sorts. She also stated that there has been no attempt to establish equivalent halves or alternate forms of the Butler-Haigh set of items. Wylie devoted considerable time to a discussion of the possibility of alternate forma for Q sorting. It would appear that there is considerable debate as to whether or not this is possible. Recently Hilden78 has suggested that alternate forms might be made up by drawing sets of items at random from a specified universe. 7^Rogers and Dymond, op. cit., p. 431. 77Wylie, op. cit.. p. 48. 78Ibid. 72 In considering the Butler-Haigh items Wylie?9 stated that both client subjects and control subjects exhibited significant individual differences in Self-Ideal r's within their respective groups. This indicated that the Self-Ideal r, considered as a test score, was discriminating in some way among individuals. She also noted that there is some information on the stability of group mean Self-Ideal r's across time. The control group of subjects who did not have counseling but who volunteered for research on personality showed a mean initial Self-Ideal r of +.58* as compared to a mean follow-up r of +.59. One investigation devoted directly to this problem of relia bility was performed by Frank®® who computed test-retest reliability coefficients for personality using Q sorts. The range of coeffi cients was from .93 to .97 for all cases studied. It was suggested that the technique yields reliable measures. In a comprehensive study Livson and Nichols®* computed reliability coefficients for both forced choice and unforced Q sort. They concluded that Q sort tests are more reliable when a subject is made to make more discrimi nations such as in the forced choice method. Maximum reliability occurred for tests forcing the sorting into approximately normal 79Ibid.. pp. 50-51. 80G. H. Frank, "Note on the Reliability of Q-Sort Data," Psychological Report II (February, 1956), pp. 159-65- ®*N. H. Livson and T. F. Nichols, "Discrimination and Relia bility in Q-Sort Personality Descriptions," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology LII (January, 1956), p. 165. 73 distribution. 82 Using a Q sort technique, Taylor found increasing congruence between Self and Ideal on repeated testing over a short time interval. The author concluded this plausibly could be an example of the influ ence on the subject's responses of increasing familiarity with the response items, since no therapy or other theoretically relevant variable was know to have intervened which might have changed the phenomenal self as such. In the area of validity Wylie8^ concluded that construct validity is necessary because self-concept theories explicitly require that we measure a stated class of variables, subject's conscious processes, and by definition the subject's phenomenal fields are private and beyond direct observation by the experimenter. Although QJ, she stated that construct validity is necessary, Vtyliew seriously questions construct validity on this type of instrument due to several crucial difficulties. She stated that a subject's sort may be influenced to a greater or lesser degree by his general level of self-regard, and that the introduction of forced sorting restricts to some extent the range of individual differences in general self- regard that may be obtained from the self-sort alone. To follow up her contention she quoted the work of Jones8^ to show that subjects 82Wylie, op. cit.. p. 35* 83lbid.. p. 23* 8ifIbld.. p. 51. 8^Ibid., p. 52. 7^ who are not required to produce a quasi-normal distribution make more Q /l nearly U-shaped distributions. Wylie stated further that in so far as Q sorts that have actually been used are concerned no attempt has been made to hold either personal or cultural ideal values constant across items, and the scores obtained are probably most adequately described in terms of variations in self-regard. The possible contaminate of social desirability has come in for considerable study by several authors. Edwards®? has developed a scaling procedure by which each item in a self-report instrument may be assigned a Social Desirability value. Subjects other than the judges involved in the scaling procedure are asked to describe them selves in terms of the self-report instrument, thus the proportion of these subjects endorsing each item may be determined. It is possible, therefore, to find out whether subjects tend to attribute Socially Desirable characteristics to themselves. Jourard and Lasakow®® found that it is more socially accept able to reveal oneself in certain areas than others, even when the factor of self-favorability of individual item reports is held con stant across content areas. In several studies, Edwards®^ had con cluded that social desirability is such an important condition that ®^Ibid.. p. 53- ®?Ibid.. p. 27. ®®Ibid.. p. 31. ®9a . L, Edwards, The Social Desirability Factor in Personality Assessment and Research (New York:Henry Holt and Company, 1957). p. 108. 75 it is possible to predict how subjects will sort Q sorts if only the social desirability value of the statements is known. In a slight variation of the previously mentioned studies M c G h e e ? ^ also questioned the meaning of self-ideal discrepancies as he contended that ratings of one's true self were shown to be con taminated by the tendency to maintain self-esteem. Vferlie^ took serious exception to the usefulness of self-ideal correlation as a technique for measuring overall self-regard. She stated that self- ideal correlation coefficients bury in a global index some individual differences that ought to be identified for study. She points out that each investigator has used different items, and in many cases differing instruction, therefore no information is available as to how the self-ideal correlation scores obtained from different sets of items would intercorrelate if obtained from the same subjects. The exact content of the items has rarely been specified, so the reader cannot venture to compare logical or face validities, or attempt comparative process analyses. Vfylie^ pointed out a number of methodological limitations that appeared in many Q , sort studies. She found, for example, that most researchers used no control groups, or failed to arrange or treat their groups so as to take care of important factors which P. McGhee, "The Stability of the Self-Concept and Self- Esteem" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1956). 91Wylie, op. cit.. pp. 5^-60. 92Ibid.. pp. 163-66. 76 could be controlled even within the inherent limitations of therapy. Secondly, judgments of "improvement" are frequently open to the possibility of artifact for the following reasons: the judge, espe cially if he is the patient's therapist, or if he subscribed to the "school of thought" underlying the therapy, may be biased; if improve ment is judged from the study of interview material, the trend in the verbal responses may represent, not improvement in the sense the therapist intended, but perhape verbal conditioning, the patient's desire to please the therapist, or the patient's desire to remain in or escape from therapy. Viylie also stated that the problem of devising satisfactory indices of the various types of self-concept change is mostly unsolved. In particular, the use of complex, dual indices, e.g., self-ideal correlations derived from Q sorts, tells us only about changes in global scores. Without an item analysis it is impossible to know what changes in component variables are taking place, even when significant global changes occur. Finally, insuf ficient attention has been given to the study of therapy failures, with the result that the power of the theory to account for such irregularities has not been explored. Q Sort Studies Blake and Mouton93 writing in the Annual Review of Psychology summarized the research concerning self-concept in the following terms: 93r. Blake and J. S. Mouton, "Personality," Annual Review of Psychology (Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1959)* p. 220. 77 Self evaluation procedures and theory have received considerable attention in the past decade. The central quality of the con cept, the ease and efficiency of measurement made possible by Q sorts and the like, and the accessibility of changes of self assessment under laboratory conditions and during counseling and treatment insure continued concern over the self over the period ahead. Studies . . . indicate that variables in this area are characterized by circumstances of complex interaction with other variables. There is not much doubt there has been increasing popularity of the Q . sort approach, if one measures popularity by usage and the number of additional Q sort materials developed since 1950. Vftrlie^ pointed out that in addition to Butler and Haigh's and Hildren's sets of self-referent statements twenty-one other sets of Q sort items had been published since 1950 until the time of publication of her book. Wylie^ also pointed out that one thing seems quite apparent from studying the published articles, namely, different Q sorts differ greatly with respect to item length and complexity. They range from single adjectives to brief phrases or sentences to sentences with several parts, and even to paragraphs. At the time of publication of her book, Wylie96 found that there were no longitudinal data on which to base the description of the development of self-concept, and she recommended that in lieu of such data that it might be valuable to piece together a number of cross-sectional studies to attain a tentative developmental picture. However, she was cogni zant of the fact that due to the wide differences in instruments 9l *wyiie, op. cit.. p. 59- 95ibid.. p. 59. 96lbid., p. 119. 78 relevant characteristics of subjects and testing conditions would be difficult to control. As a general finding Anastasi and Foley?? observed that the establishment of a statistically significant difference between groups using the Q sort procedure did not preclude the possibility of extensive overlapping between them. One of the earliest investigations using the Q sort approach was made by Hartley.?® Her basic aim was to measure quantitative and qualitative changes occurring in the self-concept of one client during the process of therapy using Stephenson's Q , methodology. Based upon a correlational analysis of four Q sorts and upon factor analysis of the matrices, her major conclusion was that therapy was successful in changing the client's self-concept because the sub ject's self-concept became more like his ideal self-concept. Several studies have been run comparing counseled with non counseled subjects. Caplan?? found significant increases of self ideal congruence among seventeen problem boys who received group counseling as contrasted to seventeen non-counseled controls roughly matched for I.Q., sex, school record, economic status, and initial ??Anne Anastasi and John P. Foley, Jr., Differential Psy chology (New York: The Macmillan Company, 19^9 Revised), pp. 617-20. ?®M. Hartley, "A Q-Technique Study of Changes in the Self- Concept during Therapy" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Chicago, 1951)• ??V(ylie, op. cit., p. 166. 79 self-ideal congruence. Butler and Haigh100 reported that clients who waited sixty days for therapy showed no improvement in self-ideal congruence over the waiting period, while from pre-counseling to follow-up, the r went from -.01 to +.31. The Q sorts made by Rogers and Dymond101 provided results closely paralleling those reported by Butler and Haigh. In the same research, Rogers102 found no change in subjects' self-reports on a modified Willoughby E-M Scale during the pretherapy waiting period, and no change in the no-therapy control subjects. There was, however, a significant change toward reports of greater maturity from pretherapy to posttherapy in subjects who re ceived therapy. Grater10^ attempted to discover if there would be a signifi cant reduction in the discrepancy score between self and ideal-self following an eleven-week leadership training course at Michigan State University. He found that there was a significant reduction as based upon Q sort results. He found further that this reduction in the discrepancy was the result of a change in the real-self rather than a change in the ideal-self. 100Ibid.. p. 166-67. 101Ibid.. p. 16?. 10^H. Grater, "Changes in Self and Other Attitudes in a Leadership Training Program," Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. XXXVII (March, 1959), p. ^9^ 80 Bower and Tashnovian*®^ also applied the Q sort approach in comparing self-concept changes occurring among twenty-eight people attending a guidance workshop* seventy-five individuals in a mental health workshop, and thirty-four who were in a research methods class. They found that the mental health workshop seemed to have the greatest influence on self-concept change, and the research methods class had the least. The most apparent change for all three groups was that the self and ideal-self became more congruent at the completion of the class experience as measured by a Q sort. Several authors have followed Rogers' lead to the study of self-esteem as measured by the Q sort approach. Dittes*®^ using a combination of self-report measures found that experimental devalu ation was associated with impulsivity of closure only for subjects with characteristically average or low self-esteem. The experimental devaluation seems to have little effect on the behavior of subjects who have characteristically high self-esteem. This devaluation ties in well with Rogers' expressed belief that when the individual perceives and accepts into one consistent and integrated system all of his sensory and visceral experiences, he is necessarily a more understanding person of others and is more accepting of others as m . Bower and P. J. Tashnovian, "Q-Methodology: An Application Investigating Changes in Self and Ideal-Self in a Mental Health Workshop," California Journal of Educational Research. Vol. VI (November, 1955), p. 203. lO^Rogers and Dymond, op. cit.. p. 188. lo6Ibid., p. 16?. separate individuals. Rogers*®? stated that the person who is com fortable with himself is more realistic in his relations with others, tends to perceive situations and individuals objectively and to react to them spontaneously and satisfyingly. In contrast, the person who was insecure was inclined to react subjectively, in experiencing and perceiving the actions of others as threats where none were intended. Following this last negative aspect of Rogers' theory, Sullivan*®® stated, "The self may be said to be made up of reflected appraisals. If these were chiefly derogatory, then the self dyna mism will itself be chiefly derogatory . .. it will entertain dis paraging and hostile appraisals of itself." One of the first inves tigations to support Rogers' original feeling was by Bills, Vance and McLean*®^ who obtained a discrepancy index between the self and ideal-self by having subjects rate themselves on a number of per sonality traits. Their results hinted that individual maladjustment was characterized by any discrepancy between the concept of self and the concept of ideal-self. Along these same lines Chodorkoff**® measured the amount of *®?Ibid.. pp. 520-21. *®®Hariy S. Sullivan, Conceptions of Modem Psychiatry (Washington D.C.: William Alanson White Foundation, 19**7) pp. 10, 131. *®9r. E. Bills, E. L. Vance and 0, S. McLean, "An Index of Adjustment and Values," Journal of Consulting Psychology. Vol. XV (1951), p. 137. **®B. Chodorkoff, "Adjustment and the Discrepancy between the Perceived and Ideal Self," Journal of Clinical Psychology. Vol. X (March, 195*0. p. 267. 82 discrepancy between the perceived and ideal-self by means of the Q , sort, Rorschach, and T.A.T. tests. He stated that as adequacy of adjustment decreased, correspondence between perceived-self and ideal-self decreased also. Several authors have studied the particular problem of paren tal approval in its impact on the Q sort approach. Murphy*** formu lated the supposed relation between parental appraisals and self appraisals by stating: "The tendency to value rather than disvalue the self is correlated with parental approval." 1 1 p Jourard and Remy tested this proposition and concluded that self-appraisals co-vary with a person's perception or belief con cerning his parents' appraisal of him. Segel**^ aiso supported this view when he said that the changing self of the adolescent is tra ditionally reflected in parental attitudes. Parents become incon sistent in their treatment of the adolescent because of the feeling that he should have maturity of judgment, but they realise that he has not. In this way, ambiguity in parent-adolescent relationships is enlarged. ***Gardner Murphy, Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and Structure (New York: Harper and Brothers, 194?), p. 522. **%idney M, Jourard and Richard M. Remy, "Perceived Parental Attitudes, the Self and Security," Journal of Consulting Psychology. Vol. XIX (1955). PP. 364-66. **^David Segel, Frustration in Adolescent Youth. U. S. Dept, of Health, Education and Welfare Bulletin No. 1 (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1951), pp. 33-35. 83 Both Remy and Jourard's****' study and that run by Lawton**^ supported Rogers1 assertion that the greater the personality malad justment with an increase in stimulus ambiguity then the greater decrease there is in perceptual accuracy. In his Q sort study, Butler*compared overachieving, expected-achieving and underachieving boys. His findings indicated that overachieving and expected-achieving boys, in comparison with underachieving boys, attained significantly higher levels of present adjustment on the adjustment sorts Real-Self and Ideal-Self. He found further that overachieving boys were significantly different from both underachieving and expected-achieving boys on the adjust ment sort Ideal-Self, indicating the highest level of aspired adjust ment. There were no real differences among boys on the adjustment sorts Teacher-Self and Parent-Self which introduced the self-percep tion of adult judgments. In comparison with underachieving boys, overachieving boys revealed both significantly greater self-esteem and freedom from stress in all the areas of self investigated by the Q sort technique. Expected-achieving boys experienced significantly more stress than overachieving boys in respect to the self-perception * ^Jourard and Remy, op. cit.. p. 366. Powell Lawton, "Stimulus Structure as a Determinant of the Perceptual Response," Journal of Consulting Psychology. Vol. XX (1956), p. 355. **^John Joseph Butler, "Differential Factors in the Self- Concepts of Overachieving, Underachieving, and Expected-achieving Adolescents” (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1957). Ok of the teacher's evaluation. On the other hand, they suffered sig nificantly less strain than underachieving boys in reference to the self assessment of parental opinion. Summary The self-concept has been defined, generally, as a more or less organized perceptual object that results from present and past observation of the self. Stated simply, this means that the self-concept is what a person believes about himself, or believes himself to be. Many variables have been isolated as probable factors in the development of self. Some of these have been rather general con cepts such as an urge to learn, a need to feel comfortable, changes in perception, consistency of motivation, and degree of self-inte gration. Along with these generalised factors have been specific suggestions such as the effect of the parent in the self-concept of the child, maturation, how others perceive him, the child's level of aspiration, and maintenance of self-esteem. A few authors have attempted to tie the self-concept with the learning process. It has been pointed out that change in self-concept is accompanied by change in overt behavior, and that an individual's perception is dependent upon his self-concept. Both of these aspects are critical in the educational setting. A great many methods of measuring self-concept have been attempted; among them are coding interviews, use of questionnaires, self-inventories, check lists, projective tests, and Q methodology. 85 There are some rather eerious questions regarding the validity and reliability of the Q technique. For a great many of the Q sorts used there is no information regarding reliability and consistency. Very few authors have attempted to use alternate forms in a Q sort process, and there is considerable debate as to whether or not this is possible. There is also some evidence to indicate that with familiarity, changes occur in the Q sort approach. It would appear that a construct form of validity is neces sary. Several authors have concluded that construct validity is necessary in that Q sorts attempt to measure variables beyond the direct observation of the experimenter. Although this form of validity apparently is necessary, there are serious questions which appear when using construct validity with this type of instrument. Among the problems cited are: the subject's tendency to be influ enced by his level of self-regard, the introduction of forced sorting which restricts the range of individual differences and the possible contamination of the social desirability factor. It was pointed out that many researchers using Q sort studies failed to control variables as much as appeared possible. Another common problem was that the experimenter often personally judged the degree of improvement in the subjects which brings in the possibility of bias. The practice of using real-self— ideal-self correlations without pursuing changes in global scores has been seriously ques tioned. Most studies using Q methodology have centered around an 86 attempted measurement of change as a result of counseling or therapy, or with the correlation between real-self and ideal-self as an index of personal adjustment. The following chapter will deal with the review of literature in the area of group counseling. CHAPTER IV REVIEW OF LITERATURE— GROUP COUNSELING Definition of Terms In the area of group counseling there are a number of terms which are overlapping, therefore, somewhat confusing. As stated in Chapter I counseling is defined in this study as a process which pro vides a situation in which the counselee is stimulated to evaluate himself and his opportunities to choose a feasible course of action, and to accept responsibility for his choice and for initiating a course of action in harmony with this choice. As Froehlich* put it, the core of counseling is one of assistance in decision-making. Strang^ defined group counseling as a process which focuses on the development of each individual in a group. The leader in the situ ation encourages free expression, provides situations in which the group members discover for themselves their abilities and needs, gives interpretation of information when it is needed, and raises questions that lead individuals to explore new possibilities. ^Clifford P, Froehlich, "Must Counseling be Individual?" Educational and Psychological Measurement. Vol. XVIII, No, k (Winter, 1958), pp. 681-89. Ruth Strang, Group Work in Education (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958). P. 7. 87 88 In the early 1950's Froehlich^ coined a term "Multiple coun seling" to designate a procedure in which a counselor works simul taneously with several counselees manifesting symptoms of at least one cosunon problem. He stated that there are at least six points of difference between multiple counseling and other group techniques. First, in multiple counseling, the group is formed by selecting a common element; second, an effort is made to have each member iden tify himself with the common element; third, the atmosphere is per missive and is favorable to the expression of feeling; fourth, the counselor functions in the eyes of the members as one of the group; fifth, an opportunity for interaction among group members is pro vided by guidance techniques; finally, no effort is made to get group standards or to provide instruction. Another term which is somewhat overlapping is "group work." Strang** defined group work as planned, shared experiences in which desirable changes take place in the members individually and the group as a whole. The leader becomes a group worker when he has learned to facilitate the constructive interaction among members of a group in such a way that the personal development of every member is furthered through group experiences. The group as a whole, thus, moves toward the achievement of their goal. A term which is often confused with group counseling is ^Froehlich, op. cit. **Strang, op. cit.. p. 5. 89 "group therapy." Strang^ defined group therapy as a treatment for the emotionally sick with its aim being to heal. Group therapy is ego building. It tries to reconstruct the inner structure of the personality. She stated further that it is oriented to psychiatry, somewhat as group work is oriented to education. Hoppock^ defined group therapy as a method of relieving tensions and anxieties, and of modifying attitudes and behavior through group discussion. A leader who accepts all expressions without praise or blame serves as a skilled guide and interpreter for a group of persons who have similar problems. Members of the group express their feelings freely, exchange experiences, opinions, and ideas. As one can tell from Hoppock's definition of group therapy there is very little difference between group therapy and group counseling in the eyes of some authors. Philosophical Assumptions Underlying Group Counseling Marsh? has boiled down the basic assumptions underlying group counseling by stating, "by the crowd have they been broken; by the Q crowd they be healed." It was Bach’s position that the direction Slbid.. p. 9. ^Robert Hoppock, Group Guidance. Principles. Techniques, and Evaluation (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 19**9), p. 132. ^Raymond J. Corsini, Methods of Group Psychotherapy (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957), p. 1 * * • - ^George R, Bach, Intensive Group Psychotherapy (Ronalds Press, 195*0, pp. 3-H. 90 of the group counseling process is toward widening horizons and toward increased freedom of locomotion which expresses itself in increased experimentation with new interpersonal techniques. Corsini^ stated in effective group psychotherapy there must be love, understanding and action. By this he means love of fellow man, knowledge of oneself, and good work. Characteristics of the Group Counseling Process The Meeting of Basic Needs Several authors have written in the area of basic needs met by the group counseling process. Bennett*® has stated that group counseling meets the need for security and unconditional love, the building up of the ego and sense of self-worth, the need of creative self-expression, and the need to be accepted by a group. Slavson** stated that group therapy helps each individual to gain emotional support, to activate emotional release, to reduce guilt and anxiety, to test social reality, and to provide opportunity for modification of self-concept. In her work with multiple counseling Driver*^ has concluded that this process helps each individual gain a better ^Corsini, op. cit.. p. 6. *®Margaret E. Bennett, Guidance in Groups (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1953), P. 229. **S. R. Slavson, An Introduction to Group Therapy (Inter national Universities Press, I960), pp. 19-22. *^Helen Driver, et al., Counseling and Learning Through Small Group Discussion (Monona Publications, 1958), pp. 22-23. 91 understanding and acceptance of himself and others, and improves his skills in human relationships. McDaniel*3 stated that group activi ties assist young people in the recognition of unique and cannon problems, provide information useful in the solution of problems, provide the opportunity for group thinking in regard to various com mon problems, provide experiences that promote self-appraisal and self-understanding, and lay foundations for individual counseling. Membership There was some variation in thought as to the size of the ideal group. Hobbs has stated that six is the optimum number, while Goldfarb, Pfeffer, Friedland, and Wortis believe that eight is suf ficient. Cavanaugh and Gerstein argued for ten, while other sugges tions were six to eight by Kelman, Joel, and Shapiro. Kew and Kew felt that any number between five and ten is ideal, while Foulkes felt that it should be seven or eight. Edbaugh held to eight to ten, while Altshuler felt that eight to twelve is the most desirable range. Vfender felt any number between six and twenty is desirable, and Dynes and Hamilton felt that any number up to twenty is perfectly acceptable. *** Driver^ selected a group of six to ten members with an equal number of male and female. It was her position that each member of *^Henry B, McDaniel, Guidance in the Modern School (New York: The Dryden Press, 1956), pp. 37<5-82. *^Corsini, op, cit.. pp. 113-1^. *^Driver, op. cit.. p. 63. 92 the group should have a common problem but that there should be heterogeneity in family, racial and cultural background and in per sonality type. Slavson*^ used four criteria for group admission: (1) each child should be under thirteen; (2) each child should have inadequate social contacts; (3) each child should have neurotic traits; and (4) each child should be unable to get along with other children and therefore have a need to express aggression. Several authors have covered reasons why group members should be excluded. Bach1^ stated that any member should be excluded if he has insufficient reality contact, if he has cultural deviant symp tomatology, if he is a chronic monopolist or if he appears to possess psychopathic defense mechanisms and impulsiveness. Role of the Group Leader Driver*® has stated that the group leader has two basic re sponsibilities. The first is to lead meaningful discussions in the group, and the second is to aid individual members to gain signifi cant learning and satisfaction from participation. Bennett*^ feels that there are five basic functions of the group leader: first, to serve as a verbal traffic officer; second, to serve and facilitate the group, but not to dominate it; third, to clarify topics for dis cussion; fourth, to maintain an objective attitude; and fifth, to *®Slavson, op. cit.. p. 84. *?Bach, op. cit.. pp. 18-22. *®Driver, pp. cit.. p. 91. *9Bennett, op. cit. pp. 112-113- 93 summarize the discussions from time to time. 20 In the area of group psychotherapy Bach stated that a leader has several basic functions. Among them are: reflecting accurately at the deepest level any statement made by a member of the group; second, acting as a service-rendering member of the group; third, sharing knowledge and personal feelings when useful as a stimulus; fourth, helping group members increase their tolerance for individual differences; fifth, reflecting group consensus on a given topic; sixth, acknowledging being puzzled; seventh, keeping in mind that the therapist must watch out for the well-being of each patient; and eighth, keeping in mind the procedural, catalytic, and interpretative functions of group leadership. Advantages of Group Counseling A number of authors have stated various advantages of group 21 counseling over individual counseling. Marsh pointed out that in the group there is a strong therapeutic compulsion to improve. Strong transferences can easily be broken and the group process has educational advantages. He stated also that the enthusiasm engen dered in a group situation is one of the most important aspects and that it is an impersonal situation in which resistances are easily broken. ^^Bach, op. cit.. pp. 204-20?. 21 c Corsini, op. cit.. p. 52. 9 4 - Kadi8 and Lazarfeld22 took the position that group methods with children have several obvious advantages. First, children feel uncon ditionally accepted. Second, it lets them understand adults have similar problems. Third, they realise that failures are a part of development. Fourth, parents come to realise that failures are not exceptional and gain a more objective outlook. In her work with severely maladjusted children Bender2^ pointed out that group methods have the advantage of freeing expres sion of neurotic complexes. She pointed out further that it gives relief for feelings of guilt, anxiety, and inferiority. It permits demonstrations of affection by adults and allows the child to express affection and aggression. It gives the child an opportunity to be at ease in a group and it permits the crystalisation of ideologies. From more of a counseling point of view Traxler2^ suggested that group counseling saves time and that it is naturally suited for certain kinds of guidance activities, such as occupational informa tion. He concurs with other authors that it allows young people to find others that have similar needs and problems and that group coun seling prepares the way for individual counseling. 22Ibid. 2^Ibid. 2^Arthur E. Traxler, Techniques of Guidance (Revised Edition; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957)t PP* 316-17. 95 Gorlow2^ was considerably more enthusiastic about the advan tages of group counseling than many other authors. From his point of view group counseling was a time saver, a substitute for indivi dual therapy, a new method of therapy investigation, information and education, and lastly, an expression of a new attitude toward study and improvement of human interrelations in our time. Disadvantages of Group Counseling Some authors have suggested that there are some disadvantages in the group counseling approach. Edbaugh,^0 for example, stated that group counseling can foster acute sibling rivalry problems, and that it has a tendency to tear defenses down too rapidly. He also pointed out that it is difficult to reach some areas of conflict, and, further, that it is difficult to use group counseling with people who know each other. His major complaint seemed to be that group counseling is too slow a process. Meier^? also pointed out some possible dangers of group counseling. He suggested that there is a danger of collectivism in the group approach and that it tends to decrease personal responsibility. He felt, further, that it appears to aid a person to escape from conflicts and that it implies a neglect of the patient's responsibility. He also pointed out the possibility that there is a danger of accumulating the unconscious 2^Leon Gorlow et al., The Nature of Non-Directive Group Therapy (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Colum bia University, 1952), pp. 106-13. ^^corsini, op. cit.. p. 53* 2?Ibid., pp. 53-5^. 96 problems of various patients and that there is a substitute reality provided by the group situation which is rather unreal. Other than these two statements there has been relatively little written in terms of organized statements of disadvantages of the group approach. Phases of the Group Counseling Process In his book Bach2® attempted to break down the various phases of the group process. He began with the sensing of the behavior problem which is followed by an acknowledgement of the problem, therefore, a conflict. Following this a reactive avoidance of a recognized problem sets in. The fourth, and very difficult, step was that of pinning down the instigation for the behavior problem, and with it the recognition of unconscious needs. The next step was the demonstration of the unreality of defensive needs; and the con cluding phase is discovery of the ways of utilizing the environment in dealing with the situation. 20 Corsini 7 has broken this down into three rather short stages: first, the stage of hesitant participation; second, the stage when members begin to discuss sensitive matters; and finally, the stage when solutions begin to appear. Homogeneous Versus Heterogeneous Groups There has been considerable debate as to the strengths and weaknesses of homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping in the 2®Bach, op. cit.. pp. 198-200. 29corsini, op. cit., pp. 119-20. 97 literature. Corsini^® has attempted to summarise these findings by stating the strengths and weaknesses of each. He summarised the strengths of homogeneous grouping as follows: (1) identification and transference are rapid; (2) re-education and insight take place quickly; (3) psycho-dynamics are bared quickly; ( * * ■ ) therapy is shortened; (5) attendance is more regular; (6) interference and resistance are lessened; (?) intramural cliques are uncommon; and (8) rapid recovery from symptoms occurs. The weaknesses of the homogeneous grouping according to Cor- sini, were as follows: (1) it is difficult to assemble such a group; (2) the lack of interaction causes the level of therapy to be super ficial; (3) although the symptoms are removed, essential character remains untouched; (4) reality testing is lessened; and (5) it re duces the possibility of multiple and shifting transferences. With heterogeneous groups Corsini pointed out the following strengths: (l) therapy is deeper; (2) character structure is affected; (3) reality testing is more thorough, and (4) intra-group transferences are formed readily. The weaknesses of heterogeneous grouping are: (1) recovery is slow; (2) interaction and tension problems are magnified; (3) group identification develops slowly; and (**) attendance is more irregular. 3°Ibid., pp. 110-12. Research Findings 98 General Statements Regarding Research Findings The multiple counseling advocates centering around the Univer sity of California and Clifford G. Froehlich-^ ’ ^2, 33 concluded that multiple counseling appears to be ah effective means of accomplishing the objective of stimulating the counselee to evaluate himself. Wright*^ stated that there is some evidence that multiple counseling is just as effective as individual counseling in stimu lating self-evaluation and self-knowledge and that it is signifi cantly better than no counseling. It appeared that there was evi dence of students going beyond the first objective of self-evaluation as measured by attitudes toward self and school, taking action re sulting in better citizenship marks.35 ^ Bruce Bailey, "A Comparison of Multiple and Individual Counseling in Terms of Self-Knowledge" (unpublished Seminar Paper, University of California, Berkeley, 1955)* •^Clifford P. Froehlich, "Must Counseling be Individual?" (unpublished Monograph, University of California). Wayne Wright, "A Comparison of Individual and Multiple Counseling in the Dissemination and Interpretation of Test Data" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1957). •3^ibld. 35stanley Caplan, "The Effect of Multiple Counseling on Junior High School Boys' Concept of Themselves and School" (unpub lished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1956). 99 " ? 6 In an article Wright-^ concluded that research indicates multiple counseling may accomplish movement toward some of the com monly accepted objectives of counseling* but he pointed out there remains the need for further study. In his presidential address to the American Personnel and Guidance Association Froehlich^ reviewed the studies on multiple counseling and tied the findings to a plea for giving the counselee a more active role in counseling. His conclusions regarding the present status of findings on multiple counseling were much the same as Wright's, but his theme concerning the development of an active role for the counselee pointed the direction in which new research should be directed. Research With Children Many of the studies dealing with young children are in the area of a group approach to problems of the seriously disturbed. King*?® however, in his study with activity group therapy worked with in the public school with less seriously disturbed children. The findings of his study showed that of fifteen cases reported, seven showed definite signs of improvement in at least one of the three areas evaluated, self-appraisal, peer group relations, and authority Wayne Wright, "Multiple Counseling: Why, When, How?" Personnel and Guidance Journal. Vol. XXXVII (1959), pp. 551-57. ^Clifford P, Froehlich, "Stars, Parsons and Clients," Personnel and Guidance Journal. Vol. XXXVI (1957). pp. 10-16. 3®Louis < J . King, "Activity Group Therapy with Three Groups of Selected Elementary School Children" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1958). 100 relations. Of the seven who showed improvement four had been classi fied as withdrawn and three had been classified as aggressive. The therapist involved in the project stated that ten of the children had benefited from the experience. Maier and Loomis attempted to answer the question, "Can children learn impulse control through group therapy?" in their study with six eleven year old acting-out boys. At the conclusion of their experiment they stated that improvements were noted in inner control as well as capacity to perceive and meet social demands in the ma jority of the subjects in their study. In the study to determine whether or not measurable changes in social and personal adjustment can occur as a result of non directive group therapy, Fleming and Snyder^ worked with a group of seven children, three girls and four boys, over a period of twelve group sessions. The authors of this study concluded that measurable changes do occur as a result of group non-directive therapy. They found that improvement was greater for the girls than boys, that girls showed greater change in personal than in social adjustment, and that subjects' conflict over therapy limits has definite thera peutic advantages. Their final conclusion for the best therapeutic effect, it would appear, was that the children in the group should ^Henry W. Maier and Earl A. Loomis, "Effecting Impulse Con trol in Children through Group Therapy," International Journal of Group Psychotherapy. Vol. IV, No. 3. PP* 312-20. ^Louise Fleming and William Snyder, "Social and Personal Changes Following Non-Directive Group Play Therapy," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Vol. XVII (19^7), pp. 101-16. 101 not vary too greatly In degree or intensity of adjustment. It ap peared from this study and others that studies with young children suffered from having a very small number of subjects and very little attempt to control variables. Research with Young People 41 42 Froehlich and Bailey, although working independently with different high school populations both used the same criterion of improvement in accuracy of self-knowledge, found no difference in the effectiveness of individual and group counseling. Caplan^ evaluated the effectiveness of multiple counseling with junior high school boys who were behavior problems, using the criteria of concepts of self-in-school, classroom grades, citizenship grades, and written teacher evaluations. His findings indicated that multiple-counseled boys improved significantly in concepts of self- in-school and in citizenship grades. No significant differences were found in classroom marks and in written teacher evaluations. In his work with high school pupils, Wright**^ hypothesized that the most improved students would differ from the least improved students in age, significant scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic ^Clifford P. Froehlich, "Must Counseling be Individual?" (unpublished Monograph, University of California, Berkeley). 42 ^Bailey, op. cit. ^Caplan, op. cit. ^E. Wayne Wright, "A Comparison of Individual and Multiple Counseling in the Dissemination Interpretation of Test Data" (unpub lished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1957). 102 Personality Inventory, number of problems checked on the Mooney Prob lem Check Lists, sex, educational and occupational level of parents, and scholastic aptitude. He found no support for his hypotheses pre dicting differences in age, significant scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the number of problems checked on the Mooney Problem Check Lists, sex, or the educational and occupa tional level of parents. Support was found on the hypotheses pre dicting differences in scholastic aptitude between the improved and non-improved students using the criteria of accuracy of self-ratings on the ACE and General Culture Tests. These differences did not ap pear when he used the criteria of information about tests and accu racy of self-ratings on the Kuder Interest Inventory. He concluded from this that the factor of intelligence appears to have some rela tionship to improvement in self-rating accuracy after counseling. Feldman*4^ studied the relationship between factors within the multiple counseling process and improvement on the criterion of self- knowledge of interests. His factors were focused primarily upon what the counselor did in relation to the group. He found some evidence that the most successful counseling occurred when the counselor assumed at least half the responsibility for the conduct of the coun seling and when the counselor was consistent. In an attempt to verify or challenge the concept that indivi dualized counseling is always more desirable than group counseling ^Leonard Feldman, "Multiple Counseling: Factors Related to Improved Self-Knowledge" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Univer sity of California, Berkeley, 1957)- 103 Bilovsky**^ worked with 201 twelfth grade boys on a group counseling basis. All of these boys were being graduated from the sane high school and were then seniors. It was found at the conclusion of this study that the group that had been counseled individually showed 58.2 per cent having realistic vocational choices, but the group that had been counseled by group methods had 50*71 P®r cent realistic choices. In comparing the two groups the individually counseled group had 3***8 unrealistic choices and the group counseled group had 3.98 unrealistic choices. There were no significant differences be tween the two methods shown as a result of this study. Davis^ attempted to determine whether group guidance will change the behavior of secondary school students as measured by marks in citizenship given by their teachers. He selected thirty high school seniors and matched them in three groups of ten. The first group received group counseling, the second group received individual counseling, and the third group received no counseling. He concluded that the group which had received group counseling showed the most improvement in citizenship grades; the other two groups showed very little change. *•6 David Bilovsky, "Individual and Group Counseling," Person nel and Guidance Journal. Vol. DXXXI (1953). PP* 363-65. ^Donald A. Davis, "An Experimental Investigation of Group Guidance in a Secondary School" (unpublished Masters thesis, Univer sity of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1958). 104 48 In one of his earlier studies Froehlich attempted to compare the effectiveness of group and individual counseling. In a large high school seventeen students were counseled individually and twen ty-five students were counseled in small groups. Both individual and group counseling centered an effort to see if self-ratings would coin cide with aptitudes measured on the D.A.T. Froehlich concluded that there was no significant difference between individual and group counseling as shown by the results of this study. Working with chronic patients from the Juvenile Guidance Center in Brooklyn, New York, Fabian^ found that group therapy was helpful in working toward limited goals of patients who: (l) were suffering from borderline mental states; (2) had dependent parents; (3) were parents of psychotic children; and (4) were children from deprived homes. Alexrod and Solomon^® attempted to answer the question, "Is a group therapy approach effective with shy adolescent girls?" Their study dealt with eleven girls whose case studies indicated that they were shy, withdrawn and fearful. They were selected for a study group conducted at Mt. Zion Psychiatric Clinic in San Francisco. ^Clifford P. Froehlich, "Must Counseling be Individual?" Educational and Psychological Measurement. Vol. XVIII, No. 4 (Winter, 19 58)7 i p & 1-89 --------------- ^Abraham A. Fabian, "Group Treatment of Chronic Patients in a Child Guidance Clinic," International Journal of Group Psycho therapy. Vol. IV, No. 3. PP* 243-52. 5®P. L. Axelrod and J. C. Solomon, "Group Psychotherapy for Withdrawn Adolescents," American Journal of the Disturbed Child, Vol. LXVIII (1944), pp. 86-92. 105 This study continued weekly for eight months and was followed by an interview with each subject. The authors concluded that each girl became happier, more spontaneous, freer, more comfortable in her social contacts, and had achieved greater ease in her family rela tionships . Bryan and Yonker^ worked with six eighth grade predelinquent girls in a group counseling situation. This group met for eleven weeks on a weekly basis. A follow-up was conducted six months after the project was concluded. It was found that most of the members had developed more self-reliance and self-control, and they had improved in responsibility and cooperativeness. In another study reported by D r i v e r , ^ Brach worked with ten Junior high school boys ranging in age from thirteen to fifteen, who were selected on the basis of poor adjustment and low sessions, and a second group of nine junior high school girls, picked on the same basis, worked through six sessions of forty minutes. The author con cluded that the larger number of sessions held, the greater the chances of success. At least six sessions were necessary before any improvement could be noted. Girls, boys, and their parents were enthusiastic in reports of improvement as a result of the multiple counseling experience. Driver^ concluded on the basis of several studies that as a 5*Driver, op. cit.. p. 293- 52Ibid.. p. 297. 53ibjd.. pp. 229-71. 106 result of the multiple counseling the majority of the group were im proved in discussive and social skills. They showed a reduction of tensions and satisfaction through ventilation. She also presented evidence that there was motivation for improvement of personal weak ness and support and reassurance regarding the worthiness of each person in the group. In a study with ten high school seniors, Driver^ attempted to find if personality growth can be facilitated through multiple counseling. She worked with this group of ten for seventeen sessions plus two adjunctive counseling interviews per student. The MMPI, Strong, MAPS, and Self-Ratings were used during the sessions. Driver concluded that only three of the students had definite adjustment problems and that these three were helped by the group project. The other seven members reflected significant learning in the assessment of their personal strengths and weaknesses in terms of their college planning. Working at the elementary level, Elliott^ attempted to ex plore the effectiveness of group counseling techniques with junior high school pupils. His group approach dealt with seventh and eighth grade students, who were selected as having predelinquent behavior and failure in school work. The investigator found when apply- ^Ibid.. p. 230. 5^Robert T. Elliott, "Group Counseling with Seventh and Eighth Grade Students," (unpublished Research paper. School of Educational Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, n.d.). 107 Ing statistical analysis to the test results that there was no posi tive emotional growth as measured by the Rosensweig Test. The teachers and principals involved felt that there had been positive growth in all but one of the group participants. The classroom grades of all but one student improved noticeably. Gabriel^ used a group psychotherapy approach with a group of six girls ranging in age from fifteen to seventeen in a social ser vice agency. This study continued during the year and into a summer camp program. On the basis of a comprehensive initial case study and a long term follow-up study, the author concluded that each of the girls showed marked improvement in self-understanding and in interpersonal relationships. 57 Using a similar approach to Gabriel, Higginson^ attempted to compare the effectiveness of group therapy with individual therapy with a group of six fifteen year old delinquent boys. The author concluded that in a matter of a few weeks these boys were able to show improvement. They appeared to gain almost complete control over their anti-social acts, although at times the urges were still present. They were able to help one another to arrive at better solutions for handling stimulating situations and each verbalised insight into his own problems. ^Betty Gabriel, "Group Treatment for Adolescent Girls," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Vol. XIV (1944), pp. 4. 93-616. 5?Driver, op, cit., pp. 402-4-05. 108 Miller^® attempted to evaluate the uae of peycho-drama as a treatment method in a correctional institution. Psycho-drama ses sions were held weekly for a small group of boys who had been sent to a reform school for Negroes in the state of Maryland. The author found that the psycho-drama was very effective as an educational and therapeutic method for helping both the boys and the staff members to gain insight into the boys' behavior. This was particularly true in the area of adult-boy relationships. The boys apparently gained in sight in that they began to realise that their vengeance, hostility, and jealousy often resulted in hurting themselves in order to hurt others. The author also concluded that the larger the participating audience the greater the therapeutic impact on those participating. Research with College Students Wright^ compared the relative effectiveness of individual and multiple counseling for disseminating and interpreting test data to students in college. He found no differences in the effectiveness of the criteria for accuracy of self-concept, acquisition of infor mation about tests, and counselees' satisfaction. However, both counseled groups made significant gains over the non-counseled groups on these criteria. In another of her studies Driver^ attempted to ascertain the 58Ibid.. pp. 398-401. ^E. Wayne Wright, "A Comparison of Individual and Multiple Counseling in Dissemination and Interpretation of Test Data," op. cit. 60Driver, op. cit.. p. 236. 109 value of a multiple counseling approach with a group of college stu dents in a teacher training program. In this study, eight college juniors, four women and four men, all non-counselees, were enrolled in the teacher training course which was presented as an elective in field work. The course consisted of eighteen one-hour sessions held three times per week. Seventeen of these sessions were discussion meetings. Driver concluded that the following outcomes were observed: (1) better understanding and acceptance of personal strengths and weaknesses; (2) better understanding and tolerance of others; (3) im proved discussive skill; (*t) increased motivation toward improving social competence; and (3) increased support in reassurance regarding vocational choice or change in another field. Driver^* reported that Menge in a required educational psy chology course for teacher candidates used a multiple counseling approach with groups of ten to twenty-five students. The group as a whole appeared to show the following characteristics: enjoyment of learning, specific awareness of group process and dynamics, broadened concepts of life, eduoation, teaching, and self, and growth of social responsibility for group direction. He stated further that each in dividual exhibited self-appraisal, improved understanding of self and others, improved concept of vocational skills and self-integration. 62 Along the same line Driver discussed Patty's attempt to as certain the effectiveness of combining a psychology class and a 6llbid., pp. 331-37. 62Ibid.. pp. 328-30. 110 multiple counseling project. A combination class called Personal and Social Adjustment was set up in such a way that one semester constituted a psychology class, while the second constituted a multiple counseling project. The class ages ranged from eighteen to thirty-five, and the class size averaged thirty students. The author stated that by the end of the course most students were able to read books on personality dynamics, to help each other analyse approaches to problems and to recognise egocentric reactions with fair reliability. Some of the groups took on a permanent status and were still operating three years after the completion of the course. Understanding, considerateness, and acceptance seemed to be increas- ingly evident as the course progressed. Research with Adults and Families Gruenwald^ attempted to find if group counseling could be effective in a case work agency. She concluded that the presence of other persons in a small group guided by a skillful leader has a powerful influence on the individual. It helps the client loosen his defenses and revise old attitudes. The author stated further that group counseling is a major asset in the family and child wel fare fields, and that individual and group methods supplement each other. ^Hanna Gruenwald, "Group Counseling in a Case Work Agency," International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Vol. IV, No. 2, pp. 23-192. Ill Kotkov*^ attempted to reduce tension and anxiety between staff and management by using group methods. Seven female members of the professional staff of a girls' school were brought into a group situa tion which was presented as an in-service training program. This group met for one hour per week for twelve weeks. Kotkov concluded that new staff members felt they experienced growth. Smoldering re sentments were brought into the open and reconciliations were effected between members. Following this period of counseling, acceptance of leadership with less tension was evidenced. In a similar study, Lippitt and Bradford^ attempted to find if in-service meetings designed to effect teacher growth can be carried out effectively in a small group. Their study centered around a three-day institute for teachers. Follow-up during the next school year indicated improvement was evidenced in school staff meetings. Effective building committees were developed to work on school problems, and there was a noticeable improvement in the morale of the staff. Amster^ attempted to see if group psychotherapy principles could be applied successfully to non-structured groups. Her work was ^Benjamin Kotkov, "The Group as a Training Device for a Girls' School Training School Staff," International Journal of Group Psychotherapy. Vol. IV, No. 2, pp. 193-98. ^Ronald Lippitt and Leland Bradford, "The Teacher Growth Pro gram," Group Dynamics in Education (compilation of articles appearing in Journal of National Education Association. 1948-^9). ^Fanny Amster, "Application of Group Psychotherapy Principles to Non-Structured Groups," International Journal of Group Psycho therapy. Vol. IV, No. 3» pp. 285-92. 112 with four spontaneous self-motivated groups which were miscellaneous in structure and stated purposes. The groups met weekly for two-hour sessions over a period of five weeks to ten months* She concluded that definite emotional changes in individual participants were noted along with constructive changes in group relationships. Bard and Creelman^? applied the group therapy approach to a parent education group. These were parents of emotionally disturbed children who were involved in a clinic situation. The parent group met weekly over a period of several months* The authors concluded that a parent education group must always emphasize the prevention of sick personalities rather than the cure of already established ones. They state that recognition of feelings and attitudes can only come about through experiencing one's feelings in a setting which leads to an understanding of one's own personality make-up. 68 Bross attempted to use group psychotherapy with family units. Three groups were organized that remained active for a three year period. Group I included six pre-adolescents of the ten to thirteen year age group. Group II included an adolescent group of the thirteen to seventeen year range, and the third group included mothers of the children in the other two groups. Bross concluded that the family unit therapy approach makes therapy a family project 67james H. Bard and Marjorie B. Creelman, "Parent Education in a Group Therapy Setting," International Journal of Group Psycho therapy. Vol. IV, No. * + , pp. ^29-36. ^Rachel B. Bross, "The Family Unit in Group Psychotherapy," International Journal of Group Psychotherapy. Vol. IV, No. 4, PP. 393-408. U3 with the resultant lowering of stigma for the child. Parents cams to realize that imposition of standards on a child thwarts their normal maturation. The child's ability to terminate the therapeutic relationship was essential for successful therapy. Michael-Smith, Gottsegen and Gottsegen^? attempted to ascer tain if group therapy was effective with mental retardates. Working with a small group of urban mixed adults, ranging from eighteen to twenty-four years of age, the author concluded that mental retardates were found to be amenable to group therapy of a specialized tech nique. The two ideas experienced in the study as being particularly successful were motoronic group activity and oral language training. Lowry?® worked with a group of mothers whose children were in an activity group therapy program. The mothers of twenty-one gifted children met weekly for one hour for eight months’ time. The groups were held to a maximum of six mothers and a therapist. The author states that both the mothers and therapists were very satisfied on the whole and, further, that group therapists must be extremely per missive, shockproof, tolerant and accepting. He concluded that therapists must also be part of the group. Linden?* attempted to measure a series of studies which had ^ H . Michael-Smith, Monroe Gottsengen and Gloria Gottsegen, "A Group Technique for Mental Retardates," International Journal of Group Psychotherapy. Vol. V, No. 1, pp. 84-90. ?®Lawson G. Lowry, "Group Therapy: Special Section Meeting,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Vol. XIII (1943), pp. 648-81. ?*Driver, op. cit.. pp. 423-29. 114 as their goal the evaluation and effectiveness of multiple counseling with older persons. Linden stated that many of this group's members gradually lost their feeling of oldness as a result of being a member of counseling groups. Some of the participants were patients in homes for the aged. Many of these counselees were able to return to their homes and resume normal productive lives after a series of group sessions. Along this same line of investigation Logie?^ experimented with group guidance with persons of later maturity. One hundred and thirteen clients were included in her summary of findings. As a re sult of the many groups studied the author stated that she felt every society or counseling service dealing with older persons should pro vide group guidance, in that it provides help for older citizens to find work, to learn skills and hobbies, and to continue to contribute to society in many ways. Summary In this chapter it has been pointed out that the group coun seling process attempts to meet basic needs of counselees. Among the needs which may be met by the group counseling process are the need for security, the building of a sense of self-worth, the need for creative self-expression, and the need to be accepted by a group. While there is some discrepancy as to the optimum size of the group counseling group, the size agreed upon by most authors is from 72Ibid.. pp. 420-22. 115 six to eight members. The leader in the group situation has a number of functions as seen by various authors. Basically, he is seen as a facilitating member of the group, a clarifier of topics and a sum- mariser of discussions. It is essential that he keep in mind the procedural, catalytic, and interpretative functions of group leader ship. It has been pointed out that group counseling has many advan tages: among them, (1) transferences can easily be broken; (2) enthu siasm engendered in a group situation is uniquely different from the individual counseling situation; (3) it allows people to feel that they are not unique and that they have problems which are shared by many others; (4) it allows people to gain relief from feelings of guilt and anxiety and inferiority; (5) it appears to be naturally suited for certain guidance activities such as occupational informa tion; (6) it prepares the way for individual counseling; (?) it is a time saver; and (8) in the eyes of some it is a substitute for indi vidual therapy. To a few authors there were some potential disadvantages in the group counseling process, mainly that it might accentuate sibling rivalry problems already present, tear down defenses too rapidly, and appears to aid a person to escape from conflicts. It was also sug gested that there is a possible danger of collectivism in this approach, and that it tends to decrease personal responsibility. The strengths and the weaknesses of homogeneous versus hetero geneous grouping were discussed. It appeared that homogeneous 116 grouping was an extremely difficult thing to arrange and the indi vidual change from this arrangement tends to show less depth than in the heterogeneous grouping. While attendance of groups is less regular in heterogeneous grouping, there appears to be more reality testing and, in the long run, a greater depth of insight. The reported research in this chapter indicated that in com parative studies there appears to be no significant difference in the results of individual versus group counseling. As a result of the group counseling approach, improvement was seen in individuals in the area of personal adjustment, school grades, citizenship, self-com fort, social skill, sense of responsibility, cooperativeness, reduc tion of tension, and self-understanding. CHAPTER V RESEARCH DESIGN: INCLDSION OF STUDY IN DISTRICT NDEA TITLE V PROJECT, PROCEDURE OF EXPERIMENT, METHOD OF ANALYSIS The process of this experimental study involved four phases. They were: (1) the inclusion of the research study in the Santa Ana Unified School District NDEA Title V Project; (2) the selection of experimental and control groups on which the hypotheses were tested; (3) the experimental procedure used to expedite the gathering of meaningful data; and (4-) the use of statistical methods in the analysis of the data obtained. Inclusion of Study in District NDEA Title V Project The experimenter made application for a district NDEA Title V Project on February 1 of 1961 which involved both the present study and other aspects. The project proposal had four stated purposes: (l) to conduct a comparative study between group counseling and individual counseling techniques, holding counselor time constant, in the improvement of self-concept and academic achievement of able underachievers; (2) to conduct parent counseling with parents of able underachievers; (3) to conduct in-service training for counse lors and central office guidance staff in group counseling and other group process techniques; and (4) to conduct small group interpre- 117 118 tation of ninth and eleventh grade group testing results with all students at these two levels. The project was approved by the State Department of Education and began in the last two weeks in August, 1961, with a workshop for all counselors and central office guidance personnel conducted by Dr. Everett L. Shostrom. This workshop cen tered around the topic of group guidance techniques with special emphasis on group counseling. It was arranged through U.C.L.A. Ex tension and gave two units of credit for the pupil personnel creden tial for all counselors taking the course. As an extension of this two week workshop, an additional class in the area of group counseling techniques was arranged for the first semester of the school year 1961-62 for the same personnel, again with Dr. Shostrom as instructor. Dr. Earl Carnes, Dr, D. Welty Lefever, and Dr. Everett Shostrom were selected to act as consultants for this project and worked with the director and the counselors of the project on a regular basis. All eighth and tenth grade students were screened during the latter part of the Spring, 1961, to ascertain if they met the cri teria of being able underachievers. Although the Title V Project did not include elementary children, this study also included fifth grade students who were screened for this purpose. Students who were passed by the original screening were tested by one of the three district psychologists. Three matched groups of eight pupils each, a group counseling group, an individual counseling group, and a control group were selected for each of four secondary schools. Two 119 group counseling groups, two individual counseling groups and two control groups of the same size were selected from the elementary level. At the beginning of the second quarter of the school year 1961-62 the counseling phase of the project was initiated by the three district psychologists. The group counseling groups were started and counseling began with their matched counterparts. The group counseling groups met for one hour per week for sixteen weeks plus two one-half hour interviews. Three hours, the equivalent amount of counselor time, was devoted to the counseling of students selected for the individual counseling group. Those selected for the control group received no counseling during the time of the project. After the group counseling groups were well established counselors were brought in individually to work with the psychologist leader to gain experience in small group counseling. Beginning in late February, 1962, following the conclusion of the group testing program at the ninth and eleventh grade level, the counselors began group test interpretation with small groups of stu dents. At the conclusion of both the long term group counseling project and the short term group test interpretation sessions an evaluation was carried out with the guidance of the project consult ant. All students involved in the long term project and their par ents were interviewed in the spring of 1962 to evaluate attitude and the changes in self-concept, if any. A representative sample of ninth and eleventh graders and their parents involved in the group 120 test interpretation groups were interviewed to ascertain the effec tiveness of this aspect of the program. Selection of the Sample Powlatlon In the spring of 1961 the investigator personally checked all the permanent record cards or group test record sheets of fifth, eighth and tenth grade boys to list those who appeared to be eligible on the rough criteria of a group I.Q. score of 110 or higher, achieve ment scores within the standard error of measurement of grade level or above, Caucasian of English speaking background, appropriate chronological age for the grade level, and a grade-point average of 2,5 or less on a four point scale. Building administrators, counse lors, and teachers were asked to recommend students for the project who had not been included through the initial gross screening process. After all candidates' names had been presented the lists were first checked to see if any of the students had been tested indi vidually within the prior two years. There were twenty-one students who were eligible on this basis. These students were given as much supplementary testing as was necessary for inclusion in the project. The three district psychologists then began to test individu ally as many students in each secondary school as necessary to fill three groups of eight per building. Since it was not possible to find twenty-four able underachievers in any one elementary school, groups had to be matched with students tested in other elementary buildings. In all, 229 boys were tested, seventy-seven of whom were rejected for various reasons. Most of the students were rejected for 121 low I.Q. scores with a few rejected for emotional disturbance. One hundred fifty-two students were selected for the program with 144 actually involved in the program and eight held in reserve. One hun dred thirty-nine students completed the entire project as the expected attrition accounted for several students leaving the district. The intelligence tests used in the individual screening process were the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, the Wechsler-Belle- vue, Form I, and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Each student was given one of the following thematic projective tests: Blacky Pictures, Thematic Apperception Test, or Symonds Picture-Story Test. A Sentence Completion Test and a Draw-a-Person Test were also given. On the basis of individual testing students were accepted on the criterion score of 110 or higher on the Wechsler full scale I.Q. Each student was rated on a five point scale for degree of overt hostility and for degree of overt anxiety shown. They were also rated on a three point scale for degree of emotional maturity. At this point all pertinent information was placed on cards and the investi gator matched two group counseling groups, two individual counseling groups and two control groups on each grade level of the study, using the following factors: (1) I.Q., (2) racial group, (3) chronological age, (4) language background, (5) sex, (6) anxiety level, (7) emo tional maturity, (8) degree of aggressiveness, (9) achievement test results, (10) academic grade-point average, (11) father's occupation. The matchings for the various groups appear in Tables 1, 2, 3» and 4 on pages 122, 123, 124, and 125. TABLE 1 SIXTH GRADE GROUPS Factor Group Counseling Group Individual Counseling Group Control Group Total Group I.Q. 114.75 114.63 114.56 114.65 Chronological Age 11-5 11-7 11-4 11-6 Grade-Point Average 2.15 2.15 2.14 2.15 Reading Vocabulary G.P. (months above grade level) 1.64 1.74 1.68 1.69 Reading Comprehension G.P. (months above grade level) .96 1. .9 .95 Arithmetic Reasoning G.P. (months above grade level) 1.47 1.34 1.39 1.4 Arithmetic Fundamentals G.P. (months above grade level) .42 .59 .35 .45 Mechanics of English G.P. (months above grade level) 1.19 1.23 .33 .92 Spelling G.P. (months above grade level) .73 .97 .66 .79 Hostility Ranking (l) 3.25 3.25 3.44 3.31 Anxiety Ranking (2) 2.5 2.5 2.06 2.35 Maturity Ranking (3) 1.88 2.13 2.06 2.02 Father’s Occupation Class. (4) 3.19 2.66 1.97 2.66 (1) 5 point scale - high ranking 1 (2) 5 point scale - high ranking 1 (3) 3 point scale - high ranking 3 (4) D.Q.T. classification ro N) TABLE 2 NINTH GRADE GROUPS Factor Group Counseling Group Individual Counseling Group Control Group Total Group I.Q. 116.50 116.37 116.37 116.42 Chronological Age 14-5 14-7 14-5 14-6 Grade-Point Average 1.96 1.95 1.99 1.97 Reading Vocabulary G.P. (months above grade level) 1.97 1.29 1.29 1.51 Reading Comprehension G.P. (months above grade level) 2.15 1.78 2.05 1.99 Arithmetic Reasoning G.P. (months above grade level) 1.78 2.04 1.45 1.76 Arithmetic Fundamentals G.P. (months above grade level) .85 1.24 1.15 1.08 Mechanics of English G.P. (months above grade level) 1.42 .55 .7 .89 Spelling G.P. (months above grade level) .05 .03 -.91 -.28 Hostility Ranking (l) 3.25 2.94 3.19 3.13 Anxiety Ranking (2) 2.75 2.44 2.31 2.5 Maturity Ranking (3) 2.13 1.94 1.88 1.98 Father's Occupation Class. (4) 2.41 1.87 2.53 2.27 (1) 5 point scale - high ranking 1 (2) 5 point scale - high ranking 1 (3) 3 point scale - high ranking 3 (4) D.O.T, Classification TABLE 3 ELEVENTH GRADE GROUPS Factor Group Counseling Group Individual Counseling Group Control Group Total Group I.Q. 118.75 118.31 118.50 118.52 Chronological Age 16-4 16-4.5 16-5 16-4.5 Grade-Point Average 1.66 1.67 1.64 1.65 Reading Vocabulary G.P. (months above grade level) 1.38 1.52 .98 1.29 Reading Comprehension G.P. (months above grade level) 1.37 1.91 1.92 1.73 Arithmetic Reasoning G.P. (months above grade level) 2.13 2,22 2.87 2.40 Arithmetic Fundamentals G.P. (months above grade level) 1.95 1.36 2.10 1.80 Mechanics of English G.P. (months above grade level) .53 .73 .86 .71 Spelling G.P. (months above grade level) .01 .39 -.02 .13 Hostility Ranking (l) 2.69 3.25 2.94 2.96 Anxiety Ranking (2) 2.75 2.69 3.00 2.81 Maturity Ranking (3) 1.69 2.19 1.81 1.90 Father's Occupation Class. (4) 2.69 3.33 3.38 3.16 (X) 5 point scale - high ranking 1 (2) 5 point scale - high ranking 1 (3) 3 point scale - high ranking 3 (4) D.O.T. classification TABLE 4 TOTAL STUDY POPULATION Factor Group Counseling Group Individual Counseling Group Control Group Total Group I.Q. 116.67 116.44 116.48 116.53 Chronological Age 14*1 14-2 14-1 14-1 Grade-Point Average 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 Reading Vocabulary G.P. (months above grade level) 1.66 1.52 1.31 1.50 Reading Comprehension G.P. (months above grade level) 1.49 1.56 1.62 1.56 Arithmetic Reasoning G.P. (months above grade level) 1.79 1.87 1.90 1.85 Arithmetic Fundamentals G.P. (months above grade level) 1.07 1.06 1.20 1.11 Mechanics of English G.P. (months above grade level) 1.05 .84 .63 .84 Spelling G.P. (months above grade level) .26 .46 -.09 .21 Hostility Ranking (1) 3.06 3.15 3.19 3.13 Anxiety Ranking (2) 2.46 2.42 2.46 2.44 Maturity Ranking (3) 2.10 2.21 1.92 2.08 Father's Occupation Class. (4) 2.83 2.62 2.63 2.69 (1) 5 point scale - high ranking 1 (2) 5 point scale - high ranking 1 (3) 3 point scale - high ranking 3 (4) D.O.T, classification 126 Procedure of Experiment The procedure employed in this investigation was designed to facilitate the gathering of data for the testing of the following hypotheses: 1. Group counseling will be associated with positive change in the self-concept. 2. Individual counseling will be associated with positive change in the self-concept. 3. Group counseling will be associated with improvement in the grade-point average of the counselees. 4. Individual counseling will be associated with improvement in the grade-point average of the counselees. 5. Group counseling will be associated with more positive change in self-concept than individual counseling when counselor time is held constant. 6. Group counseling will be associated with greater improve ment in grade-point averages than individual counseling when counselor time is held constant. The hypotheses necessitated obtaining and recording through the Q-Sort Test, as explained previously, self descriptions in terms of "real self," "ideal self," "teacher self," and "parent self" from the members of the study population before the beginning of the counseling period and at the conclusion. Also, supplementary data were required to investigate other possible relationships primarily grade-point average. 127 After the groups were matched the 144 project members and the eight reserved members were given the Butler Q-Sort in the first two weeks of the second quarter of the fall semester of 1961. The four sorts, "real-self" sort, "ideal-self" sort, "teacher-self" sort and "parent-self" sort, were given in two sittings with a week between the sittings. The instructions for the administration of the Q sort were as follows: We are attempting to find out how students at your grade level look at themselves. You were selected on the basis of having college ability, ability to achieve at grade level or above in your present work, and having received school grades last year somewhat lower than you could have achieved. We are trying to find better methods of counseling students. We would like to have you help us today by taking a self-concept test. This is not a test in the usual sense, in that there are no right or wrong answers. It is a method of determining how you see your self and how you feel others see you. You will take this test by sorting a stack of small cards into various piles. Each of these cards has a short sentence on it that may or may not des cribe how you feel about yourself. First, divide your fifty cards into three piles. In the first pile on your far left, place the cards that are most like you. On your far right place the cards that are least like you. Place the remainder of the cards in a middle pile. Now from the pile on your far left pick the two cards that are most like you and place them to your far left. Next pick the six cards that are next most like you and place them to the right of the first pile. Next pick the nine cards that are next most like you and place them to the right of the second pile. Now pick up the pile on your right and select the two cards that are least like you and place them on your far right. Now pick the six cards that are next most unlike you and place them to the left of this far right pile. Next pick the nine cards that are next most unlike you and place them to the left of your last pile. You should now have sixteen cards left for your middle pile. If you have more than sixteen, select your choices to complete piles three and five. Now we would like to have you record your choices on a tally sheet for us. Start at your far left and record the numbers of the two cards that are most like you in row # 1. Continue in the same fashion for rows # 2 through # 7. 128 We are now going to repeat the procedure, only this tine you will sort statements not to describe how you are but how you would like to be. (Repeat procedure.) This time I would like you to sort the cards describing your self as you think your teachers see you. (Repeat procedure.) In this last sort we would like to have you sort your cards as you think your parents see you. (Repeat procedure.) The administration proceeded well although there was some resis tance apparent on the part of some students who felt the Q , sort pro cedure was childish. All administrations were well proctored and all record sheets were double checked for possible duplications in the recording of card code numbers. Each card was assigned a two or three digit code number coinciding with the sort the jury in Butler's study considered to be ideal in terms of personal adjustment. The informa tion for the Q sort record sheets plus all the matching information was transferred to I.B.M. key punch cards to facilitate the analysis of the data. Grade-point averages were calculated for all members based upon subjects taken during the school year I96O-6I, and this informa tion was also placed on the student's I.B.M. key punch cards. Starting in the third week of the second quarter the six group counseling groups began meeting one hour per week. Each of the three district psychologists met with two of the group counseling groups. These weekly meetings continued for sixteen weeks. In this sixteen week period each group counseling member received two half-hour adjunctive counseling interviews. During this same time period the individual counseling group members received three one-hour counseling interviews and the control group members received no counseling. In calculating counselor time for the group counseling group the 129 investigator considered sixteen one hour meetings with eight members equivalent to two counselor hours per student. When this was added to the two half-hour interviews, the group counseling counselor time was equivalent to the three hours received by the individual coun seling groups. Comparable major topics were covered in the group and indi vidual counseling periods. Particular emphasis was placed on a number of possible reasons for able students' underachieving. A con siderable amount of time was spent exploring project members' feelings toward various aspects of the school program, e.g., closed versus open campus, school discipline, teacher demands, homework, school rules, grades, and future academic plans. Members' feelings regard ing friends, families and girl friends were also discussed. Some social problems were included, such as drinking, drag racing, narcot ics , dating and parental demands. A conscious effort was made by the three counselors to help each of the group and individual counselees to progress through the three stages of the counseling process, i.e., release, insight, and positive action. In this respect long term educational planning was particularly emphasized. At the end of the third quarter of the school year 1961-62, at the conclusion of the project, all members of the project were again given the Butler Self-Concept Q-Sort in two sittings. The grade- point averages were again calculated for the three quarters of the school year completed at that date. Each member of the group and 130 individual counseling groups was given a structured interview by a counselor who was not actively involved in the counseling aspect of the project. The parents of all project members were also inter viewed by the same counselors who interviewed the students to ascer tain if any change in behavior was evident in the home situation. Method of Analysis The data were punched on I.B.M. punch cards and various list ings were produced by district personnel. The statistical methods in this study were outlined by George Hoff in his C J sort study.^ The analysis of data in terms of the first, second, and fifth hypotheses required the following statistical computation: I. Correlations - Individual and group correlations for each of the following groups and levels: (l) group counseling in the sixth, ninth, eleventh, and total; (2) individual counseling in the sixth, ninth, eleventh, and total; (3) control group in the sixth, ninth, eleventh, and total. A, Between Sorts 1, Before counseling a. Real self and ideal self b. Real self and teacher self c. Real self and parent self * George Hoff, "The Use of Q Sort Technique in Investigating Changes in Self-Concept and Self Adjustment During a General Psy chology Course" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, I960), pp. 161-163. 2. After counseling a. Real self and ideal self b. Real self and teacher self c. Real self and parent self 3. Before and after counseling a. Real self and real self b. Ideal self and ideal self c. Teacher self and teacher self d. Parent self and parent self B. Between the Psychological Expert Sort and Actual Sort 1. Before counseling a. Psychologist's sort and real self b, Psychologist's sort and ideal self 2. After counseling a. Psychologist's sort and real self b. Psychologist's sort and ideal self Significance of Difference Between Groups for each of the following groups and levels: (1) group counseling in the sixth, ninth, eleventh, and total; (2) individual counseling in the sixth, ninth, eleventh, and total; (3) control group in the sixth, ninth, eleventh, and total. A. Significance of difference between before counseling real self and ideal self and after counseling real self and ideal self. B. Significance of difference between before counseling 132 real self and teacher self and after counseling real self and teacher self. C. Significance of difference between before counseling real self and parent self and after counseling real self and parent self. D. Significance of difference between before counseling psychologist's self and real self and after counseling psychologist's self and real self. E. Significance of difference between before counseling psychologist's self and ideal self and after counseling psychologist's self and ideal self. An analysis of the data in terms of third, fourth, and sixth hypotheses required the following statistical computations: I. Correlations of grade-point averages on a before and after basis for each individual in the project. II. A correlation of before and after project grade-point averages of the three types of groups on each of the three levels. III. A measurement of significant difference between groups in terras of amount of change between each of the three types of groups at each of the three levels. CHAPTER VI COMPARISON OF GROUP COUNSELING, INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING, AND CONTROL GROUPS IN Q SORT FINDINGS AND GRADE-POINT AVERAGE Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to report data obtained to test the related hypotheses. The three types of data reported are Q sort correlations and t-ratios, Q sort card selections, and grade-point averages. The data are organized to do the following: 1. Compare mean Real Self change of the group counseling group, individual counseling group, and control group as measured by before and after correlations as reported in Table 5. The correlation coefficients indicate the amount of mean Real Self change for the group under consideration. 2. Compare mean Ideal Self change of the group counseling group, individual counseling group, and control groups as measured by the before and after correlation coefficients as reported in Table 6. The correlation coefficients in this section are interpreted in a manner similar to that stated in Number 1. 3. Compare mean Teacher Self change of the group counseling group, individual counseling group, and control groups as measured by the before and after correlation coefficients 133 13^ as reported in Table 7. The correlation coefficients in this section are interpreted in a manner similar to that stated in Number 1. Compare Parent Self change of the group counseling group, individual counseling group, and control group as measured by the before and after correlation coefficients as re ported in Table 8. The correlation coefficients in this section are interpreted in a manner similar to that stated in Number 1. 5. Compare mean Real Self— Ideal Self consistency of group counseling, individual counseling, and control groups at the beginning and at the end of the project as reported in Table 9. In this case the closer the correlation coef ficients are the more consistency is shown. 6. Compare mean Real Self— Teacher Self consistency of group counseling, individual counseling, and control groups at the beginning and at the end of the project as reported in Table 10. The closer the correlation coefficients, the more consistency is shown. 7. Compare mean Real Self— Parent Self consistency of group counseling, individual counseling, and control groups at the beginning and at the end of the project as reported in Table 11, The closer the correlation coefficients, the more consistency is shown. 8. Compare mean Real Self— psychologist's sort consistency of 135 the group counseling, individual counseling, and control groups at the beginning and at the end of the project as shown in Table 12. The closer the correlation coefficients, the more consistency is shown. 9. Compare the mean Ideal Self— psychologist's sort consistency of the group counseling, individual counseling, and control groups at the beginning and at the end of the project as shown in Table 13- The closer the correlation coefficients, the more consistency is shown. 10. Compare mean grade-point averages of the group counseling, individual counseling, and control groups at the beginning and end of the project as shown in Table 26. The closer the correlation coefficients, the more consistency is shown. Findings The data that appear in Tables 1 through 22 have been derived by the procedure explained in Chapter V. The following hypotheses will be tested following the presentation of the findings: 1. Group counseling will be associated with positive change in self-concept. 2. Individual counseling will be associated with positive change in self-concept. 3. Group counseling will be associated with improvement in grade-point average of counselees. 4. Individual counseling will be associated with concomitant improvement in grade-point average of counselees. 136 5. Group counseling will be associated with more positive change in self-concept than individual counseling when counselor time is held constant. 6. Group counseling will be associated with greater improve ment in grade-point averages than individual counseling when counselor time is held constant. Although the above hypotheses could be tested by the data ob tained by comparisons between various Q sortings, the investigator attempted to see if there were significant differences between groups in terms of individual card selection. The significance of the differences has been reported at either the .05 or .01 level of confidence in the various tables dealing with correlation and t-ratios. In the individual items studied, the Chi-squares have been reported in the .001 level also. When a negative t-ratio appears in the table, it indicates that the second group listed has shown a higher mean correlation than the first group on the relationship under consideration. The mean corre lations reported in the tables are Pearson r coefficients which were averaged by the use of Fischer z coefficients. In each of the following areas three comparisons were made, one comparing the group counseling group with the control group, a second comparing the individual counseling group with the control group, and a third comparing the group counseling group with the individual counseling group: before and after correlations on Real Self, Ideal Self, Teacher Self, and Parent Self identical sorts; the 137 initial Real Self— Ideal Self, Real Self— Teacher Self, and Real Self— Parent Self sorts; final Real Self— Ideal Self, Real Self— Teacher Self, and Real Self— Parent Self sorts; and Real Self and Ideal Self with psychologists1 sorts. The comparative results are found in Tables 14 through 25* Summary of the Findings as Related to the Stated Hypotheses Hypothesis I The hypothesis that group counseling will be associated with positive change in self-concept is not tenable on the basis of Q , sort findings. When compared to the control group, the group counseling group did not show any significant t-ratios in its favor while the control group was significantly superior in fifteen categories and sub-categories. Hypothesis II The hypothesis that individual counseling will be associated with positive change in self-concept was not tenable. As in the case of the group counselees, the control group appeared superior to the individual counselees in that it showed seven significant t-ratios in its favor while the individual counseling group had only two. Hypothesis III The hypothesis that group counseling will be associated with improvement in grade point average of counselees is not tenable. The group counseling group's final grade-point average as compared to its initial grade-point average was .03 lower. 138 TABLE 5 BEFORE AND AFTER MEAN CORRELATIONS OF REAL-SELF Q SORT Group r Group Counseling 6th ...........................51 9th ...........................61 11th ...........................63 Total...........................59 Individual Counseling 6th ...........................53 9th ...........................60 11th ...........................57 Total...........................57 Control 6th ...........................55 9th ...........................71 * 11th ...........................66 Total...........................66 139 TABLE 6 BEFORE AND AFTER MEAN CORRELATIONS OF IDEAL-SELF Q SORT Group r Group Counseling 6th ................... 47 9 th ...........................52 11th ...........................54 Total.......................... 51 Individual Counseling 6th ...........................45 9 th ...........................58 11th ...........................59 Total.......................... 54 Control 6th ...........................46 9th ...........................62 11th ...........................58 Total.......................... 56 140 TABLE 7 BEFORE AND AFTER MEAN CORRELATIONS OF TEACHER-SELF Q SORT Group r Group Counseling 6th ...........................31 9th ...........................53 11th ...........................56 Total.......................... 47 Individual Counseling 6 th ...........................32 9 th ...........................59 11th ...........................57 Total.......................... 50 Control 6th ...........................46 9 th ...........................59 11th ...........................55 Total.......................... 54 141 TABLE 8 BEFORE AND AFTER MEAN CORRELATIONS OF PARENT-SELF Q SORT Group r Group Counseling 6 th ...........................32 9th ...........................53 11th ...........................50 Total...........................45 Individual Counseling 6th ...........................36 9th ...........................61 11th ...........................55 Total....................... .51 Control 6th ...........................41 9 th ...........................67 11th ...........................53 Total...........................55 142 TABLE 9 MEAN CORRELATIONS BETWEEN REAL-SELF AND IDEAL-SELF Q SORTS Group Sorts 1 and 2 Sorts 5 and 6 (Before) (After) Group Counseling 6th .................... 50 .56 9th .................... 35 .51 11th .................... 38 .31 Total.................... 43 .45 Individual Counseling 6 th .................... 45 .41 9th ................... .40 .45 11th .................... 51 .42 Total.................... 45 .43 Control 6th ................... .39 .44 9th .................... 35 .54 11th .................... 39 Total.................... 38 .48 143 TABLE 10 MEAN CORRELATIONS BETWEEN REAL-SELF AND TEACHER-SELF Q SORTS Group Sorts 1 and 3 Sorts 5 *nd 7 (Before) (After) Group Counseling 6th 51 .40 9th 54 .55 11th 54 .52 Total..................... 53 .49 Individual Counseling 6th 48 .42 9th 52 .49 11th 55 .59 Total......................52 .50 Control 6th 46 .47 9th ..................... 54 .60 11th 51 .58 Total......................50 .55 144 TABLE 11 MEAN CORRELATIONS BETWEEN REAL-SELF AND PARENT-SELF Q SORTS Group Sorts 1 and 4 Sorts 5 and 8 (Before) (After) Group Counseling 6th 45 .46 9th 58 .54 11th 53 .60 Total......................52 .53 Individual Counseling 6th ..................... k6 .45 9th 58 .59 11th 51 .64 Total......................52 .56 Control 6 th 43 .52 9th 6? .71 11th 52 .65 Total......................55 .64 1^5 TABLE 12 MEAN CORRELATIONS BETWEEN REAL-SELF AND PSYCHOLOGISTS'-SELF < J SORTS Group Sorts 1 and 9 Sorts 5 »nd 9 (Before) (After) Group Counseling 6th **0 .37 9th 2? .25 11th 17 .14 Total......................28 .26 Individual Counseling 6th 36 .**0 9th 26 .28 11th 23 .20 Total......................29 .30 Control 6th 37 .38 9th 26 .32 11th 25 .28 Total......................29 .33 146 TABLE 13 MEAN CORRELATIONS BETWEEN IDEAL-SELF AND PSYCHOLOGISTS'-SELF Q SORTS Group Sorts 2 and 9 Sorts 6 and 9 (Before) (After) Group Counseling 6th ......................54 .50 9th 58 .52 11th 47 .56 Total...................... 53 .53 Individual Counseling 6th ......................53 .47 9th ...................... 58 .59 11th 46 .55 Total...................... 53 .54 Control 6th ...................... 52 .52 9th 62 .59 11th 53 .58 Total...................... 56 .56 147 TABLE 14 COMPARISON OF GROUP COUNSELING AND CONTROL GROUPS ON BEFORE AND AFTER IDENTICAL SORTS Sort Group t-Ratio Significance Real Self Total -3.39 .01 6th -2.30 .05 9th -2.33 .05 11th - .49 ne Ideal Self Total -1.70 ns 6th - .19 ne 9th -1.75 ns 11th - .72 ns Teacher Self Total -2.18 .05 6th -3.11 .01 9th -1.06 ns 11th .01 ns Parent Self Total -3.02 .01 6th -2.01 ns 9th -2.51 .05 11th - .60 ns 148 TABLE 15 COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING AND CONTROL GROUPS ON BEFORE AND AFTER IDENTICAL SORTS Sort Group t-Ratio Significance Real Self Total -2.80 .01 6th - .44 ns 9th -2.53 .05 11th -1.63 ns Ideal Self Total - .66 ns 6th 3.50 .01 9th - .64 ns 11th .25 ns Teacher Self Total -1.20 ns 6th -2.85 .01 9th .00 ns 11th .02 ns Parent Self Total -1.19 ns 6th -1.11 ns 9th -1.16 ns 11th .25 ns 149 TABLE 16 COMPARISON OF GROUP COUNSELING AND INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING ON BEFORE AND AFTER IDENTICAL SORTS Sort Group t-Ratio Significance Real Self Total -0.60 ne 6th - .30 ns 9th - .20 ns 11th -1.07 ne Ideal Self Total -1.04 ns 6th .51 ne 9th -1.15 ne 11th - .97 ns Teacher Self Total - .98 ns 6th - .31 ne 9th -1.57 ns 11th - .16 ns Parent Self Total -1.94 ns 6th - .96 ne 9th -1.42 ns 11th - .83 ns 150 TABLE 17 COMPARISON OF GROUP COUNSELING AND CONTROL GROUPS ON INITIAL REAL SELF— IDEAL SELF, REAL SELF— TEACHER SELF, AND REAL SELF— PARENT SELF SORTS Sorts Group t-Ratlo Significance Real Self and Ideal Self Total 1*72 ns 6th 1.99 ns 9th .07 ns 11th - .18 ns Real Self and Teacher Self Total .90 ns 6th .95 ns 9th .01 ns 11th - .52 ns Real Self and Parent Self Total - .65 ns 6th .53 ns 9th -1.55 ns 11th .28 ns 151 TABLE 18 COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING AND CONTROL GROUPS ON INITIAL REAL SELF— IDEAL SELF, REAL SELF— TEACHER SELF, AND REAL SELF— PARENT SELF SORTS Sorts Group t-Ratio Significance Real Self and Ideal Self Total 2.60 .05 6th 1,2? ns 9th .95 ns 11th 2.25 .05 Real Self and Teacher Self Total .44 ns 6th .52 ns 9th - .34 ns 11th .70 ns Real Self and Parent Self Total - .83 ns 6th .57 ns 9th -1.46 ns 11th - .17 ns 152 TABLE 19 COMPARISON OF GROUP COUNSELING AND INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING GROUPS ON INITIAL REAL SELF-IDEAL SELF, REAL SELF— TEACHER SELF, AND REAL SELF— PARENT SELF SORTS Sorts Group t-Ratio Significance Real Self and Ideal Self Total -0.80 ns 6th .86 ns 9th -1.5^ ns 11th 2.32 .05 Real Self and Teacher Self Total A3 ns 6th A5 ns 9th .kS ns 11th - .16 ns Real Self and Parent Self Total .02 ns 6th - .02 ns 9th - .0? ns 11th A5 ns 153 table: 20 COMPARISON OF GROUP COUNSELING AND CONTROL GROUPS ON FINAL REAL SELF— IDEAL SELF, REAL SELF— TEACHER SELF, AND REAL SELF— PARENT SELF SORTS Sorts Group t-Ratio Significance Real Self and Ideal Self Total -2.01 .05 6th -1.02 ns 9th - .32 ns 11th -2.95 .01 Real Self and Teacher Self Total -1.99 .05 6th -1.3** ns 9th - .96 ns 11th -1.09 ns Real Self and Parent Self Total -2.94 .01 6th -1.18 ns 9th -3.00 .01 11th 1.21 ns 15* TABLE 21 COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING AND CONTROL GROUPS ON FINAL REAL SELF— IDEAL SELF, REAL SELF— TEACHER SELF, AND REAL SELF— PARENT SELF SORTS Sorts Group t-Ratio Significance Real Self and Ideal Self Total -1.50 ns 6th - .** ns 9th -1.30 ns 11th - .63 ns Real Self and Teacher Self Total -1.70 ns 6th - .99 ns 9th -1.98 ns 11th .03 ns Real Self and Parent Self Total -2.38 .05 6th -1.48 ns 9th -2.14 .05 11th - .26 ns 155 TABLE 22 COMPARISON OF GROUP COUNSELING AND INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING GROUPS ON FINAL REAL SELF-IDEAL SELF, REAL SELF--TEACHER SELF, AND REAL SELF— PARENT SELF SORTS Sorts Group t-Ratio Significance Real Self and Ideal Self Total -0.68 ns 6th - .68 ns 9th .99 ns 11th 2.27 .05 Real Self and Teacher Self Total - .41 ns 6th - .48 ns 9th 1.08 ns 11th -1.08 ns Real Self and Parent Self Total -1.04 ns 6th .17 ns 9th -1.13 ns 11th -1.05 ns 156 TABLE 23 COMPARISON OF GROUP COUNSELING AND CONTROL GROUPS WITH PSYCHOLOGISTS' SORTS BEFORE AND AFTER THE PROJECT Sorts Group t-Ratio Significance Initial Real Self and Psychologists' Sort Total -0.35 ns 6th .61 ns 9th .28 ns 11th -2.3^ .05 Initial Ideal Self and Psychologists' Sort Total - .75 ns 6th .38 ns 9th - .77 ns 11th -1.01 ns Final Real Self and Psychologists' Sort Total -2.70 .01 6th .02 ns 9th -1.55 ns 11th -3.80 .01 Final Ideal Self and Psychologists' Sort Total -1.20 ns 6th - .30 ns 9th -1.31 ns 11th - .25 ns 157 TABLE 24 COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING AND CONTROL GROUPS WITH PSYCHOLOGISTS* SORTS BEFORE AND AFTER THE PROJECT Sorts Group t-Ratio Significance Initial Real Self and Psychologists1 Sort Total -0.28 ns 6th - .01 ns 9th .01 na 11th - .68 ns Initial Ideal Self and Psychologists' Sort Total i • o ns 6th .30 ns 9th - .85 ns 11th -1.11 ns Final Real Self and Psychologists' Sort Total - .97 ns 6th .61 ns 9th - .74 ns 11th -2.24 .05 Final Ideal Self and Psychologists' Sort Total - .78 ns 6th - .82 ns 9th - .02 ns 11th - .54 ns 158 TABLE 25 COMPARISON OF GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING GROUPS WITH PSYCHOLOGISTS' SORTS BEFORE AND AFTER THE PROJECT Sorts Group t-Ratio Significance Initial Real Self and Psychologists' Sort Total -0.08 ns 6th .78 ns 9th .02 ns 11th -1.67 ns Initial Ideal Self and Psychologists' Sort Total .14 ns 6th .09 ns 9th .08 ns 11th .08 ns Final Real Self and Psychologists' Sort Total -1.81 ns 6th - .80 ns 9th - .92 ns 11th -1.71 ns Final Ideal Self and Psychologists' Sort Total - .42 ns 6th .5* ns 9th -1.34 ns 11th .21 ns 159 TABLE 26 CHANGE IN GRADE POINT AVERAGES Group Mean Difference 1960-61 1961-62 Group Counseling 6th 2.15 2.2? .12 9th 1.96 1.73 -.23* 11th 1.66 1.65 -.01 Total 1.92 1.89 -.03 Individual Counseling 6th 2.15 2.33 .18* 9th 1.95 1.86 -.09 11th 1.66 1.71 .05 Total 1.92 1.98 .06 Control 6th 2.14 2.26 .12 9th 1.99 1.81 -.18* 11th 1.64 1.64 .00 Total 1.92 1.90 -.02 ♦Significant at .05 level. 160 Hypothesis IV The hypothesis that individual counseling will be associated with improvement in grade-point average of counselees was not tenable. Although the individual counselees grade-point average raised .06 as a group, this difference was not significantly higher. Hypothesis V The hypothesis that group counseling will be associated with more positive change in self-concept than individual counseling when counselor time is held constant is not tenable. While the only sub- category showing a significant t-ratio was in favor of the group counselees, as a total the group counselees exhibited only nineteen positive t-ratios while the individual counselees showed thirty-six in their favor. Hypothesis VI The hypothesis that group counseling will be associated with greater improvement in grade-point averages than individual counsel ing when counselor time is held constant is not tenable. During the period of the project group counselees1 mean grade-point average dropped .03 while the individual counselees' mean grade-point average raised .06. 161 Significant Card Selections by Total Study Population Based upon Probability of Selection Real Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I obey my parents most of the time. b. I get along well with my friends. c. I save some of my money for things I need or want. d. When something big or important is about to happen, I find it hard to go to sleep at night right away. e. I like animals. f. I have definite tasks or chores to do at home. 2. .01 level a. I'm usually on time for my classes. b. My parents compare me with other kids too much. 3. .05 level a. I can't keep my mind on my studies. b. Our family has always had a lot of fun together. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I obey my parents most of the time. b. I get along with my friends. c. I'm usually on time for my classes. d. I save some of my money for things I need or want. 162 e. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. f. My parents let me decide many things for myself. g. I like animals. 2. .01 level a. I can't keep my mind on my studies. b. Our family has always had a lot of fun together. II. "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. Teachers don't seem to like me. c. I obey my parents most of the time. d. I wish I were as happy as others seem to be. e. I spend too much time studying. f. I don't think my parents trust me. g. I don't like to exercise, h. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. i. I hesitate to speak up in class. 2. .01 level a. My parents compare me with other kids too much. 3. .05 level a. I'm slow to forgive people I'm mad at. but I finally do. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I'm slow to forgive people I'm mad at( but I finally do. c. Teachers don't seem to like me. d. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. e. I wish I were as happy as others seem to be. f. I spend too much time studying. g. I don't think my parents trust me. h. I don't like to exercise. i. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. j. My parents compare me with other kids too much. 2. .01 level a. I hesitate to speak up in class. Ideal Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I know how to study. c. I obey my parents most of the time. d. I get along well with my friends. e. I have a great deal of confidence in my abilities. 16k f. I'm stronger and healthier than most kids my age. g. I take part in sports or club activities at school. h. I save some of my money for things I need or want. i. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. j. I am invited to parties that the kids have, k. My parents let me decide many things for myself. 1. I like animals. 2. .01 level a. I'm easy to please. 3. .05 level a. Our family has always had a lot of fun together. B. Final Sort 1, .001 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I know how to study. c. I get along well with my friends. d. I have a great deal of confidence in my abilities. e. I'm stronger and healthier than most kids my age. f. I take part in sports or club activities at school. g. Our family has always had a lot of fun together. h. I save some of my money for things I need or want. i. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. j. I am invited to parties that the kids have. 165 k. My parents let me decide many things for rays elf. 2. .01 level a, I have good posture. b. I like animals. 3. .05 level a. I obey my parents most of the time. II. "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. Teachers don't seem to like me. b. Sometimes my parents are annoyed with me. c. I can't keep my mind on my studies. d. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. e. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. f. I don’t think my parents trust me. g. I don't like to exercise. h. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. i. My parents compare me with other kids too much, j. I'm restless in class. k. I don't go out of my way to help others. 2. .01 level a. I'm slow to forgive people I'm mad at, but I finally do. 166 3. .05 level a. I wish that I were as happy as others seen to be. b. I hesitate to speak up in class. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I'm afraid of flaking mistakes. b. Teachers don't seem to like me. c. Sometimes my parents are annoyed with me. d. I can't keep my mind on my studies. e. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. f. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. g. I don't think my parents trust me. h. I don't like to exercise. i. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. j. My parents compare me with other kids too much, k. I don't go out of my way to help others. 2. .01 level a. I need to develop more self-confidence. b. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. Teacher Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1* .001 level a. I get along well with my friends. 167 b. I can't keep my mind on my studies. c. I take part In sports or club activities at school. d. I'm usually on time for my classes. e. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. f. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. g. I usually do what I'm told but very little extra. h. I'm restless in class. 1. I don't mind school. 2. .01 level a. I am considered about average in the things I do. b. I sometimes can't help breaking into a conversa tion. 3. .05 level a. I'm pretty much like the rest of the kids. b. I'm about average in looks. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with ray friends. b. I can't keep ray mind on my studies. c. I'm usually on time for my classes. d. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. e. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. f. I'm restless in class. 168 2. .01 level a. 1 an considered about average in the things I do. b. I'm pretty much like the rest of the kids. 3. .05 level a. I'm interested in current events. b. I usually do what I'm told but very little extra. c. I hesitate to speak up in class. d. I sometimes can't help breaking into a conversa tion. II. "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I am a leader in school activities b. I know how to study. c. Teachers don't seem to like me. d. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. e. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. f. I spend too much time studying. g. I don't like to exercise. h. I hesitate to speak up in class. 2. .01 level a. I'm afraid of making mistakes. b. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. c. I like to do more than my share of the work. 169 3. .05 level a. I don't think my parents trust me. b. I don't go out of my way to help others. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I'm a leader in school activities. b. I know how to study. c. Teachers don't seem to like me. d. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. e. I spend too much time studying. f. I don’t like to exercise. g. I like to do more than my share of the work. h. I hesitate to speak up in class. 2. .01 level a. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. 3. .05 level a. I'm afraid of making mistakes. b. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. c. I don't think my parents trust me. Parent Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I obey my parents most of the time. 170 b. I get along well with my friends. c. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. d* I save some of my money for things I need or want. e. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. f. My parents let me decide many things for myself. g. I like animals. 2. .01 level a. I can't keep my mind on my studies. b. I usually do what I'm told but very little extra. 3. .05 level a. Sometimes my parents are annoyed with me. b. Our family has always had a lot of fun together. c. I don't mind school. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I obey my parents most of the time. b. I get along well with my friends. c. Sometimes my parents are annoyed with me. d. I can't keep my mind on my studies. e. I save some of ray money for things I need or want. f. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. g. My parents let me decide many things for myself. h. I like animals. 171 i. I have definite tasks or chores to do at home. 2. .05 level a. I'm stronger and healthier than most kids my age. b. Our family has always had a lot of fun together. II. "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. Teachers don't seem to like me. c. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. d. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. e. I spend too much time studying. f. I don't think my parents trust me. g. I don't like to exercise. h. I like to do more than my share of the work. 2. .01 level a. I know how to study. b. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. c. My parents compare me with other kids too much. 3. .05 level a. I hesitate to speak up in class. b. I don't go out of my way to help others. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level 172 a. Teachers don't seem to like me. b. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. c. I spend too much time studying. d. I don't think my parents trust me. e. I don't like to exercise. f. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. g. My parents compare me with other kids too much. h. I like to do more than my share of the work. 2. .01 level a. I hesitate to speak up in class. 3. .05 level a. I know how to study. b. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. Significant Card Selections by Group Counseling Groups Based upon Probability of Selection Real Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I obey my parents most of the time. b. I get along well with my friends. c. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch then. d. I like animals. 173 2. .01 level a. I save some of my money for things 1 need or want. 3. .05 level a. I'm considered about average in the things I do. b. When something big or important is about to happen, I find it hard to go to sleep at night right away. c. My parents let me decide many things for myself. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with my friends. b. I'm usually on time for my classes. c. I save some of my money for things I need or want. d. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. 2. .01 level a. I obey my parents most of the time. 3. .05 level a. I can't keep my mind on my studies b* My parents let me decide many things for myself. c. I like animals. II. "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. 174 c. I spend too much time studying. d. I don't think my parents trust me. e. I don't like to exercise. 2. .01 level a. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. 3. .05 level a. Teachers don't seem to like me. b. My parents compare me with other kids too much. c. I hesitate to speak up in class. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. My parents compare me with other kids too much. 2. .01 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. c. I don't like to exercise. 3. *05 level a. I'm slow to forgive people I'm mad at, but I finally do. b. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. c. I take part in sports or club activities at school. d. I spend too much time studying. e. I don't think my parents trust me. f. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. 175 Ideal Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I know how to study. b. I get along well with my friends. c. I have a great deal of confidence in my abilities. d. I'm stronger and healthier than most kids ay age. e. My parents let me decide many things for myself. 2. .01 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I obey my parents most of the time. c. I'm usually on time for my classes. d. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with my friends. b. I save some of my money for things I need or want, d. My parents let me decide many things for myself. 2. ,01 level a. I know how to study. b. I have a great deal of confidence in my abilities. c. I'm stronger and healthier than most kids my age. d. Our family has always had a lot of fun together. 176 3. .05 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I talk over personal problems with my parents. c. I am invited to parties that the kids have. d. I like to do more than my share of the work. II. "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I can't keep my mind on my studies. b. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. c. I don't think my parents trust me. d. I don't like to exercise. e. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. f. I hesitate to speak up in class. 2. .01 level a. Teachers don't seem to like me. b. I don't go out of my way to help others. 3. .05 level a. Sometimes my parents are annoyed with me. b. I need to develop more self-confidence. c. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. d. My parents compare me with other kids too much. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level 177 a. Teachers don't seen to like me. b. I can’t keep my mind on my studies. c. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. d. I don't think my parents trust me. 2. .01 level a. Sometimes my parents are annoyed with me. b. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. c. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. d. My parents compare me with other kids too much. 3. .05 level a. I'm restless in class. Teacher Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with my friends. b. I can't keep my mind on my studies. c. I'm usually on time for my classes. d. I don't mind school. 2. .01 level a. I'm restless in class. 3. .05 level a. I obey my parents most of the time. b. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. 178 c* I am considered about average in the things I do. d. I’d rather play games than sit around and watch them. e. I sometimes can't help breaking into a conversa tion. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I can't keep my mind on my studies. b. I'm usually on time for my classes. 2. .01 level a. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. b. I'm restless in class. c. I hesitate to speak up in class. 3. .05 level a. I am considered about average in the things I do. b. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. c. I'm interested in current events. II. "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. b. I spend too much time studying. 2. .01 level a. I am a leader in school activities. 179 b. I know how to study. c. I don't like to exercise. 3. .05 level a. Teachers don't seem to like me. b. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. c. I hesitate to speak up in class. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I know how to study. b. I spend too much time studying. 2. .01 level a. I like to do more than my share of the work. b, I hesitate to speak up in class. 3. .05 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. c. I don't think my parents trust me. d. I don't like to exercise. Parent Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with my friends. b. I like animals. 180 2. .01 leyel a. I obey my parents most of the time. b. I save some of my money for things I need or want. 3. .05 level a. Sometimes my parents are annoyed with me. b. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with iqy friends. b. I can't keep my mind on my studies. 2. .01 level a. Sometimes my parents are annoyed with me. 3. .05 level a. I obey my parents most of the time. b. I am invited to parties that the kids have. c. I have definite tasks or chores to do at home. II. "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I spend too much time studying. b. I don't think my parents trust me. c. I like to do more than my share of the work. 2. .01 level a. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. b. I hesitate to speak up in class. 181 3. .05 level a. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. b. My parents compare me with other kids too much. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I spend too much time studying. b. I don't think my parents trust me. 2. ,01 level a. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. b. My parents compare me with other kids too much. 3* .05 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. Teachers don't seem to like me. c. I don't like to exercise. d. I like to do more than my share of the work. Significant Card Selections by Individual Counseling Groups Based upon Probability of Selection Real Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with my friends. b. I save some of my money for things I need or want. c. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch 182 them. d. When something big or important is about to happen, I find it hard to go to sleep at night right away. e. I like animals. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with my friends. b. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. c. I like animals. 2. .01 level a. I'm usually on time for my classes. b. Our family has always had a lot of fun together. c. I save some of my money for things I need or want. 3* *05 level a. I sometimes can't help breaking into a conversa tion. II. "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. b. I don't like to exercise. 2. .01 level a. I am a leader in school activities, b* Teachers don't seem to like me. 183 c. I spend too much time studying. 3. .05 level a. I'm slow to forgive people I'm mad at, but I finally do. b. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. c. I don't think my parents trust me. d. I hesitate to speak up In class. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. Teachers don't seem to like me. b. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. c. I spend too much time studying. d. I don't like to exercise. 2. .01 level a. I hesitate to speak up in class. 3. .05 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I don't think my parents trust me. c. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. Ideal Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with my friends. 184 b. I'm stronger and healthier than most kids my age. c. I save some of my money for things I need or want. d. My parents let me decide many things for myself. e. I like animals. 2. .01 level a. I know how to study. b. I have a great deal of confidence in my abilities, o. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. d. I am invited to parties that the kids have. 3. .05 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I'm easy to please. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I get along well with my friends. c. I have a great deal of confidence in my abilities. d. I'm stronger and healthier than most kids my age. e. I save some of my money for things I need or want. f. My parents let me decide many things for myself. 2. .01 level a. I am invited to parties that the kids have. 3. .05 level a. I know how to study. 185 b. Our family has always had a lot of fun together. c. I'd rather play games than eit around and watch them. d. I have good posture. e. I'm pretty much like the rest of the kids. II. "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. Sometimes my parents are annoyed with me. b. I can't keep my mind on my studies. c. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. d. I don’t think my parents trust me. e. I don't like to exercise. f. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. 2. .01 level a. I'm slow to forgive people I'm mad at, but I finally do. b. Teachers don't seem to like me. c. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. d. I'm restless in class. 3. .05 level a. I don't go out of my way to help others. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level 186 a. I'm afraid of making mistakes. b. Teachers don't seem to like me. c. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. d. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. e. I don't think ray parents trust me. f. I don't like to exercise. g. My parents compare me with other kids too much. 2, .05 level a. I need to develop more self-confidence. b. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. Teacher Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with my friends. b. I can't keep my mind on ray studies. c. I'm usually on time for my classes. d. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. e. I'm restless in class. 2. .01 level a. I take part in sports or club activities at school. b. I don't mind school. c. I'm pretty much like the rest of the kids. 187 3- .05 level a. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. b. I usually do what I'm told but very little extra. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with my friends. b. Sometimes my parents are annoyed with me. c. I save some of my money for things I need or want. d. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. 2. .01 level a. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. 3. .05 level a. I sometimes can't help breaking into a conversa tion. II. "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. Teachers don't seem to like me. b. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. c. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. d. I spend too much time studying. e. I don't like to exercise. 188 2. .01 level a. I'm afraid of making mistakes. b. I hesitate to speak up in class. 3. .05 level a. I know how to study B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. Teachers don't seem to like me. b. I spend too much time studying. c. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. d. I hesitate to speak up in class. 2. .01 level a, I know how to study. b. I don't like to exercise. 3. .05 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I'm afraid of making mistakes. c. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. d. I'm courteous even when people are disagreeable. Parent Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with my friends. 189 2. .01 level a. I like animals. 3. .05 level a. I'm usually on time for my classes. b. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. c. I save some of my money for things I need or want. d. I'm interested in current events. e. My parents let me decide many things for myself. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with my friends. b. Sometimes my parents are annoyed with me. c. I save some of my money for things I need or want. d. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. 2. .01 level a. I can't keep my mind on my studies. 3. .05 level a. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. b. I like animals. c. I have definite tasks or chores to do at home. II. "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. 190 b. I spend too much time studying. 2. .01 level a. I know how to study. b. Teachers don't seem to like me. c. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. d. I don't like to exercise. 3. .03 level a. I am a leader in school activities. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. b. I spend too much time studying. c. I don't like to exercise. d. I like to do more than my share of the work. 2. .01 level a. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. 3. .05 level a. I know how to study. b. I don't think my parents trust me. Significant Card Selections by Control Groups Based upon Probability of Selection Real Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 191 1. .001 level a. I obey my parents most of the time. b. I get along well with my friends. c. I save some of ray money for things I need or want. d. When something big or important is about to happen, I find it hard to go to sleep at night right away. e. I like animals. f. I have definite tasks or chores to do at home. 2. .01 level a. I'm usually on time for my classes. b. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. c. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I obey my parents most of the time. b. I save some of my money for things I need or want. c. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. 2. .01 level a. I get along well with my friends. b. I'm usually on time for my classes. c. Our family has always had a lot of fun together. d. I like animals. e. I have definite tasks or chores to do at home. 192 3. .05 level a. I can't keep my mind on my studies. b. My parents let me decide many things for myself. II, "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. Teachers don't seem to like me. c. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. d. I spend too much time studying. e. I don't think my parents trust me. f. I don't like to exercise. 2. .01 level a. I need to develop more self-confidence. 3. .05 level a. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. b. I hesitate to speak up in class. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. Teachers don't seem to like me. c. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. d. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. e. I spend too much time studying. 193 f. I don't think my parents trust me. g. I don't like to exercise. 2. .05 level a. I'm slow to forgive people I'm mad at, but I finally do. b. My parents compare me with other kids too much. c. I like to do more than my share of the work. Ideal Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I get along well with my friends. c. I have a great deal of confidence in my abilities. d. I'm stronger and healthier than most kids my age. 2. .01 level a. I take part in sports or club activities at school. b. I'm easy to please. 3. .05 level a. I obey my parents most of the time. b. I am considered about average in the things I do. c. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. d. I am invited to parties that the kids have. e. My parents let me decide many things for myself. II. 194 B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with my friends. b. I'm stronger and healthier than most kids my age. c. I save some of my money for things I need or want. d. My parents let me decide many things for myself. e. I like animals. 2. .01 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I have a great deal of confidence in my abilities. c. I take part in sports or club activities at school. d. I'm easy to please. 3. .05 level a. I'm courteous even when people are disagreeable. b. Our family has always had a lot of fun together. c. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. Teachers don't seem to like me. b. I can't keep my mind on my studies. c. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. d. I don't think my parents trust me. e. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd 195 like to have for friends, f. I don't go out of my way to help others. 2. .01 level a. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. b. I don't like to exercise. 3. .05 level a. My parents compare me with other kids too much. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. Teachers don't seem to like me. b. Sometimes my parents are annoyed with me. c. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. d. I don't think my parents trust me. e. I don't like to exercise. f. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. g. I don't go out of my way to help others. 2. .01 level a. I'm afraid of making mistakes. b. I can't keep my mind on my studies. c. My parents compare me with other kids too much. d. I need advice on what to do after high school. 3. .05 level a. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. b. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. 196 Teacher Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with my friends. b. I can't keep my mind on my studies. c. I'm usually on time for my classes. d. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. e. I don't mind school. f. I sometimes can't help breaking into a conversa tion. 2. .01 level a. I take part in sports or club activities at school. b. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. c. I'm restless in class. 3. -05 level a. I am considered about average in the things I do. b. I usually do what I'm told but very little extra. c. I'm about average in looks. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I get along well with ray friends. b. I can't keep my mind on my studies. c. I'm usually on time for my classes. 197 d. I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. e. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. 2. .01 level a. I like to go on picnics. 3. .05 level a. I take part in sports or club activities at school. b. I usually do what I'm told but very little extra. c. I'm about average in looks. II. "Unlike Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I spend too much time studying. 2. .01 level a. I like to do more than my share of the work. 3. *05 level a. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. b. I don't like to exercise. c. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. d. I hesitate to speak up in class. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. Teachers don't seem to like me. 198 b. I feel lonely even when I'n with people. c. I spend too much time studying. 2. .01 level a. I am a leader In school activities. b. I don't like to exercise. c. I hesitate to speak up in class. 3. .05 level a. I wish I were as happy as others seem to be. b. I like to do more than my share of the work. Parent Self I. "Like Me" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I obey my parents most of the time. b. I save some of my money for things I need or want. c. I like animals. 2. .01 level a. I get along well with my friends. b. Our family has always had a lot of fun together. c. I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. 3. .05 level a. My parents let me decide many things for myself. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level 199 a. I obey my parents most of the time. b. I get along well with my friends. c. I save some of my money for things I need or want. d. My parents let me decide many things for myself. 2. .01 level a. Our family has always had a lot of fun together. b. I like animals. c. I have definite tasks or chores to do at home. 3* .05 level a. I'm stronger and healthier than most kids my age. II. "Unlike He" A. Initial Sort 1. .001 level a. I am a leader in school activities. b. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. c. I spend too much time studying. d* I don't think my parents trust me. e. I don't like to exercise. 2. .01 level a. I'm slow to forgive people I'm mad at, but I finally do. b. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. 3. .05 level a. Teachers don't seem to like me. b. I like to do more than my share of the work. 200 c. I need advice on what to do after high school. B. Final Sort 1. .001 level a. I spend too much time studying. b. I don't like to exercise. c. My parent8 compare me with other kids too much. 2. .01 level a. Teachers don't seem to like me. b. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. c. I like to do more than my share of the work. 3. .05 level a. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. b. I don't think my parents trust me. e. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. Summary of Card Selection Data The total study population, the group counseling group, the individual counseling group, and the control group, were very similar in their card selections. Generally in the Real Self area the pro ject subjects chose many apparently conforming statements, such as getting along with parents .and friends and conforming with school regulations. However, it was generally felt by the students that they had difficulty in maintaining their interest and attention on their studies in the school situation. The students also were con sistent in stating their love for animals. At the same time that 201 they were choosing conforming statements they also chose a number of statements Indicating they did not particularly care to conform in the school situation or to meet the standards of their parents. In other respects they considered themselves somewhat shy and definitely not leaders in the school situation. In terms of Ideal Self many items were similar to that of the Real Self, however, it became desirable to be a school leader and to know how to study. Confidence in one's abilities also scores heavily under Ideal Self. Students also showed desires to be considered stronger and more healthy than the average and more active socially. There were also statements indicating a desire for acceptability at school and at home, and a wish not to be compared with other students by their parents. In the Teacher Self area students saw themselves as being sociable and well liked by both students and the teachers although restless and not overly conforming in the school situation. They also saw themselves through the teacher's eyes as being minimum effort people who were average in both appearance and performance. Again they felt they were not considered school leaders and that they were unable to study well. They did indicate, however, that they felt their teachers considered them trusted by their parents. In the Parent Self area the students felt their parents con sidered them obedient and sociable but rather incapable of keeping their attention on their studies. They also indicated that their parents let them make many of their own decisions although the parents sometimes became annoyed with their behavior. They feel that their parents consider that they make a minimum effort in their approach to school although they are responsible in the home situa tion. They also seem to see themselves as having a lot of fun within the family framework and as being somewhat stronger and healthier than the average. Again they feel their parents do not consider them leaders in the school situation. CHAPTER VII RESULT OF STUDENT AND PARENT INTERVIEWS Introduction Aa previously stated in Chapter V interviews were scheduled with each student in the project and a separate interview with each parent. Of the 139 students remaining at the end of the project 133 were interviewed. This figure includes forty-four group counselees, forty-five individual counselees, and forty-four control subjects. In addition to this number, 129 parent interviews were completed. Forty-three parents from each group were interviewed. This chapter reports on the results of these structured interviews. The specific areas covered in the interviews were: feelings toward homework; educational and vocational goals; responsibilities carried out in the home; student's feelings regarding the counseling received; parent observations regarding recent change in behavior; and freedom of expression within the home. Homework Students Each student was asked to respond to the question "How have you felt about homework during your years in school?" There did not appear to be any significant difference between the group counseling, individual counseling, and control groups in responding to this 203 20k question. A total of fifty-six students stated a general dislike of homework throughout their school career. Seven stated that their feelings were becoming increasingly negative as they passed through their school career. Twenty-two of those interviewed stated that they had very negative feelings about homework but that they did it grudg ingly. Thirty-five made specific mention of their animosity toward "busy work," or unnecessary repetition in homework. According to these students the most offending area in this regard was mathematics. Nine students stated that they felt homework was something that should be done but that they didn't do it. The remainder of the responses were approximately evenly split between the fifteen students who felt that they were generally indifferent toward homework and the thirteen who stated that they liked or accepted it. The next question in this area was, "Did you feel differently about homework in your early schooling than you do now?" To this question forty-six in answering "no" said that they had always had negative feelings about homework while sixteen stated that they had always had positive or accepting feelings toward homework. Twenty- eight students indicated that they were becoming progressingly nega tive in their feelings about homework while an additional thirty-seven stated they were having greater difficulty in maintaining their interest in homework than earlier in their school career. Of this thirty-seven, twenty-seven specifically mentioned various diverting interests such as girls, cars, and television that made it difficult to complete homework assignments. 205 Eighteen students, most of whom were ninth grade boys, stated that they felt homework had become increasingly difficult as they progressed through school. Only thirteen of the students interviewed stated that they had become more positive in their attitude towards homework. In answering this question there did not appear to be any difference between the three groups interviewed. The third question asked students in the homework area was, "Have you noticed any change in your attitude toward homework during your present school year?" Again, with this question there did not appear to be any difference between the three groups interviewed. Twenty-seven students stated that they did not feel any different in their attitude toward homework but that they were doing more this year due to various motivations such as graduation and other rewards. Fifteen students answered "no" to this question, explaining that they had become more negative in their feelings about homework, while thirty stated that they felt the same as before. Thirty-four students felt that they had become more positive and more interested in their homework during the current school year. Of this thirty-four, a number mentioned the establishment of better study habits. Parents In the area of homework, each parent was asked the question, "What has been your son's attitude toward homework throughout his school career?" There was no significant difference between groups as the parents indicated that approximately forty of the students have generally negative attitudes in this area. Forty-six students 206 were reported to have indifferent or minimum effort attitudes, while forty-four appeared to accept or like homework. Each parent was also asked, "Have you felt it necessary to push him to complete his assignments?" Eighty-two parents stated that it was necessary to push their sons, while forty-seven said they did not feel it was necessary* The group counseling and individual coun seling groups showed fewer affirmative responses to this question. The last question asked parents in the homework area was, "Have you noticed any recent change in his attitude toward homework?" In response to this question eighty-one parents indicated that there was no apparent change in their sons' attitude, forty indicated that their sons were doing more, and eight indicated that their sons were doing less homework. Of the forty parents who stated that their sons were doing more homework, sixteen were parents of children in the group counseling group, while eight were parents of children in the control group. These differences indicate that there was a greater tendency for those having received counseling to do more homework. Educational and Vocational Goals Students Each student was asked a question, r t - What are your present edu cational and vocational goals?" In answer to this, seventy-four students indicated that they were college bound with twenty-four of these indicating a profession. A total of twenty-nine students indicated a specific occupational goal. Thirteen of the students 207 indicated that they would attend a junior college and later transfer to a four-year college, as they have no particular vocational goal at the moment. Twenty-nine students indicated that they would attend junior college on a terminal basis, with a great majority of these indicating the electronics field as a vocational goal. Eight students stated that they would quit school after high school and go to work in some field unknown to them at the moment. Nine students were com pletely unable to answer this question and simply stated that they did not know their educational or vocational goals. In answering this question there appeared to be no significant difference between the groups interviewed. Next question asked was, "Do your parents agree with your pre sent educational goals?" To this question 104 answered yes, fifteen answered no, and fourteen answered they did not know. Again there appeared to be no significant difference in answering this question. The next question asked in this area was, "What are your parents' goals for you if they are different from yours?" To this question sixteen students answered that their parents had a different goal for them and that this goal was for them to attend college. Two students who said that they were intending to go to college indicated that their parents wanted them to major in a different field. Parent The first question was, "What are your son's present educa tional and vocational goals?" In answering this question seventy-six parents indicated that their sons were planning to go to college, 208 while eleven indicated a junior college preference. Bight stated that their sons were planning to terminate their education at the high school level while three stated that their sons would attend a trade school. Twenty-six parents stated that they were completely unaware of what their sons present plans were in this area. Only one parent indicated that his son was planning to quit school and go to work without finishing high school. Two parents indicated that their sons had stated their goal of becoming professional ball players. One parent indicated that his son wished to be a career serviceman. There did not appear to be any substantial difference between the three groups in this area. The next question was, "Do you feel that you agree with your son's goals?" Again there appeared to be no difference between the three groups. Eighty-three of the parents indicated that they agreed with their son's present goal while twenty-one stated that they were opposed to their son's present goal and twenty-five indicated that they did not know their son's goals and therefore were unable to answer the question. The last question asked the parents in this area was, "If your goals for him are different, what are they?" As in the prior section, there did not appear to be any substantial difference between the groups. Twenty-one of the parents indicated that they felt their son's educational-vocational goals were too low and that they wished him to attend college. Following this same line of reasoning two parents stated they wished their sons would complete at least a trade 209 school education. Assigned Responsibilities Students The first question in this area was, "What routine responsi bilities do you carry out in your home?" In answering this, 100 students indicated that they carried some responsibility along the household line as the normal care of their own room. Ninety-six indicated that they had gardening responsibilities of some variety while fourteen stated that they routinely were responsible for wash ing the family cars. Seven stated that they had routine babysitting assignments while eight stated that they never had any routine assign ed responsibilities. There were no basic differences between groups on this question. The second question in this area was, "How long have you had regular tasks to do in your home situation?" The students responded as follows: AGE NUMBER AGE NUMBER 4 4 11 5 5 22 12 5 6 31 13 1 7 15 - Median 14 0 8 17 15 2 9 17 16 1 10 15 None assigned 6 There were no apparent differences between the three groups in this area. 210 Parents The first question asked parents was, "Do you feel your son has accepted responsibility readily within your home over the years?" In answering this, sixty-one parents stated yes, their sons had accepted responsibility, while sixty-eight indicated no, their sons had not accepted responsibility. There was no basic difference be tween the three groups in this area. The second question asked parents was, "When did your hone program of responsibility for your son begin?" The parents responded as follows: AGE NUMBER AGE NUMBER 4 23 11 3 5 20 12 6 6 31 - Median 13 2 7 8 14 1 8 10 15 0 9 10 16 1 10 8 None assigned 6 Again in this area there was no basic difference between the three groups interviewed. A third question asked was, "How is this program of responsi bility carried out?" Seventy-two parents indicated that it was necessary to badger their sons in order to have them carry out the program of responsibilities, while fifty-seven indicated that their sons were basically cooperative and did not need any external pres sure to carry out their various responsibilities. In this area as in others there was no basic difference between the three groups inter viewed. 211 The last question asked parents in this area was, "Have you noticed any recent change?" In answering this question ninety-five parents indicated that there was no apparent change while twenty-four stated that their sons were showing more responsibility, and ten in dicated that their sons were showing less responsibility. In this area there was no basic difference between the three groups inter viewed. Expression of Feeling Students Each student interviewed was asked, "Do you feel that you have difficulty expressing your true feelings in the home situation?" In answering this question twenty-seven group counselees answered yes and seventeen answered no, twenty-three of the individual counselees answered yes and twenty-two answered no, twenty-four of those in control groups answered yes and twenty answered no. There did not appear to be any significant difference in the answering of this question between the three groups. The next question was, "To which parent do you usually go to discuss a personal problem?" Eleven group counselees indicated that they go to their mother, six indicated that they go to both parents and five indicated that they do not go to either parent. Eight individual counselees indicated that they go to their father, twenty-four indicated that they go to their mother, eight indicated that they go to both parents, four indicated that they do 212 not go to either parent, and one indicated that he went to a sibling. Of those in the control group ten indicated that they went to their father, seventeen indicated that they went to their mother, thirteen indicated that they go to both parents, three indicated that they do not go to either, and one indicated his preference to talk to a sibling. There did not appear to be a basic difference between the three groups with the possible exception that in the control group more students were able to speak both to their mother and father on the personal basis. The next question asked was, "Have you felt any freer to ex press your feelings during the last school year?" In answering this thirty-one group counselees indicated that they felt considerably freer, twelve indicated no change, and three stated they did not know. Nineteen individual counselees indicated that they felt freer, twenty- six indicated they had not felt freer, and one was unable to answer the question. Of those in the control group eighteen indicated there was an improvement, while twenty-six indicated no. The group coun seling group was significantly higher in their ability to express their feelings more freely in the home situation as compared to the individual and control groups. This difference was significant at the .01 level. Parents The first question in this area was, "Has your son been open in his expression of feelings within the hone?" The parents of twenty-four group counselees indicated that their sons have been open 213 in the expression of their feelings within the home, while nineteen indicated this has not been the case. One parent was unable to answer this question. Of the parents of the individual counselees, twenty- six indicated yes while nineteen indicated no. Of the parents of those students in control groups, twenty-eight indicated yes and six teen indicated no. There does not appear to be any significant dif ference between groups here, although there is some slight shading in favor of groups involved in counseling. The second question asked parents was, "Which parent does he usually go to for this?" The parents of group counselees indicated that ten of the students went to their father, twenty-eight to their mother, four to both parents and two to neither parent. The parents of individual counselees indicated that three of the students go to their father, twenty-nine to their mother, eight to both and three to neither parent. The parents of students involved in the control groups indicated that six students preferred to go to their father, twenty-seven to their mother, seven to both, one to neither, and one to a sibling. There was no basic difference between these groups with the possible exception that more of the students involved in the group counseling appeared free to discuss personal problems with their father. The next question asked parents was, "Have you noted any re cent change in his ability to express himself, if so how?" Parents of group counselees indicated that twenty-five of the students had become more open in their expression of feelings, while nineteen 214 showed no change. The parents of individual counselees indicated that thirteen students were more open in their feelings, two were less open, and thirty showed no change. The parents of those involved in control groups indicated that nine students were more open in their expression of feelings, while thirty-five showed no change. The students involved in group counseling as seen by the parents show significantly higher frequency of recent change in their ability to express feelings more openly within the home situation as compared to the other two groups. This difference was significant at the .01 level. Change in Behavior Each parent was asked if they had observed any noticeable change in their son's behavior during the last six months. The parents of group counselees stated that eleven of the students had become more responsible in their actions and that seven had shown increased interest in school. Ten had become more cooperative and ten more rebellious on the basis of their parents' judgment. Three of the parents stated that their sons had become less responsible and four parents indicated that there was no observable difference in their son's behavior. The parents of individual counselees stated that five had be come more responsible and that nine had shown increased interest in the school situation. Parents indicated further that nine had become less responsible, while fifteen parents indicated that they had seen no change. 215 The parents of the control group students indicated that twelve students had apparently become more responsible in their behavior while three had shown increased interest in school. Three parents indicated their sons had become more cooperative while six indicated that they had become more rebellious* Two of the parents Indicated that their sons had become less responsible while eighteen stated they had seen no observable change. It would appear that the results indicate more acting out was occurring among the students involved in group counseling in that a greater number had become both more cooperative and rebellious in their actions. This would be indicated by the differences between the three groups in the parents indications of no change, in that only four parents of the group counseling group indicated no change, while fifteen of the individual counseling and eighteen of the control group parents indicated no observable change. This difference is significant at the .01 level. Reactions to Counseling Received During the Pro.iect Students Each student was asked, "What are your feelings concerning the counseling you have received during the last school year?" The results of students Involved in the group and individual counseling groups are presented separately. The control group students were not asked this question as they did not receive any counseling during the period of the project. 216 Of the group oounseleea in the project twenty-five indicated that they enjoyed the entire process while seven specifically men tioned their enjoyment of the free discussion. Nine stated that they felt that they had gained considerable insight into the behavior of themselves and others. They stated further that they felt less alone as a result of the group counseling experience. Two students indi cated that the group counseling process had helped them to get better grades while eight stated that they were not certain whether or not it helped them. Nine students indicated that their primary motiva tion to go into group counseling was getting out of class. Of the individual counselees twenty-eight indicated a general appreciation of the counseling received while eight stated they had gained insight into themselves and had been challenged by knowing their ability level. Two students stated that it helped them under stand their parents more clearly while eight stated that they were not certain that it had helped them. Three students indicated that their motivation was getting out of class while five stated they simply did not care for the counseling received. These two groups were also asked, "If you have found it to be helpful, why was it helpful?" "If you did not find it to be helpful, why was it not helpful?" The group counselees stated that they found that others had similar problems which was of great help to them. This particular aspect was mentioned by eight of the students. Ten of the students in group counseling indicated that they felt they had gained insight into themselves, and how others had felt about 21? them. They indicated that the group counseling experience had helped them in their ability to receive criticism. Three of the students stated they gained a feeling of importance by being included in the project while two specifically stated their appreciation of having gained release. Eight students stated that they felt the group coun seling procedure had helped them gain friends and helped them get over being shy. Seven indicated that this process had helped them learn to express their feelings toward themselves and toward others with ease. Six students stated that the group counseling process had made them realize their need to study and to understand teachers. Students also stated they felt better about the school situa tion because there was someone they could talk to and who would listen to them. One student stated that "I had the best talk I've ever had with my dad about this group." The group counseling students had only two negative comments to make. One student stated that he couldn't see how he was being helped by the group process and one student stated that he had diffi culty talking in front of the group. The individual counselees stated some similar feelings regard ing the helpfulness of their project. Ten students indicated that they had gained self-insight and had become increasingly critical of their own actions. Four indicated that this had been the first time they had known their ability and that it had helped them to gain self- confidence. Eleven indicated that this process had helped to improve their attitude towards school while five indicated that their grades 218 had improved as a result of individual counseling. Two students stated that the individual counseling had helped them blow off steam and to control their tempers. Five of the students indicated that for the first time that they had felt someone in the school situation was interested in what they thought and what they felt. There were four negative comments regarding the counseling. Two stated that they felt they needed to meet more often with the counselor and that there was little carry-over. Two students stated that they had known all the things before that were discussed with the counselor. Parents Each parent was asked, "Has your son expressed any feelings toward the counseling he has received during the last six months?" The parents of group counselees stated that twenty-three of the stu dents had expressed interest and enthusiasm while six had specifically mentioned that they had found that others had similar problems. One stated that his son had expressed his appreciation of the interest shown in him by being singled out for the group counseling project while eighteen parents stated their children had made no expression concerning the group counseling situation. Three parents volunteered that their sons had become happier and somewhat more aggressive in the heme situation since the group counseling process had begun. The results of interviews with parents of individual counse lees showed that eighteen students had expressed interest and enthu siasm regarding their counseling in the home situation. Appreciation 219 of being singled out for counseling had been indicated by two students while seventeen had given no expression of feeling regarding counsel ing in the hone. Six students had mentioned that they had disliked the counseling received. The parents of three students volunteered that they had felt counseling had been beneficial for their sons. In comparing the two groups in this area it appeared that group counselees stated with greater frequency that they shared simi lar problems with others and that they had gained insight into, and acceptance by, their peers. There was also greater freedom of ex pression of feelings toward one1s self and toward others among the group counselees. The individual counselees indicated a somewhat greater number of responses along academic lines such as improved attitude toward school. Summary One hundred and thirty-three students were interviewed in this section of the study. This total number is composed of forty-four members of the group counseling project, forty-five members of the individual counseling project, forty-four control group members. One hundred and twenty-nine parents were also interviewed. Forty-three parents of each of the three types of group interviewed were included in this total. The findings from the structured interview in the area of homework indicated that there was a great deal of long-term negative feeling regarding homework with particular animosity expressed toward "busy work." Many students who were doing more work at the present 220 time stated that their primary reason in doing more was not increased appreciation of homework but primarily the necessity of graduating from one of the three levels represented. Parents reported an approximate ratio of two to one as to negative and indifferent feelings as compared to positive feelings regarding homework. Parents also reported that two to one ratio as to necessity of pushing students to complete their homework assign ments. The group and individual counseling groups showed more posi tive change in attitude toward homework. Otherwise, there were no basic differences between groups in this area. In the area of educational and vocational goals, both students and parents report approximately fifty-seven per cent of the students in the project are college bound. Approximately twenty per cent of the parents were unaware of their sons' educational-vocational goals as compared to seven per cent of the boys stating they were unaware of their educational-vocational goals; seventy-eight per cent of the boys reported that they felt their parents agreed with their choice, while only fifty-nine p>er cent of the parents reported agreement. This difference is significant at the .01 level. There again did not appjear to be any other basic differences between groups in this area. In the area of routine responsibility, all but eight of the students reported some routine responsibility within the home. The students reported a median age of beginning responsibilities of seven while the median age reported by parents was six. Fifty-one por cent of the parents reported that they thought that their sons accepted 221 responsibilities readily within the home while fifty-five per cent of the parents reported that some form of badgering was necessary in order to have their sons carry out these responsibilities. There did not appear to be significant difference between the groups in recent change in attitude toward routine responsibilities. In terms of expression of feelings fifty-one per cent of the group counseling group, fifty-one per cent of the individual counsel ing group, and fifty-five per cent of the control groups reported that they had difficulty in expressing feelings within their home. A sig nificantly higher report of increased freedom of expressions was seen in the group counseling group, who reported improvement in seventy per cent of the cases as opposed to forty per cent and forty-one per cent reported in the other two groups. This difference is signifi cant at the .01 level. This significant difference was also apparent in the report by parents, in that the parents of group counselees Indicated that a fifty-seven per cent change toward increased freedom of expression occurred, the individual counseling group of parents reported twenty-nine per cent and the control group parents twenty per cent change. This difference is also significant at the .01 level. Parents reported a greater amount of both positive and negative change with students involved in the group counseling project. Only nine per cent of the parents of group counselees reported no change, thirty-three per cent of the individual counselees' parents and forty-one per cent of the control groups' parents reported no change. 222 This difference is significant at the .01 level. Group counselees reported more feelings regarding insight into* and acceptance by, peers and greater expression of feelings toward themselves. They also mention with greater frequency that others have similar problems as compared to the individual counseling and control groups. The individual counselees made a somewhat higher number of responses that indicated they had received encouragement in the area of academic work. Parents reported that a somewhat larger number of students reported enjoying a group counseling experience as opposed to individual counseling. No group counselees indicated negative feelings toward the counseling they received while six stu dents who received individual counseling stated that they had disliked it. CHAPTER VIII DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS The chapter attempts to evaluate the findings and procedures used in this investigation. The major areas of discussion will be Q sort procedure, grade-point average results, student and parent interview results, and subjective judgments of the three participating school psychologists. Q Sort Procedure Possible Reasons for Q Sort Findings 1. One very definite possibility for the correlation findings was the student resistance to the Q sort procedure. In this procedure there is no way of ascertaining students' attitudes in taking the test or of determining the degree of resistance to the testing situation. There was open verbal resistance on the part of a few students and it is quite likely that there was considerable resistance on a more subtle level with others. 2. Several authors writing in the area of Q sort procedure have indicated that a period of one semester is probably not a long enough period to effect measurable change. Since the study was exactly one semester in length it is possible that this is one reason for the somewhat negative findings. 223 224 3. There is the definite possibility that the group leaders of the six group counseling groups were not effective in their roles and therefore the results reflect their inadequacy. 4. There is a possibility that this particular Q sort proce dure and group counseling procedure is not effective with students with the problem of being able underachievers. As a group the study population appeared to be somewhat more resistant than the general population which may have had a negative effect upon the Q sort pro cedure . 5. Several writers and self theorists have stated that the Q sort procedure is actually not a measure of self-concept but of self- report. If this were true, the Q sort procedure would reflect only those conscious qualities of the self that the individual wished to report. Most self theorists seem to hold that self-concept change is a slow and subtle process much of which occurs at the unconscious level. If this were the case, less change would be noticeable in the Q sort procedure. 6. Since the Q sort procedure used in this study was limited to fifty statements, it is possible that the results were controlled by the instrument itself, and the results were not a true reflection of change in self-concept as a whole. 7. Some self theorists also contend that self-concept change depends more upon intrapersonal factors than interpersonal factors. If this were true, then the different interpersonal approaches used in this project would not be meaningful and, therefore, the results 225 that were obtained would be expected. 8. Perhaps one of the most likely possibilities is that many students involved in this project had no felt need for counseling. Since there was little motivation for change on the part of many project members, it is not too surprising that little change occurred. 9. There is the possibility that as young people became more overt with their feelings, hopefully as a result of counseling re ceived, that they became more openly hostile to the Q sort procedure. If this possibility be true, then this would be another possible explanation for negative results. 10. A number of students indicated that they had particular difficulty in assuming the role of the teacher and the parent in determining what the student was most like and unlike. If this were true of the group as a whole, it would have had a definite effect upon the correlations in these two areas. 11, As a strictly mechanical problem some of the sixth grade children had difficulty understanding some of the Q sort statements and students at even higher levels had difficulty in dealing with negatively worded statements. Evaluation of Q Sort Procedure 1. The Q sort procedure lends itself easily to group adminis tration and is readily understandable to most students. 2. The Q sort procedure was quite interesting to a number of students who were interested in learning the results of their parti cular tests. 226 3. Pupil resistance was quite strong with a number of the project members, particularly on the final sorting. It appears to be an essential weakness of the Q sort pro cedure that there is no way of ascertaining a student's attitude while taking the test since there is no verbalization. 5. A particular source of frustration to the investigator in dealing with the Q sort procedure was that there was no easy way to report the results of the Q sort to either students or parents. 6. Marked shifts of certain test items from one testing to another are covered up by overall correlations, and it is a very laborious process to evaluate the movement of each item. 7. There is no easy manner of dealing with the data of the Q sort procedure in that it either involves the use of a computer or a laborious hand process. The Butler Q-Sort used in this investigation was difficult for some sixth graders, and its negative statements gave difficulty to students at all levels. 8. The Parent and Teacher sorts are rather questionable in that students had difficulty in identifying to these two roles and a number of items did not readily fit into these frames of reference. Grade-Point Average Results Evaluation of Grade-Point Average Findings In the final results there were six positive changes in grade point average reported and six negative changes. No significant change occurred with the total group, but three occurred with sub 227 groups. All three in ninth grade groups showed negative change with the control and group counseling groups showing significant change at the .05 level. All three of the sixth grade groups showed positive change with the individual counseling group being significant at the .05 level. Eleventh grade groups and total groups showed either slight positive or negative change with very little difference being apparent between the various groups. Possible Reasons for Lack of Change 1. The time span between the calculated grade-point averages of one year, considering a student's overall academic career, was a relative short period of time. As several studies have shown, early academic patterns seem to continue throughout a student's career. 2. The teacher variable is another possible reason behind apparent lack of change in that teacher judgment is often based on factors other than student's ability to perform in a given subject. It is possible with these students that their reputations played a large part in the grading practices of teachers. 3. There is a definite possibility that the group process, which seems to result in more acting out on the part of students, reduced acceptance on the part of teachers and actually would tend to lower academic grades. Results of Student and Parent Interviews The findings from the structured interviews concerning home work certainly have implications for classroom teachers. It appeared 228 that the students in the study population considered a great deal of their hone work as being unessential and falling under the general heading of "busy work." Both parents and students reported that the majority of the projeot members' feelings toward homework had become progressively negative throughout their school careers. It was found that two-thirds of the parents held that it was necessary to push their students to complete honework assignments. Possibly many stu dents punish their parents by initially failing to do their homework and secondly causing their parents to become upset in forcing them to do it. This result would tie in rather well with the evaluation of the three psychologists during the initial individual testing that showed that one of the most common reasons for students underachieving seemed to be a need to punish their parents. In the area of educational-vocational goals it became apparent that communication between these students and their parents was some what lacking. Twenty per cent of the parents felt their sons did not have a present educational-vocational goal while only seven per cent of the boys say that this was the case. This lack of communication was also evident in the fact that seventy-eight per cent of the boys reported that their parents agreed with their choice while only fifty- nine per cent of the parents reported agreement. Probably the most significant finding in this study was the higher number of group counselees who reported they increased their ability to express their feelings within the school and within the home, as compared to the individual counselees and the control 229 subjects. While this finding Is significant In terms of the mental health of the subjects involved, It possibly had adverse effects on letter grades received. The parents of group oounselees reported a greater amount of both positive and negative change In their students. It mas apparent that these students had become more "acting-out" In their behavior and probably more honest In their expression. Another significant finding of this study was the greater number of reports by group counselees concerning their Insight Into, and acceptance by, their peers and also their ability to express feelings more freely toward themselves and others. Subject- - * ™ ■Tndgi w ents of the Three Participating School Psychologists Comparing Group and Individual Counseling The three psychologists who conducted all of the group and individual counseling were in agreement as to the superior rapport established in the group counseling situation. There simply was no comparison as to how well the group leader got to know students In the group counseling situation compared to the students in the indi vidual counseling situation. It was quite apparent that in the group situation, with the greater amount of time involved, a greater number of topics were discussed as compared to the individual counseling situation. It was felt that group counselees more often were able to bring up areas to be discussed which were of vital importance to them. This usually occurred as a result of being stimulated by another student's statements. The difference between the roles played by the counselees in 230 the individual situation as compared to the group was striking. Many students who were quiet, subdued, and cooperative in the Individual situation became quite aggressive and hostile in the group. The opposite was also true with a number of students. One of the real strengths of group counseling which became apparent was the reality- testing the boys afforded each other. Group counselees simply would not allow each other to get by with statements which could not be substantiated. While the psychologists felt strongly that the group approach was superior in many ways, all agreed that adjunctive individual counseling was essential. There were certain basic handicaps in the group counseling situation imposed by the matching required in the project. The matching reduced the flexibility of movement in and out of the group that made it difficult to work out a more balanced group situation. Fortunately, however, this did not appear to be a major problem as most groups were relatively well balanced through the matching process. Another handicap imposed by the project was the lack of parent contact. This was done purposely to keep this variable at a minimum. In the regular school situation it would be more desirable to work closely with the parents of students who are working in the various counseling situations in an effort to keep them apprised as to how they could support this counseling in the home situation. Another definite handicap in this particular study was that a number of stu dents were chosen to participate who had shown no felt need for 231 counseling or for change. It is fairly well accepted in various theoretical approaches to counseling that a felt need is required before a change takes place. This lack of need worked a real hardship on both the group and individual counseling situations since many of the students appeared to have very little interest in being counseled. Of the three levels counseled the three school psychologists seemed to agree that the ninth grade groups were probably the most enjoyable with which to work and that they had shown the most change in the group counseling situation. The sixth grade groups seemed to be the most frustrating in that they were very hard to channel in terms of their verbalization. It appeared that they had a much greater need for direction than the older groups, as they had not reached the level of sophistication necessary to verbalize their feelings adequately. If too much anxiety was mobilized, they tended to act this out physically rather than to verbalize it. It was felt by the group leaders that these groups should be more controlled, have shorter meeting periods, and have fewer meeting periods than the older groups. It was found that the group counseling situations in which role playing was used were the most successful in terms of insight and movement. Several of the groups seemed to reach a peak of interest about the tenth week, and after that the interest gradually slackened. Several boys in the group counseling project had good friends that were in the group also. This seemed to inhibit their participation in the group and should be a definite consideration in 232 setting up groups in the future. Although this factor was considered in the original matching, it was not possible to eliminate all friend ship combinations from group counseling situations. The group counseling experience reinforced the position of the three school psychologists that the group leader should be active and interpretive in his role in a group and that he should be a partici pant. Flexibility is desirable both in terras of number of meetings and also in the length of the meeting time. There were some days when the group simply did not appear to be able to function while on other days they were able to function very well and the hour period seemed to be somewhat short. By comparison the individual counseling sessions seemed rather stilted and sterile as compared to the group counseling sessions. Again, one of the basic reasons for this seemed to be that many of the students did not feel any need to receive counseling concerning their lack of achievement. However, several students were very posi tive in their feelings toward the individual counseling and stated this had been the first time they really had been able to sit down and discuss their plans with a school person over a period of time. It was felt by the three psychologists that one of the most beneficial aspects of the entire project was the group counseling received by the counselors and psychologists from Dr. Everett Shostrom. By being able to participate in an actual group it was felt that the participants learned a great deal about the group process and that when they in turn used this in school they 233 exhibited a considerable degree of insight into the assumptions under lying group counseling and the techniques in employing it. It was hoped by those who participated in the group counseling group that this type of experience would be available to other administrators in the school district both for their own personal benefit and for their probably increased understanding of various counseling proce dures. CHAPTER IX SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This final chapter summarizes the purposes, method, and find ings of the study, presents the conclusions based on the data, and suggests recommendations for further research. Summary Purposes This experimental study sought to ascertain whether group or individual counseling, if either, with able underachievers was a more effective means of modifying counselee's self-concept. A second pur pose of this study was to see whether group counseling was a more efficient use of counselor's time in terms of end results. Method All fifth, eighth, and tenth grade male students of the Santa Ana Unified School District were screened during the latter part of the Spring 1961 semester to ascertain whether they met the criteria of being able underachievers on the basis of group testing results. Those boys receiving group I.Q. scores of 110 or above and receiving academic grade-point averages of "C" or less were then tested by one of the three district school psychologists. Students were accepted into the project on the basis of individual scores of 110 or higher 235 on * Wechaler Full Scale I.Q. Each student was rated on the fire point scale for degree of overt hostility and for degree of overt anxiety shown. They were also rated on a three point scale for degree of emotional maturity. All information was placed on cards and the investigator matched two group counseling groups, two individual counseling groups, and two control groups on each grade level of the study, using the following factors: (1) I. Q., (2) Racial group, (3) Chronological age* (4) language background, (5) Sex, (6) Anxiety level, (7) Emo tional maturity, (8) Degree of aggressiveness, (9) Achievement test results, (10) Academic grade-point average, (11) Father's occupation. During the individual testing each student was interviewed by a school psychologist and was told about the forthcoming project. The 144 project members and the eight reserve members were given the initial Butler Q-Sort during the first two weeks of the second quarter of the Fall semester of 1961. They were given the four sorts, Real Self, Ideal Self, Teacher Self, and Parent Self, in two sittings with a week interval between the sittings. The actual counseling phase of the project began during the third week of the second quarter of the Fall semester of 1961. The sixth grade counseling groups began meeting for one hour per week with each of the three district school psychologists meeting with two of the group counseling groups. These weekly meetings continued uninterrupted with the exception of Christmas vacation for sixteen weeks. During the sixteen week period each of the group counselees 236 received two half-hour adjunctive counseling interviews. During this sane period of time the individual counselees received three one-hour counseling interviews and the control group members received no coun seling. The sixteen one-hour meetings with each group of eight group counselees plus two half-hour adjunctive interviews equalled the three hours of counselor time received by the individual counselees. Com parable major topics were covered in the group and individual counsel ing periods with particular emphasis placed on the number of possible reasons for able students underachieving. A considerable amount of time was also spent exploring project member's feelings toward various aspects of the school and home situation. At the end of the third quarter of the school year 1961-62 which concluded this project, all members were again given the Butler Self-Concept Q-Sort in two sittings. Each project member and his parent was given a structured interview by a counselor who was not actively involved in the counseling aspect of the project. The grade- point averages of students were calculated at the end of the school year. Findings The hypothesis that group counseling will be associated with positive change in self-concept was not tenable. On the basis of Q sort findings, when compared to the control group, the group coun seling group did not show any significant t-ratioa in its favor while the control group was significantly superior in fifteen categories and sub-categories. 23? The hypothesis that individual counseling will be associated with positive change in self-concept was not tenable. As in the case of the group counselees, the control group appeared superior to the individual counselees in that it showed seven significant t-ratios in its favor while the individual counseling group had only two. The hypothesis that group counseling will be associated with improvement in grade-point average of counselees is not tenable. The group counselees1 final grade-point average as compared to its initial grade-point average was .03 lower. The hypothesis that individual counseling will be associated with improvement in grade-point average of counselees was not tenable. Although the individual counselees' grade-point average raised .06 as a group, this difference was not significantly higher. The hypothesis that group counseling will be associated with more positive change in self-concept than individual counseling when counselor time is held constant is not tenable. While the only sub- category showing a significant t-ratio was in favor of the group counselees, as a total group the group counselees exhibited only nineteen positive t-ratios while the individual counselees showed thirty-six in their favor. The hypothesis that group counseling will be associated with greater improvement in grade-point averages than individual counseling when counselor time is held constant is not tenable. During the period of the project group counselees' mean grade-point average dropped .03 while the individual counselees1 mean grade-point average 238 raised .06. The findings from the 133 student interviews and the 129 parent interviews showed that most of the students involved in the project have had long ter* negative views toward the homework aspect of the school situation. They seemed to feel that a great deal of homework was assigned as "busy work" and had no valid function. The ratio of students disliking homework to those liking homework was approximately two to one. This same ratio held in terms of parents feeling about the necessity of pushing their sons to complete their homework assign ments . In the area of educational-vocational goals both students and parents reported approximately fifty-seven per cent of the students were college bound. Twenty per cent of the parents stated they were unaware of their son's educational-vocational goals as compared to seven per cent of the boys stating they were unaware of their present goals. Seventy-eight per cent of the boys reported they felt their parents were in agreement with their present educational-vocational choice, while only fifty-nine per cent of the parents reported agree ment. This difference is significant at the .01 level. All but eight of the students reported some routine responsi bilities within the home situation. The students reported a median beginning age for responsibilities of seven, while the parents re ported a median age of six. Fifty-one per cent of the parents re ported that they thought their sons accepted responsibility readily within the home, while fifty-five per cent of the parents reported 239 some form of badgering was necessary in order to have their sons carry out these responsibilities. In terms of expressions of feelings fifty-one per cent of the group counseling group, fifty-one per cent of the individual counsel ing group, and fifty-four per cent of the control groups reported that they had difficulty in expressing their feelings within the home. A significantly higher number of group counselees reported increased freedom of expression in the hone situation as compared to the other two groups. This difference was also apparent in the reports by parents. Parents of group counselees indicated that fifty-seven per cent showed change toward increased freedom of expression, the indi vidual counseling group reported twenty-nine per cent, and the control group twenty per cent. This difference is also significant at the .01 level. The parents of group counselees reported a greater amount of both positive and negative change in their sons which seems to indi cate that there is considerably more acting-out among group coun selees . The difference in this area was also significant at the .01 level. The group counselees reported more feelings regarding insight into and acceptance by peers and greater expression of feelings toward himself. They also mentioned with great frequency that others have similar problems, as compared to the individual and control groups. The individual counselees made a somewhat higher number of responses indicating encouragement in that area of academic achievement. 240 Conclusiona The conclusions of this study apply only to the population of able underachievers from which the sample was drawn and to the meas uring instruments which have been used. Additional investigation is necessary before these findings can be considered applicable to other populations. Conclusions Relating to the Hypothesis 1. Group counseling for a sixteen week period is not associated with positive change in self-concept as measured by the Butler Q-Sort. This conclusion is based on the finding that the group counselees actually showed somewhat less change than either the individual coun selees or the control group as measured by the Butler Q-Sort. 2. Individual counseling over a sixteen week period is not associated with positive change in self-concept as measured by the Butler Q-Sort. This conclusion is based on the finding that the con trol group actually showed superior change to individual counselees as a total group, although this superiority was not significant sta tistically. 3. Group counseling is not associated with the raising of grade-point average of counselees during a sixteen week period. 4. Individual counseling is not associated with the raising of grade-point average of counselees during a sixteen week period. 5. Group counseling is not associated with more positive change in self-concept than individual counseling when counselor time is held constant. While the results in this area were not significant 241 in either direction, they were more positive t-ratios in the direction of individual counselees than with group counselees. 6. Group counseling is not associated with more improvement in grade-point average of counselees than individual counseling when counselor tine is held constant. During the period of the project group counselees' mean grade-point average dropped .03 while the in dividual counselees* mean grade-point average raised .06. Conclusions Relating to Student and Parent Interviews 1. The majority of able underachievers show a long term nega tive attitude toward homework much of which they consider to be "busy- work." 2. Approximately two-thirds of the parents interviewed felt it was necessai*y to force their sons to complete their homework assign ments . 3* In the area of educational-vocational goals it was apparent that there is considerable lack of communication between parents and their sons based on the fact that there was disagreement as to whether or not students had definite educational-vocational goals. It was also apparent in that a greater number of students reported their parents were in agreement with their choice than reported by the parents themselves. 4. Group counselees showed significantly greater increase in freedom to discuss feelings within the home situation as reported by both students and parents. This difference was significant at the .01 level as compared to the individual counselees and control group 242 members. 5* Group counselees showed a greater amount of change in both positive and negative directions as reported by parents. This differ ence as compared to the other two groups was also significant at the ,01 level. 6, Group counselees appeared to gain greater insight into them selves and into their peer relationships as compared to the individual counselees based upon the number and type of responses in the struc tured interviews. Recommendations for Further Research 1, It was felt by those participating in this project that the group counseling approach has great possibilities in the public school setting. It needs to be examined further with other types of stu dents, other types of problems, and with various approaches. A few suggestions would be with lower ability students with truancy prob lems, students with withdrawing tendencies, and students with anti social behavior patterns. 2, The small group approach should also be explored further in group test interpretation and with other routine guidance functions. 3. There remains a definite need for validation of Q sort items and indeed still a great need to validate the entire Q sort procedure. 4. The position of some self-theorists that interpersonal factors have little effect upon self-concept needs to be studied further in that this would reduce the effectiveness of the whole counseling approach if it proved to be accurate. 243 5. Additional study should be done concerning the value of homework and particularly studying the amount of homework which is actually valid to the student in terma of the raastezy of a given sub ject. Along the same line the effect on student attitude and the resulting effects on grades should also be studied. 6. The lack of communication that was evident in this project between parent and student could be studied further to see if it is typical with the entire student population or only with particular sub-groups. 7. If the group counseling process is effective in freeing students in terms of expression of their feelings, the effects of such increased freedom of communication of student's academic grades should be studied further. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Anastasi, Anne, and Foley, John P, Differential Psychology. New York: The Macmillan Company, 195^ Revised. Ausubel, David P. Ego Development and the Personality Disorders. New York: Gmne and Stratton, 1952. Bach, George R. Intensive Group Psychotherapy. Ronalds Press, 195^. Bennett, Margaret E. Guidance in Groups. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1953• Combs, A. W., and Snygg, B. Individual Behavior: A Perceptual Approach to Behavior. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959* Corsini, Raymond J. Methods of Group Psychotherapy. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957. DeHaan, Robert F., and Havighurst, Robert J. Educating Gifted Children. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19^1. Driver, Helen, et al. Counseling and Learning Through Small Group Discussion. Monona Publications, 1958. Edwards, A. L. The Social Desirability Factor in Personality Assess ment and Research. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1957. Gorlow, Leon, et al. The Nature of Non-Directive Group Therapy. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952. Hall, C. S., and Lindzey, G. Theories of Personality. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1957. Hoppock, Robert. Group Guidance. Principles. Techniques, and Evalua tion. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 19^9* Jersild, A. T. In Search of Self. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952. Lecky, Prescott. Self Consistency. New York: Island Press Coopera tive ., Inc., 19^5• ZK5 Zk6 Lorand, Sandor. Psychoanalysis Today: Its Scope and Function. Mew York: Covici-Friede Publishers, 1933* Lord, Frederick M. Prediction of Scholastic Achievement from Non- cognitive Factors. Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1950. McDaniel, Henry B. Guidance in the Modern School. New York: The Dryden Press, 1956. Mead, George. Mind. Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 193V • Mullahy, Patrick. Oedipus: Myth and Complex. New York: Hermitage Press, Inc., 19V8. Murphy, Gardner. Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers, 19V?. Redl, Frits, and Wineman, David. Children Who Hate. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1951. Rogers, Carl R. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1951. _______ , and Dymond, Rosalind F. Psychotherapy and Personality Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 195**• Sherif, Muzafer, and Cantril, Hadley. The Psychology of Ego Involve ments . New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 19V?. Slavson, S. R. An Introduction to Group Therapy. International Universities Press, I960. Stephenson, William. The Study of Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Strang, Ruth. Group Work in Education. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958. Thompson, Clara. Psychoanalysis: Evolution and Development. New York: Hermitage House, 1950- Traxler, Arthur E. Techniques of Guidance. Revised ed. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Wylie, Ruth C. The Self Concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. 247 Articles and Periodicals Alexander, A. M. "Teacher Judgment of Pupil Intelligence and Achieve ment is Not Enough,” Elementary School Journal. LIII (1943), pp. 396-401. Allport, G, W. "The Ego in Contemporary Psychology," Psychological Review, L (1943). PP. 451-78. Alexrod, P. L., and Solomon, J, C. "Group Psychotherapy for With drawn Adolescents," American Journal of the Disturbed Child, LXVTII (1944), pp. 84-92. Bard, James H., and Creelman, Marjorie B. "Parent Education in a Group Therapy Setting," International Journal of Group Psycho therapy. IV, No. 4, pp. 429-36. Barrett, H. 0. "An Intensive Study of Thirty-Two Gifted Children," Personnel and Guidance Journal. XXXVI (1957). pp. 192-94. Battle, H. F. "Relations Between Personal Values and Scholastic Achievement," Journal of Experimental Education. XXVI (1957), pp. 27-41. Bills, R. E., Vance, E, L., and McLean, 0. S. "An Index of Adjust ment and Values," Journal of Consulting Psychology XV (1951). P. 137. Bilovsky, David. "Individual and Group Counseling," Personnel and Guidance Journal. DXXXI (1953). PP« 363-65- Blake, R. R., and Mouton, J. S. "Personality," Annual Review of Psychology. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1959. Bower, E. M., and Tashnovian, P. J. "Q-Methodology: An Application Investigating Changes in Self and Ideal-Self in a Mental Health Workshop," California Journal of Educational Research. VI (November, 1955). p. 203- Bowman, Paul H. "Freeing Capacity to Learn," Papers and Reports from the Fourth ASCD Research Institute. Washington, D.C.: Associa tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development, A Department of the National Education Association. Brandt, R. M. "Self: Missing Link for Understanding Behavior," Mental Hygiene. XLI (January, 1957). pp* 24-33. Broedel, J., Ohlsen, M., and Proff, F. "The Effects of Group Coun seling on Gifted Adolescent Underachievers.” (Paper read in Aaerican Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., August 29, 248 1958.) Brosa, Rachel B. "The Family Unit in Group Psychotherapy," Inter national Journal of Group Psychotherapy. IV, No, 4, pp. 393-408. Brownfain, J. J. "Stability of the Self-Concept as a Dimension of Personality," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. XLVII (1952), p. 597. Carter, Harold D. "Over-achievers and Under-achievers in the Junior High School, " California Journal of Educational Research, XU, No, 2 (March, 1961), p. 56. Carter, Robert S. "How Invalid are Marks Assigned by Teachers?" Journal of Educational Psychology. XLIII (1952), pp. 218-28. Chodorkoff, B. "Adjustment and the Discrepancy between the Perceived and Ideal Self," Journal of Clinical Psychology. X (March, 1954), p. 26?. Cole, C. C., Jr. "Encouraging Scientific Talent," College Entrance Examination Board (New York, 1956), p. 31. Conklin, Agnes. "Failure of Highly Intelligent Pupils," Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York: The Macmillan Company, 19^0. Curry, Robert L. "Certain Characteristics of Underachievers and Over achievers," Peabody Journal of Education. XXXIX, No. 1 (July, 1961). pp. 41-45. Dai, Bingham. "A Socio-Psychiatric Approach to Personality Organiza tion," American Sociclogical Review. XVII (1952), pp. 44-49. Dulles, Robert J. "The Kyth of Underachievement," The Journal of Educational Sociology. XXXV, No. 3 (November, 19^1).pp. 121-22. Engle, Thelbum L. "Achievement of Pupils Who Have Had Double Promo tions in Elementary School," Elementary School Journal. XXXVI (1935), PP. 185-89. Fabian, Abraham A. "Group Treatment of Chronic Patients in a Child Guidance Clinic," International Journal of Group Psychotherapy. IV, No. 3, PP. 243-52. Fleming, Louise, and Snyder, William. "Social and Personal Changes Following Non-Directive Group Play Therapy," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. XVII (1947), pp. 101-116. Frank, G. H. "Note on the Reliability of Q Sort Data," Psychological Report. II (February, 1956), pp. 159-65. 249 Frankel, Edward. "A Comparative Study of Achieving and Underachieving High School Boys of High Intellectual Ability," Journal of Educa tional Research. LIII, No. 5 (January, I960), p. 177. Froehlich, Clifford P. "Must Counseling be Individual?" Educational and Psychological Measurement. XVIII, No. 4 (Winter, 1958)» pp. 681-89. _______ . "Stars, Parsons and Clients," Personnel and Guidance Journal. XXXVI (1957), PP. 10-16. Gabriel, Betty. "Group Treatment for Adolescent Girls," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. XIV (1944), pp. 493-616. Gowan, John C. "Dynamics of the Underachievement of Gifted Stu dents," Exceptional Children. XXIV (1957), pp. 98-101. _______ . "The Underachieving Gifted Child— A Problem for Everyone," Exceptional Children. XXI, No. 7 (April, 1955). pp. 247-49. Grater, H. "Changes in Self and Other Attitudes in a Leadership Training Program," Personnel and Guidance Journal. XXXVII (March, 1959). P. 496. Gruenwald, Hanna. "Group Counseling in a Case Work Agency," Inter national Journal of Group Psychotherapy. IV, No. 2, pp. 23-192. Haggard, Ernest A. "Socialisation, Personality and Academic Achieve ment in Gifted Children," School Review. LXX (Winter, 1957). pp. 388-414. Hilgard, Ernest R. "Human Motives and the Concept of Self," American Psychologist. IV (September, 1949), pp. 374-82. Jersild, A. T. "Self Understanding in Childhood and Adolescence," The American Psychologist VI (1951). pp. 122-26. Jourard, Sidney M., and Remy, Richard M. "Perceived Parental Atti tudes, the Self and Security," Journal of Consulting Psychology. XIX (1955). pp. 364-66. Kirk, Barbara. "Test Versus Academic Performance in Malfunctioning Students," Journal of Counseling Psychology. XVI (1952), pp. 213-216. Kotkov, Benjamin. "The Group as a Training Device for a Girls1 School Training School Staff," International Journal of Group Psycho therapy. IV, No. 2, pp. 193-98. 250 Kurtz, John J., and Swensen, Esther J. "Factors Related to Over achievement and Underachievement in School," School Review (1951). p. 4?2. Lawton, M. Powell. "Stimulus Structure as a Determinant of the Per ceptual Response,” Journal of Consulting Psychology. XX (1956), P. 355. Liddle, Gordon P. "An Evaluation of Special Classes for the Mentally Handicapped in the Area of Mental Health," Exceptional Children. (Accepted for publication.) Livson, N, H,, and Nichols, T. F. "Discrimination and Reliability in Q Sort Personality Descriptions," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LII (January, 1956), pi 1^5• Lowry, Lawson G. "Group Therapy: Special Section Meeting," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. XIII (19^-3). PP. 648-81. Maier, Henry W., and Loomis, Earl A. "Effecting Impulse Control in Children through Group Therapy," International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, IV, No. 3. PP« 312-20. Manis, M. "Social Interaction and the Self-Concept," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LI (November, 1955), P* 370. Margulies, H. "Rorschach Responses of Achieving and Nonachieving College Students," Archives of Psychology. CCLXXI (1942), pp. 1-16. McCandless, B. R. "The Rorschach as a Predictor of Academic Success," Journal of Applied Psychology. I (1933). PP» 41-50. Michael-Smith, H., Gottsegen, Monroe, and Gottsegen, Gloria. "A Group Technique for Mental Retardates," International Journal of Group Psychotherapy. V, No. 1, pp. 84-90. Mulligan, Raymond A. "Socio-Economic Background and College Enroll ment," American Sociological Review. XVI (1951), PP* 188-96. Owens, W. A., and Johnson, W. C. "Some Measured Personality Tests of Collegiate Underachievers," Journal of Educational Psychology. I (1940), pp. 41-46. Passow, A. Harry, and Goldberg, Miriam. "Study of Underachieving Gifted," Educational Leadership. XVI (1958), pp. 121-25. Raths, James. "Underachievement and a Search for Values," The Jour nal of Educational Sociology. XXXIV, No. 9 (May, 1961), p. 423. 251 Rezler, A. G. "Personal Values and Achievement in College," Pereonnel and Guidance Journal (October, i960), pp. 137-43. Rosen, Bernard C. "Race, Ethnicity, and Achievement," American Socio logical Reviev. XXIV (1959), PP. 47-60. Russell, Ivan L., and Thalman, W, A. "Personality: Does It Influence Teachers' Marks?" Journal of Educational Research. XLVIII (1955). pp. 561-64. Sarbin, R. R. "A Preface to the Psychological Analysis of the Self," Psychological Review. LIX (January, 1952), pp. 11-12. Segel, David. "Frustration in Adolescent Youth," Bulletin No. 1. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1951, PP. 33-35. Shaw, Merville C., and McCuen, John T. "The Onset of Academic Under achievement in Bright Children," The Journal of Educational Psychology. LI, No. 3 (June, i960), p. 179• _______ , and Grubb, J. "Hostility and Able High School Underachiev ers," Journal of Counseling Psychology. V (1958), PP. 263-266. _______ , and Brown, D. J. "Scholastic Underachievement of Bright College Students," Personnel and Guidance Journal. XXXVI (1957), pp. 195-99. Smith, Mark C. "Underachieving Gifted Pupils in Junior High School," Journal of Secondary Education. XXXVI, No. 2 (February, 1961), pp. 80-81. Stagner, R. "The Relation of Personality to Academic Aptitude and Achievement," Journal of Educational Research. XXVI (1933), pp. 648-60. Taulbee, Calloway, Isacksen, Roy, Veit, Charles, and Woodbury, Stephen. "How Can We Better Motivate the Underachiever and the Indifferent Student?" The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. XLIV (April. I960). pp. 174-80. Thompson, Lorin. "Personal History, Intelligence and Academic Achievement," Journal of Social Psychology. V (193^0, PP. 500-506. Uhlinger, Carroll A., and Stephens, Mark W. "Relation of Achievement Motivation to Academic Achievement in Students of Superior Ability," Journal of Educational Psychology. LI, No. 5 (October, I960), pp. 259-266. 252 U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Bulletin. "Guidance for the Underachiever with Superior Ability," No, 25 (1961). Wallen, R. W. "Ego Involvement as a Determinant of Selective For getting," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. XXXVII (1942), pp. 20-39. Wedemeyer, Charles A. "Gifted Underachievers and Nonachievers," Journal of Higher Education. XXIV (1953). PP» 25-30. Winborn, Bob, and Schmidt, Louis G. "The Effectiveness of Short-Term Group Counseling upon the Academic Achievement of the Potentially Superior but Underachieving College Freshman," Journal of Educa tional Research. LV, No. 4 (December-January, 1962), pp. 169-73* Witty, Paul A., and Wilkins, Leroy W. "The Status of Acceleration or Grade Skipping as an Administrative Practice," Educational Administration Supervision. XIX (1933). PP* 321-46. Woolcock, Cyril W. "Needs of Gifted and Talented Students," School and Society. LXXXVIII, No. 2180 (November 5, I960), pp. 413-15- Woolf, Maurice D., and Woolf, Jeanne A. "The Case of the Tired Reader," The Personnel and Guidance Journal. XXXII (1955). pp. 294-9^ Wright, E. Wayne. "Multiple Counseling: Why, When, How?" Personnel and Guidance Journal. XXXVII (1959), pp. 551-5?. Unpublished Material Bailey, Bruce. "A Comparison of Multiple and Individual Counseling in Terms of Self-Knowledge." Unpublished Seminar Paper, Univer sity of California, Berkeley, 1955- Butler, John Joseph. "Differential Factors in the Self-Concepts of Overachieving, Underachieving, and Expected-Achieving Adoles cents." Unfxiblished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1957. Caplan, Stanley. "The Effect of Multiple Counseling on Junior High School Boys' Concept of Themselves and School." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1956. Davis, Donald A. "An Experimental Investigation of Group Guidance in a Secondary School," Unpublished Master's thesis, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1958. 253 Elliot, Robert T. "Group Counseling with Seventh and Eighth Grade Students." Unpublished Research paper, University of California, Berkeley, no date. Engel, M. "The Stability of the Self-Concept in Adolescence." Unpub lished Ph.D. dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1957, pp. 170-178. Feldman, Leonard. "Multiple Counseling: Factors Related to Improved Self-Knowledge." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, 1957. Hartley, M. "A Q-Technique Study of Changes in the Self-Concept during Therapy." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1951. Haymaker, H. J. "Relationship between the Self-Concept and Maladjust ment." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1956, p. 110. Hoff, George. "The Use of Q Sort Technique in Investigating Changes in Self-Concept and Self Adjustment During a General Psychology Course." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, i960. King, Louis J. "Activity Group Therapy with Three Groups of Selected Elementary School Children." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1958* McGhee, T. P. "The Stability of the Self Concept and Self Esteem." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1956. Robert, Lucille. "Findings from the Clinical Reports on the Behavior Problems of Gifted Children." Unpublished paper, 1952. Strodtbeck, F. L. "Implications of the Study of Family Interaction for the Prediction of Achievement." New Haven, Connecticut, 1953. (Mimeographed.) Walker, J. H. "The Relationships between Consistency of Attitude toward the Self and Personal Adjustment." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1956. Wright, E. Wayne. "A Comparison of Individual and Multiple Counseling in the Dissemination and Interpretation of Test Data." Unpub lished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1957. APPENDIXES APPENDIX A BUTLER Q-SORT STATEMENTS BUTLER Q-SORT CARD STATEMENTS 11. I an a leader in school activities. 12. I know how to study. 13. I obey n»y parents most of the time. 14. I get along well with my friends. 15. I'm slow to forgive people I'm mad at, but I finally do. 16. I'm afraid of making mistakes. 17. Teachers don't seem to like me. 21. I have a great deal of confidenoe in my abilities. 22. I'm stronger and healthier than most kids my age. 23. I'm seldom critical of other people. 24. Sometimes my parents are annoyed with me. 25. I need to develop more self-confidence. 26. I can't keep my mind on my studies. 27. I feel lonely even when I'm with people. 32. I'm courteous even when people are disagreeable. 33* I take part in sports or club activities at school. ,34. I'm usually on time for my classes. 35- I'm kind of loud or noisy at times. 36. I wish that I were as happy as others seem to be. 42. Our family has always had a lot of fun together. 43. I save some of my money for things I need or want. 44. I am considered about average in the things I do. 256 257 45. I spend too much time studying. 46. I don't think my parents trust rae. 52. I talk over personal problems with my parents. 53• I'd rather play games than sit around and watch them. 54. I'm interested in current events. 55. I don't like to exercise. 56. I find it hard to get acquainted with kids I'd like to have for friends. 62. I am invited to parties that the kids have. 63. I wouldn't want to be younger than I am now. 64. When something big or important is about to happen, I find it hard to go to sleep at night right away. 65. I usually do what I'm told but very little extra. 66. My parents compare me with other kids too much. 73* My parents let me decide many things for myself. 74. I like to go on picnics. 75. I'm restless in class. 83. I like to do more than my share of the work. 84. I don't mind school. 85. I hesitate to speak up in class. 93- I have good posture. 94. I like animals. 95* I don't go out of ray way to help others. 104. I'm pretty much like the rest of the kids. 114. I'm easy to please. 258 124. I need advice on what to do after high school. 134. I'm about average in looks. 144. I like to wear bright colors. 154. I sometimes can't help breaking into a conversation. 164. I have definite tasks or chores to do at home. APPENDIX B Q SORT TALLY SHEETS GP-ATS: 260 s I \ M r * M t«l GHAUX HAMI DAT'S______________________ A N S W E R S H E E T CODS NUMBER: SORT II (IS) Directions: In this sorting of statements, you are describing yourself not as you are, but as you would like to be. ROW NO. ' --— i I. Two statements most like me. i f ' -- — - II. Six statements next like me. III. Nine statements next like me. IV. Sixteen statements which may or may not be like me. V. Nine statements mere unlike me. 71. Six statements still more unlike me. TII. Two statements most unlike me. G E J U 3 I A N S W E R S H SCR? Ill (TS) Rlrections: Ir. this sorting ;-f statements, you are describing yourself not as you are, tut as you think your teachers would describ ROV SC. I. Two statements aost like oe, 5ix statements next like me. III. Sine statements next like me. Sixteen statements which ray -r may r.ot be like re. Sine statements more unlike me. 71. Six statements still more 'unlike me VII. Two statements most uni ike me. J A M S CATE ICRS I7IM3 SR: 263 ft £3 n C - 1 M O s t T J if) n* p ; m 3 73 O * > .o fll 7 1 • » H .U . - * 1 O • < r < ■3 a > ■ u r; i. TJ T3 m . in o 73 *> O r: 1 tn f: / T * wl < ! • 4 •* > f - i ' . ' o Q M 4 . ’ t~ U If) t.w nl p - l o <v u if > n u o c ; i ’ ^ 1-3 O S . ; r. . i < / , H . t i ( ; ). U r - l r3 . C - u o 4> t * • * » c : O J a j ) - A n a l 4 * a) w4 , Fi f H 4 ) <u ; kj ( J (1 4> 4> FI c j 41 ‘ 1 1 i I: i a> O) -~A 4) ■ Sri OJ 0) V -i t , 1 »« -P 4 -rA u i : O r —A •f-« r 4 •p i ; i : r t r * r -4 , i; 41 -*J :* F; 0) r 4 4 ' 4 > K (4 f 4 *> in y. V in 4) o -r 4 m i .’ oj t ? 4 * .s : F *-• ( i 1 t ‘ i : m 4 in n m Cl r*4 tn •n tn * > r 4 J VI cn * • 4 > t : 4 4 i : 4 1 41 t ; u: D 4 » u 41 t! f j a) 4> t • n 4> 4> i f : 4? 4 • 4 > 41 f i { , «.• 4* 4-> m 1 > * -•» 41 4’ * 1 a j i ; Cfl 4 ' 4 5 a1 I» i! * • ft} * ■ ♦ • in 4* in 4 > 4» in p i 4> r t W C O 4 i 4 > F: 4 ) C 1 K H t : K ( , ' , * J ■ V 1 )* F * tn '* • i/’ ‘ ' » n F- * 4 4 . ► • • ► i ► 4 { • » - 1 t « ► « ► * i i { • APPENDIX C INTERVIEW FORMS 265 srnrerT ivrmvim : . Kxrlfmatlon of t 1~q Project A. This pro .Vet wbs dealrrcd * n ho lr n! lo '.nden •mdorotnnd Ir.r no-1 I nppronch "-.ore closely t>. t ini . P. T' 1 n nro.loct n 1t errp t ed to co-yore vnriooe r ■ ' sop i f n! If pt UiVnts irrrovod r'Tf nnl i rr;:l 1 ' ■on! nr hi fVf'nf nt ty ^‘ ir rf i hnl n". e-runred wi f I T . T n 1 i v i rl1 m 1 S * 1 ■ 1 o n f n Vn o ’ .o^re* i r :1 T r 1 - r-yi * i ' ” A . 1 rvii r o t i nr, n f I . Q .. r r r . r o . ! • . ! re'il t r . - f lat ost Achievement t . p o t p . C . Ir.d 1 e.i* ion n f rhnnpp in ♦ r r-c' ' 1 « • i * < : . • > Men, nirrcnt, orhool ynnr . y . r , ^ j. ^ ^ n ^ ^ .. * ,, ^ ■ , n n | .. fl r) y t ^ ] r M r f O n d r ynnr'f letter ■•rodeo. ’ ' T h-v: h o v e ;v.': f ■■ 1 1 n o-:* w r h h irir.r y ^ o r '.'on A. i i yn'i ‘ nnl di eferent ]y o'1 oo + h r'e worr i r y than yen do r~w? ii.-ive .vnij noticed nr.y chnnre in y-or t t .«• • iorinr y or rroson’ Thool yonr? .■i’t. .■ i * .ore y o r p r ' T e n t r ! ’ if o * i r ■ n 1 or.! •.•■-■ o t y r..o 1 A . y y-ir p a r e n t r .'i.'Ti’n v i ' y^":r prer.rr.* edo ':nt o r e y n o r r'Ore r . i o ' r o a l r 1 r y o o it’ t h e y y o ■! r n ? "'iiovorn yn ! n pel r- ri r nrodpr.lc po ton- nee It nr ret hod? *o ir r.el f-cenrept I’ , n ne tlier. 1 ‘ ooy , i;'irl nr t he r * ■ ■ t1 i p o,r i.ool r o i -, r e ’ *:n o 1 ? -or e n r l y r r t i n r l tnr i o w n rii h o r e K n r k y o n I " ? o * : ■ r.n 1 y e n I n ? ' o r e d i f f e r e n t , f r n n 2 66 r.-v-r ? > . v S t ' K irn t Ir.'r r v I n w Wi-nl r m i t ln«* r r s n ' i n n i t il i t l o r <!• y " i c: irr.v '''it ; n y o u r h'-!rr»? A . H o w i.nv' y o ’i V/vi r ' ■ r"' 11 *' T' + t '> !'■. !, r yotir h ~ r * t i . n + ' r n t V I . T"-' ,vt: f o r i t h n * y r"i h n v n -1 i f f J c u ] t y ! * r r r r> ;■r i r: r y m : r * r't«- f'rr ! l u p i n t H r h - - r " i t ’i n t l o n T A . T' w h i r h p.'irrn* y o ’; 'ii’inl l y ' M ’T'iit- n r < t ~ r r -> 1 : r o t ! c r ? i . H fi v n y o r f > L t f n y f w r t •• r j i rrit y rr fr> lirv- ;t" r ' ’ .■>■■( - r ' ,o o 1 ypnr? VII. .'.'■.at n r " yr'ir I V r l i n y o n n r r m i n* 11.- .-'-ur.rr'l i o; ••• •; ' . \ v t ’ ■lr r i n r ‘ V o I 11 ?i‘; A . I f I,;, VP fr. -in'i l i d r.-t i> < it t- 5 p iirlrf-.I , w r y v i i ‘ ;,"1 i f .! • p r;r , i f-. 1 . w / v.-f :■ it • * ■ < ■ !1 I -: 1 ? 267 PAi-;K!TT it it h k v ie w v^ rm I . hyp 1 nn.a t. ton of t 1 :P__P_r n jpp t A. T h in n r n . l r r t wan i t r r i / n p d ♦ o 1 a * 1 i- u n r i r r n c 1 i c v o r p f n t n so lf~ u n t p r n P i r d i r c nr.-) t c n i p r l n p r l y t tu» i r n r n d o r t c n o t o n M a i . . Tulr prn.iprt pMpnptril to rOT-’j',or< v:iri nr. n'inral Inr mot- air to rpp if ■■ Ip rMilpnt.r i-pnnvpd n m t ippjiMy In p p I f-pnr.rr pt, and nr h i nvmrr, t *■ or.n "irthol n '• rnr’nrp'i vi + a .ano t hr r . II. 'nl:v:j':;il a ' a ■ I n a t r I .a an tyT”" n 1 ii ‘ nrail inn A, Indirat i n n n ‘ T Q. rnr.rr. ! . Prriltn a 1' lntrrt n c irvai'nt. t nr* n . r . flrnprnl i ni 1 m t t nr: of pprnnnnl I tv <1 i f fi m. 1 M m . Imiirntlnn of rhnnyp in t ::r school ritual ion, i i' an;.’, nnrinc t i’ .n .-’ivrpr.t prhool ynar. t, r n npa r i r on at la a * n p) ■ 1 y n.a r 1 1 r t t,, r rrn inr t p t » i n rrhr.nl •pa:' — l o t t o r r i ' a d p r , I T I . a . .a : <* ,a* * P-r.t 1 r./' *o /'air, t r f- rma t I an rrrriirr your non wtirh will in • Inful i :■ v:n r'- i r.r with him nryt ynar. A , P v p y o u i n n r v n . l an y n- + irni'* ]p r r n n . ' i 1 1r y o u r r o n 1 r I p :,h v I n r I ‘' r ; nr * o la"’ n x •” ■ n t r ? ' f -nr , w> ,a t > i r. ‘ ? t ' : p : !■ hi r> r 1 ■■ r, '■* f— i’iri’i wit .air. I hn ! . P- t l.r;, ■ P ur. ■ a ! 1 y t .. ;v, . ■ • : p ? , * i • • p ► * f j ,'!!'■ • i * * * \ t_ . • ■ i ■ ' i ' ’ t * ■ < • x: y * f • m i :-p 1 ; 7 * - , ! ,w7 1 : • ; 1 268 FVi rr V . T r n r a n l 1 nt ^ r v l rw ? . ! ■ ’' w i < > i * m r r i o i i o'lt 7 Hnvp yo>i r>'>1 e d nn.v rrr.rr.t chnnrrT r . );,i r, bppji y n r M r / n nt. t I t'i d p t o w a r d h i w w o r r ' 1 n ' i r h m i t rrl i" - 1 r m r o r 7 1. !!nvn f • ■ 1 t M n p p n s r n r .v * n T)';r>r. M t f n r m p l p ' o h i p n r ? . Mnve yon n o t c a d n n ;.’ r p p p r t r ‘ n r c p 1 r M r n t t 1 t n d r t o w a r d W'a* nrp ;."or rrr’ ^ prppppt pd'i'n t Mnnl and V' cat 1 "r.al c'mlj? I ' . f pr 1 Hin * yy: iifl'pp with 'ir pur,1 r M'Pppnt can] <i? *f ,v'M' / ' • ’ air. far i.in nrr different , wan* iitp tan;.? l: nr yn-ir pnr, Pipron! pd any fro] inyr townril t tie rn unrp] l n r l:r received darinr tl,e lnnt a 1 x ronUm? ! cnmpn 1 r . ? rnfwork? hn r C,. I r thorp nl b.pr i ’if'irn.’it lori yap w - n l d Ilk’ * r‘ five t h a t w o u ld aid 1 ho R r h n o l In w o r k l n r w i t h y o o r r o n ?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Counselor Rigidity - Dogmatism - Authoritarianism As Variables In Counseling Effectiveness

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

An Empirical Study Comparing Various Methods Of Achievement Expectancy Bymeans Of Mental Ability

PDF

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

PDF

Selection Factors Relating To Success In A Counselor Education Program

PDF

Prediction Of Success In Training Among Electronics Technicians

PDF

The Effects Of Group Experiences On The Aged

PDF

An Experimental Study Of Self-Confrontation In Counseling

PDF

Development And Analysis Of Some Tactual Measures Of Intelligence For Adolescent And Adult Blind

PDF

Predicting Success In The Study Of Descriptive Linguistics

PDF

A Problem-Centered Approach To Introductory Psychology

PDF

An Attitude Survey Of High School Dropouts By Means Of The Semantic Differential Process

PDF

The Rehabilitation Of School Dropouts Through An Intensive Summer School Program

PDF

The Stability Of The Self-Concept In Junior College Students

PDF

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

PDF

A Methodological Investigation Of Affect Response Bias

PDF

Librarians' Perceptions Of Librarianship

PDF

An Investigation Of The Relationship Between Counselor Role-Function And Counselee Perception Of Help Received

Asset Metadata

Creator Clements, Thomas Hubbard (author)

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

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Carnes, Earl F. (committee chair), Jacobs, Alfred (committee member), Lefever, David Welty (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-297030

Unique identifier UC11358809

Identifier 6306323.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-297030 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6306323.pdf

Dmrecord 297030

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Clements, Thomas Hubbard

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