UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Empathy training for adolescent peer counselling Pachal, Doreen Mae 1982

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A2 P33.pdf [ 6.1MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054219.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054219-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054219-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054219-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054219-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054219-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054219-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054219-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054219.ris

Full Text

EMPATHY TRAINING FOR ADOLESCENT  PEER COUNSELLING  by Doreen Mae  Pachal  B.A., Brandon C o l l e g e , U n i v e r s i t y o f Manitoba M.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972  A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTORATE OF  EDUCATION  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department o f C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n  We accept  t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming  to t h e r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March, 1982  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree at the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I  further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may department or by h i s or her  be granted by  the head of  representatives.  my  It i s  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my  permission.  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  DE-6  (3/81)  written  ii Supervisor:  D r . Myrne B.  Nevison.  Abstract T h i s study sought t o t e s t the f e a s i b i l i t y o f t r a i n i n g grade g i r l s t o a s s i s t i n the c o u n s e l l i n g p r o c e s s .  sixth-  In parti-  c u l a r , t h e i r a b i l i t y t o l e a r n and d e m o n s t r a t e t h e s k i l l o f e m p a t h i c r e s p o n d i n g was a s s e s s e d .  The r e s e a r c h s t u d y i n v o l v e d  24 v o l u n t e e r g i r l s who w e r e r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d t o t h r e e t h o s e who;  (a) r e c e i v e d t r a i n i n g i n p a r a p h r a s i n g and r e f l e c -  tion of feeling,  (b) r e c e i v e d t r a i n i n g w h i c h i n c l u d e d p a r a -  p h r a s i n g , r e f l e c t i o n o f f e e l i n g and p o s i t i v e and  groups,  (c) f o r m e d a c o n t r o l g r o u p .  self-instruction,  Because o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y  t h a t empathy may o f t e n be i n h i b i t e d b y s e l f - c o n c e r n , p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n was i n c l u d e d t o d i s c o v e r w h e t h e r t o concentrate on another ees  and f a c i l i t a t e  person would reduce a n x i e t y i n t r a i n -  t h e i r e x p r e s s i o n s o f empathy.  s k i l l s were a s s e s s e d  by:  reminders  (a) g i r l s  Subjects'  i n t h e same g r a d e a t a  d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l , (b) e x p e r t a d u l t j u d g e s  r e l y i n g upon a u d i o -  t a p e s , a n d (c) an e x p e r t a d u l t j u d g e who a l s o a c t e d a s c l i e n t . E x p e r t s used t h e C a r k h u f f  (1969) S c a l e o f E m p a t h i c  i n I n t e r p e r s o n a l P r o c e s s e s , and t h e peers Carkhuff s c a l e constructed f o r the study. as f o l l o w s :  Understanding  used a m o d i f i e d The f i n d i n g s were  (a) s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e s i n empathy f o r t h e  t r a i n e d groups,  when compared t o t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p , on t h e  basis of expert ratings,  (b) no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n  empathy among groups when r a t e d by peers a c t i n g as c l i e n t s , (c) no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n  between r a t i n g s o f peer  clients  and e x p e r t s , (d) no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n empathy^ between the two t r a i n e d groups.  Thus, t r a i n i n g produced  significant  i n c r e a s e s i n empathy, as measured by experts; however, other f i n d i n g s suggested t h a t sixth-grade g i r l s wanted good advice along w i t h empathy from t h e i r peers.  Training at this  mental stage should probably i n c l u d e problem-solving i n a d d i t i o n t o empathy.  develop-  skills  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter  I  Page ABSTRACT  ii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  ix  INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY  1  Nature o f the Problem Empathy Empathy Assessment.. Empathy T r a i n i n g w i t h Students Purpose o f the Study Research Questions I m p l i c a t i o n s of the Study L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study Definitions Summary Overview of the Study II  REVIEW OF LITERATURE Empathy Research on Empathy Teaching the Use o f Empathy Problems i n E v a l u a t i n g Empathy Positive Self-Instruction P o s i t i v e S e l f - I n s t r u c t i o n with Students Empathy and P o s i t i v e S e l f Instruction E a r l y Adolescence: A S u i t a b l e Stage f o r Empathy T r a i n i n g Student Peers as C o u n s e l l o r s Review of School-Based S t u d i e s D e f i c i e n c i e s o f School-Based Studies Summary F o r m u l a t i o n o f the Study  III  METHODOLOGY P o p u l a t i o n and Sample Definitions Data A n a l y s i s Hypothesis T e s t i n g Design General Design Dependent V a r i a b l e Hypothesis T e s t i n g Group Comparisons S p e c i f i c Procedures  1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 7 9 9 10 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 18 19 21 21 23 23 25 28 29 31 31 31 32 32 32  V  TABLE OF CONTENTS - c o n t i n u e d Chapter  Page Procedures Treatment Procedures S p e c i f i c Design T e s t i n g Procedures S a m p l i n g P r o c e d u r e s and Assignments Measurement o f Dependent V a r i a b l e Scoring Instruments C a r k h u f f S c a l e f o r Measurement o f Empathy Naive-Peer-Rater Scale of Understanding: Auto-Scale o f Empathy Scoring Procedures L i m i t a t i o n s o f the Study Design Scales Rationales One t o - o n e S e t t i n g N u l l Hypotheses  IV  RESULTS A n a l y s i s o f Data H y p o t h e s i s One H y p o t h e s i s Two Hypothesis Three Hypothesis Four Hypothesis F i v e Hypothesis S i x H y p o t h e s i s Seven  V  32 32 33 34 35 36 36 'o 36 38 '40 41 41 42 43 43 44 47  .  DISCUSSION AND'IMPLICATIONS Findings R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n (a) R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n (b) R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n (c) R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n (d) Summary o f F i n d i n g s a n d .x : Conclusions D i r e c t i o n s f o r Future Research.  47 50 52 54 55 60 61 62 66 66 66 68 69 71 73 78  REFERENCES  83  APPENDICES  9 3  vi  L I S T OF TABLES Table 1  2-  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Page Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : Audiotaped Responses to Stimulus Statement (Expert Raters: G r o u p 1)  51  M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : Audiotaped Responses of Trainee Interviews (Expert Raters: G r o u p 1)  52  M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : Trainee Interview (Naive-Peer-Client Raters: G r o u p 1)  53  Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t ^ V a l u e s f o r Empathy S c o r e s : Audiotaped Responses to Stimulus Statement (Expert Raters: G r o u p 2)  53  M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : Audiotaped Responses o f T r a i n e e I n t e r v i e w s ( E x p e r t R a t e r s : G r o u p 2)  53  M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : Trainee Interviews ( N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s : G r o u p 2)  53  Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : Audiotaped Responses to Stimulus Statement (Expert Raters: C o n t r o l Group)  54  M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : Audiotaped Responses of Subject Interviews (Expert Raters: C o n t r o l Group)  55  M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : Subject Interviews (Naive-Peer-Client Raters: C o n t r o l Group)  55  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Three Groups, P o s t t e s t 1: Audiotaped Responses t o Stimulus Statement (Expert Raters)  57  T u k e y M u l t i p l e - C o m p a r i s o n , P o s t t e s t 1: Audiotaped Responses t o S t i m u l u s Statement (Expert Raters)  57  vii L I S T OF TABLES Table 12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  continued  ,  Page  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Three Groups, P o s t t e s t 2: Audiotaped Responses o f Interviews w i t h Peers (Expert Raters)  58  T u k e y M u l t i p l e - C o m p a r i s o n , P o s t t e s t 2: Audiotaped Responses o f I n t e r v i e w s w i t h Peers (Expert Raters)  58  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Three Groups' Empathy S c o r e s ( N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t Raters: Posttest Interview)  59  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Three Groups' Empathy S c o r e s ( E x p e r t C l i e n t R a t e r : Posttest Interview)  59  Tukey M u l t i p l e - C o m p a r i s o n ( E x p e r t C l i e n t Rater: P o s t t e s t Inverview Empathy S c o r e s ) . . .  60  Correlation Coefficients: Expert versus Naive Raters (Pretest Interview)  61  Correlation Coefficients: Expert versus Naive Raters ( P o s t t e s t Peer Interview)  62  C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r Empathy Scores: N a i v e and E x p e r t C l i e n t Raters (Posttest Interviews)  63  Empathy S c o r e s : P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , t - V a l u e s and P r o b a b i l i t i e s : Audiotaped Responses of Subject Interviews  64  Empathy S c o r e s : t - V a l u e s and P r o b a b i l i t i e s , P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t Means and S t a n d a r d Deviations: Subject I n t e r v i e w s (NaiveP e e r - C l i e n t Raters: Three Groups)...  65  viii  L I S T OF FIGURES Figure  Page  1  E f f e c t o f Empathy T r a i n i n g o n I n t e r view Behaviour: (Expert Raters)  48  2  E f f e c t o f Empathy T r a i n i n g o n I n t e r view Behaviour: (Naive Raters)  48  3  Mean Empathy R a t i n g s f o r T h r e e Groups: (Pretest)  49  Mean Empathy R a t i n g s f o r T h r e e Groups: ; ( P o s t t e s t ) . . . .  49  4  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I w i s h t o e x p r e s s my t h a n k s t o t h o s e  people  who h e l p e d make c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t and d i s s e r t a t i o n p o s s i b l e :  My C h a i r m a n , D r .  Myrne N e v i s o n , and t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n committee, Dr. H a r o l d R a t z l a f f , Dr. W i l l i a m Borgen,  Dr. John A l l e n  and D r . Norman Amundson f o r t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i v e gestions;  t h e Burnaby S c h o o l B o a r d , and C h a f f e y  Burke and Marlborough and  Elementary  School p r i n c i p a l s  t e a c h e r s f o r a l l o w i n g me t o w o r k w i t h  pupils;  sug-  their  t h e p u p i l s f o r b e i n g g r e a t t o work w i t h ;  and E l l e n M o o r e f o r t h e e x c e l l e n t  typing.  1  CHAPTER I .  INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY  Nature o f t h e Problem Our s o c i e t y has been d e f i n e d as an u n h e a l t h y one where symptoms o f d i s t r e s s a r e w i d e s p r e a d  ( B r o n f e n b r e n n e r , 1977;  LaLonde, 1976; S r o l e , Lagner, M i s c h a e l , Opter & Rennie, 1972). W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e young, r i s i n g problems o f a l c o h o l and d r u g abuse, a l i e n a t i o n , d e p r e s s i o n and s u i c i d e have overburdened the h e a l t h f a c i l i t i e s  ( R i c e , 1977).  T r a d i t i o n a l forms o f h e l p  must be d r a m a t i c a l l y improved o r changed i n o r d e r t o d e a l w i t h c u r r e n t p s y c h o s o c i a l problems. One p a r t o f t h e problem may be t h a t a d o l e s c e n t peer groups g e n e r a l l y c o n t r i b u t e l i t t l e t o t h e s e l f - e s t e e m o f t h e i r members (Delworth, 1974), b u t a d o l e s c e n c e i s t h e stage o f development when e m o t i o n a l independence from p a r e n t s i s u s u a l l y sought and young p e o p l e depend upon t h e peer group f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g ( H a v i g h u r s t , 1951).  I n o r d e r t o improve i n t e r p e r s o n a l  skills,  such as u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f one a n o t h e r , some s c h o o l s have i n i t i a t e d peer c o u n s e l l i n g programs (Anderson, 197 6; Andrade, 1975; Brown, 1980; Dyer, 1975; V a r e n h o r s t , 1974). I n a t t e m p t i n g t o d e a l w i t h t h e r i s e i n acute problems among t h e i r s t u d e n t s , some c o u n s e l l o r s have reasoned t h a t i f students could l i s t e n w i t h understanding t o t h e i r peers' p r o b l mens, t h e r e c o u l d be a r e d u c t i o n i n teenage a l i e n a t i o n , d e p r e s s i o n , and i n drug and a l c o h o l abuse  (Merchant  &  Z i n g l e , 1977;  Samuels & Samuels,  1975).  H o w e v e r , i t seems i m p e r a t i v e t h a t  s u c h y o u n g c o u n s e l l o r s be t r a i n e d a n d a s s e s s e d t o be c e r t a i n that they respond t o others a t a l e v e l o f understanding which i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be m i n i m a l l y f a c i l i t a t i v e ,  t h a t i s , t o be  b e n e f i c i a l t o o t h e r s b y h e l p i n g them t o e x p l o r e t h e i r own t h o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s . called  T h i s q u a l i t y o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g may be  "empathy."  Empathy R e s e a r c h e r s have found t h a t empathy, u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the  f e e l i n g a n d m e a n i n g o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n a n d t h e communi-  cation o f that understanding t o that person c a n be s h a r p e n e d  through t r a i n i n g  ( R o g e r s , 195 9 ) ,  ( C a r k h u f f , 1969; I v e y ,  The i m p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s i s t h a t  1978).  effective  c o u n s e l l o r s c a n be t r a i n e d a n d t h a t t h e r e may be many p o t e n t i ally for  e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l l o r s who h a v e n o t y e t h a d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y suitable Perhaps  the  training. a n e x p l a n a t i o n n e e d s t o be made w i t h r e g a r d t o  t e r m "empathy."  I n one sense t h i s term i s used t o d e -  s c r i b e t h e deep f e e l i n g s o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f one p e r s o n f o r a n o t h e r , a g l o b a l c o n c e p t w h i c h , s o f a r , c a n n o t be v a l i d a t e d empirically. facilitate for  I t may o r may n o t be p o s s i b l e f o r t r a i n i n g t o  p o s i t i v e c h a n g e s i n t h e d e e p f e e l i n g s o f one p e r s o n  a n o t h e r a n d m e a s u r e m e n t o f s u c h f e e l i n g s c a n n o t be made  w i t h any degree o f a c c u r a c y .  T h e r e f o r e , r e s e a r c h has g e n e r a l l y  u t i l i z e d r a t i n g s c a l e s t o measure changes i n t h e f a c i l i t a t i v e skills  o f empathy, warmth, and g e n u i n e n e s s w h i c h r e l y t o a  3 great  extent  upon v e r b a l r e s p o n s e s as an i n d i c a t i o n o f f e e l i n g s  of understanding. g l o b a l empathy  The s c a l e s c a n n o t m e a s u r e a l l a s p e c t s o f a  construct.  I t may a l s o be n o t e d t h a t t h e r e  i s not yet conclusive  e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f empathy a s measured by t h e Carkhuff  Scales  provides  f o reffective counselling with a l l  persons i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s .  Studies  a n s w e r s to. t h e i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n :  have f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t an"Which c o u n s e l l o r s ,  what c o n d i t i o n s , w i t h w h i c h t y p e s o f c l i e n t s life,  need t o use w h i c h k i n d s  of c l i e n t changes?"  of s k i l l s  under  a t what s t a g e o f  t o e f f e c t what  kinds  T h e r e i s e v e n an u n a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n i n  r e l a t i o n t o when i n t h e c o u r s e o f a c o u n s e l l i n g i n t e r v i e w o r series of interviews facilitative.  counsellor  Nevertheless,  sive review of research  e m p a t h i c r e s p o n d i n g i s most  i t was c o n c l u d e d , a f t e r a n  that  "The r e c e n t  evidence,  exten-  although  e q u i v o c a l , d o e s seem t o s u g g e s t t h a t e m p a t h y , w a r m t h , a n d g e n u i n e n e s s a r e r e l a t e d i n some way t o c l i e n t c h a n g e b u t t h a t t h e i r p o t e n c y and g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y a r e n o t as g r e a t thought"  (Mitchell, Bozarth,  & Krauft,  as once  1 9 7 7 , p. 4 8 3 ) .  Empathy A s s e s s m e n t C a r l R o g e r s ' w o r k i n t h e 1950's and '60's f o u n d empathy instrumental 1959,  1968).  i n the growth o f emotional h e a l t h Carkhuff  (Rogers, 1957,  (1969) a t t e m p t e d t o i s o l a t e t h e empathy  e l e m e n t i n human i n t e r a c t i o n s , t e s t i n g f o r i t s p r e s e n c e a 5-point scale. were c o n s i d e r e d be  Subjects  scoring at level  scale  t o d e m o n s t r a t e empathy t o a d e g r e e t h a t w o u l d  e f f e c t i v e and f a c i l i t a t i v e  1964).  3 on t h i s  with  i n counselling  (Truax &  Carkhuff,  4 I t i s d i f f i c u l t to capture evidence of a personal  counsellor's  impact and document t h i s e m p i r i c a l l y .  However, t e a s -  i n g out the i n g r e d i e n t s t h a t are i n v o l v e d i n making a p o s i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e has been what much of the r e s e a r c h o f Rogers h i s f o l l o w e r s has been about. Carkhuff  and  I m p e r f e c t though t h e y a r e ,  s c a l e s have been w i d e l y used i n such r e s e a r c h  empathy, as measured by t h e s e s c a l e s , has  the  and  shown a p o s i t i v e r e -  l a t i o n s h i p i n most o f the outcome s t u d i e s .  Although there i s  no e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e t h a t v e r b a l and n o n v e r b a l r e s p o n s e s equate p r e c i s e l y w i t h deeper f e e l i n g s , r e s e a r c h has  continued  t o use C a r k h u f f - l i k e s c a l e s i n a t t e m p t i n g  objective  a c c o u n t s o f the p e r s o n a l  to provide  f a c t o r s which c o r r e l a t e w i t h p o s i t i v e  change. Reviewers of r e s e a r c h  i n w h i c h empathy was  evaluated  have  recommended, however, t h a t i n n o v a t i v e measures, p a r t i c u l a r l y o f c l i e n t - p e r c e i v e d empathy, s h o u l d be used t o supplement the Carkhuff-type Bozarth  scales  ( F i s k e , 197 7; Gurman, 1977;  Mitchell,  & K r a u f t , 1977).  Empathy T r a i n i n g w i t h S t u d e n t s C o l l e g e and  secondary s c h o o l s t u d e n t s have been a b l e  to  p r o f i t from t r a i n i n g , and have undertaken some e f f e c t i v e couns e l l i n g f u n c t i o n s w i t h t h e i r p e e r s (Montes & O r t e g a , Wrenn & Wencke, 1972).  1976;  Vogelsong's (1976) s t u d y suggested  t h a t perhaps e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l s t u d e n t s can be t r a i n e d t o r e spond more e m p a t h i c a l l y  t o one  another.  The  t h a t an i n c r e a s e i n communicated empathy may peer r e l a t i o n s . age  assumption i s develop b e t t e r  More s t u d y s h o u l d be undertaken w i t h t h i s '.  group because o f the p r e v e n t i v e p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f t r a i n i n g  5 b e f o r e s e r i o u s problems might a r i s e .  E f f e c t i v e communication  s k i l l s may be h e l p f u l i n f o r m i n g m e a n i n g f u l peer r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e f o r e adjustments  t o t h e more i m p e r s o n a l secondary  school  s i t u a t i o n must be made.  Purpose o f t h e Study Because o f t h e i n c i d e n c e o f a d o l e s c e n t problems and t h e presumed b e n e f i t s o f peers who respond w i t h empathy t h e r e i s a p a r t i c u l a r need t o a s s e s s t h e impact o f empathy t r a i n i n g on young p e o p l e .  P a s t e x p e r i e n c e w i t h groups o f young s t u d e n t s  who a c t e d w i t h h o s t i l i t y and d e s t r u c t i v e n e s s t o o t h e r had prompted me t o t r y t o d e v e l o p  students  some means o f changing  dent v a l u e s so t h a t more humane b e h a v i o u r might r e s u l t .  stuAs a  c o u n s e l l o r , I had used one-to-one t r a i n i n g t o t e a c h some e l e mentary s c h o o l s t u d e n t s , who e x h i b i t e d a n t i s o c i a l a c t i o n s and who a p p a r e n t l y l a c k e d empathy, how t o respond w i t h a degree o f understanding  towards o t h e r s .  The p r e s e n t study emerged o u t  o f t h a t a c t i v i t y , o u t o f concern f o r many young s t u d e n t s , and out o f p r o m i s i n g r e s e a r c h w i t h o l d e r a d o l e s c e n t s and o t h e r s (Andrade, 1973; B e r g i n , 1971; Haynes & A v e r y , 1979; H e f e l e , 1 979; Hundleby, 1 973). Grade s i x g i r l s were chosen because developmental are o f g r e a t c o n c e r n i n t h e m i d d l e s c h o o l y e a r s and a d o l e s c e n c e  ( M o r r i s , 1 978) ,  i s a time o f concern w i t h s e l f - e s t e e m and peer  r e l a t i o n s , o f changing F r e u d , 1958).  issues  g o a l s and r o l e s  ( B u t t e r y & A l l a n , 1981;  I t seems p o s s i b l e t h a t i f g i r l s i n t h e 11 t o 13  age group c o u l d t a l k and l i s t e n t o one another w i t h empathy,  these communication s k i l l s  c o u l d c o n t i n u e t o be u s e d a n d l a t e r  l e s s e n some o f t h e s e r i o u s p r o b l e m s t h a t o f t e n accompany adolescence, such as a l i e n a t i o n  and a n x i e t y .  The s t u d y s e t o u t t o b o t h t r a i n a n d t h e n a s s e s s ment i n e m p a t h y s k i l l s  of trainees,  assess the e f f e c t the  t r a i n i n g o f one g r o u p .  but also that of  An a d d i t i o n a l  of including  improve-  not o n l y from t h e vantage  points of nonparticipant expert raters, c l i e n t s , p e e r s and an a d u l t .  late  positive  p u r p o s e was t o  self-instruction i n  This technique w i l l  be d i s c u s s e d  later.  Research Questions In Will ing thic  s h o r t , t h e s t u d y s e t o u t t o answer t h e s e  s h o r t - t e r m one-to-one t r a i n i n g  questions:  i n t h e use o f p a r a p h r a s -  a n d r e f l e c t i o n o f f e e l i n g be s u f f i c i e n t t o e n h a n c e emparesponding s i g n i f i c a n t l y ?  Will positive  self-instruction  c o m b i n e d w i t h p a r a p h r a s i n g a n d r e f l e c t i o n o f f e e l i n g b e more effective the  i n training  relationship  f o r empathic responding?  What w i l l  be  among a s s e s s m e n t s o f empathy f r o m t h e v a n -  t a g e p o i n t s o f c l i e n t s , p e e r and a d u l t ,  and e x t e r n a l  raters?  I m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e Study If  the study indicated  increasing  trainees'  that the t r a i n i n g  i s effective i n  empathic responding t o peers o r  t h e n s u c h t r a i n i n g c o u l d be s u g g e s t e d f o r u s e w i t h populations.  I f results  showed t h a t t h e i n c l u s i o n  adults,  similar of positive  s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a s a component p a r t o f t r a i n i n g i s r e l a t i v e l y  7 e f f e c t i v e i t c o u l d be recommended  for inclusion i n training.  The l o n g - t e r m i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r i m p r o v e d s c h o o l prevention further  climate  o f s e r i o u s problems o f adolescence would  and  require  study.  L i m i t a t i o n s o f the Study 1.  Only volunteers the  study  to s i m i l a r 2.  among g r a d e s i x g i r l s  which l i m i t s  were employed i n  g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s  populations.  Testing included c o u n s e l l i n g interviews with peers a d i f f e r e n t school  from  so t h a t g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f r e s u l t s  t o d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h f r i e n d s i s n o t known. 3.  G i r l s who  formed t h e c o n t r o l group d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e  same i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n g i v e n t o t r a i n e e s ;  therefore,  t h e y were n o t a t r u e p l a c e b o c o n t r o l group. Further III  details of limitations w i l l  be g i v e n  i n Chapter  where o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f terms used w i l l  a l s o be  found.  Definitions The d e f i n i t i o n s w h i c h f o l l o w a r e t h o s e w h i c h may be ful  i n understanding  Empathy: sitivity and  t e r m s u s e d i n t h e f i r s t two  The a c c u r a t e  chapters.  communication o f understanding  t o b o t h t h e f e e l i n g s and e x p e r i e n c e  help-  and s e n -  of another person  t h e i r m e a n i n g and s i g n i f i c a n c e ( T r u a x & M i t c h e l l ,  1971).  8 C l i e n t - p e r c e i v e d empathy:  The e x t e n t t o w h i c h a h e l p e e i s  a w a r e o f a h e l p e r ' s empathy w h i c h h a s b e e n c o m m u n i c a t e d t o her.  T h i s p e r c e i v e d e m p a t h y i s s o m e t i m e s r e f e r r e d t o as r e -  c e i v e d o r e x p e r i e n c e d empathy. Minimally-facilitative  l e v e l o f empathy:  That l e v e l o f  respond-  i n g assumed t o e n a b l e a c l i e n t t o e x p l o r e h i s own t h o u g h t s feelings.  At t h i s  and  l e v e l , the expressions of the helper, or  p e r s o n t r y i n g t o be f a c i l i t a t i v e ,  are e s s e n t i a l l y interchange-  able w i t h those of the helpee or c l i e n t .  On t h e C a r k h u f f S c a l e  f o r M e a s u r e m e n t o f E m p a t h y , a 5 - p o i n t s c a l e , t h e number " 3 " i s d e f i n e d as t h e m i n i m a l l y f a c i l i t a t i v e Cognitive self-rehearsal:  level.  One o f a number o f t e c h n i q u e s  by a g r o u p o f r e s e a r c h e r s who  call  themselves  used  "cognitive  behaviour m o d i f i e r s " i n which a l l subjects are t r a i n e d t o v e r b a l i z e t o themselves  certain expressions, generally of a  p o s i t i v e or encouraging nature Positive self-instruction: j e c t s are encouraged  (see Meichenbaum,  The o v e r t v e r b a l i z a t i o n s w h i c h  t o u s e and w h i c h  r e s p o n d i n g and  and t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d s i l e n t r e p e t i t i o n o f  t h o s e v e r b a l i z a t i o n s as Attending behaviour:  sub-  are designed t o d i r e c t  t h e i r thoughts t o r e l e v a n t aspects o f empathic self-encouragement,  1979).  "thoughts."  B e h a v i o u r n o r m a l l y u s e d by p e r s o n s  when  t h e y c l o s e l y a t t e n d t o o r l i s t e n t o another p e r s o n , such as a p o s t u r e o f l e a n i n g somewhat  towards  m a i n t a i n i n g c o m f o r t a b l e eye c o n t a c t .  t h a t other person  and  9 Paraphrasing:  The v e r b a l i z a t i o n o f a summary o f t h e c o n t e n t  o f what a n o t h e r p e r s o n communicates. Reflection of feeling:  The v e r b a l i z a t i o n o f t h e f e e l i n g s  assumed t o be o p e r a t i n g i n a n o t h e r p e r s o n who i s a c t i n g a s a  client.  Summary I n summary, then,, t h e l i t e r a t u r e s u g g e s t s t h a t e m p a t h y i s a q u a l i t y w h i c h c a n be d e v e l o p e d b y t r a i n i n g ( C a r k h u f f , 1969;  I v e y , 1978; T r u a x & C a r k h u f f , 1 9 6 4 ) .  I t h a s b e e n demon-  s t r a t e d t h a t elementary s c h o o l p u p i l s can master o f empathy  some c o m p o n e n t s  ( V o g e l s o n g , 1 9 7 6 ) , a n d t r a i n i n g them t o be u n d e r -  s t a n d i n g o f t h e i r p e e r s c o u l d have i m p o r t a n c e f o r p r e v e n t i o n o f some o f t h e p r o b l e m s  of late adolescence.  A t t h i s age l e v e l ,  however, t r a i n i n g and a s s e s s i n g empathy i s p r o b l e m a t i c , and it  remains  t o be s e e n w h e t h e r  t h e C a r k h u f f s c a l e s by themselves  a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o measure empathy o f e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l s t u d e n t s or whether  s u p p o r t i n g measures a r e n e c e s s a r y t o supplement t h e  scales.  Overview  o f t h e Study  I n t h e n e x t c h a p t e r t h e l i t e r a t u r e on empathy on p o s i t i v e  s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n , and s c h o o l s ' p e e r  p r o g r a m s w i l l be r e v i e w e d .  training,  counselling  I n Chapter I I I t h e methodology  o f t h e s t u d y i s p r e s e n t e d and i n Chapter I V , t h e r e s u l t s a r e given.  A d i s c u s s i o n of the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the research,  and s u g g e s t i o n s f o r f u t u r e s t u d y , a r e p r e s e n t e d i n C h a p t e r V.  10  CHAPTER I I . REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose o f the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r i s t o examine  litera-  t u r e on empathy, p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n , and peer c o u n s e l l i n g among., s t u d e n t s . S i n c e Gurman and R a z i n (1977) have a l r e a d y e x t e n s i v e l y r e viewed r e s e a r c h on empathy and i t s t r a i n i n g , and s i n c e C a r r and Saunders (1980) o f f e r summaries o f most o f t h e s t u d i e s and p r o grams d e a l i n g w i t h peer c o u n s e l l i n g , o n l y those s t u d i e s o f p a r t i c u l a r r e l e v a n c e t o the p r e s e n t s t u d y w i l l be reviewed here.  Empathy Research on Empathy The r e s e a r c h on empathy by C a r l Rogers and h i s a s s o c i a t e s (Rogers, 1959,  1961,  1968;  Rogers & Dyamond, 1954;  G e n d l i n , K i e s l e r & Truax, 1967)  Rogers,  has had a p r o f o u n d impact on the  f i e l d o f c o u n s e l l i n g ; r e s u l t s o f such s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t c o u n s e l l o r s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a h i g h degree o f empathy improvement i n c l i e n t s .  Later studies indicated positive  provement i n the b e h a v i o u r o f s t u d e n t s who who  facilitated  showed them empathy (Brown, 1974;  im-  interacted with others  G a r t n e r & Riessman, 1974).  Comprehensive r e v i e w s o f r e s e a r c h have c o n c l u d e d t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , empathy f a c i l i t a t e s p o s i t i v e movement towards emot i o n a l , h e a l t h (Luborsky, Auerbach, 1971; Rachman, 1973). may  C h a n d l e r , Cohen, Bachrach,  However, some c r i t i c s  c l a i m t h a t empathy  not be so i m p o r t a n t i n s i t u a t i o n s o t h e r than R o g e r i a n  11 therapy  ( G l a d s t e i n , 1977;  There  Rappaport  & Chinsky,  1972).  i s a need f o r knowledge o f the c o n d i t i o n s  w h i c h a c o u n s e l l o r ' s empathy i s most b e n e f i c i a l t o  under  clients.  T e a c h i n g t h e Use o f Empathy As m e n t i o n e d  i n the foregoing chapter, considerable research  has been d e v o t e d t o e x a m i n i n g ways i n w h i c h p e o p l e ' s for  e m p a t h y c a n be d e v e l o p e d  & Santilli, in  1972;  (Andrade,  1973;  Haynes & A v e r y , 1979).  capacity  Bierman,  Ivey's  Carkhuff  (1968)  work  t r a i n i n g c o u n s e l l o r s t o use e m p a t h y i n v o l v e d b r e a k i n g down  complex i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s because, parts.  i n t o manageable l e a r n i n g  units  l i k e m o s t c o m p l e x q u a l i t i e s , empathy t o o has For example,  "active listening"  component  i s necessary f o r the  u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f another person b e f o r e t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g can be p a r a p h r a s e d and c o m m u n i c a t e d . were encouraged ing  t o m a s t e r one  Ivey's f l e d g l i n g  component s k i l l  t o t h e n e x t so t h a t s u c c e s s was  f o r e a n o t h e r was  counsellors  before progress-  e n s u r e d i n one  skill  be-  attempted.  Some s e c o n d a r y s t u d e n t s h a v e a p p a r e n t l y b e e n t r a i n e d c o m m u n i c a t e more e m p a t h i c a l l y ( H u n d l e b y , may  be n o t e d t h a t a l t h o u g h H u n d l e b y ' s  1973).  to  However, i t  program used the  term  "empathy" e x t e n s i v e l y , t h e a c t u a l t a s k s e t f o r a s s e s s m e n t p e e r s was talk to." empathic  t o c h o o s e w h i c h o f two T h i s may  "go  and  n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t t h e most  communicator.  Y o u n g e r s t u d e n t s may sults.  students they could  by  w e l l be a b l e t o a c h i e v e s i m i l a r r e -  G i v e n i n d i v i d u a l t r a i n i n g and a p r o g r a m w h i c h  basic s k i l l s — i n  teaches  other words, a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n of Ivey's  12 miqrocounselling  m o d e l — t h e y may be a b l e t o l e a r n t o employ  empathic communication more i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l d e a l i n g s . Problems i n E v a l u a t i n g Empathy S i n c e empathy i s somewhat i n t a n g i b l e , i t f o l l o w s t h a t i t s measurement i s s u b j e c t t o many d i f f i c u l t i e s .  One r e a s o n f o r  problems i n e v a l u a t i n g empathy i s t h a t p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s i n many s t u d i e s c o u l d f o l l o w from t r a i n e e s ' s e n s i t i z a t i o n t o t h e assessment i n s t r u m e n t s .  The Hundleby s t u d y i s noteworthy  p a r t l y because p e e r s d i d t h e a s s e s s i n g so t h a t t h e e v a l u a t i o n was not s u b j e c t t o t h i s  criticism.  Another problem i s t h a t most e v a l u a t i o n s have used s c a l e s s i m i l a r t o those developed by Truax and C a r k h u f f i t i s n o t known i f empathy as r a t e d by e x p e r t s  (1967) and  using these  s c a l e s a l s o appears f a c i l i t a t i v e t o those who have n o t been t r a i n e d t o use t h e s c a l e s . A t h i r d problem i s t h a t c l i e n t s and e x t e r n a l judges have r a r e l y agreed on t h e degree o f empathy a c o u n s e l l o r demonstrated i n a c o u n s e l l i n g s i t u a t i o n ( F i s h , 1970; Gurman, 1977).  Fiske  (1977), t h e r e f o r e , has suggested t h a t i t would be v a l u a b l e t o r a t e empathy from more t h a n one vantage p o i n t .  The r a t i n g s  c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o d i s a g r e e , he c o n c l u d e d , b u t c l i e n t - p e r c e i v e d empathy s h o u l d be g i v e n more w e i g h t . In seeking school students, cisms.  t o evaluate  c o u n s e l l o r s must address a l l o f t h e s e  As w e l l , t h e y s h o u l d  questions:  empathy t r a i n i n g among e l e m e n t a r y criti-  l o o k f o r answers t o s e v e r a l  13 (a)  How  can empathy-related s k i l l s  be t a u g h t t o y o u n g  students? (b)  I s c o u n s e l l i n g a s s e s s e d by e x p e r t r a t e r s as b e i n g h i g h i n empathy v i e w e d  (c)  How  s i m i l a r l y by y o u n g s t u d e n t s ?  c a n c l i e n t - p e r c e i v e d empathy be a s s e s s e d when  the c l i e n t s are young s t u d e n t s ?  Positive  Self-Instruction  C o g n i t i v e c o n s t r u c t s h a v e become i n c r e a s i n g l y in  prominent  t h e b e h a v i o u r - m o d i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e and i n r e s e a r c h  (Bandura,  197 7; G o l d f r i e d & Merbaum, 1973; Mahoney, 1977;  M e i c h e n b a u m , 1973; R o s e n t h a l , 1976; T h o r e s e n  & Coates,  1976).  H o w e v e r , t h e y a r e b y no means new, f o r e a r l y l i t e r a t u r e w i t h accounts o f t e c h n i q u e s t o h e l p c l i e n t s based  on  abounds  client  p a r t i c i p a t i o n t h r o u g h c o g n i t i v e f a c t o r s s u c h as p o s i t i v e instruction Luria,  (Coue, 1922; E l l i s ,  1962; K e l l y ,  self-  1955; P e r l s ,  1969;  1961).  A basic p r i n c i p l e of p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n i s that thoughts a f f e c t emotion  and b e h a v i o u r  (Ellis,  1973; M e i c h e n b a u m ,  1978) and t h e r e f o r e c l i e n t s c a n be t a u g h t t o v e r b a l i z e , and t h e n c o v e r t l y , a p p r o p r i a t e p o s i t i v e  s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t them-  s e l v e s and a t a s k w h i c h i s l i k e l y t o f a c i l i t a t e the task.  overtly  success w i t h  Homme (1965) m a i n t a i n e d t h a t b e h a v i o u r i s c o n -  t r o l l e d t o a g r e a t e x t e n t by b e l i e f s , a t t i t u d e s and o t h e r cognitions.  C o v e r t b e h a v i o u r s , some b e l i e v e , o b e y t h e same  p s y c h o l o g i c a l l a w s as o v e r t b e h a v i o u r s a n d a r e t h u s of  b e i n g m a n i p u l a t e d by s i m i l a r methods  (Bandura,  capable  1969;  14  Ellis,  1973).  F l a n n e r y (1 972)  and Mahoney  (1971)  that using positive self-statements, that i s , ing  have  saying  said  encourag-  t h i n g s t o o n e s e l f , m o d i f i e s m a l a d a p t i v e t h o u g h t s and i s  somewhat s i m i l a r t o u s i n g r e l a x a t i o n t o e a s e a n x i e t y .  I t re-  s e m b l e s , t h e y s a y , t e c h n i q u e s u s e d by W o l p e and L a z a r u s  (1966)  i n w h i c h s u b j e c t s were asked t o imagine f e a r f u l e v e n t s  during  r e l a x a t i o n s e s s i o n s and g r a d u a l l y l e a r n e d t o c o p e w i t h  anxiety.  P o s i t i v e S e l f - I n s t r u c t i o n with Students Many o f t h e s e p o s i t i v e  self-instruction  h a v e p r e s e n t e d d a t a w h i c h may development students  1977;  be m e a n i n g f u l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e  o f empathy i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n  (Buffington & S t i l l w e l l ,  O m i z a , 1981;  1980;  G o l d f r i e d & Merbaum, 1973;  Meichenbaum, 1978).  (PSI) s t u d i e s  among e l e m e n t a r y Ellis,  1969;  K n a u s , 1974;  Gerler  &  Mahoney,  E n c o u r a g i n g r e p o r t s o f s u c c e s s have  b e e n n o t e d i n many a r e a s , s u c h as w i t h i m p u l s i v i t y & Goodman, 1 9 7 1 ) , a g g r e s s i o n (Camp, 1 9 7 5 ) , and ( G e r l e r & Omiza,  school  (Meichenbaum  hyperactivity  1981).  W i t h r e g a r d t o many o f t h e p o s i t i v e  self-instructional  s t u d i e s f o r w h i c h c l a i m s o f s u c c e s s h a v e b e e n made, t h e r e a r e , however, s e r i o u s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l weaknesses. s t u d y b y M e i c h e n b a u m and Goodman made f o r a p r o g r a m  u s e d as an  e n d o r s e d as a v a l i d  of  T h e r e was  the  assessment.  assessment  of  impulsivity  o n l y by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r s t h e m s e l v e s and b y K a g a n , who o r i g i n a t e d the assessment.  a  i n w h i c h c l a i m s were  to control impulsivity i n children,  M a t c h i n g F a m i l i a r F i g u r e s t e s t was T h i s m e a s u r e was  (1971)  F o r example,  no e v i d e n c e o f  had control  i m p u l s i v i t y i n t h e c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e  15  f i v e members o f the t r a i n e d group.  There a r e s t i l l many un-  answered q u e s t i o n s  about the c o g n i t i v e c o n t r o l o f behaviour.  Nevertheless,  i t would appear t h a t a c o g n i t i v e approach  may f a c i l i t a t e empathy i n the responses of people who are overanxious and s e l f - c o n s c i o u s because, a c c o r d i n g  t o Bucheimer  (1963), most empathy e r r o r s were caused by a c o u n s e l l o r ' s doubt, p e r s o n a l  a n x i e t i e s , and such concern about s e l f  the problems o f o t h e r s were not n o t i c e d ; t h e r e f o r e ,  self-  that  increas-  ing a trainee counsellor's concentration  on the words and  f e e l i n g s o f the c l i e n t presumably should  help t o e l i m i n a t e  b a r r i e r s t o empathy. Empathy and P o s i t i v e S e l f - I n s t r u c t i o n Only two s t u d i e s were found which combined empathy t r a i n i n g w i t h p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n and both s t u d i e s u n i v e r s i t y students.  involved  One, by Cabush and Edwards (1976), com-  pared two groups on the l e v e l o f empathy i n responses they made t o themselves. personal  The students had sought c o u n s e l l i n g f o r  s o c i a l problems a t a campus c l i n i c .  l e v e l o f empathy i n s e l f - r e s p o n d i n g ,  The students'  as r a t e d from tapes, i n -  d i c a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t improvement. The second study t h a t i n c l u d e d p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n , by Yager, O c h i l t r e e and Brekke gains  (1975), claimed  significant  i n empathy r a t i n g s f o r the c o g n i t i v e group over those  t r a i n e d w i t h the empathy model alone.  The s u b j e c t s ,  volunteers  from a psychology c l a s s , p r a c t i s e d responding w i t h empathy. Dependent measures o f the study c o n s i s t e d o f p r e and p o s t t r a i n i n g empathy r a t i n g s made u s i n g C a r k h u f f s  5-point s c a l e .  16 For  posttesting,  subjects  responded v e r b a l l y i n t o a tape  recorder to videotaped emotional vignettes. only  f o r written  The p r e t e s t  responses.  In examining the r e s u l t s o f the l a t t e r pressive cognitive one  gain  asked  i n empathy r e p o r t e d  study, and t h e im-  f o r t h e group w h i c h added  s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e C a r k h u f f t r a i n i n g method,  t h i n g stands out.  At posttest,  t h e two g r o u p s a v e r a g e d  a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l s c o r e s i n e m p a t h y , 2.75 o n t h e C a r k h u f f The  s i g n i f i c a n t g a i n on t h i s c r i t e r i o n measure c l a i m e d f o r t h e  cognitive the  s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l group r e s u l t e d  group had s i g n i f i c a n t l y  lower p r e t e s t  I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e was a n e g a t i v e t w e e n t h e p r e and p o s t t e s t be  scale.  that t r a i n i n g resulted  the  i n learning  i n that  that  scores.  (-.17) c o r r e l a t i o n b e -  scores f o r a l l subjects.  2.75 a v e r a g e empathy l e v e l ,  for learning  from t h e f a c t  I t may  f o r most s u b j e c t s  up t o  and t h a t t h i s f o r m e d a c e i l i n g  situation.  I t may a l s o be t h a t t h e  w r i t t e n empathy r e s p o n s e s used f o r t h e p r e t e s t  were n o t r e l a t e d  t o r e s p o n s e s w h i c h m i g h t have been g i v e n v e r b a l l y . Because a person can a c c u r a t e l y  i d e n t i f y the feelings of  a n o t h e r d o e s n o t mean he h a s t h e a b i l i t y effectively i n a counselling & Orne, 1970).  relationship  I t i s , therefore,  ( F i s k e , Hunt, Luborsky  q u e s t i o n a b l e whether the  r e s u l t s o f t h e Yager study i n d i c a t e t h a t tive  t o use t h e knowledge  the additional  s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l component w o u l d i n c r e a s e  communicated i n a c o u n s e l l i n g claimed f o r t h i s addition verification.  situation.  cogni-  t h e empathy  The s u p e r i o r i t y  t o empathy t r a i n i n g r e q u i r e s  further  17 In  summary, c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h has  i n t o e m p a t h y as a t e a c h a b l e b o d y o f s k i l l s  been  s i n c e empathy  p e r c e i v e d as q u a n t i f i a b l e , b u t t h e t r a i n i n g and designed  undertaken was  instruments  t o m e a s u r e c o u n s e l l o r s ' e m p a t h y h a v e come u n d e r some  criticism.  Secondly,  t e c h n i q u e , has  t w i c e b e e n l i n k e d w i t h empathy t r a i n i n g and i t  a p p e a r s t h a t i t may difficulties  positive self-instruction, a cognitive  b e n e f i t c o u n s e l l o r s whose p e r s o n a l  t h r e a t e n to obscure  their  c o n c e n t r a t i o n on  client  problems. On  t h i s b a s i s , t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y was  formulated to unite  p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n w i t h t h e empathy t r a i n i n g o f young students  and  t o a s s e s s r e s u l t s f r o m a number o f v a n t a g e p o i n t s .  E a r l y Adolescence; As y o u n g p e o p l e to  A S u i t a b l e S t a g e f o r Empathy T r a i n i n g enter e a r l y adolescence,  r e l y more u p o n t h e i r p e e r s  they are  f o r understanding  and  help  p e r s o n a l problems than they d i d i n the e a r l y grades. S c h o e p p e and to  occur  Havighurst  among t h e  (1952) f o u n d  11 t o 13 age  group than i n those  cence i s a s u i t a b l e stage  for training.  l e m s s u c h as d e p r e s s i o n and adolescents  16 and  of  likely 16 em-  adoles-  Because s e r i o u s  prob-  d r u g a b u s e a r e more common i n  o l d e r than i n younger a d o l e s c e n t s  1 9 6 8 ) , f o r p r e v e n t i v e p u r p o s e s i t may t r a i n i n g t o be  13 t o  skills  i n counselling relationships with peers, early  with  Since  t h a t c h a n g e i s more  y e a r s o l d , i t seems t o f o l l o w t h a t , t o d e v e l o p pathy  likely  g i v e n t o younger  (Muus,  be b e n e f i c i a l f o r  people.  18 Student Peers as C o u n s e l l o r s Peers e x e r t an i m p o r t a n t i n f l u e n c e on p a r t i c u l a r l y d u r i n g adolescence Muus, 1968).  socialization,  (De Courcy & D u e r f e l d t , 197 3;  D u r i n g t h e p a s t decade, s c h o o l c o u n s e l l o r s have  been i n c r e a s i n g l y c a p i t a l i z i n g on t h i s i n f l u e n c e by a r r a n g i n g for  s t u d e n t s t o h e l p one another i n c o u n s e l l i n g and o t h e r  capacities K e a t , 1976;  (Carr & Saunders, 1980;  Hamburg & V a r e n h o r s t ,  1972;  K r u e g e r , 1971; Soby, 1971).  O b j e c t i v e r e s e a r c h w i t h young s t u d e n t s i s r a r e , a l t h o u g h s c h o o l c h i l d r e n have f o r m a l l y and i n f o r m a l l y h e l p e d one i n p u b l i c school s e t t i n g s f o r a long time.  another  The two most r e l e -  v a n t s t u d i e s , those w h i c h r e l a t e most c l o s e l y t o the p r e s e n t s t u d y , i n v o l v e empathy t r a i n i n g w i t h young s t u d e n t s and use o f c l i e n t - p e r c e i v e d assessments.  the  These s t u d i e s w i l l  be  reviewed i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . Review o f School-Based Vogelsong  Studies  (1976) t r a i n e d e i g h t f i f t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s t o  respond t o one another w i t h empathy.  He t a u g h t them t o i d e n t i f y  and e x p r e s s emotions w h i l e c o u n s e l l i n g and t h e n had them p r a c tise i n pairs.  The d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n s were e v a l u a t e d by  e x p e r t judges u s i n g a u d i o t a p e s ; assessment was a c t i o n s between t r a i n e e s .  l i m i t e d to i n t e r -  Although g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of e f f e c t s  t o o t h e r peers i s l i m i t e d , t h e s t u d y suggests t h a t  fairly  young s t u d e n t s can l e a r n t o respond t o one another w i t h empathy. C l i e n t - p e r c e i v e d empathy was  used f o r assessment i n an  i n n o v a t i v e s t u d y w i t h s e n i o r secondary  students t r a i n e d to  19 c o m m u n i c a t e empathy the  (Hundleby, 1973).  t r a i n e e s , or those i n the  dividual  P e e r s who  d i d not  c o n t r o l group, took p a r t i n i n -  i n t e r v i e w s w i t h members o f b o t h g r o u p s .  c e i v e d t h e t r a i n e e s t o be a one-to-one s i t u a t i o n H u n d l e b y s i s one 1  know  They  per-  s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r to t a l k to  t h a n t h o s e who of the  few  had  not  been t r a i n e d .  school-based studies  which e v a l u a t i o n employed c l i e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s  in  of  in  received  e m p a t h y , an a s s e s s m e n t t h o u g h t t o be more r e l e v a n t t o outcome than the p e r c e p t i o n s 1 977;  of e x t e r n a l judges  R o g e r s , 1968) .  similar  A l s o , i t d i d not  t o m a t e r i a l s used i n t r a i n i n g  ment m e r i t s  Gladstein,  r e l y upon a s s e s s m e n t s and  this  form of  assess-  replication.  D e f i c i e n c i e s of School-Based Although the a promising  ( F i s k e , 1977;  use  Studies  of student  facilitators  development, s t u d i e s have not  yet  appears to  be  shown w h a t  level  o f empathic r e s p o n d i n g i s p o s s i b l e f o r young a d o l e s c e n t s . p u b l i c schools  design  and  implement peer c o u n s e l l i n g programs,  p r o f e s s i o n a l counsellors should their  y o u n g t r a i n e e s and  h e l p e e s and p a t h y has clients be  clients.  be  aware o f t h e s k i l l s  true of adolescents  p u b l i c schools  Because a low  counselled  their  l e v e l of counsellor  Truax & Carkhuff,  on  em-  adult  1 9 6 7 ) , t h i s may  by t h e i r p e e r s ,  have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  o f young c o u n s e l l o r s .  of  t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e p r o g r a m on  been found t o have a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t ( B e r g i n , 1971;  As  and  to p r o t e c t the  also  the clients  20 As m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y , n o t e n o u g h a t t e n t i o n h a s g e n e r a l l y been p a i d t o c l i e n t assessments o f empathy, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n elementary  s c h o o l s , w h e r e no s t u d i e s w e r e f o u n d  c l i e n t - p e r c e i v e d assessments although people  t o employ  i n g e n e r a l have  shown a n a b i l i t y t o r e c o g n i z e e m p a t h y i n t h o s e w i t h whom t h e y interact  (Mitchell,  e f f e c t o f expressed c e i v e r o f empathy developmental  1975).  Since indications are that the  empathy i s h i g h l y c o n t i n g e n t upon t h e r e ( M c N a l l y , 1973), and s i n c e t h e a d o l e s c e n t  stage i s d i f f e r e n t  from o t h e r l i f e  p e r h a p s t h e r e s h o u l d be c o m p a r i s o n s made b e t w e e n and  a d u l t r a t i n g s o f empathy, p a r t i c u l a r l y  stages, adolescent  since i t i s not  c l e a r w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e l a n g u a g e p e r c e i v e d as e m p a t h i c b y e x p e r t judges by y o u n g  using the Carkhuff  scales i s similarly  perceived  clients.  Published evaluations of f a c i l i t a t i v e programs i n elementary been p o s i t i v e  and secondary  (Anderson,  skills-training  s c h o o l s have g e n e r a l l y  1976; A n d r a d e , 1973; Buck, 1977); b u t  s i n c e many o f t h e s e p r o g r a m s w e r e a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e s c h o o l s y s t e m , f o r m a l e v a l u a t i o n was u s u a l l y s e e n a s u n n e c e s s a r y . group t r a i n i n g programs have c o n c l u d e d  with a discussion of feel-  i n g s and t h e b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s o f l i s t e n i n g and c a r i n g 1975).  Helpers  have f r e q u e n t l y f i l l e d  the programs, and feedback solicited form.  Some  (McCann,  o u t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s about  f r o m t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s  has been  ( B u c k , 1977; Gumaer, 1 9 7 3 ) , g e n e r a l l y i n a n e c d o t a l  I t seems t h a t more o b j e c t i v e r e s e a r c h i s n e e d e d o f p e e r  21 c o u n s e l l i n g w i t h young s t u d e n t s . F u r t h e r m o r e , i n n o v a t i o n i s needed i n t r a i n i n g .  Although  group methods have g e n e r a l l y been used f o r t r a i n i n g s c h o o l p e e r c o u n s e l l o r s , perhaps assessed.  Because  i n d i v i d u a l i z e d t r a i n i n g s h o u l d a l s o be  positive  s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n o f f e r s p o t e n t i a l as  an a i d t o empathy t r a i n i n g a n d s i n c e t h i s p r o c e d u r e h a s o n l y been s t u d i e d once i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e t r a i n i n g o f u n i v e r s i t y peer c o u n s e l l o r s , t h e e f f e c t s w i t h younger  students should also  be a s s e s s e d .  Summary S c h o o l c h i l d r e n h a v e t r a d i t i o n a l l y h e l p e d one a n o t h e r i n t h e c l a s s r o o m , b u t f o r m a l peer c o u n s e l l i n g programs a r e a recent innovation.  fairly  Research on e l e m e n t a r y - s c h o o l s t u d e n t s coun-  s e l l i n g one a n o t h e r i s g r o u n d - b r e a k i n g i n n a t u r e a n d r a i s e s a s many q u e s t i o n s a s i t a n s w e r s .  C o n s i d e r i n g the importance o f im-  proved peer r e l a t i o n s w i t h a d o l e s c e n t s , t h i s age  group  seems a w o r t h w h i l e  f o r f u r t h e r work.  Formulation o f the Study Because  o f the p o t e n t i a l importance o f i n c r e a s i n g  empathic  r e s p o n s e s i n y o u n g a d o l e s c e n t s , t h i s s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o a n swer t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s : (a)  Can 11 t o 13 y e a r o l d s a c h i e v e a m i n i m a l l y f a c i l i t a t i v e l e v e l o f empathy t h r o u g h s h o r t - t e r m , i n d i v i dualized  training?  (b)  Does t h e a d d i t i o n o f p o s i t i v e  self-instruction  en-  hance empathic r e s p o n d i n g o f young p e o p l e ? (c)  What i s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p  between empathic r e s p o n d i n g  j u d g e d b y e x p e r t s and e m p a t h i c r e s p o n d i n g j u d g e d young c o u n s e l l o r s ' p e e r (d)  clients?  Do y o u n g a d o l e s c e n t c l i e n t s r a t e empathy f r o m an a d u l t - e x p e r t  by  client?  differently  23 CHAPTER I I I .  METHODOLOGY  The p r e s e n t s t u d y f o c u s s e d o n empathy a s t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e and used assessments by n a i v e as w e l l as e x p e r t S u b j e c t s w e r e r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d t o two t r e a t m e n t trol  and one con-  c o n d i t i o n , w h i c h were used t o t e s t f o r t r a i n i n g  One e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n i n c l u d e d a p o s i t i v e  raters.  effects.  self-verbaliza-  t i o n component a l o n g w i t h t h e b a s i c t r a i n i n g i n e m p a t h i c r e sponding, group.  such as t h a t r e c e i v e d by t h e o t h e r  experimental  There were t h r e e p r e t e s t s and f o u r p o s t t e s t r a t i n g s ,  i n c l u d i n g t h e r a t i n g s by t h e n a i v e  peers.  P o p u l a t i o n a n d Sample Subjects.  Twenty-four  j e c t s i n t h i s study. classrooms  female  grade s i x s t u d e n t s were t h e sub-  The t r a i n e r w e n t i n t o t h e two g r a d e s i x  i n t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g s c h o o l and a s k e d w h i c h  would l i k e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t r a i n i n g designed t o be " b e t t e r l i s t e n e r s " t o t h e i r were t o l d  girls  t o enable  f r i e n d s and o t h e r s .  them  They  t h a t o n l y 16 g i r l s w o u l d p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e t r a i n -  i n g <4!jhli.t) t h a t t h e c h o i c e o f who was t r a i n e d w o u l d be d e c i d e d randomly from c i p a n t s were (i)  among t h e v o l u n t e e r s .  Requirements f o r p a r t i -  specified:  T h e y must be w i l l i n g t o k e e p t h e i r  s c h o o l w o r k up  t o d a t e and have t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e i r to miss  teacher  one o r two c l a s s e s p e r week f o r a p e r i o d  o f up t o e i g h t w e e k s .  (ii)  T h e y must be  c o m m i t t e d t o t h e t r a i n i n g so t h a t , i f  a t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n m u s t be m i s s e d b e c a u s e o f  examina  t i o n s , absences or other  be  willing  t o make up  reasons,  they would  the s e s s i o n a f t e r s c h o o l i f neces  sary. (iii)  T h e y must be  able to obtain permission  from t h e i r parents (iv)  or  T h e y must be w i l l i n g  for  training  guardians, t o do  approximately  10  minutes  o f "homework" w e e k l y ; t h a t i s , t o p r a c t i c e w h a t t h e y h a v e l e a r n e d w i t h someone f r o m among being  t r a i n e d and  an a u d i o t a p e  record the p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n  so t h a t i t c o u l d be  vidual training  those  reviewed  on  in indi-  sessions.  cc  X  Assessible Population.  Volunteers  from grade s i x females  a t t e n d i n g an u r b a n p u b l i c s c h o o l i n t h e British Sample.  lower  mainland  Columbia. Twenty-four s u b j e c t s were randomly s e l e c t e d from a l l  volunteers  and  perimental  c o n d i t i o n s were t h e n r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d  group.  of  then randomly d i v i d e d i n t o three  T h u s , t h e r e w e r e 16 e x p e r i m e n t a l  e i g h t c o n t r o l group s u b j e c t s  groups. to  s u b j e c t s and  (experimental  each the  assistants).  Ex-  Definitions For t h i s study the f o l l o w i n g o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s were  adopted:  Dependent v a r i a b l e : (i)  Empathy  a s c o r e on t h e C a r k h u f f S c a l e f o r Measurement o f Empathy a s j u d g e d  by t r a i n e d r a t e r s f r o m  audiotapes  t o stimulus statements  recorded  of: a)  responses  on a u d i o t a p e , b)  counselling interactions of subjects with peer-client  (ii)  and  raters,  a s c o r e on t h e C a r k h u f f S c a l e f o r Measurement o f Empathy a s j u d g e d  by a t r a i n e d r a t e r f r o m a  live  i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h s u b j e c t s , and (iii)  a s c o r e o n a s c a l e f o r measurement o f as j u d g e d  understanding  by n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s a f t e r  an  i n t e r a c t i o n o f up t o f i v e m i n u t e s w i t h s u b j e c t s .  Independent v a r i a b l e : in  individual  Experimental treatment.  training i n skills  Time  spent  s u c h a s p a r a p h r a s i n g and  r e f l e c t i o n o f f e e l i n g presumed t o improve s u b j e c t s ' r e s p o n d i n g with  empathy.  Treatments:  The t e a c h i n g o f s k i l l s  of attending behavior,  p a r a p h r a s i n g and r e f l e c t i o n o f f e e l i n g s t o s t u d e n t t r a i n e e s in  both experimental (i)  groups.  T r e a t m e n t 1: responding  The i n t e n s i v e p r a c t i c e o f e m p a t h i c  by t r a i n e e s f o r a p e r i o d o f 10 m i n u t e s  i n c l u d e d i n each 35-minute t r a i n i n g (ii)  Treatment  2:  session,  The p r a c t i c e o f a form o f c o g n i t i v e -  behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n known as " c o g n i t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n " f o r a p e r i o d o f 10 minutes 35-minute t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n . p a r t i c i p a t e d i n Treatment  Subjects:  self-  o f each  Experimental Group 2  2 (see Appendix C-6).  The g i r l s i n t h i s experiment who were presented with;  (1)  tape-recorded stimulus statements t o which they p r o v i d e d a v e r b a l response recorded on an audiotape  (2)  a p e e r - c l i e n t - r a t e r t o whom they responded  in a  manner they thought o f as f a c i l i t a t i v e o r understanding. (3)  an a d u l t e x p e r t r a t e r t o whom they responded  in a  manner they thought o f as f a c i l i t a t i v e o r understanding .  Naive-peer-client rater; to  A person who had minimal  r a t i n g s c a l e s f o r empathic  exposure  responding, had no experience  w i t h e m p a t h i c - r e s p o n d i n g - s k i l l s t r a i n i n g programs and who did  n o t know p e r s o n a l l y the s u b j e c t s i n the experiment.  The  g i r l communicated t o a s u b j e c t whom she subsequently r a t e d as t o t h e degree o f understanding o r empathy t h a t s u b j e c t communicated - to h e r . The c l i e n t - r a t e r was o f approximately the same age as s u b j e c t s i n the experiment to  and was r e f e r r e d  a l s o as a p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r and as a c l i e n t  rater.  27 Naive-Peer-Client-Rater Scale of Understanding: s c a l e o n w h i c h a p e e r r a t e r was  A 5-point  asked t o check the degree  of  u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c a r i n g she f e l t f r o m t h e i n t e r a c t i o n  with  the  p e e r t o whom she had j u s t c o m m u n i c a t e d a p r o b l e m .  This  was  a l s o r e f e r r e d t o as a S c a l e o f U n d e r s t a n d i n g  (Appendix  A-2) . Trainer  (also the experimenter):  The p e r s o n who  communicated  w i t h and a s k e d f o r i n t e r a c t i o n s f r o m t r a i n e e s f o r t h e of  increasing trainees'  purpose  a b i l i t y to understand another person  and t o r e s p o n d w i t h empathy. T r e a t m e n t - e f f e c t i v e n e s s measures:  S c o r e s on r a t i n g  scales  w e r e u s e d t o i n d i c a t e i n c r e a s e d empathy as j u d g e d by  raters.  R a t i n g s c a l e s used were: (a)  C a r k h u f f S c a l e f o r t h e M e a s u r e m e n t o f Empathy (understanding i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l processes),  (b)  and  a self-constructed 5-point scale f o r r a t i n g of e x p e r i e n c e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g by n a i v e p e e r - c l i e n t raters .  Judges:  Three d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t s i n t h e Department  o f Coun-  s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , e x p e r i e n c e d i n t h e use o f t h e C a r k h u f f s c a l e , who  j u d g e d t h e l e v e l o f e m p a t h y e x p r e s s e d by  Trainees:  S i x t e e n f e m a l e g r a d e - s i x s t u d e n t s who  subjects.  were  s e l e c t e d f r o m among.the v o l u n t e e r s t o t a k e p a r t i n t h e ing  program.  T h e y w e r e r a n d o m l y d i v i d e d i n t o two  mental groups o f e i g h t t r a i n e e s  each.  randomly train-  experi-  28 Stimulus statements:  M e s s a g e s , i n p r i n t , o f a p e r s o n who was  expressing a s u i t a b l e concern f o r discussion.  Different  tape  r e c o r d e d m e s s a g e s w e r e u s e d a t p r e and p o s t t e s t o n e . Client:  A p e r s o n who a d o p t e d t h e r o l e o f one who was e x p r e s s i n g  p e r s o n a l c o n c e r n s t o a n o t h e r p e r s o n who, i n t u r n , was t r y i n g t o be u n d e r s t a n d i n g o r f a c i l i t a t i v e . Communications  training:  A planned program o f i n s t r u c t i o n  i n v o l v e d a c t i v i t i e s f o c u s s e d on t h e l e a r n i n g o f s p e c i f i c for  i m p r o v i n g v e r b a l , f a c e - t o - f a c e , one-to-one  Data The  statistical  that  skills  communication.  Analysis  t e c h n i q u e s used were t h e P e a r s o n P r o d u c t -  Moment C o r r e l a t i o n , r , t h e t t e s t f o r d e p e n d e n t means, and analysis of variance. sity  o f B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre. In  for  A l l d a t a were p r o c e s s e d a t t h e U n i v e r -  o r d e r t o t e s t h y p o t h e s e s o n e , two and t h r e e , t t e s t s  dependent samples were p e r f o r m e d  t o determine whether o r  n o t t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between p r e and p o s t t e s t means o f e a c h o f t h e t h r e e g r o u p s .  Analysis of variance  was u s e d t o e x a m i n e t h e d a t a f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s the  t h r e e groups  on t h e p r e t e s t s and p o s t t e s t s .  c o m p a r i s o n t e s t , i f n e c e s s a r y , was p r o p o s e d  among  A multiple  involving the  Tukey method. A P e a r s o n Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n between r a t i n g s by e x p e r t a n d n a i v e r a t e r s was d e t e r m i n e d f o r e a c h o f t h e t h r e e groups  a t p r e t e s t and a t p o s t t e s t .  R a t i n g s by e x p e r t j u d g e s  u s i n g a u d i o t a p e s o n l y , a n d b y an e x p e r t j u d g e i n a l i v e  inter-  v i e w s i t u a t i o n were a l s o c o r r e l a t e d w i t h r a t i n g s by n a i v e r a t e r s  29 a l l o f whom w e r e i n v o l v e d i n a l i v e i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n . Hypothesis  Testing  I n i t i a l e q u i v a l e n c e o f the t h r e e groups w i t h r e g a r d empathic responding The  was  to  a s c e r t a i n e d by a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e .  means o f empathy s c o r e s , as r a t e d by e x p e r t j u d g e s ,  used i n a s s e s s i n g the magnitude o f the d i f f e r e n c e s i n  were perform-  ance o f t h e t h r e e g r o u p s f o r b o t h p r e t e s t 1 and p r e t e s t 2. Means o f empathy s c o r e s f o r a l l t h r e e g r o u p s , n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s , w e r e a l s o u s e d and variance The  as r a t e d  by  an a n a l y s i s o r  performed. a s s u m p t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g t h e use o f a t t e s t f o r de-  pendent samples are t h a t the s u b j e c t s are drawn randomly  from  p o p u l a t i o n s w i t h i n which the dependent v a r i a b l e i s n o r m a l l y t r i b u t e d and  t h a t p o p u l a t i o n v a r i a n c e s a r e homogeneous.  jects i n this  was  composed o f r a t i n g s made b e f o r e  t r a t i o n of the treatment made by t h e t o be  and  s a m p l e two  t h e y were  groups.  adminis-  a c o l l e c t i o n of  same s u b j e c t s a f t e r t r e a t m e n t ,  scores  considered  scores f o r dependent samples. A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was  s e l e c t e d to determine  f e r e n c e s among g r o u p s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t . of t h i s s t a t i s t i c a l procedure  The  .05  met  dif-  use  a r e t h a t s u b j e c t s used have been  t h a t the d i f f e r e n t samples are independent.  t i o n s were a p p r o x i m a t e l y  i f the  Assumptions f o r  d r a w n a t random f r o m n o r m a l p o p u l a t i o n s w i t h e q u a l and  Sub-  s t u d y were v o l u n t e e r s r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d t o  S i n c e s a m p l e one  dis-  i n the present  l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was  variances  T h e s e assump-  study.  s e l e c t e d as t h e  a t w h i c h t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s w o u l d be r e j e c t e d .  level  3CL F o r c a l c u l a t i n g c o r r e l a t i o n s t h e Spearman R a n k - O r d e r C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t was r e j e c t e d a s b e i n g l e s s f a c t o r y than the Pearson Carkhuff  satis-  Product-Moment C o e f f i c i e n t .  The  s c a l e p r o v i d e s f o r r a t i n g s r a n g i n g from 1 t o 5  so t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e , o f n e c e s s i t y , a l a r g e number o f tied and  s c o r e s i f o r d i n a l r a n k i n g w e r e i m p o s e d upon t h e d a t a much u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d be l o s t . Empathy a p p e a r s t o v a r y among p e o p l e .  seem t o a l m o s t  merge w i t h o t h e r s i n s e n s i t i v i t y ,  blend the boundaries may be m i n i m a l  of self  seeming t o  so t h a t t h e i r o b j e c t i v e a p p r a i s a l  i n some e n c o u n t e r s .  t o t a l l y unaware o f t h e t h o u g h t s  Other i n d i v i d u a l s  appear  a n d f e e l i n g s o f o t h e r s and  t o be w h o l l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r own t h o u g h t s . Carkhuff  Some i n d i v i d u a l s  Although the  scale provides d e s c r i p t i o n s which are q u i t e exact,  even t r a i n e d  judges'  r a t i n g s a r e n o t i d e n t i c a l a n d some d o u b t  i s e v i d e n t as t o t h e e x a c t placement o f r a t i n g s w h i c h i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n b o t h v e r b a l and n o n v e r b a l encounter.  take  a s p e c t s o f an  E m p a t h y , l i k e most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p e o p l e ,  a p p e a r s t o be d i s t r i b u t e d n o r m a l l y b u t , u n l i k e h e i g h t o r weight,  c a n n o t be m e a s u r e d w i t h s u f f i c i e n t a c c u r a c y t o  c o n s i d e r an u n d e r l y i n g i n t e r v a l thought  scale.  o f as being q u a s i - i n t e r v a l .  used w i t h such a continuous The  However i t c a n be  P a r a m e t r i c t e s t s c a n be  scale characteristic.  T u k e y method i s s o m e t i m e s u s e d t o d e t e c t , a f t e r a n  a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e , w h i c h g r o u p means a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y different  from each o t h e r .  The T u k e y m e t h o d i s s u p e r i o r ,  i n t e r m s o f i t s power t o d e t e c t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s  31 b e t w e e n s a m p l e means t o t h e S c h e f f e method when c o n s i d e r i n g p a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s and i t a c c o u n t s  f o r almost  c a t i o n s o f m u l t i p l e comparison procedures research  ( G l a s s & S t a n l e y , 1976).  a l l of the appli-  used i n e d u c a t i o n a l  T h u s , i t was u s e d i n t h i s  research.  Design a)  General  Design  T h i s s t u d y f o c u s s e d on t h e t e a c h i n g o f empathic  responding  t o e a r l y a d o l e s c e n t s u s i n g two e x p e r i m e n t a l a n d one c o n t r o l group.  A p r e t e s t , p o s t t e s t c o n t r o l g r o u p d e s i g n was u s e d , d i a -  grammatically  Key:  R  .^represented as f o l l o w s : R  0  1  0  R  0  1  X  R  0  1  --  X l  2  2  0  2  0  2  = random a s s i g n m e n t  0^ = p r e t e s t s X.J = t r e a t m e n t p l u s e m p a t h i c r e s p o n d i n g ( i . e . , t r e a t m e n t one) X  practice  = treatment plus c o g n i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n ( i . e . , t r e a t m e n t two)  2  Q>2 p o s t t e s t s =  b)  Dependent V a r i a b l e The  d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e was c o m m u n i c a t e d empathy a s m e a s u r e d  by: (i) experienced  raters using the Carkhuff Scale f o r  Measurement o f Empathy, and  32 (ii)  n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s a s s e s s i n g on t h e b a s i s o f p e r i e n c e d o r r e c e i v e d empathy, u s i n g a 5 - p o i n t based  scale  upon t h e d e g r e e o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c a r i n g t h a t  r a t e r s f e l t was c)  ex-  g i v e n them.  Hypothesis Testing N u l l Hypotheses w i t h r e g a r d t o judged empathy were examined  u s i n g t h e C a r k h u f f S c a l e f o r M e a s u r e m e n t o f Empathy s c o r e s . N u l l H y p o t h e s e s w i t h r e g a r d t o e x p e r i e n c e d empathy were e x a m i n e d u s i n g t h e s c o r e s r e g i s t e r e d by n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t  raters  on a s e l f - c o n s t r u c t e d s c a l e o f empathy c a l l e d a S c a l e o f Understanding. testing d)  N a i v e r a t e r s were s t r a n g e r s t o t h e s u b j e c t s u n t i l  the  situation.  Group Comparisons C o m p a r i s o n s w e r e made b e t w e e n : ( i ) E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p 1 and (ii) (iii)  e)  E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p 2 and  group,  the c o n t r o l  group,  E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p 1 and E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p  Specific  f o r f i v e weeks e x c l u s i v e o f t h e p r e t e s t  and p o s t t e s t s e s s i o n s .  The  session for orientation. dividualized  and  lasted  first  t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n was  a group  A l l o t h e r t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s were i n 35  minutes.  I n t h e s t u d y t h e r e w e r e two control  2.  Procedures  T r a i n i n g proceeded  one  the c o n t r o l  e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s and  condition. Procedures  a)  Treatment  Procedures  S p e c i f i c procedures view of procedures  are d e t a i l e d i n Appendix  i s presented i n S p e c i f i c Design  C and  an  (p. 33 ).  over-  33 S p e c i f i c Design  Day 1 2 3 4-8  9, 10  E x p e r i m e n t a l Treatment Condition 1 Pretest  1 and 2  group o r i e n t a t i o n  E x p e r i m e n t a l Treatment Condition 2 Pretest  1 and 2  group o r i e n t a t i o n  5 minutes: trainee's pres e n t a t i o n o f c o n c e r n s , and t r a i n e r responses.  5 minutes: trainee's pres e n t a t i o n o f c o n c e r n s , and t r a i n e r responses.  5 minutes: trainee rates t r a i n e r , u s i n g taped t r a i n e r responses (above)  5 minutes: trainee rates t r a i n e r , u s i n g taped t r a i n e r responses (above)  10 minutes: trainee, pract i c e s p a r a p h r a s i n g and r e flection of feeling.  10 minutes: trainee pract i c e s paraphrasing, r e f l e c t i o n o f f e e l i n g , and positive self-instruction.  5 minutes: l i s t e n i n g to trainee's practice session on a u d i o t a p e .  5 minutes: l i s t e n i n g to trainee's practice session on a u d i o t a p e .  10 minutes: trainee responds w i t h empathy t o t r a i n e r ' s p e r s o n a l concerns, playback of t h i s taped i n t e r a c t i o n and feedback t o t r a i n e e .  10 minutes: trainee responds w i t h empathy t o t r a i n e r ' s p e r s o n a l concerns , p l a y b a c k o f t h i s taped i n t e r a c t i o n and feedback t o t r a i n e e .  Posttest  Posttest  1, 2 and 3  Control: Group 3 Pretest 1 and 2  1, 2 and 3  Posttest 1, 2 and 3  T o t a l t r a i n i n g time was t h e same f o r each o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l groups.  Each t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n was 35 minutes l o n g .  De-  t a i l s o f t r e a t m e n t and r a t i n g p r o c e d u r e s a r e i n c l u d e d (Appendix C-6 and C-7).  34  b)  Testing All  Procedures  s u b j e c t s were i n f o r m e d  t h a t t h i s t e s t i n g and t r a i n i n g  w o u l d be p a r t o f a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t and t h a t t h e i r a t e n a b l i n g a p e r s o n t o f e e l u n d e r s t o o d and c a r e d assessed  before  and a f t e r t a i n i n g .  level of s k i l l s f o r w o u l d be  S u b j e c t s were g i v e n  exten-  s i v e w r i t t e n i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e m s e l v e s and t h e i r p a r e n t s l i n i n g p r o c e d u r e s and t i m e e x p e c t a t i o n s  as w e l l as t h e i r  outrights  (see A p p e n d i x B ) . T h e r e w e r e no e x t r a n e o u s i n c e n t i v e s o f f e r e d t o s u b j e c t s s u c h as academic g r a d e s . t h e i r teachers  I n f a c t , t h e y were t o l d  that  w o u l d h o l d them r e s p o n s i b l e t o make up a n y w o r k  m i s s e d w h i l e t h e y were p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e t r a i n i n g . F o r P r e and P o s t t e s t 1, i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s w e r e a s k e d t o r e s p o n d t o an a u d i o t a p e d was a u d i o t a p e d  stimulus  for later rating.  s t a t e m e n t and t h e r e s p o n s e P r e and P o s t t e s t 2 c o n s i s t e d  o f an i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h a p e e r , a s t r a n g e r t o t h e s u b j e c t , w i t h whom s h e c o m m u n i c a t e d .  T h i s i n t e r a c t i o n was r a t e d n o t o n l y by  a n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r b u t , a l s o , t h r o u g h t h e use o f t a p e , by e x p e r t male acted  raters.  as c l i e n t  each subject.  audio-  F o r an a d d i t i o n a l p o s t t e s t , an a d u l t  and a l s o a s a r a t e r o f t h e empathy f o r  D e t a i l s o f t h e above t e s t i n g p r o c e d u r e s a r e  g i v e n i n A p p e n d i x C. A f t e r completion before  experts  of a l l t e s t i n g , audiotapes  r a t e d them.  were  P r e and P o s t t e s t s 1 and 2 w e r e  numbered and a t a b l e o f random numbers u s e d i n o r d e r domize t h e o r d e r  of rating.  retaped  to ran-  Sampling Procedures and Assignments Because o f i n d i v i d u a l i z e d t r a i n i n g , random assignment of  s u b j e c t s to experimental and c o n t r o l groups was p o s s i b l e .  In o r d e r to be a b l e t o c o r r e c t s t a t i s t i c a l l y  f o r possible  imbalances i n p r e t r a i n i n g performance, p r e t e s t s were used and an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e performed on the r e s u l t s .  A  t a b l e o f random numbers was used to prevent systematic b i a s e s i n the s e l e c t i o n o f the 24 females from among the volunteers. groups.  S u b j e c t s were then randomly  Treatment  assigned to t h r e e  f o r groups .was d e c i d e d randomly as  well. Random sampling was a l s o used t o s e l e c t e i g h t students from among the female v o l u n t e e r s from a d i f f e r e n t school to a c t as c l i e n t - r a t e r s . s t u d e n t - r a t e r s were randomly  elementary  Four o f these grade s i x  s e l e c t e d f o r the p r e t e s t  s i t u a t i o n and four f o r the p o s t t e s t .  They were  randomly  a s s i g n e d t o two s u b j e c t s from each o f the t h r e e experimental groups. six  They d i s c u s s e d a s i m i l a r concern w i t h each o f the  and r a t e d each as t o the degree o f empathic responding  they experienced d u r i n g each s e s s i o n o f up to f i v e duration.  minutes  P r i o r t o the i n t e r v i e w they were g i v e n minimal  i n s t r u c t i o n i n the use o f the Scale o f Understanding A-2).  (Append  Suggestions were a l s o g i v e n r e g a r d i n g the types o f  concerns c o n s i d e r e d s u i t a b l e f o r d i s c u s s i o n d u r i n g the testing interview  (Appendix D - l ) .  36  Measurement o f D e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e (a)  The C a r k h u f f  used  by e x p e r i e n c e d  subjects' of  empathy.  raters  to assess  Raters  listened  the l e v e l  (b)  (i)  stimulus statements  (ii)  peer-client  raters  An e x p e r t  prerecorded  on a u d i o t a p e s ,  as c l i e n t  and a l s o  same i n t e r v i e w p r e s e n t e d  a problem  situation,  judge,  after  5-point  to assess  s c a l e was  the l e v e l  o f empathy  empathy  He u s e d  the  by n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s  experienced  from  the subjects  a c o u n s e l l i n g i n t e r a c t i o n o f up t o f i v e m i n u t e s d u r a t i o n .  Carkhuff  frequently  Instruments  S c a l e f o r Measurement o f Empathy  C a r k h u f f ' s empathy to assess  s c a l e has been u s e d  levels of f a c i l i t a t i o n  (Appendix A - l )  much more of counsellors  t r a i n e e s t h a n has any o t h e r o f C a r k h u f f s s c a l e s  such  1  as t h o s e  f o r genuineness  shown a c l o s e r  or nonpossessive  relationship  have o t h e r o f t h e f a c i l i t a t i v e The empathy of  similar for  o f apparent  each i n t e r a c t i o n .  used  Scoring  has  as r a t e r o f  S c a l e f o r Measurement o f Empathy.  A  during  and  during a counselling interaction  acting  Carkhuff  and  recordings  up t o f i v e m i n u t e s d u r a t i o n .  of each s u b j e c t d i r e c t l y  a)  of the  to audiotaped  e a c h o f t h e 24 s u b j e c t s , and r a t e d t h e l e v e l  (c)  was  the s u b j e c t s ' responses t o :  of  the  S c a l e f o r Measurement o f Empathy  scale  ranges  the helper i n d i c a t e  from  little  warmth.  t o outcome c r i t e r i a skills  level  Empathy than  (Gurman & R a z i n ,  1, a t w h i c h t h e  1977) .  responses  o r no a w a r e n e s s o f e v e n  obvious  37 f e e l i n g s e x p r e s s e d by t h e h e l p e e , t o l e v e l the  helper  expresses  seems t o be f u l l y Carkhuff  reliability Carkhuff,  t h e l e v e l s as i n d i c a t e d i n Appendix A - l .  to test r e l i a b i l i t y  reliabilities  (1969) r e p o r t e d  (1963) r e p o r t e d  o f .90, .99, and  rater-rerater reliability  and  .92.  Carkhuffs  Rappaport  &  c l e a r evidence  of f a c i l i t a t i v e  C h i n s k y , 1972; S h a p i r o ,  " t h e r e was l i t t l e  1968).  Shapiro  face  evidence r e l a t e s  therapy v a r i a b l e s "  that c o r r e l a t i o n a l data  a v a r i a b l e and outcome i n d i c a t e a c a u s e - e f f e c t has been f r e q u e n t l y p o i n t e d  (1969)'  e v i d e n c e o f what t h e s c a l e  s c a l e t o o u t c o m e and o t h e r  The f a l l a c y o f r e a s o n i n g  1971,  con-  conditions  have apparent  a c t u a l l y measures s i n c e most o f t h e r e s e a r c h the  and  1969; K i e s l e r , M a t h i e u & K l e i n , 1967;  c o n t e n d e d t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e s c a l e may validity  .94; Cannon  v a l i d i t y or predictive v a l i d i t y of  s c a l e f o r measurement  (Caracena & V i c o r y ,  internal  o f two r a t e r s o f .94, .93,  T h e r e d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o be v e r y the construct  data.  P e a r s o n Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n s  for  cerning  and i n t e r r a t e r  a r e a number o f s t u d i e s c o n t r i b u t i n g  K r a t c h o v i l and F r i e l  consistency Carkhuff  there  a c c u r a t e l y t h e f e e l i n g l e v e l s and  " w i t h t h e h e l p e e i n h i s d e e p e s t moments."  described  With regard  5, a t v/hich  (p. 3 5 2 ) . between  relationship  o u t (Rappaport • & " C h i n s k y ,  p. 4 0 1 ) . Many s t u d i e s h a v e shown a c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n  as m e a s u r e d by t h e C a r k h u f f  empathy  s c a l e and o u t c o m e s s u c h a s g l o b a l  r a t i n g o f c l i e n t improvement; however, t h e j u d g i n g  o f im-  p r o v e m e n t h a s g e n e r a l l y b e e n r a t e d by t h e c l i e n t o r t h e r a p i s t  (Truax,  1970;  T r u a x , Wargo, F r a n k ,  S a r i c , Nash & Stone, d e n c e has  1966).  Imber, B a t t l e ,  In addition, research  f a i l e d t o show t h a t , e v e n i n n o r m a l  1969).  The  evi-  clients,  o b j e c t i v e l y measured l e v e l s o f empathy m a t c h t h e perception of f a c i l i t a t i v e  Hoehn-  c o n d i t i o n s (Caracena  clients' & Vicory,  c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of the s c a l e s remains very  much i n q u e s t i o n b u t m e n t s i n w h i c h one  the c r i t i c s  have y e t t o produce  can p l a c e g r e a t e r c o n f i d e n c e .  instru-  The  scales  c o n t i n u e t o be u t i l i z e d by many r e s e a r c h e r s . b)  Naive-Peer-Rater Scale of A u t o - S c a l e o f Empathy A 5-point  s c a l e was  used f o r p e e r s '  they considered understanding or non-empathic responding. asked  Understanding:  and  judgments o f what  c a r i n g ; t h a t i s , empathic  Each p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r  t o c h e c k t h e d e s c r i p t i o n w h i c h was  closest to  was her  o p i n i o n about a just-completed i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h a s u b j e c t . A level  1 j u d g m e n t was  one  r a t e r f e l t t h a t h e r i d e a s and by t h e s u b j e c t .  pathy  thought  extremely  cared about.  f e e l i n g s were not  t h a t h e r f e e l i n g s and  w e l l and  L e v e l s 2,  b e t w e e n t h e two  3 and  extremes  t h a t she,  such as t h e C a r k h u f f  i d e a s were  as a p e r s o n ,  was  4 provided f o r l e v e l s of (Appendix  A s c a l e on w h i c h t h e r e l i a b i l i t y assessed,  understood  For a l e v e l 5 r a t i n g , the p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r  i n d i c a t e d t h a t she understood  i n which the p e e r - c l i e n t  A-2).  and v a l i d i t y h a v e b e e n  s c a l e , was  r e j e c t e d because  t r a i n i n g t h e s e e a r l y a d o l e s c e n t s t o s c o r e a c c u r a t e l y on s c a l e may  em-  h a v e p r e j u d i c e d them i n f a v o u r o f comments  and  the  i n t e r a c t i o n s which a d u l t s tend to r a t e as empathic  when  a major o b j e c t i v e o f the study was t o d i s c o v e r more about communication deemed understanding by a d o l e s c e n t s .  There-  f o r e the n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s were asked t o r a t e the f o l l o w i n g statement  on the 5-point s c a l e :  "I t h i n k t h a t the g i r l I j u s t t a l k e d to understood what I was s a y i n g and how I f e l t and t h a t she a l s o cared about me and what I was t a l k i n g Shapiro  (1968) r e p o r t e d c o r r e l a t i o n s o f three Carkhuff  s c a l e s w i t h a semantic of  about."  d i f f e r e n t i a l r a t i n g f o r dimensions  understanding - not-understanding and good - bad.  Accurate empathy r a t i n g s c o r r e l a t e d  .67 and warmth  the understanding - not understanding dimensions. empathy c o r r e l a t e d  .87 with Accurate  .71 with the e v a l u a t i o n of good - bad.  The study i n v o l v e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s between expert and neophyte ratings of therapeutic conditions. A semantic by B e l l u c c i  d i f f e r e n t i a l measure o f empathy was  (1973).  The Truax-Carkhuff measure o f a c c u r a t e  empathy showed a c o r r e l a t i o n of .79 w i t h the d i f f e r e n t i a l scale.  developed  The words  empathic  understanding-nonunderstanding,  listening-nonlistening, caring-uncaring, t r u s t i n g - d i s t r u s t i n g , and  l i k i n g - d i s l i k i n g were those w i t h the h i g h e s t l o a d i n g on  the f a c t o r c a l l e d empathy.  I t would t h e r e f o r e seem reasonable  t h a t the s c a l e used by the naive peers should measure t h e i r i d e a o f empathy. be l i t t l e  change i n the empathic  satisfactorily  I f we assume t h a t there w i l l responding o f the c o n t r o l  group between pre and p o s t t e s t i n g then the r a t i n g s of the naive peers f o r t h i s group should o f f e r a measure o f the  v a r i a b i l i t y o f peer r a t i n g s . c)  Scoring Procedures.  E x p e r t r a t e r s were t h r e e e x p e r i e n c e d  c o u n s e l l o r s who had almost completed a d o c t o r a l program i n c o u n s e l l i n g psychology.  They had a l l t a u g h t  communication  s k i l l s p r o f e s s i o n a l l y and a l l had e x t e n s i v e p r a c t i c e i n t h e use o f t h e C a r k h u f f S c a l e f o r Measurement o f Empathy.  Also,  t h e y had r a t e d empathy i n p r e v i o u s p i l o t s t u d i e s and showed v e r y c l o s e agreement i n t h e i r judgment o f empathy.  Before  r a t i n g i n t h i s study they were each g i v e n a copy o f C a r k h u f f s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f empathic u n d e r s t a n d i n g  R a t i n g f o r P r e and P o s t t e s t 2.  (Appendix A - l ) .  Each e x p e r t r a t e r  l i s t e n e d t o each t a p e - r e c o r d e d i n t e r v i e w and r e c o r d e d a s c o r e on t h e C a r k h u f f s c a l e r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e r a t e r s ' j u d g ment o f t h e s u b j e c t ' s empathy.  A g l o b a l score f o r the e n t i r e  i n t e r v i e w between t h e s u b j e c t and t h e n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r was g i v e n . R a t i n g f o r P o s t t e s t 3.  An e x p e r t r a t e r performed t h e  f u n c t i o n s o f both c l i e n t and r a t e r . of  He had had many y e a r s  e x p e r i e n c e w o r k i n g w i t h young people i n c o u n s e l l i n g  s i t u a t i o n s and now t a u g h t communication  skills  professionally.  He had used t h e C a r k h u f f S c a l e f o r Measurement o f Empathy extensively. The r a t e r , i n h i s r o l e as c l i e n t , t a l k e d about a p e r s o n a l problem of  s i t u a t i o n r e l a t i n g to i n s i n c e r e behavior  some o f h i s f r i e n d s , a problem t o which each o f t h e s u b j e c t s  responded  readily.  He stopped each i n t e r v i e w a f t e r  five  minutes.  A f t e r e a c h s u b j e c t had r e t u r n e d t o c l a s s t h e r a t e r i m -  mediately recorded  an empathy s c o r e a l o n g w i t h b r i e f n o t e s  as  t o cues which helped t o p r o v i d e the b a s i s f o r h i s assessment (Appendix E - 2 ) . R a t i n g s by N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s .  A s c o r e f r o m one t o  f i v e was i n d i c a t e d by e a c h o f t h e s e r a t e r s , r i g h t a f t e r i n t e r v i e w w i t h a s u b j e c t , t o r e f l e c t the degree o f i n g and c a r i n g t h e n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r t h o u g h t by t h e s u b j e c t .  each  understandwas  shown  D e t a i l s o f p r e p a r a t i o n f o r r a t i n g by p e e r  r a t e r s i s i n c l u d e d i n Appendix  C-2.  L i m i t a t i o n s o f the Study Design The d e s i g n o f t h e s t u d y , w i t h i t s p r e t e s t , p o s t t e s t , and c o n t r o l groups,  should c o n t r o l f o r the f o l l o w i n g sources  ternal invalidity: instrumentation  ofi n -  h i s t o r y , m a t u r a t i o n , t e s t i n g , s e l e c t i o n and  (Campbell  & S t a n l e y , 1963).  With regard to  e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y , h o w e v e r , i t may be weak i n c o n t r o l l i n g f o r t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f some o f t h e t e s t i n g a n d  treatment.  T h e r e may be r e a c t i v e e f f e c t s o f t h e t r e a t m e n t i n g w h e r e r a t i n g s a r e made by t r a i n e d j u d g e s  and t e s t -  o f empathy  using  the Carkhuff  s c a l e b e c a u s e t h e t r a i n e r , aware o f t h e n a t u r e  of responses  r a t e d h i g h l y on t h e C a r k h u f f  couraged s i m i l a r responses  s c a l e , may  during training.  c e p t i o n s o f empathy by n a i v e p e e r s  have e n -  Therefore,  per-  w e r e a d d e d i n an a t t e m p t  to  a l l e v i a t e t h e p r o b l e m and t o p r o v i d e a c o m p a r i s o n f o r t h e two forms o f r a t i n g .  Three as  f u r t h e r p o s s i b l e l i m i t a t i o n s of the study's design are  follows: a)  t h a t s u b j e c t s become s e n s i t i z e d t o e x p e r i m e n t a l testing;  b)  t h a t f a c t o r s o t h e r t h a n t r e a t m e n t — s u c h as t h e amount o f i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n s u b j e c t s may  be o p e r a t i n g i n c h a n g e s  i n their  performance,  i n v a l i d a t i n g t h e comparison between the m e n t a l and c o n t r o l g r o u p s , c)  received—  experi-  and  t h a t the s m a l l n e s s of the sample,  a l t h o u g h randomly  assigned to groups, admits the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t groups were n o t comparable  i n v a r i a b l e s which  the  may  be r e l e v a n t , s u c h as p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e s e t s , or  m o t i v a t i o n f o r change.  Scales A simple r a t i n g scale structed f o r t h i s study.  ( S c a l e o f U n d e r s t a n d i n g ) was There  a r e no e m p i r i c a l d a t a o n i t s  r e l i a b i l i t y o r v a l i d i t y , b u t i t s u s e was in  an a t t e m p t t o s e e w h e t h e r  con-  considered desirable  sixth-grade g i r l s  generally  agreed w i t h the r a t i n g s of e x p e r t s . C o n c l u s i o n s b a s e d u p o n t h e C a r k h u f f S c a l e may b y c r i t i c i s m s w h i c h have b e e n l e v e l l e d ( C a r a c e n a & V i c o r y , 1969; Rappaport  & C h i n s k y , 1972;  be w e a k e n e d  at t h i s instrument  K i e s l e r , Mathieu & K l e i n , S h a p i r o , 1968).  1 967;  43 Rationales Subject  Choice  P a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s study, sixth-grade g i r l volunteers who h a d r e c e i v e d p a r e n t a l c o n s e n t , h a d s p e n t t h e i r s c h o o l l i v e s i n t h e same l a r g e l y m i d d l e - c l a s s s u b u r b . s t u d e n t l i v e d o u t s i d e t h e s c h o o l ' s catchment  O n l y one  area.  Thus,  t h e r e i s l i k e l y t o be more h o m o g e n e i t y o f s u b j e c t s t h a n be t h e s i t u a t i o n i n s c h o o l s s e r v i n g w i d e l y d i f f e r i n g economic  would  socio-  groups.  B o y s w e r e n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t u d y f o r two r e a s o n s : First,  s e x may be a c o n f o u n d i n g f a c t o r where empathy i s c o n -  c e r n e d , b e c a u s e some y o u n g a d o l e s c e n t s l a c k o p e n n e s s i n d i s c u s s i n g a n y t h i n g w i t h p e e r s o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x (Muus, In addition, g i r l s geneously t h a n boys  1968).  o f 11 t o 13 h a v e m a t u r e d much more homo(Hembling,  1971).  Using g i r l s  as s u b j e c t s ,  t h e r e f o r e , p r o v i d e s a g r e a t e r p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t measured will  effects  be t h e r e s u l t o f t r a i n i n g a n d n o t o f random f a c t o r s r e -  s u l t i n g from m a t u r a t i o n a l l e v e l . A t t e m p t s w e r e made t o e l i m i n a t e s e l e c t i o n b i a s .  Almost  every student given the opportunity to volunteer d i dso. One-to-one  Setting  I n d i v i d u a l i z e d treatment enabled randomization of e x p e r i mental occasions t o occur.  P o s s i b l e sources o f b i a s ,  such  as t h e t i m e o f d a y , t h e d a y o f t h e week o r t h e n e a r n e s s o f e x a m i n a t i o n s , w e r e more b a l a n c e d among s u b j e c t s t h a n i f t h e t r a i n i n g h a d b e e n done i n g r o u p s by a l l g r o u p members.  w i t h treatment h i s t o r y  A l s o , because o f concerns  about  shared students  44 l o s i n g c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n a l t i m e , i t seemed t h a t alized rather  t h a n g r o u p e d i n s t r u c t i o n w o u l d be more  Null H.| :  individuefficient.  Hypotheses  T h e r e w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  difference  = .05) b e t w e e n t h e p r e t e s t mean a n d t h e p o s t t e s t mean o f E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p 1 b a s e d o n : a)  Carkhuff r a t i n g s o f audiotaped responses o f trainees  b)  to a given  like,  2  with  naive-peer-clients.  Ratings of trainee interviews c l i e n t raters using  H :  statement.  Carkhuff r a t i n g s o f audiotaped responses o f trainee; interviews  c)  stimulus  by n a i v e - p e e r -  a self-constructed,  Carkhuff-  5 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r empathy.  T h e r e w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  difference  (•xz. = .05) b e t w e e n t h e p r e t e s t mean and t h e p o s t t e s t mean o f E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p 2 b a s e d o n : a)  Carkhuff r a t i n g s o f audiotaped responses o f trainees  b)  to a given  statement.  Carkhuff r a t i n g s o f audiotaped responses o f trainee interviews  c)  stimulus  with  naive-peer-clients.  Ratings o f trainee interviews raters using  by  a self-constructed,  5 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r empathy.  naive-peer-client Carkhuff-like,  T h e r e w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  difference  (c*c = .05) b e t w e e n t h e p r e t e s t mean and t h e p o s t t e s t mean o f t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p b a s e d o n : a)  C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f subj e c t s t o a given  b)  statement;  C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f subjects'  c)  stimulus  interviews  with  Ratings of subject  naive-peer-clients;  interviews  by n a i v e - p e e r -  c l i e n t raters using  a self-constructed,  like,  f o r empathy.  5-point scale  T h e r e w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  Carkhuff-  difference  (»c = .05) among t h e p o s t t e s t means o f E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p 1, E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p 2, and t h e C o n t r o l  Group  based on: a)  Carkhuff r a t i n g s of audiotaped responses o f trainees  b)  t o a given  with  naive-peer-clients.  C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s by an e x p e r t judge a c t i n g as c l i e n t  d)  statement.  Carkhuff r a t i n g s o f audiotaped responses o f trainee interviews  c)  stimulus  also  i n an i n t e r v i e w .  Ratings of trainee interviews raters using 5-point scale  by  a self-constructed,  naive-peer-client Carkhuff-like,  f o r empathy.  T h e r e w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  correlation  = .05) b e t w e e n t h e empathy s c o r e s a s s i g n e d b y e x pert  r a t e r s and n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t  raters f o rthe posttest  46  i n t e r v i e w i n v o l v i n g each group and measured by the Pearson Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n , r . Hg:  There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n (=<^ = . 0 5 between the empathy scores assigned by expert raters  and n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t  raters  f o r the p o s t t e s t  i n t e r v i e w i n v o l v i n g each group and measured by the Pearson Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n , r.'. H: 7  There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y (~o  significant correlation  = . 0 5 ) between the empathy scores assigned i n a l i v e  i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n by an expert r a t e r and naive-peerc l i e n t r a t e r s , i n v o l v i n g each group and measured by the Pearson Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n , r .  47  CHAPTER I V . T h i s s t u d y was of the 1.  s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed  An  assessment of the impact  judged  investigation  o f a t r a i n i n g program  of early adolescents,  (a)  e x p e r t r a t e r s , based on  (b)  an e x p e r t r a t e r i n a l i v e  (c)  naive-peer-client  An  An  on  as  by: audiotapes; interview  situation;  raters.  assessment of the impact  of a  l i a a t i o n component i n c l u d e d 3.  t o an  following:  the empathic responding  2.  RESULTS  positive-self-verba-  i n the t r a i n i n g .  i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n empathy  s c o r e s as j u d g e d  by:  (a)  e x p e r t and  naive adolescent  (b)  expert r a t e r s using audiotapes expert rater i n a l i v e  raters; and  interview  an  situa-  tion; (c)  naive adolescent  and  Analysis The  8) and  s t a n d a r d e r r o r s , t and Moment c o r r e l a t i o n s . by  o f Data .  p r o c e s s i n g o f d a t a was  (SPSS, v e r s i o n  expert c l i e n t - r a t e r s .  p e r f o r m e d by c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m  y i e l d e d means, s t a n d a r d  deviations,  F v a l u e s as w e l l as P e a r s o n The  findings  Product-  of t h i s study are  presented  s t a t i n g the h y p o t h e s i s , g i v i n g the s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s  t h e c o n c l u s i o n s b a s e d on t h e f i n d i n g s . are presented  t o g i v e an o v e r v i e w  Figures 1,2,  of r e s u l t s .  3 and  and 4  Figure 1 E f f e c t o f Empathy T r a i n i n g on I n t e r v i e w B e h a v i o u r : (Expert Raters) Means o f Empathy S c o r e s  Pretest  Posttest  Figure 2 E f f e c t o f Empathy T r a i n i n g on I n t e r v i e w B e h a v i o u r (Naive R a t e r s ) Means o f Empathy S c o r e s _ -*  .-, • •  * " Key:  Pretest  Exp. 1 Exp. 2 Control  Posttest  Figure  3  Mean E m p a t h y R a t i n g s f o r T h r e e G r o u p s : Expert Raters  Naive C l i e n t  Group: 1  Control  Figure  1  2  Expert C l i e n t Rater  Group: 2 Control  (Posttest)  Naive C l i e n t Raters  Group: 1  Control  4  Mean E m p a t h y R a t i n g s f o r T h r e e G r o u p s :  1  Raters  Group: 2  Expert Raters  (Pretest)  2 Control  Group: 1  2 Control  There a r e separate subsections theses.  The s u b s e c t i o n s  t o e a c h o f t h e m a j o r hypo  w i l l be e x a m i n e d s e p a r a t e l y  rather  than t r e a t i n g t h e major h y p o t h e s i s as a u n i t . H y p o t h e s i s One; T h e r e w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  difference  (<=<= = .05) b e t w e e n t h e p r e t e s t mean and t h e p o s t t e s t mean o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 1 b a s e d o n : a)  Carkhuff r a t i n g s o f audiotaped responses o f trainees t o a given  b)  interviews with  Ratings of trainee c l i e n t raters using like,  Inspection  live  naive-peer-clients;  interviews  a self-constructed,  o f T a b l e 1 and T a b l e 2 r e v e a l s  Carkhuff-  statistically  i n t r a i n e e s ' c o m m u n i c a t e d empathy a s  i n responses t o a stimulus  interview  by n a i v e - p e e r -  5 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r empathy.  s i g n i f i c a n t increases indicated  statement.  Carkhuff r a t i n g s o f audiotaped responses o f trainee  c)  stimulus  situation with  a peer.  s t a t e m e n t and a l s o i n a These measurements  w e r e made b y r a t e r s e x p e r t i n t h e u s e o f t h e C a r k h u f f H o w e v e r , when m e a s u r e m e n t s w e r e made by  naive-peer-clients  ( T a b l e 3 ) , a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t g a i n was n o t e d . a d d r e s s a number o f p o s s i b i l i t i e s f e r e n c e s i n mean e m p a t h y  scores.  Scale.  Chapter V w i l l  f o r e x p l a i n i n g these  dif-  51 Table 1 M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s a n d t - V a l u e f o r Empathy Scores: Audiotaped Responses t o Stimulus Statement (Expert Raters: G r o u p 1)  Variable  Means  Standard deviation  Pretest 1  1 . 31  .06  Posttest 1  3. 40  . 44  tValue 12.97  .000  Table 2 M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s a n d t - V a l u e f o r Empathy Scores: Audiotaped Responses o f Trainee I n t e r v i e w s (Expert Raters: G r o u p 1) Standard deviation  Variable  Mean  Pretest 2  1 . 40  .15  Posttest 2  2.83  .78  tValue 6.05  E .001  Table 3 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s a n d t - V a l u e f o r Empathy Scores: Trainee Interview ( N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s : G r o u p 1)  Variable  Mean  Standard deviation  Pretest  3.50  . 89  Posttest  ' 3. 75  1 .28  tValue .43  E .681  T a b l e 3 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e g a i n s i n empathy, as r a t e d by sixth-grade g i r l s ,  d i d n o t r e a c h t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f .05.  52 H y p o t h e s i s Two: T h e r e w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y (  significant  difference  = .05) b e t w e e n t h e p r e t e s t mean a n d t h e p o s t t e s t mean o f  E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 2 based on: a)  Carkhuff r a t i n g s o f audiotaped responses o f trainees  b)  t o a given  with  naive-peer-clients.  Ratings of trainee interviews c l i e n t raters using like,  Inspection  statement.  Carkhuff r a t i n g s o f audiotaped responses o f trainee interviews  c)  stimulus  by n a i v e - p e e r -  a self-constructed,  Carkhuff-  5 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r empathy.  o f T a b l e s 4 and 5 r e v e a l s  G r o u p 2 t o t h o s e f o r G r o u p 1.  similar results for  Significant pretest  t o post-  t e s t g a i n s i n e m p a t h i c r e s p o n d i n g a r e n o t e d when b a s e d expert ratings.  Naive r a t i n g s  ( T a b l e 6) i n d i c a t e  n o n s i g n i f i c a n t g a i n s i n empathy.  upon  statistically  53 Table 4 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and t-Values f o r Empathy S c o r e s : Audiotaped Responses t o Stimulus Statement (Expert R a t e r s : Group 2)  Standard deviation  Variable  Mean  Pretest 1  1 .27  12  Posttest 1  3.67  30  tValue 20.37  000  Table 5 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and t-Value f o r Empathy Scores: Audiotaped Responses o f T r a i n e e Inverviews (Expert R a t e r s : Group 2)  Variable  Mean  Standard deviation  Pretest 2  1 .48  .17  Posttest 2  2. 90  1.14  tValue 3.87  .006  Table 6 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and t-Value f o r Empathy Scores: T r a i n e e Interviews ( N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s : Group 2) Standard deviation  Variable  Mean  Pretest 2  3.25  1.17  4.13  .84  tValue 1.99  Posttest  2  .087  54 T a b l e 6 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e g a i n s i n e m p a t h y , a s r a t e d by the  young c o u n s e l l o r s '  peers, d i dnot reach the s i g n i f i c a n c e  l e v e l o f .05.  Hypothesis Three: T h e r e w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  difference  (•=<= = .05) b e t w e e n t h e p r e t e s t mean a n d t h e p o s t t e s t mean o f t h e c o n t r o l group based on: (a)  C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d responses o f subjects t o a given  (b)  statement;  C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d responses o f subjects'  (c)  stimulus  interviews  with  ratings o f subject  naive-peer-clients;  interviews  by n a i v e - p e e r -  c l i e n t raters using a self-constructed, like,  Carkhuff-  5 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r empathy.  In examining t h e r e s u l t s o f Table 7 i t i s apparent expert r a t e r s noted a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s t t e s t the  c o n t r o l group w i t h r e s p e c t  taped stimulus  statement.  r e s u l t w i l l be d i s c u s s e d  gain  that  i n empathy b y  t o t h e i r r e s p o n s e s t o an a u d i o -  Some p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s f o r t h i s i n C h a p t e r 5.  Table 7 M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s a n d t - V a l u e f o r Empathy Scores: Audiotaped Responses t o S t i m u l u s Statement (Expert Raters: C o n t r o l Group)  Variable  Mean  Standard deviation  Pretest 1  1 .25  .13  Posttest 1  1 .52  .14  tValue  3.87  E .006  55 The  c o n t r o l g r o u p made s i g n i f i c a n t  gains i n expressed  empathy i n r e s p o n s e s  t o a taped  7) b u t n o t t o a p e e r  i n a c o u n s e l l i n g i n t e r v i e w (Table 8 ) .  Table  s t i m u l u s statement  (see Table  8  M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy Scores: Audiotaped Responses o f S u b j e c t I n t e r v i e w s (Expert Raters: C o n t r o l Group)  Variable  Mean  Standard deviation  Pretest 2  1 .52  .30  Posttest 2  1 . 42  .22  T h e r e was n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t  r*  E  —:  -.96  gain i n empathic  f o r t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p as r a t e d b y n a i v e p e e r s  Table  itValue  .370  responding  (see T a b l e 9 ) .  9  M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy Scores: Subject Interviews (Naive-Peer-Client Raters: C o n t r o l Group) Standard deviation  Variable  Mean  Pretest 2  3.13  . 99  Posttest 2  3. 69  1 .22  Hypothesis  tValue  E  1 .76  .122  Four:  T h e r e w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant differences  (<=<z = .05) among t h e p o s t t e s t means o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 1, E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p 2, and t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p b a s e d o n :  56 a)  Carkhuff r a t i n g s o f audiotaped trainees  b)  interviews  of  statement;  Carkhuff r a t i n g s o f audiotaped trainees'  c)  to a given stimulus  responses  responses  with naive-peer  of  clients;  C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s b y an e x p e r t j u d g e a c t i n g a s a c l i e n t i n an i n t e r v i e w ;  d)  ratings of trainee interviews  by n a i v e - p e e r -  client raters using a self-constructed like, The t e r m  5-point  cedure.  s c a l e f o r empathy.  "Honest S i g n i f i c a n t  indicate the selected  Carkhuff-  Difference"  (HSD) i s u s e d t o  c r i t i c a l v a l u e when u s i n g t h e T u k e y  With regard t o the a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s procedure  the s i g n i f i c a n t  d i f f e r e n c e s , b e t w e e n means  15) f o r h y p o t h e s i s  proto  ( T a b l e s 1 0 , 12 a n d  4 a)., b),, [ and c) , t h e f i n d i n g s w e r e a s  follows: T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t  d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e means  f o r G r o u p 1 a n d G r o u p 3 ( T a b l e s 1 1 , 13 and 1 6 ) . T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e means for  G r o u p 2 a n d Group 3 ( T a b l e s 1 1 , 13 a n d 1 6 ) .  T h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t f o r G r o u p 2 a n d Group:1 For Hypothesis  d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e means ( T a b l e s 1 1 , 13 a n d 1 6 ) .  4 (d) t h e r e w e r e no s i g n i f i c a n t  f e r e n c e s among t h e g r o u p means  (Table 1 4 ) .  dif-  5,7  Table  10  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Three Groups, P o s t t e s t 1 A u d i o t a p e d Responses t o S t i m u l u s Statement (Expert R a t e r s ) Source  df  SS  Between Groups  MS  21 . 85  Within Groups  21  2.08  Totals  23  23.92  10.92  110.49  000  .10  Table 11 Tukey M u l t i p l e - C o m p a r i s o n , P o s t t e s t 1: A u d i o t a p e d Responses t o S t i m u l u s Statement (Expert R a t e r s )  Group  Means:  Exp. 1  3. 40  Exp. 2  3. 67  Control  1 .52  *H S D  ( C r i t i c a l value)  Standard deviations  Differences  1 .86*  39  There were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between Group 1 and the c o n t r o l group and between Group 2 and t h e c o n t r o l group but n o t between t h e two t r a i n e d groups i n t h i s assessment o f empathy by e x p e r t r a t e r s (see T a b l e s 10 and 11  above).  58  Table  12  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r T h r e e G r o u p s , P o s t t e s t 2: Audiotaped Responses o f I n t e r v i e w s w i t h Peers (Expert Raters) Source  df  SS  Between Groups  MS  11 .20  Within Groups  21  1 3.72  Totals  23  24.92  Table  5.60  8.57  .002  . 65  13  T u k e y M u l t i p l e - C o m p a r i s o n , P o s t t e s t 2: Audiotaped Responses o f I n t e r v i e w s w i t h Peers (Expert Raters)  Group Exp. 1  2. 83  Exp. 2  2. 90  Control k  H S D  Standard deviations  Means  .78  value):  07  1.14  1 . 42 (Critical  Differences  .22  1 .48*  1.01  Expert r a t i n g s of the peer c o u n s e l l i n g interviews cated trol  significant  1 .41 *  indi-  d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n Group 1 and t h e c o n -  g r o u p and b e t w e e n Group 2 and t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p b u t n o t  b e t w e e n t h e two t r a i n e d g r o u p s  ( s e e T a b l e s 12 a n d 1 3 ) .  Table 14 /Analysis o f V a r i a n c e f o r Three Groups' Empathy S c o r e s (Naive-Peer-Client Raters: P o s t t e s t Interview) Source B  ™  df  SS  MS  2  .90  .45.  s  ""roups  2 1  Totals Ratings  23  2 6  -  8 4  1  '  E .35  2 8  27.74  by p e e r s t a k i n g t h e r o l e o f c l i e n t s i n a counsel-  l i n g i n t e r v i e w d i d n o t i n d i c a t e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the t h r e e groups i n t h e s t u d y  (see T a b l e 14, above).  Table 15 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Three Groups' Empathy S c o r e s (Expert C l i e n t R a t e r : P o s t t e s t Interview) Source  df  SS  MS  Between Groups  2  22.15  11.07  21  14.34  .68  23  36.49  E 16.21  .000  Within Groups Totals  There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among t h e t h r e e empathy s c o r e s  groups  as r a t e d by t h e e x p e r t i n t h e r o l e o f c l i e n t ,  as i n d i c a t e d i n T a b l e 15, above.  60 Table  16  Tukey M u l t i p l e - C o m p a r i s o n (Expert-Client Rater: P o s t t e s t I n t e r v i e w Empathy S c o r e s )  Group Exp.  1  3.31  Exp.  2  3.50  Control *H  S D  Standard deviations  Means  1 . 93*  1 . 38 ( C r i t i c a l Value):  The  1.04  e x p e r t j u d g e a c t i n g as c l i e n t i n an  s i g n i f i c a n t mean d i f f e r e n c e s the  c o n t r o l g r o u p and  but  not  between the  I n summary, t h e  b e t w e e n G r o u p 2 and  two  r e s p o n d i n g as  interview  noted  i n empathy between Group 1  t r a i n e d groups  the  control  (see T a b l e  and  group  16).  t e s t r e s u l t s for t r a i n i n g effects pro-  duced evidence t h a t t r a i n i n g c o n t r i b u t e d  scale.  Differences  a s s e s s e d by  However, t h e r e  to greater  expert raters using  w e r e no  the  empathic  Carkhuff  significant differences  p a t h y m e a s u r e s i n v o l v i n g r a t i n g by  in  naive-peer-clients.  The  e x p e r i m e n t a l group w h i c h used p o s i t i v e s e l f - v e r b a l i z a t i o n (Group 2)  d i d not  show s i g n i f i c a n t i m p r o v e m e n t i n e m p a t h i c  responding over the Hypothesis H5: lation  other trained  Five: T h e r e w i l l be  (<; = .05)  e x p e r t r a t e r s and interview  group.  no  statistically  between the  empathy s c o r e s a s s i g n e d  naive-peer-client  i n v o l v i n g e a c h g r o u p and  Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n , r .  s i g n i f i c a n t corre-  r a t e r s f o r the m e a s u r e d by  the  by  pretest Pearson  em-  There were f o u r n a i v e r a t e r s a t p r e t e s t and f o u r a t p o s t t e s t e a c h o f whom r a t e d s i x s u b j e c t s , two s u b j e c t s f r o m of  t h e three groups.  each  T h e r e f o r e , n a i v e r a t i n g s f o r each group  a r e a r e s u l t o f r a t i n g s by a l l f o u r n a i v e r a t e r s ,  whereas  each expert r a t e d a l l s u b j e c t s . Naive  r a t i n g s s h o u l d be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f r a t i n g s  w o u l d be made by p e e r s  under s i m i l a r  circumstances.  As h y p o t h e s i z e d , t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s among s c o r e s by e x p e r t r a t e r s a n d t h o s e b y n a i v e r a t e r s w e r e cant.  Results f o r the pretest are presented  Table Correlation Coefficients: (Pretest  Experimental Group 1 .00  which  assigned  non-signifi-  i n T a b l e 17.  17  Expert versus Naive Interview)  Raters  Experimental Group 2  Control Group  .28  .23  Hypothesis S i x : T h e r e w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  correlation  (C^L  = .05) b e t w e e n t h e empathy s c o r e s a s s i g n e d by e x p e r t  and  naive-peer-client raters f o r the posttest interview i n -  v o l v i n g e a c h group and measured by t h e P e a r s o n  raters  Product-Moment  correlation, r. A t p o s t t e s t t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s among s c o r e s a s s i g n e d b y e x p e r t a n d b y n a i v e r a t e r s w e r e n o n s i g n i f i c a n t a n d a r e shown  62 i n Table  18.  C o r r e l a t i o n f o r E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p 2 was  nega-  t i v e but n o n s i g n i f i c a n t .  Table  18  Correlation Coefficients: Expert versus Naive ( P o s t t e s t Peer Inverview)  Raters  Experimental Group 1  Experimental Group 2  Control Group  .12  -.26  .38  Hypothesis  Seven:  T h e r e w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  correlation  (="<^ = .05) b e t w e e n t h e empathy s c o r e s a s s i g n e d i n a i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n by an e x p e r t r a t e r and b y  live  naive-peer-  c l i e n t r a t e r s i n v o l v i n g each group and measured by t h e  Pearson  Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n , r . As h y p o t h e s i z e d , s i g n i f i c a n c e was n o t r e a c h e d  for rat-  i n g s a s s i g n e d by t h e n a i v e and e x p e r t r a t e r s e v e n t h o u g h all  r a t e r s were i n a p o s i t i o n t o a s s e s s n o n v e r b a l as w e l l  as v e r b a l a s p e c t s o f empathy. in  this  ally  I n g e n e r a l , i t appeared t h a t  study sixth-grade g i r l s  s i g n i f i e d that they  e x p e r i e n c e d a s more c a r i n g and u n d e r s t a n d i n g  gener-  different  s u b j e c t s t h a n t h o s e e x p e r i e n c e d as empathic by t h e a d u l t rater.  Some p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h i s w i l l be e x p l o r e d  i n Chapter  5.  As n o t e d  t i o n s were  positive.  i n Table  19, h o w e v e r , a l l c o r r e l a -  63 Table  19  C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r Empathy S c o r e s : N a i v e and E x p e r t C l i e n t - R a t e r s (Posttest Interviews)  £•  £_  E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 1  .42  .30  E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 2  .25  .55  C o n t r o l Group  .60  .12  A l l Subjects  .29  .17  In  summary t h e r e seems t o be some e v i d e n c e t h a t  suitably  t r a i n i n g e a r l y a d o l e s c e n t g i r l s produces an i n c r e a s e i n t h e i r e m p a t h i c r e s p o n d i n g a s j u d g e d by e x p e r t j u d g e s b a s e d  upon  Carkhuff r a t i n g s of t h e i r responses t o audiotaped statements and i n l i v e  i n t e r v i e w s w i t h b o t h p e e r s and an a d u l t .  was n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y  There  s i g n i f i c a n t evidence of a d d i t i o n a l  ment by t h e i n c l u s i o n o f a p o s i t i v e - s e l ' f - v e r b a l i z a t i o n in  improve-  component  training. Empathic r e s p o n d i n g as judged by e x p e r t a d u l t r a t e r s d i d  n o t show a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o p e e r r a t i n g s o f e m p a t h y n o r was t h e r e e v i d e n c e t h a t p e e r s f o u n d e m p a t h i c r e s p o n d i n g to  b e more u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d c a r i n g f r o m t h e i r p o i n t o f v i e w .  H o w e v e r , t h e r e was a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s u b j e c t s ' e m p a t h y a s j u d g e d f r o m two d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s b y e x p e r t s , one a s a p a r t i c i p a n t c l i e n t a n d o t h e r s a s e x t e r n a l On t h e 5 - p o i n t C a r k h u f f s c a l e , a l e v e l c o n s i d e r e d t o be m i n i m a l l y f a c i l i t a t i v e  raters.  3 response i s  f o r the  client.  64  Trained  groups i n t h i s s t u d y g e n e r a l l y reached L e v e l 3, t h e  t y p e o f response w h i c h Truax  (1964) c o n s i d e r e d  t o be neces-  s a r y t o e f f e c t p o s i t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y change i n c l i e n t s (see T a b l e 2 0 ) . Summaries o f p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t l e v e l s o f emp a t h i c r e s p o n d i n g a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e s 20 and 21.  T a b l e 20 Empathy S c o r e s : P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , t - V a l u e s and P r o b a b i l i t i e s : A u d i o t a p e d Responses o f S u b j e c t I n t e r v i e w s Standard deviation  Group  Variable  Mean  Exp. 1  Pretest 2  1 . 40  .15  Posttest 2  2.83  .78  Pretest 2  1 .48  .17  Posttest 2  2. 90  1.14  Pretest 2  1 .52  .30  Posttest 2  1 .42  .22  Exp. 2  Control  tValue  E  6.05  .001  3.87  .006  -.96  . 370  65  T a b l e 21 Empathy S c o r e s : t - V a l u e s and P r o b a b i l i t i e s , P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t Means and S t a n d a r d Deviations: Subject Interviews ( N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s : Three Groups) Standard deviation  Group  Variable  Mean  Exp. 1  Pretest 2  3.50  .89  Posttest 2  3.75  1 .28  Pretest 2  3.25  1.17  Posttest 2  4.13  .84  Pretest 2  3.13  . 99  Posttest 2  3.69  1 .22  Exp. 2  Control  tValue .43  .681  1 . 99  .087  1 . 76  .122  CHAPTER V. The  s t u d y was  DISCUSSION AND conducted  t e a c h i n g s i x t h grade g i r l s assess whether o r not understanding Another  and  IMPLICATIONS  to explore the f e a s i b i l i t y  to respond  w i t h e m p a t h y and  s u c h r e s p o n d i n g was  c a r i n g by o t h e r g i r l s  a r e a i n v e s t i g a t e d was  of to  c o n s i d e r e d more  of s i m i l a r  the f e a s i b i l i t y  and  ages. effect  of  i n c l u d i n g p o s i t i v e - s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n i n t o the b a s i c t r a i n i n g . This f i n a l  chapter w i l l  t h e f i n d i n g s and  address  the i m p l i c a t i o n s  t h e n , a f t e r d i s c u s s i o n and c o n c l u s i o n s ,  s u g g e s t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r s t u d y o f young p e o p l e ' s ing  will  be made.  of  empathy  train  Answers t o the f o u r r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s  sented at the c o n c l u s i o n of Chapter  I I are presented  pre  first.  Findings Research Can tative  Question  (a)  11- t o 1 3 - y e a r - o l d g i r l s  l e v e l of empathic  E x p e r t judges working increments  rise  from  audiotapes  found  significant  i n t h e e m p a t h y d i s p l a y e d by t r a i n e e c o u n s e l l o r s . responses  at p o s t t e s t f o r  A l t h o u g h p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s n o t e d no  significant  i n empathic responding, peer r a t i n g s i n d i c a t e d g e n e r a l l y  facilitative ing,  facili-  responding?  There were g e n e r a l l y f a c i l i t a t i v e trainees.  achieve a minimally  responding even b e f o r e t r a i n i n g .  the g i r l s  After  train-  r a t e d t r a i n e e s ' mean s c o r e s a b o v e l e v e l  3,  67 the  facilitative  spectively One  l e v e l , and  (Table  level  f o r the  f a c t t h a t the  for a l l three  groups they r a t e d  so t h a t t h e r e was  not  a great  be  posttest  t h a t t h e mean  scores  a t p r e t e s t were above l e v e l  3  d e a l o f room f o r i m p r o v e m e n t .  e x p e r i e n c e o f h a v i n g t i m e away f r o m t h e i r own  t a l k w i t h p e e r s whose p u r p o s e was p r o b l e m s was  y o u n g ado-  f a i l e d to note s i g n i f i c a n t p r e t e s t to  i n c r e m e n t s i n e m p a t h i c r e s p o n d i n g may  The  2 re-  21).  possible explanation  lescent g i r l s  4 f o r G r o u p s 1 and  school  to  t o u n d e r s t a n d them and  e x c i t i n g f o r a l l r a t e r s and  may  their  have p r o v i d e d  a  " h a l o " e f f e c t so t h a t a l l i n t e r a c t i o n s seemed s a t i s f a c t o r y . I t appeared t h a t the cussing  not  had  the  therefore,  t i v e t h a t the p r e t e s t t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s not  dis-  found the  scores  experience i t s e l f  w e r e h i g h and  significant.  Figure  so  posi-  the p r e t e s t to 2 illustrates  post-  changes  scores. Thus, the  f i n d i n g s show t h a t t r a i n e e s a p p a r e n t l y  t o r e s p o n d w i t h e m p a t h y , as m e a s u r e d . b y t h e a l t h o u g h empathy s k i l l s were not ing.  experience of  these problems w i t h t h e i r peers p r i o r to the t e s t i n g  s i t u a t i o n and,  in  r a t e r s had  Furthermore, expert  t r a i n e e s i n the empathy b e f o r e o f them d i d The  Carkhuff  learned scales,  f a m i l i a r t o them b e f o r e  r a t e r s j u d g e d t h a t none o f  study responded w i t h c l o s e to  train-  the  facilitative  t r a i n i n g whereas, a f t e r t r a i n i n g , the  majority  so.  gains  i n e m p a t h i c r e s p o n d i n g were g r e a t e r  than those  reported  f o r many a d u l t t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m s when j u d g e d by  raters.  Carkhuff  expert  ( 1 9 6 9 ) , i n a r e v i e w o f r e s u l t s f r o m a number  68  o f such programs,  noted t h a t the average g a i n was  approximately  . 5 o f a l e v e l and he recommended t h a t t r a i n e e s should be s e l e c t e d who were a l r e a d y f u n c t i o n i n g at a f a i r l y h i g h l e v e l of empathic r e s p o n d i n g . .80  Truax and L i s t e r  (1970)  reported a  i n c r e a s e i n empathy l e v e l a f t e r a 4 0 - h o u r t r a i n i n g  In the p r e s e n t study,  program.  the t o t a l t r a i n i n g time f o r each student  was approximately two hours.  T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e are  implications  f o r the d e s i r a b i l i t y of t r a i n i n g at the 11 to 1 3 age l e v e l l i n e w i t h Schoeppe and H a v i g h u r s t ' s  (1952)  f i n d i n g that  was much more l i k e l y to occur at an e a r l i e r age. gain i n t r a i n e e s '  in  change  The mean  empathy, as r a t e d by e x p e r t s , was 1 . 8 4 .  Research Question  (b)  Does the a d d i t i o n o f p o s i t i v e  s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n enhance  empathic responding i n young people? The i n c l u s i o n of the p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n cedure d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y pathy t r a i n i n g ,  as i t  pro-  add to the success o f b a s i c em-  d i d i n the study by Yager e t a l  Ratings of the PSI both s i x t h - g r a d e  (PSI)  empathy group  (1975).  (Group 2 ) made by c l i e n t s ,  c l i e n t s and an expert c l i e n t , showed  c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h r a t i n g s by e x t e r n a l judges  (p.  negative  128).  Be-  cause t h i s was not t r u e o f the two other student groups f u r t h e r study w i t h nonverbal behaviour as the dependent  vari-  able  greatest  may be warranted i n case the PSI  technique has i t s  impact on nonverbal r a t h e r than on v e r b a l b e h a v i o u r . It  i s possible  t h a t the use of PSI  performance of some students i n a study which used PSI  may be d e t r i m e n t a l to  i n c e r t a i n cases.  For example,  to c o n t r o l i m p u l s i v i t y o f  young  students  (Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1 9 7 1 ) , t h o s e s t u d e n t s  had been l a b e l l e d  "reflective"  rather than "impulsive"  f o r m e d more p o o r l y as w e l l as a l m o s t 25 p e r c e n t more i n the p o s t t e s t s i t u a t i o n . some p e o p l e i n t u i t i v e l y way  which would  the  other person.  who  Similarly,  per-  slowly  i t i s possible  r e s p o n d w i t h empathy i n a  that  sensitive  be hampered by r e m i n d e r s t o c o n c e n t r a t e on I t seems t o f o l l o w t h a t t h o s e who  are  c o n s c i o u s w o u l d be t h e p e r s o n s m o s t h e l p e d by l e a r n i n g  self-  PSI  t e c h n i q u e s i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h empathy t r a i n i n g w h e r e a s c o n f i d e n t , aware, s e n s i t i v e p e o p l e would p o s s i b l y not b e n e f i t all  from i t .  These p o s s i b i l i t i e s  at  a r e , as y e t , u n t e s t e d .  I t c a n n o t be s t a t e d w i t h any d e g r e e o f c e r t a i n t y what t h e reasons are f o r the e q u i v o c a l nature of the r e s u l t s i n the present study. Research Question  (c)  What i s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e m p a t h i c j u d g e d by e x p e r t s and e m p a t h i c counsellors' The the  two  responding  r e s p o n d i n g j u d g e d by  young  peer-clients?  f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n forms o f r a t i n g .  between  T h a t i s , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e  that  c o u n s e l l i n g deemed h i g h i n empathy by e x p e r t j u d g e s was  per-  c e i v e d as more u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c a r i n g , o r was, f e r r e d by s i x t h - g r a d e g i r l s .  There  indeed, pre-  a r e a number o f  possible  e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the f a c t t h a t the young a d o l e s c e n t g i r l s failed  t o n o t e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n empathy among t h e  t h r e e groups.  F o r one  t h i n g , a l l s u b j e c t s appeared  u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c a r i n g as t h e y c o u l d be u n d e r  t o be  these  as  70 circumstances.and  o f t e n p r o v i d e d s u g g e s t i o n s , the k i n d o f h e l p  t h e y thought b e s t and, because the r a t e r s appeared t o be seeki n g answers t o r e a l problem s i t u a t i o n s , c l i e n t - r a t e r s welcomed s u g g e s t i o n s a l o n g w i t h empathy.  Most peer c l i e n t s commented  upon the p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e o f good a d v i c e whereas e x p e r t r a t e r s f o c u s s e d more d i r e c t l y upon empathy.  At t h i s age  the common form o f h e l p f u l communication among peers t o be the g i v i n g o f a d v i c e so t h a t t h i s was  level,  appeared  f a m i l i a r t o peer  r a t e r s and appeared t o be g e n e r a l l y welcomed (see Appendix E-1) . F i n d i n g s such as these c o u l d t e n d t o support the t i o n o f Jacobson and M a r g o l i n have been r e f l e c t e d may  conten-  (197 9) t h a t a p e r s o n whose i d e a s  f e e l as i f she i s not b e i n g  i f she i s l o o k i n g f o r c o n c r e t e h e l p f u l s u g g e s t i o n s .  understood The  re-  s u l t s a l s o bear on G l a d s t e i n ' s (1979) f i n d i n g t h a t empathy, as measured by C a r k h u f f - t y p e s c a l e s , appeared t o be more r e l e v a n t t o p e o p l e w i t h deeper e m o t i o n a l problems than those seeki n g g e n e r a l c o u n s e l l i n g where the need may  be t o o b t a i n some  useful advice. A l s o , t h i s study sought answers i n a f i r s t s e s s i o n , t i m e l i m i t e d i n t e r v i e w , whereas more time may  be needed f o r t r u s t  t o be e s t a b l i s h e d and empathic r e s p o n d i n g t o become more v a l u e d . These young c o u n s e l l o r s were s t r a n g e r s t o t h e i r c l i e n t s had brought w i t h them problems w h i c h were o f r e a l At t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t a l from t h e i r p e e r s .  who  concern.  s t a g e , g i r l s are t y p i c a l l y eager t o l e a r n  They want new  and d i f f e r e n t i d e a s because  t h e y r e l y l e s s upon d i r e c t i o n from t h e i r p a r e n t s than they d i d  71 formerly.  T h e r e f o r e , t h e y may  c o u n s e l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p t o ask s o l u t i o n s of t h e i r peers while  need a p e r i o d f o r and  l a t t e r part of  a longer  r e s p o n d i n g i s m o s t v a l u e d by stage.  I t w o u l d be  the  suggested  possible  T h u s , i t may  counselling session  be  that  young p e o p l e a t t h i s  con-  only  in  empathic  developmental  i n t e r e s t i n g t o seek r e s u l t s from  counselling sessions when empathy may  consider  they weigh the  sequences of a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i o n s . the  of time i n a  longer  i n an o n g o i n g c o u n s e l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p  be more v a l u e d t h a n i n a s h o r t  first  inter-  view. N o n v e r b a l a s p e c t s o f empathy o b v i o u s l y by  raters using  a u d i o t a p e s , and  some o f t h e  c a n n o t be  looked f r i e n d l y .  Client-perceived  ally  relationship to external  shown l i t t l e  (Gurman, 1977;  Kurtz  with  naive c l i e n t  Research Question Do an  f i d g e t and  i f they  judgments o f  empathy  However, f a c t o r s  involved  n o n s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s because the disagreed  w e r e more  empathy r a t i n g s have g e n e r -  & Grummon, 1 9 7 2 ) .  t h a n n o n v e r b a l d i f f e r e n c e s m u s t be  up  young c l i e n t . r a t e r s  i n d i c a t e d v e r b a l l y t h a t they f e l t peer c o u n s e l l o r s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , f o r example, i f they d i d n ' t  picked  i n the  other  f i n d i n g of  adult client  also  ratings.  (d)  young a d o l e s c e n t c l i e n t s r a t e empathy d i f f e r e n t l y f r o m  adult expert c l i e n t ? The  showed no  r a t i n g s o f the male a d u l t e x p e r t i n the s i g n i f i c a n t correlation with  c l i e n t s but  he was  n o n v e r b a l and  able  r a t i n g s by  t o j u d g e e m p a t h y on  v e r b a l cues, u n l i k e the  r o l e of the  young  the b a s i s of  other expert  client  raters  both  72 (Appendix E-2). u s i n g the  There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t expert  Carkhuff  Scale  have been t r a i n e d t o v a l u e  f o r m s o f r e s p o n s e s w h i c h may untrained  not  certain  a p p e a r as h i g h i n e m p a t h y t o  r a t e r s or c l i e n t s i n general.  made s u c h c l a i m s  raters  Some c r i t i c s  ( B u e t l e r , J o h n s o n & N e v i l l e , 1973;  have  Goldstein,  1971). It  i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the  raters perceived  more  a c c u r a t e l y the deeper f e e l i n g s of t h e i r peer c o u n s e l l o r s  than  did  the expert  raters.  ing  more t o t h e  the  as  f r o m low  levels  be  1977).  hours.  of  to minimally  study was  facili-  t r u e f o r empathy  conditions—warmth  because t r a i n e e s needed  and  to  c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d modes o f r e s p o n d i n g i n o r d e r  speed can  be  increased  o f t e n be  t r a t i n g on r e s p o n s e p a t t e r n s t y p e d way.  Empathic responding  facilitative  P e r h a p s t h i s was  p a t h i c r e s p o n s e s can reading  to mention a  W h i l e t h i s was  i m p r o v e t h e i r r a t i n g s o f empathy.  how  acces-  r e f l e c t a view  relevant  ( l e s s t h a n 1.5)  true for other  genuineness.  and  i n a s y s t e m a t i c a l l y designed t r a i n i n g pro-  gram o f l e s s t h a n 100  change o n l y  i t may  & Krauft,  l e v e l s (3.0)  not  in their ratings  technicians.  (Mitchell, Bozarth  i t was  have been r e s p o n d -  views of aspects of the p r o c e s s not  In t h i s connection,  tative  may  a d u l t r a t e r s whose r a t i n g s may  counsellors  elevated  adolescents  counsellor-as-person  were g i v i n g r e a l i s t i c s i b l e to the  The  adolescent  i n a way  increased,  suggested that  em-  which i s s i m i l a r to by m e r e l y  i n a rather mechanistic,  P e r h a p s w a r m t h and  of deeper f e e l i n g s .  I t was  to  concenstereo-  genuineness are b e t t e r i n d i c a t o r s  It  seems l i k e l y  t h a t n o n v e r b a l a s p e c t s , e m p a t h y , and good  suggestions c o n t r i b u t e d t o the r a t i n g s o f the peer  clients  whereas e x p e r t s were n e g a t i v e l y i n f l u e n c e d by t h e g i v i n g o f advice  ( s e e A p p e n d i x E-1  and E - 2 ) .  Summary o f F i n d i n g s and The s t u d y c o n f i r m s V o g e l s o n g s 1  Conclusions (1976) c o n t e n t i o n t h a t some  y o u n g s t u d e n t s c a n be t r a i n e d t o u s e empathy i n c o u n s e l l i n g interviews. views  U n l i k e h i s s t u d y , however, the i n d i v i d u a l  inter-  i n v o l v e d u n t r a i n e d s t r a n g e r s and a l s o a c o u n s e l l i n g  i n t e r v i e w w i t h a n a d u l t as c l i e n t .  Trainees i n the present  s t u d y were n o t e s p e c i a l l y s e l e c t e d f o r t h e i r r o l e - m o d e l teristics,  as t h e y w e r e i n m o s t s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g  school students  charac-  elementary  ( D e l w o r t h , 1974; Gumaer, 1973; K e a t ,  1976),  b u t w e r e a random s a m p l e o f g i r l s . All behaviour  t r a i n e e s , even those w i t h r e p u t a t i o n s f o r a n t i s o c i a l and l a c k o f p e e r  t h e i r empathic s k i l l s .  acceptance,  were eager  t o improve  H o w e v e r , a n o b s e r v a t i o n was made a t  the beginning o f t r a i n i n g which  p o i n t e d t o a need f o r t r a i n i n g  i n order to e f f e c t i v e l y u t i l i z e  t h i s m o t i v a t i o n t o communicate  well.  Pairs of trainees w i l l i n g l y reported after school f o r  practise sessions.  However, a l m o s t  a l l o f t h e t r a i n e e s asked  for  h e l p i n d e c i d i n g w h a t t o t a l k a b o u t and c l a i m e d t h a t t h e y  did  n o t know w h a t t o t a l k a b o u t .  This d i f f i c u l t y  c a t i n g w i t h o u t an a s s i g n e d t o p i c p e r s i s t e d of  t i m e , b u t was f i n a l l y  overcome.  i n communi-  f o r varying lengths  L a t e r , as r e p u t a t i o n s f o r  74 b e i n g good l i s t e n e r s a p p a r e n t l y s p r e a d , two t h a t even seventh-grade problems. old  The  girls  s t u d e n t s w e r e c o m i n g t o them t o d i s c u s s  w i l l i n g n e s s and  a b i l i t y of these  t o l e a r n s k i l l s which were d e s i g n e d  be more u n d e r s t a n d i n g  and  11- t o  13-year-  t o h e l p them t o  c a r i n g of others lends support  the d e s i r a b i l i t y of encouraging  t r a i n i n g f o r t h i s age  However, t h e most d e s i r a b l e form ing  trainees reported  and  to  group.  content of the  train-  w h i c h would b e s t e q u i p young s t u d e n t s t o h e l p each o t h e r  find  s o l u t i o n s t o t h e i r p r o b l e m s i s n o t known.  Individual  t r a i n i n g , as u s e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , a p p e a r e d t o be  effici-  e n t i n t e r m s o f t h e s t u d e n t s ' t i m e and t h e l e v e l o f empathy a c h i e v e d , but empathic r e s p o n d i n g , for  a l o n e , seemed  t h e n e e d s o f t h e y o u n g a d o l e s c e n t s and  insufficient  the suggestion i s  made t h a t f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s o f t h e c o m p o n e n t s o f e m p a t h i c  peer  c o u n s e l l i n g be c a r r i e d o u t as w e l l as f o l l o w u p s t u d i e s o f effects of The  the  training.  p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e c h n i q u e was  b y t r a i n e e s b u t a p p a r e n t l y d i d n o t add  well  accepted  s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o empathy  beyond t h a t a c h i e v e d w i t h the b a s i c t r a i n i n g , u n l i k e t h e r e s u l t s c l a i m e d f o r t h e Y a g e r e t a l (1975)  study.  Despite the l a c k of c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t students  pre-  f e r r e d e m p a t h y , as m e a s u r e d by t h e C a r k h u f f S c a l e , i n c o u n s e l l i n g from t h e i r p e e r s , the study concurs w i t h the c o n c l u s i o n of  M a r t i n and  Carkhuff  c a n be s h a r p e n e d .  (1967) t h a t t r a i n e e s '  empathy  I t also underlines McNally's  skills  (1973)  conten-  t i o n t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f r e s p o n d i n g w i t h empathy i s c o n t i n g e n t u p o n t h e r e c e i v e r and  G l a d s t e i n ' s (1977) c o n c l u s i o n t h a t  75 empathy may  be more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o c l i e n t outcome i n t h e r a p y  than i n c o u n s e l l i n g . T h e r e was  not a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the r a t i n g  o f e m p a t h y by e x p e r t s and by s i x t h - g r a d e  clients.  Peer  rat-  i n g s d i d n o t show a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e r e s p o n d i n g o f t r a i n e e s and for a l lsubjects responding.  the c o n t r o l group but peer  indicated generally f a c i l i t a t i v e  t h e i r p r o b l e m s and  g i v i n g good a d v i c e . t h i s developmental  t o l i s t e n w e l l and  empathic  care  about  t o h e l p them t o f i n d s o l u t i o n s  A conclusion s t a g e may  g e n e r a l l y r a t e d by e x p e r t s , fully  ratings  However, the young c l i e n t s i n d i c a t e d v e r b a l l y t h a t  t h e y wanted a peer c o u n s e l l o r them and  empathic  could  be d r a w n t h a t g i r l s  i n g s o f t h i s s t u d y and  r e q u i r e more t h a n e m p a t h y , a s i n order to f e e l that they  are  as t o t h e d i s p a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e those of Hundleby  t r a i n e d s e n i o r secondary  (1973), namely,  s t u d e n t s were p e r c e i v e d  by p e e r  as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n a c o u n s e l l i n g t h a n t h o s e who  had  n o t been t r a i n e d .  Students  s t u d y were a t a d i f f e r e n t d e v e l o p m e n t a l  i n the  f o r s o l u t i o n s t o i n t e r p e r s o n a l problems. t i o n from p a r e n t a l  advice,  findthat raters  interview present  s t a g e and p o s s i b l y j u s t  b e g i n n i n g t o b r e a k away f r o m d e p e n d e n c e upon p a r e n t a l  advice  P o s s i b l y , as a  t h a t o f t h e i r p e e r s was  sought  t h e y w e r e n o t y e t r e a d y t o t h i n k t h r o u g h t o s o l u t i o n s on  with  at  understood. A q u e s t i o n remains  own.  by  transiand their  H u n d l e b y ' s o l d e r s t u d e n t s no d o u b t had more e x p e r i e n c e s o l v i n g p r o b l e m s and w e r e more s e l f - d i r e c t e d , w h i c h  e n a b l e them t o more e a s i l y f i n d  s o l u t i o n s to problems  would  through  the expressed  empathy o f t h e i r p e e r s .  The  implication of  this  f i n d i n g i s t h a t i t i s important to t r a i n peer c o u n s e l l o r s , at t h i s developmental in  stage, i n problem-solving s k i l l s  as w e l l  as  t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f empathy. L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h i s s t u d y s h o u l d be a d d r e s s e d .  The  fact  t h a t t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p b e t w e e n p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t r e m a i n e d as u n s p e c i f i e d c l a s s r o o m  a c t i v i t i e s , may  gest t h a t i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n , r a t h e r than the t r a i n i n g to  t r a i n e e s , may  I t was  account  for trainees' posttest  c o n t r o l g r o u p w h i c h w o u l d r e c e i v e t h e same amount o f Classroom  h i g h l y v a l u e d by p a r e n t s and of ing  c l a s s was  took p l a c e .  placebo  individual  i n s t r u c t i o n a l time  was  s c h o o l personnel; thus, time  not g e n e r a l l y p e r m i t t e d to students u n l e s s  activities  given  performance.  n o t p o s s i b l e i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y t o have a t r u e  a t t e n t i o n as t h e t r a i n e e s .  sug-  out  learn-  P a r e n t s g a v e p e r m i s s i o n f o r empathy  t r a i n i n g t o take p l a c e because s p e c i f i c s k i l l s  were b e i n g  taught.  Future s t u d i e s might a t t e n d t o the c o n t r o l group problem i f they could o f f e r placebo  control subjects suitable  i n s t r u c t i o n w h i c h p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s and  students believed to  be p o t e n t i a l l y u s e f u l and w h i c h w o u l d n o t failure  lead to feelings  i n the p o s t t e s t s i t u a t i o n , which placebo  do i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s  individual  (Duncan & L a i r d ,  of  treatment  may  1981).  F i n d i n g s o f t h e s t u d y a r e i n f l u e n c e d by t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f e m p a t h y by s i x t h - g r a d e g i r l s who for  the study.  t h e s c a l e and of  Questions  used a simple s c a l e c o n s t r u c t e d  n a t u r a l l y a r i s e about the v a l i d i t y  of  the a b i l i t y of the r a t e r s t o d i s c r i m i n a t e l e v e l s  understanding.  However, n a i v e p e r c e p t i o n s were c h o s e n f o r  the  study  unbiased  b e c a u s e i t was by  training  and  c o n s i d e r e d v a l u a b l e t o use because t h e r e  even young c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e f a i r l y of others  (Hembling,  be d i r e c t e d  t o the  which o f f e r  examination  the  little  change t o o k  coefficient  seems t o be  sidered  In the p r e s e n t  o f young  study,  o f members o f t h i s  data  come f r o m  posttest i n  group.  The  corre-  r a t i n g s a t p r e t e s t and  eight-member g r o u p was  a satisfactory  t h a t the  raters'  the o n l y  p l a c e between p r e t e s t and  between n a i v e  at p o s t t e s t f o r t h i s This  of v a r i a b i l i t y  should  c o n t r o l g r o u p b e c a u s e i t i s assumed t h a t  interview behaviour  lation  that  a c c u r a t e l y the a t t i t u d e s  information regarding this v a r i a b i l i t y  naive r a t i n g s of the very  i s some e v i d e n c e  N e v e r t h e l e s s , more s t u d y  1978).  p e r c e p t i o n s o f empathy.  perceptions  .69,£  those  = .06.  c o r r e l a t i o n when i t i s c o n -  1 6 ratings resulted  from e i g h t d i f f e r e n t  peer  raters. T h e r e may  be  a need t o  look c r i t i c a l l y  type  scales typically  u s e d by  for,  as B e r g i n  suggested,  (1971)  p r i a t e when outcomes a r e n o t Perhaps o t h e r flect  scales should  empathy t o t h e  signed.  As  a start,  which i n d i c a t e d sent  study  clients  experts  closely be  empathy t o t h e  of their  suggestions problems.  f o r measuring s c a l e s may related  developed  be  not  value  empathy be  appro-  to Rogerian  therapy.  w h i c h more c l e a r l y is  i n examining the  sixth-grade g i r l s  These, along w i t h  d a t a , p o i n t t o young a d o l e s c e n t s ' ternative  Carkhuff-  f o r which the treatment  t h e r e may  (Appendix E - 1 ) .  the  a t the  the  i n the  re-  decues pre-  statistical  need t o o b t a i n sound a l -  as i n d i c a t i o n s  o f empathy f o r t h e  solution  78 The  c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s and, p o s s i b l y , s h a r i n g  among the g i r l s i n the study may have been p a r t l y for  the s i g n i f i c a n t P r e t e s t  1 to Posttest  of  information  responsible  1 difference  noted  i n the empathy o f t h e c o n t r o l group when responding t o a p r e recorded s t i m u l u s statement. t h a t the v a r i a n c e .13  and .14.  An a d d i t i o n a l p o i n t t o note i s  i n t h e i r scores f o r t h i s t e s t was v e r y  small,  F a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n and t h e  p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the c o n t r o l group had heard from t h e i r f r i e n d s about the methods o f t r a i n i n g may have been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the  .25 l e v e l change i n performance noted by the expert r a t e r s  (see Table 7 ) . However, no s i g n i f i c a n t change i n communicated empathy was noted when the c o n t r o l group took p a r t i n the longer interview  s i t u a t i o n w i t h t h e i r peers; t h a t i s , the s i t u a t i o n t o  which i t was hoped t h a t the t r a i n i n g would g e n e r a l i z e .  Test 1  may be u s e f u l , however, i n comparing r e s u l t s o f t h i s study w i t h o t h e r s i n which outcome i s not measured i n a l i v e i n t e r view s i t u a t i o n .  Directions The  f o r Future Research  r e s u l t s o f t h i s study i n d i c a t e t h a t i n d i v i d u a l i z e d  term . t r a i n i n g i s e f f e c t i v e i n t e a c h i n g empathy t o e a r l y adolescent g i r l s . the  short-  s k i l l s o f communicated  I n a d d i t i o n , i t seems t h a t  study a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t the g i r l s a t t h i s developmental  stage v a l u e other behaviours i n a d d i t i o n to communicated empathy. A study could  compare the e f f e c t s o f t r a i n i n g f o r empathy,  t r a i n i n g i n p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s k i l l s and t r a i n i n g comparing both  79  skills.  However, a major s u g g e s t i o n coming out o f t h i s  study  i s t h a t b a s i c r e s e a r c h be undertaken t o d i s c o v e r what communicat i o n a d o l e s c e n t s a c t u a l l y value and then t o t i e t r a i n i n g f o r such communication i n t o outcome s t u d i e s . R e s u l t s o f the present study were not c o n c l u s i v e w i t h r e gard t o the e f f e c t s of combining  p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n (PSI)  w i t h empathy t r a i n i n g and i t may be t h a t the PSI technique i s selective i n i t s effects.  Perhaps comparative  s t u d i e s o f em-  pathy t r a i n i n g and PSI c o u l d be undertaken w i t h groups o f s t u dents p e r c e i v e d t o have c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n common, such as shy students, who seem t o be l i k e l y to p r o f i t from t h i s technique. of  candidates  I n such s t u d i e s i t would be  i n t e r e s t t o assess nonverbal e f f e c t s s e p a r a t e l y from v e r b a l .  The r o l e o f c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o u r - m o d i f i c a t i o n methods i n t r a i n ing  f o r peer c o u n s e l l i n g i s not c l e a r and needs f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . The p r e s e n t study d i d not assess nonverbal behaviours as  such, even though such behaviours are v e r y important i n communic a t i o n and i n p e r c e p t i o n s o f empathy. study appeared  Student r a t e r s i n t h i s  t o be aware o f and w i l l i n g t o v e r b a l i z e j u s t what  i t was t h a t they found h e l p f u l and understanding i n communicat i o n s from t h e i r peers and nonverbal a t t e n d i n g behaviours were f r e q u e n t l y mentioned  (see Appendix E - 1 ) .  Nonverbal e f f e c t s o f  t r a i n i n g c o u l d be assessed through the use o f videotape o r viewing i n t e r v i e w s through one-way g l a s s . In  l i n e w i t h the recommendation t h a t b a s i c r e s e a r c h be  undertaken  t o determine what s k i l l s  are u s e f u l i n meeting the  communication needs o f a d o l e s c e n t s a t d i f f e r e n t stages o f development, a study c o u l d p a t t e r n i t s e l f a f t e r the t r a i n i n g  80  m o d e l u s e d by K a g a n  (1967).  Adolescent  taped presentations of t h e i r w h i l e a moderator asked about each response. c r i b e d and responses  dyads c o u l d watch v i d e o -  counsellor-client  e a c h t o r a t e and  The  interactions  t o s a y how  felt  v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n c o u l d be t r a n s -  t h e r a t i n g w o u l d g i v e an a d o l e s c e n t ' s w e r e p e r c e i v e d as u n d e r s t a n d i n g  l a c k i n g i n empathy.  she  T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n and  be u s e d f o r t r a i n i n g p u r p o s e s .  i d e a o f what  or, alternatively, the videotapes  as  could  As m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r , t h e  pre-  s e n t s t u d y g i v e s d a t a o n l y on t h e f i r s t s e s s i o n o f c o u n s e l l i n g and d a t a s u c h as t h a t j u s t d e s c r i b e d f r o m s e s s i o n s o f  ongoing  c o u n s e l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , w o u l d be v a l u a b l e . As m e n t i o n e d i n C h a p t e r  2, c o u n s e l l o r s l o w i n empathy  be d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e h e a l t h o f t h e i r Truax & Carkhuff, was  to determine  1967).  One  (Bergin,  f o r the present  i f young c o u n s e l l o r s were c a p a b l e  a l e v e l o f empathy t h o u g h t has  reason  clients  may  1971;  study  of  attaining  t o be b e n e f i c i a l t o t h e i r p e e r s .  It  b e e n d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e y axe c a p a b l e o f " r e s p o n d i n g . W i t h t h a t  l e v e l o f e m p a t h y b u t t h e r e i s no facilitative  evidence  by e x p e r t s on t h e C a r k h u f f  a b l e o u t c o m e w i t h y o u n g c l i e n t s , and m a i n s t o be r e s e a r c h e d .  Followup  t h a t empathy  judged  scale predicts favour-  t h i s a s p e c t o f empathy r e -  s t u d i e s may  i n d i c a t e what  t y p e s o f t r a i n i n g , t h e .amount o f s u p e r v i s i o n , and t h e k i n d s p r a c t i c a l experience clients,  and  of  which provide b e n e f i t to t r a i n e e s , t h e i r  school personnel.  L o n g - t e r m s t u d i e s m i g h t show  the degree t o which the experimental t r a i n e e s r e t a i n e d t h e i r skills,  and  c o u l d suggest  t h e s k i l l s w h i c h had  appropriate reinforcements  to  maintain  been r e l a t e d t o f a v o u r a b l e outcomes f o r  81  t r a i n e e s and o t h e r s . Some c l a s s r o o m l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s p r o v i d e t h e means f o r h e l p i n g students t o f i n d s o l u t i o n s t o problems.  However,  a c o n n e c t i o n may n e e d t o be d r a w n f o r s t u d e n t s b e t w e e n t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s and t h e i r p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n t o p e r s o n a l p r o b lems.  T h i s can be h a n d l e d t h r o u g h group g u i d a n c e  ( B u c k , 1980; C l i n e & W h e e l e r , Carey, 1972).  activities  1967; G e l a t t , V a r e n h o r s t &  H o w e v e r , many p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s w i l l  n o t b e , and  p r o b a b l y s h o u l d n o t b e , s h a r e d among a g r o u p o f y o u n g s t u d e n t s and t h i s  i s one r e a s o n why i n d i v i d u a l t r a i n i n g f o r o n e - t o - o n e  p e e r c o u n s e l l i n g may be n e e d e d  and p o s s i b l y more e f f e c t i v e  i n e n h a n c i n g empathy t h a n a r e g r o u p a c t i v i t i e s .  Research  c o u l d be d i r e c t e d t o w a r d f i n d i n g t h e b e s t c o m b i n a t i o n o f g r o u p and i n d i v i d u a l t r a i n i n g t o m a x i m i z e b e n e f i t s t o y o u n g  parti-  cipants . Improvement and i n n o v a t i o n i s needed  i n assessment i n -  s t r u m e n t s o f a d o l e s c e n t e m p a t h y , a s w e l l a s i n empathy ing.  I n a d d i t i o n , a s s e s s m e n t s f r o m numerous v a n t a g e  s u c h a s t h a t o f t e a c h e r s , w o u l d be o f i n t e r e s t . t h e r e a r e f i n e t r a i n i n g models  train-  points,  Although  a v a i l a b l e f o r young s t u d e n t  c o u n s e l l o r s , a n d some i n c o r p o r a t e t r a i n i n g i n p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g ( B u c k , 1979; C a r r & S a u n d e r s , 1 9 8 0 ) , we n e e d a s s e s s m e n t s o f t h e e f f e c t s o f component p a r t s o f t h e s e t r a i n i n g m o d e l s i n o r d e r t o i m p r o v e t r a i n i n g a n d make a n y h e l p f u l  modifications  f o r s t u d e n t s o f d i f f e r i n g ages, c u l t u r a l b a c k g r o u n d s , and p e r sonality characteristics.  T r a i n i n g may n e e d t o be t a i l o r e d  82  somewhat f o r p a r t i c u l a r training  could  which w i l l  situations.  be t o i m p r o v e e f f o r t s  a i d them i n s o l v i n g  through peer counselling,and e v a l u a t i o n o f such  programs.  One  aim o f  counselling  to teach people s k i l l s  some o f t h e i r  own  problems  r e s e a r c h would need t o f o c u s  on  83;-  REFERENCES  REFERENCES A l k u s , S. S e l f - r e g u l a t i o n a n d c h i l d r e n ' s t a s k p e r f o r m a n c e : A comparison o f s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n , c o p i n g and a t t r i b u t i o n approaches. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Univers i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1977. A n d e r s o n , R. P e e r f a c i l i t a t i o n : H i s t o r y and i s s u e s . Elementary S c h o o l G u i d a n c e a n d C o u n s e l l i n g , 1976, 1_1_/ 16-25. A n d r a d e , B. M. A n e x p e r i m e n t a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f t r a i n i n g h i g h s c h o o l students t o conduct facilitative interviews w i t h t h e i r peers. Dissertation Abstracts Intern a t i o n a l , 1 973, 3_4, (1-A), 128. B a n d u r a , A. S e l f - e f f i c a c y : Toward a u n i f y i n g t h e o r y o f b e h a v i o r change. P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , 1977, 8_4, 191-215. B e r g i n , A. E. T h e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e r a p e u t i c o u t c o m e s . I n A. E. B e r g i n & S. L. G a r f i e l d ( E d s . ) , H a n d b o o k o f P s y c h o t h e r a p y and B e h a v i o r C h a n g e . New Y o r k : W i l e y & S o n s , 1971. B e u t l e r , L . E . , J o h n s o n , D. T., & N e v i l l e , C. W. Some s o u r c e s o f v a r i a n c e i n a c c u r a t e empathy r a t i n g s . J o u r n a l o f ConS u i t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 40(2), 167-169. B i e r m a n , R., C a r k h u f f , R. R., & S a n t i l l i , M. E f f i c a c y o f empathic communication t r a i n i n g groups f o r i n n e r c i t y p r e s c h o o l t e a c h e r s and f a m i l y workers. J o u r n a l o f App l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e , 1972, 8(2), 188-202. B r o n f e n b r e n n e r , U. N o b o d y home: T h e e r o s i o n o f t h e A m e r i c a n family. P s y c h o l o g y T o d a y , M a y , 1977, p p . 40-42. B r o w n , T.  C o u n s e l l o r r o l e - C a n a d i a n scene.  1980, 14, 181-185.  Canadian C o u n s e l l o r ,  B u c k , M. R. P e e r s : A peer c o u n s e l o r t r a i n i n g manual. S t . Louis: S c h o o l B o a r d P u b l i c a t i o n , 1979. B u f f i n g t o n , P. W., & S t i l l w e l l , W. E. S e l f - c o n t r o l a n d a f f e c tive education: A case o f o m i s s i o n . Elementary School G u i d a n c e a n d C o u n s e l i n g , 1980, JJ5(2), 152-156. B u t t e r y , J . , & A l l a n , J . J o u r n a l W r i t i n g as a Developmental Guidance Method. I n p r e s s , Canadian Counsellor.  85.  C a b u s h , D., & E d w a r d s , K. T r a i n i n g c l i e n t s t o h e l p t h e m s e l v e s : Outcome e f f e c t s o f t r a i n i n g c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s ' c l i e n t s i n f a c i l i t a t i v e s e l f - r e s p o n d i n g . J o u r n a l o f Counseling Psyc h o l o g y , 1 9 7 6 , 2 3 , 34-39. Camp, B. V e r b a l m e d i a t i o n i n y o u n g a g g r e s s i v e b o y s . Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y o f C o l o r a d o S c h o o l o f M e d i c i n e , 1975. C a m p b e l l , D., & S t a n l e y , J . designs f o r research.  E x p e r i m e n t a l and q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l Chicago: R a n d - M c N a l l y , 1966.  C a n n o n , J . R., & C a r k h u f f , R. R. E f f e c t s o f r a t e r l e v e l f u n c t i o n i n g and e x p e r i e n c e upon t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f f a c i l i t a tive conditions. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 969, 33 ( 2 ) , 189-1 94. C a r a c e n a , P. F., & V i c o r y , J . R. C o r r e l a t e s o f p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l and j u d g e d empathy. J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1 969, 1_6, 510-515. C a r k h u f f , R. R. C r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e s i n e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l o r training. J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, 16, 510-515. C a r k h u f f , R. R. S e l e c t i o n a n d t r a i n i n g . I n R. R. C a r k h u f f ( E d . ) , H e l p i n g a n d Human R e l a t i o n s : A p r i m e r f o r l a y and p r o f e s s i o n a l helpers ( V o l . 1 ) . New Y o r k : H o l t , 1 969. C a r k h u f f , R.. R., K r a t c h o v i l , D., & F r i e l , T. E f f e c t s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g , communication and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f f a c i l i t a t i v e conditions. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 1 968, 1_5 (1 ) , 68-74. C a r r , R. A. S t u d e n t s h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s : P e e r Reed C a r e e r M a g a z i n e , 1 9 8 0 , 2, 24-26.  counselling.  C a r r , R. A., & S a u n d e r s , G. P e e r c o u n s e l l i n g s t a r t e r k i t . V i c t o r i a , B.C., U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a , 1980. C h i n s k y , J . M., & R a p p a p o r t , J . B r i e f c r i t i q u e o f t h e m e a n i n g and r e l i a b i l i t y o f " a c c u r a t e empathy" r a t i n g s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1 9 7 0 , 7 3 , 379-382. C l i n e , M., & W h e e l e r , V. S c h o o l B o a r d , 1967.  Stimulus stories.  Cou£, E. The p r a c t i c e o f a u t o s u g g e s t i o n . 1 922.  Columbia New Y o r k :  Public Doubleday,  D e c o u r c y , P., & D u e r f e l d t , P. The i m p a c t o f number a n d t y p e o f m o d e l s o n c l a i m e d s u c c e s s r a t e a n d mood o f a d u l t alcoholics. J o u r n a l o f G e n e t i c P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 122, 63-79.  86, D e l w o r t h , U . P a r a s , p e e r s , and p r o s . P e r s o n n e l , and Guidance J o u r n a l , 1974, 5 3 , 2 2 8 - 2 3 1 . D e v i n , W . , Sheehan, L . , F e l d m a n , R . , & A l l a n , V . R e s e a r c h on children tutoring c h i l d r e n : A c r i t i c a l review. Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1976, _46, 102-105. D i n k m e y e r , D. C. D e v e l o p i n g u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f s e l f and o t h e r s . Circle Pines, Minn.: A m e r i c a n Guidance S e r v i c e s , 1973. Duncan, J . A . E t h i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n p e e r group w o r k . E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l Guidance and C o u n s e l i n g , 1 976, 1 1 ( 1 ) , 59-62. Duncan, J . A . , & L a i r d , J . W a r n i n g : P l a c e b o s can be dangerous to your h e a l t h . P s y c h o l o g y Today, J u n e , 1981, p p . 2 6 - 2 9 . D y e r , W. W . , V r i e n d , J . , A t o t a l approach. Ellis,  & Murphy, P . A . Peer group Momentum, 1975, 6, 8-15.  A . Reason and e m o t i o n i n p s y c h o t h e r a p y . L y l e S t u a r t , 1962.  counseling:  New Y o r k :  E l l i s , A . Teaching emotional education i n the classroom. S c h o o l H e a l t h R e v i e w , 1969, 10-14 ( p r o t o t y p e i s s u e ) . Ellis,  A . Are c o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y and r a t i o n a l synonymous? Rational Living, 1973, 8, 8 - 1 1 .  therapy  F i s h , J . M . Empathy and t h e r e p o r t e d e m o t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s o f beginning psychotherapists. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1970, 3 5 , 6 4 - 6 9 . F i s k e , D. W. M e t h o d o l o g i c a l i s s u e s i n r e s e a r c h on the p s y c h o therapist. I n A . S. Gurman & A . M . R a z i n ( E d s . ) , E f f e c t i v e P s y c h o t h e r a p y , New Y o r k : Pergamon P r e s s , 1977. F i s k e , D. W . , H u n t , J . F . , L u b o r s k y , L . , & O r n e . The p l a n n i n g o f r e s e a r c h on e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f p s y c h o t h e r a p y . Archives o f G e n e r a l P s y c h i a t r y , 1970, 22, 2 2 - 3 2 . F l a n n e r y , R. B. Use o f c o v e r t c o n d i t i o n i n g i n t h e b e h a v i o r a l t r e a t m e n t o f a drug-dependent c o l l e g e d r o p o u t . Journal o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1972, 1_9(6), 547-550. F r a n k , M , F e r d i n a n d , B . , & B a i l e y , W. Peer group c o u n s e l i n g : A c h a l l e n g e t o grow. S c h o o l C o u n s e l o r , 1975, 22 ( 4 ) , 267-272. Freud, A.  Adolescence.  P s y c h o a n a l y t i c S t u d i e s , 1958,  1 3, ,225-273.  G a r t n e r , A . , & Riessman, F. The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l movement i n perspective. P e r s o n n e l and Guidance J o u r n a l , 1974, 5 3 , 249-252.  87  G e l a t t , H. B., V a r e n h o r s t , B., & Carey, R. Deciding; A leader's g u i d e . New York: C o l l e g e Entrance E x a m i n a t i o n B o a r d , 1972. G e r l e r , A. R., & Omizo, M. M. R e l a x a t i o n t r a i n i n g and b i o f e e d back w i t h h y p e r a c t i v e elementary s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l Guidance and C o u n s e l i n g , 1981, 4_, ( V o l . 1 5 ) , 329-332. G l a d s t e i n , G. A. Empathy and c o u n s e l i n g outcome: An e m p i r i c a l and c o n c e p t u a l view. C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1 977, 6>, 70-79. G l a s s , G. V., & S t a n l e y , J . C. S t a t i s t i c a l methods i n educat i o n and p s y c h o l o g y . Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1970. G o l d f r i e d , M. R., & Merbaum, M. ( E d s . ) , B e h a v i o r change s e l f - c o n t r o l . New York: H o l t R i n e h a r t , 1973. G o l d s t e i n , A. P. Psychotherapeutic Pergamon P r e s s , 1971. Gumaer, J . P e e r - f a c i l i t a t e d groups. and C o u n s e l i n g , 1973, 8, 4-11.  attraction.  New  through  York:  E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l Guidance  Gurman, A. S. The p a t i e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f the t h e r a p e u t i c r e lationship. I n A. S. Gurman & A. M. R a z i n ( E d s . ) , E f f e c t i v e psychotherapy. New York: Pergamon P r e s s , 1977. Gurman, A. S., & R a z i n , A. M. (Eds.), E f f e c t i v e New York: Pergamon P r e s s , 1977.  psychotherapy.  Haase, R., & D i m a t t i a , D. A p p l i c a t i o n o f the m i c r o c o u n s e l i n g paradigms t o the t r a i n i n g o f support p e r s o n n e l i n c o u n s e l ing. Counselor E d u c a t i o n and S u p e r v i s i o n , 1970, 10, 16-22. Hamburg, B., & V a r e n h o r s t , B. Peer c o u n s e l i n g i n the secondary s c h o o l s : A community h e a l t h p r o j e c t f o r youth. American J o u r n a l o f O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y , 1 972, 42^, 566-581 . H a r t u p , W. W. Peer i n t e r a c t i o n and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . I n P. H. Mussen (Ed.), C a r m i c h a e l ' s manual o f c h i l d psychol o g y ( V o l . 2 ) . New York: W i l e y , 1970. H a v i g h u r s t , R. J . Development Tasks and E d u c a t i o n . Longmans Green, 1951.  New  York:  Haynes, L. A., & A v e r y , A. W. T r a i n i n g adolescents i n s e l f d i s c l o s u r e and empathy s k i l l s . J o u r n a l of Counseling P s y c h o l o g y , 1979, 26, 526-530.  -:-88  H e f e l e , T. J . The e f f e c t s o f s y s t e m a t i c human r e l a t i o n s t r a i n i n g upon student achievement. J o u r n a l o f Research and Development i n E d u c a t i o n , 1979, 2_6, 526-530. Hembling, D. W. D e p r e s s i v e r e a c t i o n o f p r e - p u b e r t a l elementary school children: A f a m i l y t h e r a p i s t response t o a common problem. Proceedings o f t h e N i n t h I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r C h i l d P s y c h i a t r y and A l l i e d P r o f e s s i o n s , 1978, 8, 623-624. Homme, L. P e r s p e c t i v e s i n p s y c h o l o g y : Control o f coverants, the o p e r a n t s o f the mind. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Record, 1965, 6, 501-511. Hundleby, G. D. Communication o f empathy. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f A l b e r t a , Edmonton, 1973. Ivey, A. M i c r o c o u n s e l i n g . 1978.  Springfield:  C h a r l e s C. Thomas,  Ivey, A., Normington, C., M i l l e r , C., M o r r i l l , W., & Haase, R. M i c r o c o u n s e l i n g and a t t e n d i n g b e h a v i o r : An approach t o prepracticum counselor t r a i n i n g . Journal, o f C o u n s e l i n g Psychology, 1968, 15 (2) , 1-12 . Jacobson, N. S., & M a r g o l i n , G. M a z e l , 197 9.  M a r i t a l therapy.  New York:  Kagan, N., & Krathwohl, D. S t u d i e s i n human i n t e r a c t i o n : I n t e r p e r s o n a l p r o c e s s r e c a l l by v i d e o t a p e . East Lansing, Mich.: ' E d u c a t i o n P u b l i c a t i o n S e r v i c e s , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1967. Keat, D. T r a i n i n g as a multimodal treatment f o r p e e r s . Elementary S c h o o l G u i d a n c e and C o u n s e l i n g , 1 976,  V\_, 7-13.  K e l l y , G. The psychology o f p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s ( V o l . 2 ) , New York: Norton, 1955. Keogy, B., & M a r g o l i s , J . Learn t o l a b o r and w a i t : Attentional problems o f c h i l d r e n w i t h l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s . Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , L. A., 1975. Kern, R., & K i r b y , J . U t i l i z i n g peer h e l p e r i n f l u e n c e i n group counseling. Elementary S c h o o l Guidance and C o u n s e l i n g , 1971, 6, 70-75. Knaus, W. J . R a t i o n a l emotive e d u c a t i o n : A manual f o r element a r y s c h o o l t e a c h e r s . New York: I n s t i t u t e f o r R a t i o n a l L i v i n g , 1974. Krueger, D. D. Operant group therapy w i t h d e l i n q u e n t boys u s i n g t h e r a p i s t ' s v e r s u s peer's r e i n f o r c e m e n t . Dissertation A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1971, 31, (11-B), 6877-6878.  8:9  Krumboltz, J . D. Future d i r e c t i o n f o r c o u n s e l i n g r e s e a r c h . In J . M. W h i t e l y (Ed.), Research i n C o u n s e l i n g . Columbus, Ohio: M e r r i l l , 1967. K u r t z , R. R., & Grummon, D. L. D i f f e r e n t approaches t o the measurement o f t h e r a p i s t empathy and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to therapy outcomes. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1972, 39, 106-115. L a l o n d e , M. Hansard House o f Commons. 24, 1976.  Debates, Ottawa, Nov.  Luborsky, L., Auerback, A., Chandler, M., Cohen, J . , & Bachr a c h , H. F a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g t h e outcome o f psychotherapy: A review o f q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h . Psychological Bulletin, 1 971 , 75, No. 3. L u r i a , A. R. The r o l e o f speech i n t h e r e g u l a t i o n o f normal and abnormal b e h a v i o r . New York: L i v e r r i g h t , 1961. McCann, B. G. Peer c o u n s e l i n g : An approach t o p s y c h o l o g i c a l education. Elementary S c h o o l Guidance and C o u n s e l i n g , 1 975, _4_9, 180-187. McCarthy, B., & Michaud, P. Companions: An adjunct t o c o u n s e l ing. P e r s o n n e l and Guidance J o u r n a l , 1971, 4_9, 839-841 . M c N a l l y , H. A. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f s e l e c t e d c o u n s e l o r and c l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as p o s s i b l e p r e d i c t o r s o f c o u n s e l i n g e f f e c tiveness. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1 973, 33, (12-A) , 6672-6673. Mahoney, M. R e f l e c t i o n on t h e c o g n i t i v e - l e a r n i n g t r e n d i n psychotherapy. American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1977, 8, 673-677. M a r t i n , J . C., & C a r k h u f f , R. R. The e f f e c t upon p e r s o n a l i t y and i n t e r p e r s o n a l f u n c t i o n i n g : A summer practicura f o r guidance c o u n s e l o r s . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1968, _1_9, 106-108. Meichenbaum, D. C o g n i t i v e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t e s t anxious c o l l e g e students. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y, 1972, 39, 370-380. Meichenbaum, D. Why does u s i n g i m a g e r y i n psychotherapy l e a d to change? I n J . S i n g e r and K. Pope (Eds.), The power o f human i m a g i n a t i o n . New York: Plenum P r e s s , 1978. Meichenbaum, D. (Ed.). C o g n i t i v e Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n Newsl e t t e r , 1 979, 4_, Waterloo, O n t a r i o : U n i v e r s i t y o f Waterloo. Meichenbaum, D. H., & Goodman, J . T r a i n i n g i m p u l s i v e c h i l d r e n to t a l k t o themselves. A means o f d e v e l o p i n g s e l f - c o n t r o l . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 115-126.  90 Merchant, D., & Z i n g l e , H. Elementary s c h o o l guidance i n Canadian Urban A r e a s : A study o f p r e s e n t c o u n s e l l o r f u n c t i o n s . Canadian C o u n s e l l o r , 1977, Vj_, ( 4 ) , 201-209. M i t c h e l l , J . M. The a d o l e s c e n t predicament. R i n e h a r t & W i n s t o n , 1975.  Toronto:  Holt,  M i t c h e l l , K. M., B o z a r t h , J . D., & K r a u f t , C. C. A r e a p p r a i s a l o f the t h e r a p e u t i c e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a c c u r a t e empathy, nonp o s s e s s i v e warmth and genuineness. I n A. S. Gurman & A. M. R a z i n ( E d s . ) , E f f e c t i v e p s y c h o t h e r a p y . New York: Pergamon P r e s s , 1977. Mondale, W. 39-40.  The f a m i l y i n t r o u b l e .  P s y c h o l o g y Today, May,  1977,  Montes, D., & O r t e g a , L. R e t e n t i o n o f t h e n o n t r a d i t i o n a l s t u d e n t t h r o u g h peer modeling. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the Annual Conv e n t i o n o f the American P e r s o n n e l and Guidance A s s o c i a t i o n : C h i c a g o , A p r i l 11-1 4, 1 976, (ED 13021 4 ) . M o r r i s , G. B. The M i d d l e S c h o o l and the C h i l d . A paper p r e p a r e d f o r the Saskatchewan J o i n t Committee on the M i d d l e S c h o o l Y e a r s . Saskatoon: U n i v e r s i t y o f Saskatchewan P r e s s , 1978. Muus, R. E. 1 968.  Theories of adolescence.  New  P e r l s , F. S. Ego, hunger and a g g r e s s i o n . Books, 1969.  York: New  Random House,  York:  Vintage  Rachman, S. J . The e f f e c t s o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l t r e a t m e n t . In H. J . Eysenck (Ed.), Handbook o f abnormal p s y c h o l o g y . New York: B a s i c Books, 1973. Rappaport, J . , & C h i n s k y , J . M. A c c u r a t e empathy: o f a c o n s t r u c t . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1972, 400-404. R i c e , B. The new gangs o f Chinatown. 1977, V o l . 10, 60-65. Rogers, C. R. Mifflin,  C l i e n t - c e n t e r e d therapy. 1951.  Confusion 77(6),  P s y c h o l o g y Today, Boston:  May,  Houghton  Rogers, C. R. A t e n t a t i v e s c a l e f o r measurement o f p r o c e s s i n psychotherapy. I n E. A. R u b e n s t e i n & M. B. P a r l o f f ( E d s . ) , Research i n p s y c h o t h e r a p y , ( V o l . 1 ) . Washington, D.C: American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1959. Rogers, C. R. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s : U.S.A. 2000. J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e , 1 968, _4, 265-280.  91 Rogers, C. R., & Dyamond, R. F. Psychotherapy and p e r s o n a l i t y change. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1954. Rogers, C. R., G e n d l i n , G. T., K i e s l e r , D. V., & Truax, C. B. The t h e r a p e u t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p and i t s impact: A s t u d y o f p s y c h o t h e r a p y w i t h s c h i z o p h r e n i c s . Madison: University o f W i s c o n s i n , 1967. Samuels, D., & Samuels, M. The complete handbook o f peer couns e l i n g . Miami: F i e s t a , 1975. Schoeppe, A., & H a v i g h u r s t , R. J . A v a l i d a t i o n o f t h e d e v e l o p ment and adjustment hypotheses o f a d o l e s c e n c e . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 952, 4J3, 339-353. S h a p i r o , J . G. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between e x p e r t and neophyte r a t i n g s of t h e r a p e u t i c c o n d i t i o n s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 968, 32^, 87-89. S l o a n e , R. B., S t a p l e s , F. R., C r i s t o l , A. H., Y o r k s t o n , N. J . , & W h i p p l e , K. Psychotherapy v e r s u s b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y . Cambridge, Mass.: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1972. Sobey, F. The n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l r e v o l u t i o n i n m e n t a l New York: B a l l a n t i n e , 1971.  health.  S r o l e , L. , Lagner, T. S., M i c h a e l , S. T. , O p l e r , M...K., & Rennie, T. A. M e n t a l h e a l t h i n the m e t r o p o l i s : The midtown Manhattan s t u d y . New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 1962. S t e v e n s , N., & D a v i d s o n , A. R. Peer c o u n s e l o r t r a i n i n g . The Guidance C l i n i c , 1979, 1-4. Thoresen, C. E. Relevance and r e s e a r c h i n c o u n s e l i n g . o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1 969, .39, 263-281 .  Review  Truax, C. B. A s c a l e f o r t h e measurement o f a c c u r a t e empathy. Psychiatric Institute Bulletin,Wisconsin.Psychiatric I n s t i t u t e , U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n , Vi. 12, 1961. Truax, C. B., & C a r k h u f f , R. R. For b e t t e r o r f o r worse: The p r o c e s s o f p s y c h o t h e r a p e u t i c p e r s o n a l i t y change. I n Recent advances i n b e h a v i o r change. M o n t r e a l , Canada: M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1964, 118-163. Truax, C. B., & C a r k h u f f , R. R. Toward e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l i n g and p s y c h o t h e r a p y : T r a i n i n g and p r a c t i c e . Chicago: A l d i n e , 1967. Truax, C. B., & L i s t e r , J . L. E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f c o u n s e l o r s and c o u n s e l o r a i d e s . J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1970, 17 331-334. f  92  T r u a x , C. B., & M i t c h e l l , interpersonal s k i l l s I n A. E . B e r g i n & S. t h e r a p y and b e h a v i o r  K. M. R e s e a r c h on c e r t a i n t h e r a p i s t i n r e l a t i o n t o p r o c e s s and outcome. L. G a r f i e l d ( E d s . ) , Handbook o f p s y c h o change. New Y o r k : W i l e y , 1971.  V a r e n h o r s t , B. T r a i n i n g a d o l e s c e n t s a s p e e r c o u n s e l o r s . P e r s o n n e l and G u i d a n c e J o u r n a l , 1 974, 5J3, 272-275. V o g e l s o n g , E . L . R e l a t i o n s h i p enhancement t r a i n i n g f o r c h i l d r e n . E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l G u i d a n c e and C o u n s e l i n g , A p r i l , 1978,  273-279. Wolpe, J . , & L a z a r u s , A. Behavior York: Pergamon P r e s s , 1966.  therapy  techniques.  New  Wrenn, R. L . , & Menchke, R. S t u d e n t s who c o u n s e l s t u d e n t s . P e r s o n n e l and G u i d a n c e J o u r n a l , 1972, 5_2, 687-689. Y a g e r , G. G., O c h i l t r e e , J . K., & B r e k k e , D. M. The e f f e c t o f including c o g n i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l modelling i n the C a r k h u f f a p p r o a c h t o empathy t r a i n i n g . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f N o r t h D a k o t a , G r a n d F o r k s , 1975.  93 APPENDICES Page A.  Rating Scales  94  A1 A2  95  C a r k h u f f S c a l e o f Empathy Naive-Peer-Client Rating Scale: Scale of Understanding  B.  L e t t e r s and  .  C o n s e n t Forms  98  B1 B2 B3 B4  C.  L e t t e r to Student Trainees L e t t e r to Parents of Volunteer Trainees L e t t e r t o P a r e n t s o f C o n t r o l Group L e t t e r and P e r m i s s i o n Form f o r P a r e n t s of Naive-Peer-Client Raters B5 C o n s e n t Form f o r N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s . . . Procedures C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7  D.  D1 D2 E.  Items  Topics f o r Naive Raters' Interviews S t i m u l u s S t a t e m e n t s f o r P r e t e s t and Posttest 1  Naive-Peer-Client Raters E x p e r t - C l i e n t Rater  A v e r a g e I.Q.,  98 100 102 104 106 110 110 112 113 114 115 116 120 122  A s s e s s m e n t Cues U s e d by R a t e r s E1 E2  F.  S e l e c t i o n o f and T e s t i n g b y N a i v e - P e e r C l i e n t Raters .; P r e p a r a t i o n f o r R a t i n g by N a i v e - P e e r C l i e n t Raters P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t 1 P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t 2 Posttest 3 T r e a t m e n t C o n d i t i o n s and P r o c e d u r e s E x p l a n a t i o n and S c a l e f o r R a t i n g o f T r a i n e r by T r a i n e e s  Stimulus  96  Age,  122 12 3 125 12 5 12 7  Grade P o i n t Average  of Subjects; Order f o r T e s t i n g G.  Correlation Coefficients  f o r Raters  H.  P o s t t r a i n i n g Questionnaire....  130 13T 133  APPENDIX A-1 EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING I N INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES: A SCALE FOR MEASUREMENT Level  1  The v e r b a l a n d b e h a v i o r a l e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e f i r s t p e r s o n e i t h e r do n o t a t t e n d t o o r d e t r a c t s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e v e r b a l and b e h a v i o r a l e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e second person(s) i n t h a t t h e y communicate s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s o f t h e second person's f e e l i n g s than t h e second person has communicated h i m s e l f . EXAMPLE:  T h e f i r s t p e r s o n c o m m u n i c a t e s no a w a r e n e s s o f even t h e most o b v i o u s , e x p r e s s e d s u r f a c e f e e l i n g s o f t h e s e c o n d p e r s o n . The f i r s t p e r s o n may b e b o r e d o r u n i n t e r e s t e d o r s i m p l y o p e r a t i n g from a p r e c o n c e i v e d frame o f reference which t o t a l l y excludes t h a t o f the o t h e r personCs).  I n summary, t h e f i r s t p e r s o n d o e s e v e r y t h i n g b u t e x p r e s s t h a t he i s l i s t e n i n g , u n d e r s t a n d i n g , o r b e i n g s e n s i t i v e t o e v e n t h e f e e l i n g s o f t h e o t h e r p e r s o n i n s u c h a way as t o d e t r a c t s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e communications o f the second person. Level 2 While t h e f i r s t person responds t o t h e expressed f e e l i n g s o f t h e s e c o n d p e r s o n C s ) , h e d o e s s o i n a way t h a t he s u b t r a c t s n o t i c e a b l e a f f e c t f r o m t h e communic a t i o n s o f t h e second p e r s o n . EXAMPLE:  T h e f i r s t p e r s o n may c o m m u n i c a t e some awareness o f o b v i o u s s u r f a c e f e e l i n g s o f t h e second p e r s o n , b u t h i s communications d r a i n o f f a l e v e l . o f t h e a f f e c t and d i s t o r t t h e l e v e l o f m e a n i n g . T h e f i r s t p e r s o n may c o m m u n i c a t e h i s own i d e a s o f w h a t may b e going on, but these a r e not congruent w i t h the e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e second p e r s o n .  I n summary, t h e f i r s t p e r s o n t e n d s t o r e s p o n d t o o t h e r t h a n what t h e second p e r s o n i s e x p r e s s i n g o r i n d i c a t i n g . Level 3 The e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e f i r s t p e r s o n i n r e s p o n s e t o the expressed f e e l i n g s o f t h e second person(s) a r e e s s e n t i a l l y i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e w i t h those o f t h e second p e r s o n i n t h a t t h e y e x p r e s s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same a f f e c t and m e a n i n g .  95  EXAMPLE:  The f i r s t p e r s o n r e s p o n d s w i t h a c c u r a t e understanding of the surface feelings of the s e c o n d p e r s o n b u t may n o t r e s p o n d t o o r may m i s i n t e r p r e t t h e deeper f e e l i n g s .  I n summary, t h e f i r s t p e r s o n i s r e s p o n d i n g s o a s t o n e i t h e r s u b t r a c t from n o r add t o t h e e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e s e c o n d p e r s o n ; b u t he d o e s n o t r e s p o n d a c c u r a t e l y t o how t h a t p e r s o n r e a l l y f e e l s b e n e a t h t h e s u r f a c e f e e l i n g s . Level 3 c o n s t i t u t e s the minimal l e v e l of f a c i l i t a t i v e interpersonal functioning. Level 4 The r e s p o n s e s o f t h e f i r s t p e r s o n a d d n o t i c e a b l y t o t h e e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e s e c o n d p e r s o n ( s ) i n s u c h a way as t o e x p r e s s f e e l i n g s a l e v e l deeper t h a n t h e second p e r s o n was a b l e t o e x p r e s s h i m s e l f . EXAMPLE:  The f a c i l i t a t o r c o m m u n i c a t e s h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e second person a t a l e v e l deeper t h a n t h e y were e x p r e s s e d , and t h u s e n a b l e s t h e second person t o e x p e r i e n c e and/or e x p r e s s f e e l i n g s he was u n a b l e t o e x p r e s s previously.  I n summary, t h e f a c i l i t a t o r ' s r e s p o n s e s add d e e p e r f e e l i n g and m e a n i n g t o t h e e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e s e c o n d p e r s o n . Level 5 The f i r s t p e r s o n ' s r e s p o n s e s a d d s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o the f e e l i n g and meaning o f t h e e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e second p e r s o n ( s ) i n s u c h a way a s t o CLJ a c c u r a t e l y e x p r e s s f e e l i n g s l e v e l s b e l o w w h a t t h e p e r s o n h i m s e l f was a b l e t o e x p r e s s , o r (2) i n t h e e v e n t o f o n g o i n g d e e p s e l f e x p l o r a t i o n on t h e second p e r s o n ' s p a r t t o be f u l l y w i t h h i m i n h i s d e e p e s t moments. EXAMPLE:  The f a c i l i t a t o r r e s p o n d s w i t h a c c u r a c y t o a l l of t h e person's deeper as w e l l as s u r f a c e feelings. He i s " t o g e t h e r " w i t h t h e s e c o n d p e r s o n o r " t u n e d i n " o n h i s wave l e n g t h . The f a c i l i t a t o r and t h e o t h e r p e r s o n might proceed together t o explore p r e v i o u s l y unexplored areas o f human e x i s t e n c e .  I n summary, t h e f a c i l i t a t o r i s r e s p o n d i n g w i t h a f u l l a w a r e n e s s o f who t h e o t h e r p e r s o n i s and a c o m p r e h e n s i v e and a c c u r a t e e m p a t h i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h i s d e e p e s t f e e l ings.  A-2  96  Rating S c a l e f o r N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t  Raters  R a t i n g by Peer C l i e n t - R a t e r s  D i r e c t i o n s to s u p e r v i s o r . Please f i l l girl  out the names of the r a t e r and o f  r a t e d on the back of each o f the "A"  as the r a t i n g has taken p l a c e .  sheets as soon  Give out the  comparative r a t i n g s l i p a f t e r the r a t e r has r a t i n g of a l l t h r e e g i r l s  the  "B" finished  the  she t a l k e d t o .  Sheet  "A"  D i r e c t i o n s to grade s i x s t u d e n t - r a t e r : P l e a s e check what you  1)  the d e s c r i p t i o n which i s c l o s e s t to  t h i n k about the i n t e r v i e w you have j u s t completed:  "I t h i n k t h a t the g i r l I j u s t t a l k e d to understood what I was about me  1. Not  at all  s a y i n g and how  and my  I f e l t and a l s o cared  problem."  2.  3.  4.  a little  fairly  v e r y w e l l extremely  well  well  5.  97  "B" R a t i n g b y N a i v e - P e e r  A f t e r you have f i n i s h e d g i r l s and r a t i n g you  found  Client  talking  each one, w i l l  most u n d e r s t a n d i n g  Raters  to three  different  you p l e a s e d e c i d e  and l i k e d t a l k i n g  who  to the  best? The g i r l  I l i k e d to talk  t o t h e m o s t was  The g i r l  I liked to talk  t o t h e second  I n y o u r own w o r d s w i l l you  y o u p l e a s e s a y why y o u  l i k e d t o t a l k t o one g i r l  to another?  think  more t h a n y o u l i k e d t o t a l k  I f you do n o t u n d e r s t a n d  y o u p l e a s e a s k me  b e s t was  this question,  t o e x p l a i n i t t o you?  will  APPENDIX B -1 L e t t e r to Student Dear  student, W i l l you  parents?  The  improve your your  Trainees  p l e a s e go o v e r  ability  should  a f t e r you  to help another  new  a girl  you  t r a i n i n g b e g i n s and be a s k e d  from another  s c h o o l and  all  f r i e n d s and  also  after  to t a l k f o r f i v e  minutes  in a  i n your  different  t a l k as  l i s t e n w h i l e you  talk  want t o have a tape r e c o r d i n g o f  learn during  be  Other  find i t  again r i g h t  t o be as u n d e r s t a n d i n g  d i s c u s s i o n s o t h a t we  16.  should  grade s i x c l a s s  Nobody e l s e w i l l  h e r b u t we  The  feel.  acquaintances.  t r a i n i n g you w i l l  can be.  through  f i n d d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h you more h e l p f u l  h a v e b e e n t r a i n e d and  Before  to  person  o f what t h e y s a y and  much e a s i e r t o t a l k t o some o f y o u r to  your  purpose of t h i s t r a i n i n g p r o j e c t i s to  understanding  people  this outline with  can g e t an  I n o r d e r t o g i v e you an  the  i d e a o f how  t o be  much  i n a group w i l l  a t i o n o f what t r a i n i n g w i l l be w h i c h you m i g h t respond  The  you  others i n this  see a v i d e o t a p e  you  be can  way, present-  l i k e and  t h e way  in  after training.  There  will  t h e n be f i v e s e s s i o n s f o r t r a i n i n g , period i n length.  trained w i l l  i d e a a b o u t how  t r a i n e d t o h e l p y o u r s e l f and  training will  to  training.  t o t a l number o f g i r l s  16 o f y o u  you  e a c h one  c o u n s e l o r who  see you by y o u r s e l f and  a  i s doing you w i l l  school the practice  with her, g i v i n g her h e l p f u l kinds of responses. will  a l s o be e x p e c t e d t o p r a c t i c e a f t e r  between t r a i n i n g  sessions.  You  school i n  The c o u n s e l o r w i l l  arrange  for  some o f y o u t o p r a c t i c e t o g e t h e r .  The  t o t a l amount o f t i m e n e e d e d t o t r a i n y o u w i l l b e :  Before t r a i n i n g ,  t o see v i d e o t a p e  and a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s  one noon hour  - 55 m i n u t e s  Training Total  24 5  In-school training  time  In  addition,  of  t r a i n e e s , and t h e r e w i l l  for  5 hours  some a f t e r - s c h o o l p r a c t i c e w i l l  t a l k i n g t o a grade  be a b o u t  six girl  minutes  be e x p e c t e d  15 m i n u t e s  required  from another s c h o o l on  two o c c a s i o n s . W i l l y o u p l e a s e make s u r e t h a t y o u go o v e r o u t l i n e w i t h your  this  parents?  Student permission. I w i s h t o take p a r t i n t h e t r a i n i n g as d e s c r i b e d . I understand  t h a t I may w i t h d r a w  t i m e i f I w i s h t o do s o . Signed  from t r a i n i n g a t any  B-2  100 L e t t e r to Parents of Volunteer Trainees  Dear parent, We a r e o f f e r i n g an o p p o r t u n i t y t o 16 g i r l s who to  increase t h e i r a b i l i t y  to l i s t e n ,  understand  the k i n d o f person whom o t h e r s l i k e t o t a l k t o . ing  the g i r l s ' a b i l i t y  t o understand  p o i n t o f view, whether t h a t person c h i l d , i s the o v e r a l l o b j e c t i v e .  and t o be Increas-  from someone e l s e ' s  i s peer, a d u l t o r a Individual  instruction  w i l l be g i v e n once o r t w i c e a week d u r i n g c l a s s Short p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n s w i l l  wish  time.  a l s o be a v a i l a b l e between  training sessions, d i r e c t l y after school. In o r d e r t o e v a l u a t e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t r a i n i n g i t w i l l be n e c e s s a r y t o have some g i r l s who do n o t take p a r t i n t h e t r a i n i n g b u t p a r t i c i p a t e o n l y i n two s h o r t ( f i v e minutes o r l e s s ) i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w s w i t h a n o t h e r grade s i x g i r l  from a d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l .  Those  who p a r t i c i p a t e i n t r a i n i n g w i l l be d e c i d e d by random s e l e c t i o n from among v o l u n t e e r s .  Thus, your  daughter  may o r may n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t r a i n i n g b u t w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e i n t e r v i e w s i f you agree t o have h e r v o l u n t e e r f o r t h i s program.  This i s a voluntary pro-  gram and s t u d e n t s w i l l be expected work up t o d a t e . your daughter  Although  t o keep t h e i r  school  i t i s s i n c e r e l y hoped t h a t  w i l l wish t o complete the t r a i n i n g she i s  f r e e to withdraw from t h e t r a i n i n g a t any time she wishes. T r a i n i n g w i l l be g i v e n by a t e a c h e r - c o u n s e l o r w i t h 17 years o f e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e s c h o o l s and w i t h e x t e n s i v e t r a i n i n g i n the c o u n s e l l i n g f i e l d .  Tape-recordings  will  be used d u r i n g p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n s so t h a t t h e g i r l who i s b e i n g t r a i n e d c a n go over p a r t o f i t w i t h me i n her t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n so we c a n see h e r p r o g r e s s and p o s s i b l y p r a c t i c e new r e s p o n s e s .  S h o r t t a p e - r e c o r d i n g s w i l l be  made a t t h e b e g i n n i n g and a g a i n a t t h e end o f t r a i n i n g to a s s e s s what has been l e a r n e d . s t u d e n t s from another  A few grade s i x g i r l s ,  s c h o o l , w i l l t a l k t o and l a t e r  e v a l u a t e t h e degree o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c a r i n g which t h e y e x p e r i e n c e d from t h e g i r l s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s program.  Tape r e c o r d i n g s o f t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l a l s o  be a s s e s s e d by graduate c o u n s e l l i n g s t u d e n t s .  Tape  r e c o r d i n g s w i l l be e r a s e d as soon as assessments have been made. A q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l be g i v e n t o t h e g i r l s o u t what t h e y t h i n k about t h e t r a i n i n g .  to find  I feel confident  t h a t t h e g i r l s w i l l v a l u e t h e s k i l l s they have been t a u g h t b u t I want t o g e t t h e i r o p i n i o n s about d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f t h e t r a i n i n g program.  An e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e  program i s i n c l u d e d so t h a t you and your daughter c a n examine i t .  I f you have any q u e s t i o n s a t a l l I w i l l  welcome them and w i l l be happy t o e x p l a i n more f u l l y . P l e a s e phone me a t home, 681-1846, o r phone t h e s c h o o l s e c r e t a r y a t 4 35-3838 and you w i l l be c o n t a c t e d .  Please  f e e l f r e e t o phone a t any time d u r i n g t h e t r a i n i n g i f you have any q u e s t i o n s o r c o n c e r n s . Yours v e r y  truly,  B-3 L e t t e r t o P a r e n t s o f t h e C o n t r o l Group Date: Dear p a r e n t , A few g i r l s w i l l to  be g i v e n t r a i n i n g which i s d e s i g n e d  increase their a b i l i t y  t o l i s t e n and understand from  another person's point o f view.  T h e t r a i n i n g g r o u p was  c h o s e n a t r a n d o m f r o m among v o l u n t e e r s .  Although your  d a u g h t e r ' s name was n o t c h o s e n f o r t h e p r o s p e c t i v e t r a i n i n g g r o u p I w o u l d v e r y much l i k e t o h a v e h e r t a k e p a r t i n two s h o r t  ( f i v e minutes o r less)  interviews with another  grade s i x g i r l d u r i n g which your daughter would t r y t o l i s t e n a s c a r e f u l l y and t o be a s u n d e r s t a n d i n g a s she could be. and w i l l  This other g i r l w i l l  be from another  school  be u n a c q u a i n t e d w i t h your daughter b u t w i l l  a s s e s s t h e degree o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g she f e e l s your  daughter  has e x h i b i t e d i n l i s t e n i n g t o and t a l k i n g t o h e r f o r t h i s brief period.  Interviews w i l l  t h e y c a n be l i s t e n e d s t u d e n t s f r o m U.B.C.  be t a p e - r e c o r d e d so t h a t  t o by t h r e e graduate The t a p e s w i l l  counselling  then be e r a s e d .  Your daughter's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s necessary i n o r d e r t o j u d g e how h e l p f u l l y hope t h a t y o u w i l l in  this.  There w i l l  t h e t r a i n i n g program i s .  I sincere-  give her permission to take part o n l y be a t o t a l o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y  12 m i n u t e s o f h e r t i m e i n v o l v e d a n d i t s h o u l d p r o v e t o be and i n t e r e s t i n g e x p e r i e n c e . If  y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s a t a l l p l e a s e phone me  a t home, 6 8 1 - 1 8 4 6 , o r l e a v e a m e s s a g e w i t h t h e s c h o o l  s e c r e t a r y a t 435-3838 and you w i l l welcome your  interest  be c o n t a c t e d .  i n this project. Yours very  Please return this home-room  I  truly,  as soon as p o s s i b l e t o your  daughter's  teacher.  I g i v e p e r m i s s i o n f o r my d a u g h t e r to  take p a r t i n t h e a c t i v i t y as d e s c r i b e d above.  understand  I  t h a t my d a u g h t e r i s f r e e t o w i t h d r a w i f s h e  or I should decide  s h e s h o u l d do s o . Signed or  I do n o t w i s h my d a u g h t e r t o t a k e p a r t i n t h i s  activity.  B-4  104  L e t t e r and P e r m i s s i o n S l i p f o r P a r e n t s o f Client Dear  Naive-Peer-  Raters  parent, A t r a i n i n g program i s b e i n g c o n d u c t e d a t a Burnaby  e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l b u t n o t t h e s c h o o l a t t e n d e d by y o u r daughter.  However, i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e how e f f e c t i v e  the t r a i n i n g program w i t h t h e g i r l s has been i t  is  n e c e s s a r y t o have a few g i r l s from the same grade l e v e l , grade s i x , or  take p a r t i n three i n t e r v i e w s of f i v e minutes  l e s s w i t h the g i r l s i n t h e t r a i n i n g p r o j e c t i n o r d e r  t o g i v e us t h e i r i d e a s o f how e f f e c t i v e  and h e l p f u l t h e y  t h i n k t h e g i r l s have been i n t h e i n t e r v i e w . v e r y much l i k e your daughter essential  I would  to take part i n t h i s  i n t e r v i e w i n g and j u d g i n g p r o c e s s i f you w i l l  g i v e your c o n s e n t .  About two p e r i o d s o f s c h o o l t i m e w i l l  be i n v o l v e d i n c l u d i n g t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d f o r me t o d r i v e your daughter and t h e o t h e r g i r l s t o and from the s c h o o l i n which the t r a i n i n g i s t a k i n g p l a c e .  The g i r l s  will  be asked t o b r i n g a l o n g some s c h o o l - w o r k so t h a t t h e y may work i n t h e l i b r a r y w h i l e t h e y a r e w a i t i n g f o r a l l i n t e r v i e w s t o be c o m p l e t e d .  Your daughter w i l l be n o t -  i f i e d i n advance as t o w h i c h day the t e s t i n g w i l l  take  place. I hope t h a t t h i s i n t e r v i e w i n g and j u d g i n g p r o c e s s w i l l p r o v i d e an i n t e r e s t i n g e x p e r i e n c e f o r the g i r l s . The a s s i s t a n c e o f s t u d e n t s i n your d a u g h t e r ' s age is essential ing  i n measuring t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s  group  of a t r a i n -  program i n t e a c h i n g g i r l s t o d e v e l o p t h e i r s k i l l s  105  i n being the k i n d of person whom o t h e r s l i k e to t a l k to and of  i n understanding view.  t h i n g s from someone e l s e ' s p o i n t  Expert judges w i l l a l s o e v a l u a t e the  program by l i s t e n i n g to audiotapes w i t h the g i r l s who people t h e i r own girls.  of the i n t e r v i e w s  have been t r a i n e d but the o p i n i o n of  age may  Audiotapes  training  be more important  to the t r a i n e d  w i l l be erased a f t e r the judging i s  finished. I w i l l be c o n t a c t i n g you by phone s h o r t l y to d i s c u s s t h i s more f u l l y or ask t h a t you phone me  a t home a t  681-1846 or a t s c h o o l a t 435-3838 i f you p r e f e r .  I  would a p p r e c i a t e i t v e r y much i f you w i l l p l e a s e s i g n the f o l l o w i n g s l i p and have i t r e t u r n e d to your  daughter's  home-room teacher as soon as p o s s i b l e . Yours v e r y  I g i v e p e r m i s s i o n f o r my to  truly,  daughter,  p a r t i c i p a t e i n the i n t e r v i e w i n g and  judging  process  as d e s c r i b e d above and to be d r i v e n by Mrs. Pachal to and  from Chaffey-Burke  understand  t h a t I am  school f o r t h i s purpose.  f r e e to withdraw my  I  permission  by  t e l e p h o n i n g the school s e c r e t a r y a t 435-3838 or a t 434-5054 or by phoning Mrs.  Pachal a t 681-1846.  S igned: or; I do not g i v e p e r m i s s i o n f o r my daughter to take part. S igned:  B-5 106 Consent Form f o r N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s Date: Dear student r a t e r , In o r d e r to judge the success of a t r a i n i n g  project  i n another s c h o o l e i g h t g i r l s w i l l be needed t o h e l p and I would l i k e you t o understand  what i s i n v o l v e d i n doing  the j u d g i n g b e f o r e you d e c i d e whether o r not you would l i k e to volunteer.  The names of a l l who  want t o take  p a r t w i l l be l i s t e d and then e i g h t names chosen a t random. The g i r l s i n the o t h e r s c h o o l a r e being t r a i n e d t o be more understanding of  and h e l p f u l l i s t e n e r s .  The  purpose  your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s p r o j e c t i s so t h a t we  can  l e a r n whether or not you enjoy t a l k i n g more to the g i r l s who  have been t r a i n e d o r the g i r l s who  trained.  You w i l l t a l k t o s i x d i f f e r e n t g i r l s , one a t  a time, f o r up to f i v e minutes each. who  have not been  has been t r a i n e d and who  say what you h o n e s t l y t h i n k .  has n o t .  You won't be  We want you to  With these g i r l s you  be asked to d i s c u s s a s i t u a t i o n p o s s i b l y l i k e suggestions on a l i s t  I gave you.  told  will  the  These a r e some of  the t h i n g s t h a t have bothered o t h e r people about your  age.  W i l l you p l e a s e t h i n k o f something on the l i s t o r somet h i n g t h a t seems more important t o you and ask i f t h a t is  the k i n d o f s i t u a t i o n which c o u l d be t a l k e d about?  You a r e asked not t o t a l k about anything concerning your home, however. should t a l k about.  P l e a s e ask i f you wonder what you  I f you a r e chosen, your p a r e n t must s i g n a p e r m i s s i o n s l i p b e f o r e you can t a k e p a r t .  Four o f you  w i l l do t h e i n t e r v i e w i n g and j u d g i n g soon, b e f o r e t h e g i r l s i n t h e o t h e r s c h o o l a r e t r a i n e d , and f o u r o t h e r s will  judge a f t e r the t r a i n i n g i s f i n i s h e d i n June.  You w i l l be t o l d i n advance when you w i l l be g o i n g . w i l l d r i v e you t o t h e o t h e r s c h o o l .  You w i l l miss  I one  a f t e r n o o n o f s c h o o l but s h o u l d t a k e a l o n g some homework for  when you a r e w a i t i n g . A t t h e o t h e r s c h o o l someone w i l l  show you where t o  go and w i l l i n t r o d u c e you, by f i r s t name o n l y , t o a g i r l you a r e g o i n g t o t a l k t o f i r s t .  You w i l l h e l p t h a t g i r l  by b e i n g ready t o t a l k about t h e s i t u a t i o n you have dec i d e d t o t a l k about a l r e a d y . try  She w i l l t a l k w i t h you  t o be as u n d e r s t a n d i n g as she can.  I want t o t a p e -  r e c o r d the d i s c u s s i o n so t h a t some u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s can l a t e r l i s t e n and judge how and how  h e l p f u l t h e g i r l who  and  graduate  understanding  spoke t o you seemed t o be.  The tapes w i l l be e r a s e d r i g h t a f t e r t h e judges have finished, When your i n t e r v i e w i s o v e r , someone w i l l knock on t h e door t o i n d i c a t e t h a t time i s up but she w i l l  wait  about h a l f a minute so t h a t you can f i n i s h whatever you were s a y i n g .  Some g i r l s may  leave early.  were t a l k i n g t o w i l l l e a v e but you w i l l asked t o judge t h a t g i r l f o r how  The g i r l  s t a y and  be  u n d e r s t a n d i n g she  to you and how much you enjoyed t a l k i n g t o h e r .  you  I  was  have t h e papers here l i k e t h e ones you w i l l use and we can l o o k a t them i n a few minutes.  You w i l l t a l k t o s i x  g i r l s and t h e procedure w i l l be t h e same f o r each one. When you have f i n i s h e d t a l k i n g t o a l l s i x o f them you w i l l be asked t o d e c i d e which you enjoyed t a l k i n g t o t h e most and so o n . You c a n g i v e any comments about what i t was l i k e ful.  t o t a l k t o each o f them and t h a t w i l l be h e l p -  The g i r l s w i l l n o t be t o l d how anybody r a t e d them. When you have i n t e r v i e w e d and judged t h r e e  girls  someone w i l l show you t h e way t o t h e room where t h e o t h e r g i r l s w i l l be w a i t i n g .  You c a n have a r e s t b e f o r e  coming back t o t a l k t o t h r e e more g i r l s , one a t a t i m e , and r a t e them as you d i d b e f o r e .  I w i l l d r i v e you back  to your own s c h o o l when a l l a r e f i n i s h e d .  I t i s essential  t h a t we have your h e l p i n o r d e r t o know how w e l l t h e t r a i n i n g i s w o r k i n g and I do hope t h a t some o f you w i l l be w i l l i n g t o v o l u n t e e r . In o r d e r t o be f a i r about who i s chosen I need t o have t h e names o f v o l u n t e e r s who t h i n k t h e i r p a r e n t s w i l l l e t them t a k e p a r t i n t h i s p r o j e c t .  I f you w i s h t o  v o l u n t e e r t o be a s t u d e n t r a t e r I would l i k e you t o s i g n your name on t h e numbered sheet I w i l l pass around.  Then  you c a n watch w h i l e I use a t a b l e o f random numbers t o d e c i d e which g i r l s  t o choose.  I would l i k e t h o s e  girls  who a r e chosen t o t a k e home an e x p l a n a t i o n and a p e r m i s s i o n s l i p t o t h e i r p a r e n t s and b r i n g i t back, s i g n e d , w i t h i n a day o r two and g i v e i t t o your t e a c h e r .  Please  s i g n below i f you have been c h o s e n as a  student-  rater .  I have r e a d  t h e e x p l a n a t i o n above and a s k e d any  questions  I wanted t o ask about t h e p r o j e c t .  volunteer  t o take p a r t i n i t as d e s c r i b e d  Date:  Signed  I wish  above.  to  APPENDIX  C-1 Procedure  f o r S e l e c t i o n o f and  T e s t i n g by P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s A c l i e n t r a t e r was a s t u d e n t who h a d no e x p e r i e n c e w i t h empathic  r e s p o n d i n g - s k i l l s t r a i n i n g and d i d n o t  know p e r s o n a l l y t h e s u b j e c t s i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t .  This  r a t e r communicated w i t h a s u b j e c t i n an i n t e r a c t i o n o f up  t o f i v e minutes  duration subsequently rated the  s u b j e c t a s t o t h e d e g r e e o f empathy s h e f e l t communicated t o h e r . T h i s c l i e n t experienced  was assessment  was o f v a l u e t o a s c e r t a i n i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e r a t i n g s o f e x p e r t j u d g e s a s t o t h e d e g r e e o f empathy communicated. Grade s i x g i r l s which  training  to volunteer.  i n a s c h o o l o t h e r than t h e one i n  took p l a c e were asked  i f t h e y were  C l i e n t r a t e r s were chosen randomly  willing from  among t h e v o l u n t e e r s , w i t h s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e p r o c e s s o f random s e l e c t i o n .  Eight students i n a l l  p a r t i c i p a t e d , f o u r f o r t h e p r e t e s t and f o u r f o r t h e p o s t test.  P a r e n t a l p e r m i s s i o n s l i p s were d i s t i b u t e d and  teachers asked  t o a c c e p t t h e m when r e t u r n e d .  To  prepare  f o r r a t i n g , c l i e n t r a t e r s met i n a g r o u p o f f o u r p r i o r to t h e time of t e s t i n g .  They were p r e s e n t e d w i t h s t i m u l u s  s t a t e m e n t s , a mimeographed l i s t by  o f problems  some e a r l y a d o l e s c e n t s ( A p p e n d i x  illustrated  types of concerns  b u t c l i e n t r a t e r s were i n v i t e d  D-1). -  These  t h e y were w i l l i n g  to discuss  t o suggest concerns o f  p o s s i b l y g r e a t e r relevance t o themselves the group meeting  encountered  o r a f t e r w a r d s when t h e y  either during individually  asked q u e s t i o n s about t h e s u i t a b i l i t y o f c o n c e r n s f o r discussion.  C l i e n t r a t e r s were reminded  that  this  c o n c e r n was t o be one they were w i l l i n g t o t a l k  over  w i t h a person o f about t h e i r own age whom they do n o t know and who a t t e n d e d another s c h o o l and t h a t  this  c o n c e r n they d i s c u s s e d must n o t be about t h e i r p a r e n t s . C l i e n t r a t e r s were t o l d they would t a l k f o r up t o f i v e minutes  each t o s i x d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s and would  be asked t o r a t e each as soon as t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n had ended. subject.  The same problem was t o be d i s c u s s e d w i t h  each  A d a t e was s e t f o r t h e t e s t i n g t o t a k e p l a c e  and arrangements made f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f c l i e n t r a t e r s t o t h e s c h o o l where t e s t i n g took p l a c e . P a r e n t a l p e r m i s s i o n t o take p a r t i n t h e p r o j e c t was o b t a i n e d .  C-2  1.12  P r e p a r a t i o n f o r R a t i n g by N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t Raters A f t e r a b r i e f e x p l a n a t i o n by t h e t r a i n e r - e x p e r i m e n t e r about t h e nature o f t h e t a s k , grade s i x g i r l s  i n a different  s c h o o l f r o m t h e one i n w h i c h t h e t r a i n i n g t o o k p l a c e w e r e asked i f t h e y were w i l l i n g t o v o l u n t e e r . chosen randomly  from t h e v o l u n t e e r s .  Client-raters  were  E i g h t s t u d e n t s were  chosen, f o u r f o r t h e p r e t e s t and f o u r f o r t h e p o s t t e s t . D e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n s and p a r e n t - p e r m i s s i o n s l i p s distributed.  were  The t r a i n e r p h o n e d t h e p a r e n t o f e a c h  r a t e r t o f u r t h e r e x p l a i n and answer q u e s t i o n s .  client-  The p r i n c i p a l  o f t h e s c h o o l a l s o phoned t h e p a r e n t s t o l e n d h i s s u p p o r t . To p r e p a r e f o r r a t i n g , c l i e n t - r a t e r s met i n a g r o u p o f four p r i o r t o the time o f t e s t i n g . stimulus statements; that i s ,  They were p r e s e n t e d w i t h  a mimeographed l i s t  o f problems  e n c o u n t e r e d b y many e a r l y a d o l e s c e n t s ( A p p e n d i x D - 1 ) . These i l l u s t r a t e d t h e t y p e s o f problems and  suitable f o r discussion.  considered relevant  C l i e n t r a t e r s were  also  i n v i t e d t o suggest concerns o f p o s s i b l y g r e a t e r relevance to themselves.  The t r a i n e r a s k e d them t o r e m a i n i f t h e y  w i s h e d , i n d i v i d u a l l y , t o ask any q u e s t i o n s about t h e s u i t a b i l i t y o f a concern f o rd i s c u s s i o n . reminded  C l i e n t - r a t e r s were  t h a t t h i s c o n c e r n was t o b e o n e t h e y w o u l d b e  w i l l i n g t o t a l k o v e r i n d i v i d u a l l y w i t h s i x g i r l s whom t h e y d i d n o t know a n d who a t t e n d e d t h e s i x t h g r a d e i n a n o t h e r s c h o o l and t h a t t h i s c o n c e r n must n o t be about t h e i r p a r e n t s . All  c l i e n t r a t e r s f o u n d , among t h e s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t s ,  s i t u a t i o n s o f genuine c o n c e r n t o t h e m s e l v e s w h i c h were suitable f o r discussion.  P r o c e d u r e s f o r P r e t e s t a n d P o s t t e s t One I n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s were c a l l e d i n random o r d e r c l a s s r o o m s t o an o f f i c e . t o an a u d i o t a p e d  from  their  E a c h s u b j e c t was a s k e d t o r e s p o n d  stimulus statement  (see A p p e n d i x D-2).  The  s u b j e c t was t o l d t o i m a g i n e t h a t a f r i e n d o r a c q u a i n t a n c e  had  s p o k e n t o h e r i n t h a t way a n d t h a t t h e s u b j e c t was t o r e p l y i n a manner t h a t i n d i c a t e d c a r i n g a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g . for the tape-recorded  reason  p r e s e n t a t i o n was g i v e n ; n a m e l y , t h a t i t  g a v e a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o become before  The  accustomed t o t h e tape  t h e n e x t p r e t e s t s e s s i o n and i t s t a n d a r d i z e d  recorder the pre-  sentation. The s t i m u l u s  s t a t e m e n t was p l a y e d one t i m e s o t h a t t h e  s u b j e c t c o u l d h e a r a n d u n d e r s t a n d w h a t was s a i d .  A f t e r the  s e c o n d p l a y i n g o f t h e s t a t e m e n t t h e s u b j e c t r e s p o n d e d and t h i s r e s p o n s e was a u d i o t a p e d ing the Carkhuff  f o r l a t e r s c o r i n g by e x p e r t  empathy s c a l e  (Appendix A - 1 ) .  The e x p e r i -  menter then r e t u r n e d w i t h t h e g i r l t o h e r classroom the next subject, proceeding j e a t had p a r t i c i p a t e d .  r a t e r s us-  and c a l l e d  i n t h e same manner u n t i l e a c h s u b -  T e s t i n g P r o c e d u r e s ; P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t Two Two female a d u l t v o l u n t e e r s , n o t known by the students and unaware o f which s u b j e c t s were t r a i n e d , a s s i s t e d w i t h the t r a i n i n g procedures.  The experimenter i n t r o d u c e d the f i r s t  n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r t o t h e a d u l t v o l u n t e e r , and s t a r t e d the tape r e c o r d e r .  The v o l u n t e e r then took r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the  tape r e c o r d e r , l a t e r changing the tape when necessary a t a time which would not i n t e r f e r e w i t h an i n t e r v i e w . The a d u l t i n t r o d u c e d the two g i r l s and t o l d them she was l e a v i n g b u t would knock on the door a f t e r f i v e minutes were s t i l l interview.  i f they  t a l k i n g , i n o r d e r t o i n d i c a t e i t was time t o end the S u b j e c t s had been t o l d by the experimenter t h a t they  c o u l d l e a v e b e f o r e t h a t time i f they f e l t they wanted t o .  After  the i n t e r v i e w , when the s u b j e c t had l e f t the room, the v o l u n t e e r asked the n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r t o check the r a t i n g sheet. Names o f both g i r l s p a r t i c i p a t i n g were then noted on the r a t i n g sheet. A f t e r t h r e e i n t e r v i e w s had been completed  the a d u l t v o l u n t e e r  asked the p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r t o t h i n k o f the p a s t t h r e e i n t e r v i e w s and d e c i d e which o f t h e g i r l s she had found t o be most understanding of  her and w i t h whom she most l i k e d t o t a l k about her problem.  T h i s gave the c l i e n t r a t e r an o p p o r t u n i t y t o compare and sometimes re-evaluate a score given e a r l i e r .  The c l i e n t r a t e r then  u n t i l the next t h r e e i n t e r v i e w s were o v e r .  left  A d i f f e r e n t naive-peer-  c l i e n t r a t e r then took p a r t i n the next t h r e e i n t e r v i e w s as i n d i c a t e d i n the c h a r t  (  F  ).  A t the completion o f the i n t e r v i e w s  and r a t i n g , a l l c l i e n t r a t e r s were r e t u r n e d t o t h e i r own s c h o o l .  C-5  115  T e s t i n g Procedures; P o s t t e s t An e x p e r t  Three  judge, w e l l t r a i n e d i n the use and r a t i n g  o f empathy, acted as c l i e n t and a l s o a s r a t e r o f the i n t e r v i e w he had j u s t completed w i t h each s u b j e c t .  He  p r e s e n t e d a problem s i t u a t i o n , t h e same one f o r each o f the  24 randomly s e l e c t e d s u b j e c t s , and r a t e d t h e l e v e l  o f a p p a r e n t empathy o f t h e s u b j e c t . was employed i n order  An a d u l t male r a t e r  t o g i v e a d i m e n s i o n o f empathy  which i n c l u d e d non-verbal a s w e l l a s v e r b a l c u e s . t h i s way h i s r a t i n g would i n c o r p o r a t e  In  s i m i l a r cues t o  t h o s e t h e n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s might u s e .  His rating  of empathy, however, i s t h a t o f an a d u l t t r a i n e d i n the use  o f the Carkhuff  Scale.  APPENDIX C-.6 Procedures a)  Treatment  C o n d i t i o n s and Procedures  (i) S e s s i o n One o f t r a i n i n g  (Group 1 and Group 2 ) :  Both e x p e r i m e n t a l groups viewed  e x e r p t s from a  c o u n s e l l i n g s k i l l s v i d e o t a p e and a l s o from a v i d e o t a p e i l l u s t r a t i n g empathic  responding by grade-nine s t u d e n t s .  A f t e r an e x p l a n a t i o n , t r a i n e e s then p r a c t i c e d w i t h mimeographed statements.  restatements,  Homework was f u r t h e r  e x p l a i n e d and each t r a i n e e asked t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e n l i s t i n g the support o f another t r a i n e e who was w i l l i n g to  express t o p i c s o f p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t o r concern i n o r d e r  to p r o v i d e p r a c t i c e i n empathic  responding.  T r a i n e e s were t o l d they were expected t o r e p o r t a f t e r s c h o o l one day a week d u r i n g t r a i n i n g along w i t h a peer i n order t o p r a c t i c e responding e m p a t h i c a l l y t o t h a t t r a i n e e and t o audiotape the p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n f o r l a t e r r e v i e w i n g w i t h the t r a i n e r .  The t r a i n e r assured t r a i n e e s t h a t she  would be a v a i l a b l e t o handle problems o f equipment and space.  Sample problems were d i s t r i b u t e d t o t r a i n e e s as  examples o f types o f problems they might wish t o d i s c u s s . (ii)  S e s s i o n Two and subsequent  s e s s i o n s (Experimental  Group 1 ) ; (a)  In these i n d i v i d u a l t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s t h e r e was a  f i v e - m i n u t e i n t e r a c t i o n o f t r a i n e r and t r a i n e e t o a l l o w f o r the e x p r e s s i o n o f t r a i n e e ' s concerns, sometimes about ing,  l o s s o f s c h o o l time o r o t h e r d i f f i c u l t i e s .  train-  The i n t e r -  a c t i o n was audiotaped f o r r a t i n g by the t r a i n e e o f the  t r a i n e r ' s empathy. t r a i n e e was her  own  r e c e n t statements and  thoughts and  trainee  recognizing  c o u l d be  her  learning  to  meant by empathic or understanding  r e l a t i o n s h i p between t r a i n e r and  There was  trainee  t r a i n e r ' s apparent  a five-minute period  d u r i n g which  l i s t e n e d t o segments of the p r e c e d i n g  f i l l e d out  t o the  ratings  of i n t e r a c t i o n s  l e v e l of empathy e x p e r i e n c e d .  used  (Appendix .A-2  communications.  The  then was  ).  The  desire  interaction  A five-point rated  rewound t o a  through the p r e v i o u s  (c) practiced  the  point  listened.  statement,  student t o the t r a i n e r ' s  A ten minute p e r i o d  scale  interaction  p l a y e d back w h i l e both p a r t i c i p a n t s  g i v e n by  as  trainer  A f t e r the next t r a i n e r response t o a t r a i n e e ' s a r a t i n g was  the  w i t h the t r a i n e r  trainee  tape r e c o r d e r was  approximately h a l f way and  by  t r u l y understanding.  (b)  was  trainee  the  remembering  t r a i n e r adequately understood  f e e l i n g s the  The  f e e l i n g s and  a l s o have been enhanced by the  t o be  and  the  i d e n t i f y what was  responses. may  purpose of t h i s r a t i n g by  l a r g e l y so t h a t by examining and  whether or not  better  The  d u r i n g which the  response.  trainee  restatement, r e f l e c t i o n of f e e l i n g or understanding  responses f o l l o w e d .  The  t r a i n e r a t t h i s time adopted  the  r o l e of c l i e n t s t a r t i n g w i t h simple one-sentence statements and  worked up  audiotaped and  to longer expressions.  This interaction  segments p l a y e d back so t h a t the  c o u l d encourage the  adequate responses of the  trainer  trainee.  was  (d) of  F i v e minutes were a l l o w e d f o r l i s t e n i n g t o segments  t h e t r a i n e e *s homework a u d i o t a p e .  The  trainer  p o s i t i v e feedback whenever m e r i t e d r e g a r d i n g the l e v e l of empathic (e)  The  s e s s i o n was  skill  remaining period of t h i s  on t h e t a p e . 35-minute  training  f o r the t r a i n e e t o respond w i t h a  e m p a t h y w h i l e t h e i n t e r a c t i o n was  o u t t h e most empathic  of the  S e s s i o n Two  and  degree  being audiotaped f o r  p l a y b a c k d u r i n g t h i s same t i m e p e r i o d .  (iii)  trainee's  used f o r the t r a i n e r t o express p e r s o n a l concerns,  p a s t o r p r e s e n t , and of  as d e m o n s t r a t e d  gave  The  trainer pointed  responses. subsequent  sessions (Experimental  Group 2 ) ; These were i d e n t i c a l t o s e s s i o n s f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l one of  group  e x c e p t f o r t h e 1 0 - m i n u t e p e r i o d i n d i c a t e d i n (c) a b o v e each  35-minute t r a i n i n g p e r i o d .  Group 2 p r a c t i c e d  s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n and p o s i t i v e s e l f - e n c o u r a g e m e n t before responding empathically. been adapted  positive  f o r the task  V e r b a l i z a t i o n s which  from a c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n  had  procedure,  s u c h as t h a t u s e d by Meichenbaum ( 1 9 7 1 ) , were modeled, r e h e a r s e d by t h e t r a i n e e o v e r t l y , t h e n w h i s p e r e d . were f o r t h e t r a i n e e t o t h e n r e h e a r s e verbalizations  silently  the  Instructions following  (one t o s i x i n c l u s i v e ) b e f o r e r e s p o n d i n g t o  t h e t r a i n e r ' s s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t s and t o t h i n k number s e v e n a f t e r r e s p o n d i n g .  The  t r a i n e e was  silently instructed  to  t h i n k i n t h i s manner when r e s p o n d i n g t o p e r s o n s t o whom t h e y wished t o respond e m p a t h i c a l l y .  1.19 Cognitive  Self-Instruction  1)  " I may b e n e r v o u s b u t 1*11 c o n c e n t r a t e o n h e r , n o t me."  2)  " I c a n r e a l l y l e t t h i s p e r s o n know t h a t  3)  "What h a s s h e s a i d ? "  4)  "How m i g h t I f e e l i f I s a i d  5)  "I think  6)  "I'll and  I understand."  that?"  I know how s h e f e e l s . "  l e t h e r know w h a t I u n d e r s t a n d o f h e r t h o u g h t s feelings."  Then, a f t e r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e p e r s o n , 7)  " I have h e l p e d h e r .  I'm a r e a l l y g o o d l i s t e n e r . "  E a c h g r o u p , one a n d t w o , s p e n t t h e same amount o f t i m e in training. posttesting.  The c o n t r o l  group r e c e i v e d o n l y p r e and  C-7 120  V e r b a l E x p l a n a t i o n to T r a i n e e s  f o r Use o f the  R e l a t i o n s h i p - w i t h - T r a i n e r Rating "The  Scale  q u e s t i o n s about how w e l l I l i s t e n  to you w i l l  g i v e me an i d e a o f when I should pay c l o s e r a t t e n t i o n to your thoughts and f e e l i n g s which w i l l h e l p me to be a b e t t e r t r a i n e r w i t h you and a l s o w i l l h e l p you to n o t i c e what i t i s l i k e to be l i s t e n e d to b e t t e r a t some times than a t o t h e r s .  T h i s should h e l p you t o n o t i c e how you  are l i s t e n i n g to o t h e r people and know t h a t you can improve your l i s t e n i n g i f and when you d e c i d e t o . " Procedure f o r Use o f t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p - w i t h - T r a i n e r Rating During  Scale  each t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n one o f these  s h i p " sheets was completed by t h e t r a i n e e .  "relation-  Each t r a i n e r  response i n a randomly s e l e c t e d segment o f an audiotape made d u r i n g t h e c u r r e n t t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n was r a t e d . audiotape  i n c l u d e d those times i n the c u r r e n t s e s s i o n  when t h e t r a i n e r was responding The  The  to t h e t r a i n e e .  purpose o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e was: 1.  t o g i v e the s t u d e n t - t r a i n e e a growing  experience  with t h e nature and p o s s i b l e degrees o f empathy. 2.  to g i v e feedback t o t h e t r a i n e r i n o r d e r t o improve t h e t r a i n e r - t r a i n e e r e l a t i o n s h i p which i s c o n s i d e r e d v i t a l to t r a i n i n g  3.  success.  to e x p l o r e a v e h i c l e f o r a s s e s s i n g perceived  empathy.  client-  Relationship-with-Trainer Directions:  Check  ONE  response, L e v e l 1. "E" Level  Level  please.  "I don't t h i n k you understood what I s a i d  "I  t h i n k you may  even cared about my  3.  Level 4.  but  me."  "I t h i n k you understood what I s a i d and  "I t h i n k you understood me  and  ideas."  have t r i e d to understand  you d i d n ' t r e a l l y understand  "D"  Scale  o f these l e v e l s f o r each  I don't t h i n k you 2.  Rating  very  felt."  well."  'B' L e v e l 5. "A"  "I t h i n k you understood extremely w e l l and f e l t v e r y good about t h i s p a r t o f  E D C B A Response number  Your name Date  1  2  3  4  5  I  training."  APPENDIX D-1 Suggestions o f T o p i c s f o r I n t e r v i e w s By N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t Raters  Peers o f t h e s u b j e c t s were asked to d i s c u s s any concerns they might happen t o have w i t h t h e s u b j e c t s d u r i n g an i n t e r v i e w o f up t o f i v e minutes and to r a t e the s u b j e c t s ' empathic the i n t e r v i e w .  i n length  responding a f t e r  The terms "understanding and c a r i n g "  were used r a t h e r than t h e term "empathy".  Samples o f  t y p i c a l concerns o f young people were shared w i t h these  peer r a t e r s to g i v e them some i d e a o f what might  c o n s t i t u t e some t o p i c s f o r d i s c u s s i o n . are  Thus, f o l l o w i n g  i n d i c a t i o n s of the kinds of subjects discussed during  the p r e and p o s t t e s t i n t e r v i e w s : Stimulus  Statements  1. "Sometimes k i d s a t s c h o o l seem t o hate o r r e j e c t you for  no reason.  One day t h e y ' r e coming over to your  p l a c e and t h e next they a c t as i f they a l l hate you." 2. " I c a n ' t seem to do a n y t h i n g r i g h t i n t h i s one c l a s s . No matter what I do i t never seems to be t h e r i g h t thing." 3. " I know a r e a l l y n o i s y g i r l .  She*s a f r i e n d o f mine,  but when I t e l l h e r t h a t I*m embarrassed  a t everybody  l o o k i n g a t us because o f h e r laugh, she j u s t i g n o r e s me." 4. " I have so much f u n w i t h my f r i e n d s t h a t I want t o be w i t h them a l l t h e time and I never want t o go home and work."  confused!  I don't know i f he r e a l l y hates me o r i f  he j u s t a c t s t h a t way and I wonder what I s h o u l d do." 12. " I wonder i f I'm  ever g o i n g t o be p o p u l a r . "  13. "I've always been a b l e t o b e a t up the o t h e r k i d s even t h e boys.  I'm  s t r o n g and I know how  to f i g h t .  I f e e l so angry sometimes t h a t I f e e l l i k e a fight.  picking  I can always make people do what I want  them t o do.  But I wonder i f anybody r e a l l y l i k e s  me.  14. "On t h e way home from s c h o o l some b i g k i d s sometimes chase me and once t h e y even caught me and b e a t me  up  and t o l d me I had b e t t e r not t e l l or they'd h u r t me worse n e x t t i m e .  I d i d n ' t t e l l because I was  b u t I g o t i n t r o u b l e a t home f o r b e i n g l a t e h a v i n g my c l o t h e s d i r t y . way around  scared  and  I t r y t o go home t h e l o n g  so they won't see  me."  15. ' " A l l the o t h e r g i r l s seem b e t t e r developed than I am.  The n u r s e says never mind, b u t t h a t ' s easy f o r  her t o say.  I t bothers Stimulus  Pretest 1.  me." Statements  One  "Those p e o p l e !  Who  do they t h i n k they are? I j u s t  c a n ' t s t a n d them anymore. and t h e y ' r e so mean! keep p u t t i n g me down.  J u s t a bunch of phonies -  They make me f u r i o u s when they Then I g e t angry a t m y s e l f .  I don't even want t o be b o t h e r e d w i t h them anymore. I w i s h I c o u l d j u s t t e l l them a l l where t o go. But I j u s t ^ I j u s t c a n ' t d o / t h a t ! "  Posttest  One  2.  r e a l l y unhappy because my Dad makes me do hours  "I'm  o f work even i f I don't have any more homework. never do w e l l enough to s u i t him. if  I even t h i n k o f a r g u i n g .  my  sister  phoney.  He g e t s mad  I  a t me  Y e t he seems to t h i n k  i s so wonderful j u s t because she's so She i s n i c e when she wants something but  she does a l l s o r t s o f t h i n g s b e h i n d h i s back.  I get  n o t h i n g but l e c t u r e s and b a w l i n g o u t y e t I r e a l l y t r y so hard to p l e a s e my Dad & I r e a l l y l o v e him."  APPENDIX E - 1 Reasons Given by Naive-Peer  "  was  Raters f o r Ratings  e a s i e s t to t a l k to because she seemed t o  l i s t e n b e t t e r and t o have the same problem and and wasn't so  fidgety".  "  d i d n ' t seem t o l i s t e n t o me.  •  understand  She  turned  her  head around t o look a t t h i n g s , f i d g e t e d , put her head down and d i d n ' t look a t me. "  .  gave me  She d i d n ' t seem to understand a few t i p s about what t o do but  j u s t s a i d t o do what I've a l r e a d y done. as good as the o t h e r "  Her a d v i c e wasn't  two".  d i d n ' t stay very long.  she d i d n ' t say a n y t h i n g . "  me".  I waited  f o r her  but  She'd j u s t s i t and not t a l k a t  d i d n ' t look around the room or a n y t h i n g .  j u s t looked s t r a i g h t a t me She  took me  "  and t r i e d to s o l v e my  all" She  problem.  seriously." e x p l a i n e d t h i n g s and t a l k e d about the problem  and gave me  a d v i c e about what I s h o u l d do - and r e a l l y good  advice". "  and  e x p l a i n e d t o me  , they t a l k e d more and  really  and the problems they had too and what I  thought  about i t .  gave me  a d v i c e about what I should do - and r e a l l y good."  "  was  They t a l k e d about t h e i r problems too  O.K.  and  but she d i d n ' t r e a l l y have much t o  say - l i k e d i d n ' t r e a l l y have any_explanation  f o r anything.  1'2 6 Reasons Given by Naive Peers f o r Ratings  "  kept l o o k i n g around the room but she gave me  some p r e t t y good a d v i c e about how  t o stop the bugging.  d i d n ' t seem t o r e a l l y care about my  problem, though, and  she seemed more i n t e r e s t e d i n the room than i n "  She  me".  looked at the f l o o r and she d i d n ' t say very  much of anything and she d i d n ' t even t e l l me very good advice or a n y t h i n g .  She  j u s t s a i d what anybody would say only  d i d n ' t r e a l l y care about my "  understood  She gave me  my  good a d v i c e .  she  problem." problem.  She r e a l l y  She t o l d me  t o go and  understood. .  She d i d n ' t look around the room or anything and she  really  understood i t . " "  gave me  a few good p o i n t s about what t o  do."  "  gave me  a few t i p s about what t o do and I found  i t easy t o speak t o her." " principal  just  said  to go up t o the o f f i c e and t e l l  and I've a l r e a d y done t h a t .  long and she d i d n ' t want t o t a l k .  She  the  She d i d n ' t stay very just said  the same  t h i n g s t h a t everybody e l s e i s going to say." " understood  was  n i c e and understood.  me more than the other two.  when I f i r s t  saw  her."  I l i k e d her and I l i k e d her  she  just  E-2  127  Comments b y E x p e r t  J u d g e a s t o Cues u s e d i n A s s e s s i n g Empathy  Judge A c t i n g as C l i e n t and A l s o as R a t e r  o f Same I n t e r v i e w  Rating given;  Comments  G r o u p One  3.5  - c a u g h t t h e i d e a s , warm, g o o d e y e c o n t a c t .  3.0  -caught emotions and i d e a s b u t a l i t t l e by r o t e .  4.5  U n d e r s t o o d and had good eye c o n t a c t . - e x c e l l e n t a t c a t c h i n g e m o t i o n s a n d i d e a s . Warm and r e c e p t i v e , f o l l o w e d t h r o u g h , was c o n t i n u a l l y a w a r e o f t h e e m o t i o n s , k e p t c o n t i n u a l empathy t h r o u g h o u t . D i d n o t m i s s any o f t h e i d e a s o r thoughts.  5.0  - e x c e l l e n t - c a u g h t e m o t i o n s a n d i d e a s - was i n v o l v e d f a c i a l l y and b o d i l y - good c o n c e n t r a t i o n and e y e c o n t a c t .  3.0  - g e n e r a l l y e y e c o n t a c t v e r y g o o d . She was n o t distracted. Stuck t o understanding, but mostly c a u g h t i d e a s and emotions on an i d e a l e v e l . But I f e l t u n d e r s t o o d g e n e r a l l y a n d s h e knew w h a t I was s a y i n g .  2.5  - c a u g h t i d e a s a n d e m o t i o n s b u t i t seemed a b i t by r o t e . H e r e y e s w a n d e r e d a b i t .  2.5  - v e r y good a t g e t t i n g t h e i d e a b u t m i s s e d t h e e m o t i o n s a b i t . N o t a s warm a s some.  2.5  - v e r y g o o d a t g e t t i n g t h e i d e a . Warm b u t m i s s e d t h e e m o t i o n a l a s p e c t s somewhat. V e r y g o o d a t understanding ideas nevertheless.  Total 26.5  Comments by E x p e r t C l i e n t - R a t e r r e g a r d i n g cues Rating given: 4.0  Comments  Group Two  E x c e l l e n t a t the b e g i n n i n g a t g e t t i n g i d e a s and emotions.  A s l i g h t tendency t o g i v e a d v i c e .  the  Good  eye c o n t a c t . 4.0  Showed empathy.  Caught emotions and i d e a s .  hard a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g . , S t a y e d 2.5  Caught emotions a t t i m e s but a d v i c e - g i v i n g , " I f I Eye c o n t a c t good.  sometimes u n d e r s t a n d i n g Warmth.  Not c o n s i s t e n t -  and sometimes 'Anne Landers'.  Good at. c a t c h i n g emotions and i d e a s .  understanding. 5.0  At  a b i t distracted.'  were you..."  3.0  me.  Good a t the v e r y b e g i n n i n g and got the i d e a s . the end was  2.0  with  Worked  Good  Some q u e s t i o n s and tendency t o a d v i s e  E x c e l l e n t a t c a t c h i n g emotions,  f e e l i n g s and i d e a s .  Showed genuine empathy and c o n c e r n .  Good f a c i a l  i  involvement.  Did very, very w e l l .  and gave some v e r y good, q u i c k 3.0  responses.  Understood i d e a s and emotions o n l y sometimes. m a i n l y t o .an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  4.5  Stuck w i t h i t  Very good.  Stuck  level.  Caught both emotions and i d e a s .  Stuck  i  s t r i c t l y t o my problem and d i d n ' t g e t , i n t o a d v i c e g i v i n g even though I r e a l l y t e s t e d her t o see i f she would. 28.0  Total  12 9Judge Acting as Client and also as Rater of Same Interview Rating given  1  Comments No empathy.  Control Group  No u n d e r s t a n d i n g .  q u i t e e a r l y and l e f t ;  She f i n i s h e d  t h a t i s , she got s t u c k .  1.5  Gave advice c o n t i n u a l l y .  1.5  Made suggestions  based on her i d e a s , not those  communicated. 1.5  Gave advice c o n t i n u a l l y and then  didn't"know  what t o do. 1.5  Understood a b i t .  1.5  Lots of advice.  1  No empathy shown. her own  1.5  11.0  a l o t of advice.  Eyes wandered.  T e l l s of  experience.  Only asked q u e s t i o n s aware of imparting  Total  Still,  and gave a d v i c e .  empathy.  Was not  APPENDIX F  130 .  Subject Order for Testing: Naive-Peer Client Raters location X Subject number 20 07 12  Rater A  01 15 18  Rater C  14 23 04  Rater B  17 02 10  Rater D  Location Y Group  Subject number  Group  3 1 2  13 22 05  2 3 1  1 2 3  03 09  2 3 1  08 11 21  3 1 2  16 24 06  Rater B  3 1 2  191  Rater D  1 2 3  Rater A  2 3 1  Rater C  Average Age, IQ, and Grade Point Average of Subjects Age, i n Months  Average Otis  Recent 3-year Grade Point Average  Group 1 139.38  109.75  4.14  Group 2 142.25  116.87  4.37  Control 143.38 117.25 4.63 *A = 7, B = 6, Cplus =5, C = 4, Cminus =3, D = 2 , E = l . G.P.A.  APPENDIX G  Interrater R e l i a b i l i t y : Pearson Product-Moment Correlations: Posttest 1 r  24 Subjects  Posttest 2 r  P  P  Raters 1 and 2 .94  .000  .000  .89  Raters 2 and 3 .000  . 93  .000  .96  Raters 1 and 3 .95  .000  .92  .000  Interrater R e l i a b i l i t y Pearson Product^Moment Correlations:  By Group:  Posttest 2 r  E  r  E  r  P  .11  .112  .83  .010  .08  .95  Raters 1 and 2 .78  .023  .93  .000  Raters 2 and 3 .89  .003  .95  .002  Raters 1 and 3 .92  .001  .92  .001  Experimental  Experimental  Group 1  Group 2  Control: Group 3  132  APPENDIX G  Correlation Coefficients: Experts Versus Naive R a t e r s ( P o s t t e s t Peer  Interview)  Naive Expert Rater  Group 2  Group 1  Raters Control Group  Total Subjects  1  -.05  -.33  .56  .02  2  .29  -.24  .13  .13  3  .12  -.16  .00  .07  .12  -.26  .38  Combined  C o r r e l a t i o n s Between Expert: R a t e r s o f Peer E x p e r t Rater i n L i v e I n t e r v i e w  I n t e r v i e w and  (By Group)  Expert C l i e n t - R a t e r Non-Participant E x p e r t Raters  Group 1  1  .50  -.20  .10  2  . 47  -.14  .84*  3  .53  -.03  .58  .53  -.13  .71*  Combined  * P  .05  Group 2  C o n t r o l Group  APPENDIX H Questionnaire  t o be Completed  A f t e r P o s t t e s t i n g Completed G r o u p One Dear  Y o u r name  -  student, Your o p i n i o n and your f e e l i n g s about t h e t r a i n i n g  we h a v e j u s t c o m p l e t e d a r e v e r y difficult  important.  t h i n g s and you p r o b a b l y  a b o u t a l l o f them.  We d i d some  d i d n o t f e e l t h e same  W i l l you please  t e l l me a s h o n e s t l y  as you c a n your t h o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s about t h e f o l l o w ing  parts of the training? You do n o t have t o answer  t h a t you w i l l .  the questions  I f you do answer  b u t I hope  them i t w i l l b e a s s u m e d  t h a t y o u have a g r e e d t o do s o .  1.  A t the beginning  o f each s e s s i o n I asked you t o t e l l  me how y o u t h o u g h t t r a i n i n g was g o i n g  f o r you and i f  t h e r e were any t h i n g s you were n o t l i k i n g t h i n g s t h a t were d i f f i c u l t  f o ryou.  about i t o r  What d i d y o u  think of this part of training? 2.  You and I l i s t e n e d t o a t a p e - r e c o r d i n g  o f part o f your  "homework"; t h a t i s , when y o u p r a c t i c e d w i t h a  friend.  S o m e t i m e s we w o u l d t h i n k o f d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s y o u c o u l d have t r i e d . s a y i n g t o y o u r f r i e n d .  What d i d y o u  think of this part of training? 3.  I a s k e d y o u t o p r a c t i c e s a y i n g b a c k t o me a summary o f w h a t I h a d j u s t s a i d a n d t o t r y a n d t e l l me how  you  thought I f e l t .  of  training?  What d i d you t h i n k o f t h i s p a r t  I asked you t o l i s t e n t o a b i t o f a t a p e - r e c o r d i n g of how I j u s t f i n i s h e d t a l k i n g t o you and you gave me a "mark" from an "E" t o an "A" depending upon what you f e l t about what I had j u s t s a i d t o you. What d i d you t h i n k about t h i s p a r t o f the t r a i n i n g ? I asked you t o p r a c t i c e  a f t e r school with a f r i e n d .  What d i d you t h i n k o f t h i s p a r t o f t h e t r a i n i n g ? How d i d you f e e l about t a l k i n g t o a g i r l from ano t h e r s c h o o l f o r a few minutes w h i l e you t r i e d to be  interested  i n and understanding o f her?  What was t h e r e about t h e t r a i n i n g t h a t you l i k e d the best?  Why?  What was t h e r e about t h e t r a i n i n g t h a t you l i k e d the l e a s t ?  Why?  Questionnaire  t o be Completed  A f t e r P o s t t e s t i n g Completed G r o u p Two Dear  Y o u r name  student, Your o p i n i o n and your f e e l i n g s about t h e t r a i n i n g  we h a v e j u s t c o m p l e t e d a r e v e r y  important.  d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s and you p r o b a b l y a b o u t a l l o f them.  We d i d some  d i d n o t f e e l t h e same  W i l l you please  t e l l me a s h o n e s t l y  as you c a n your t h o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s about t h e f o l l o w i n g parts of the training? Y o u do n o t h a v e t o a n s w e r t h a t you w i l l  b u t I hope  a n d i f y o u do i t w i l l b e a s s u m e d t h a t y o u  have a g r e e d t o answer  1.  the questions,  A t the beginning  them.  o f each s e s s i o n I asked you t o t e l l  me how y o u t h o u g h t t r a i n i n g was g o i n g  f o r you and i f  t h e r e were any t h i n g s you were n o t l i k i n g about i t o r t h i n g s t h a t were d i f f i c u l t  f o r you.  What d i d y o u  think of this part of the training? 2.  You and I l i s t e n e d t o a t a p e - r e c o r d i n g  of part of  y o u r "homework"; t h a t i s , when y o u h a d p r a c t i c e d w i t h a friend.  S o m e t i m e s we w o u l d t h i n k o f d i f f e r e n t  t h i n g s you c o u l d have t r i e d  saying  t o your  friend.  What d i d y o u t h i n k o f t h i s p a r t o f t h e t r a i n i n g ? 3.  I asked you t o "say o u t loud" t h e kinds o f t h i n g s t h a t many p e o p l e t h i n k when t h e y a r e t r y i n g t o b e  h e l p f u l , u n d e r s t a n d i n g and i n t e r e s t e d person.  i n another  I would t e l l you what words t o say. What  d i d you t h i n k o f t h i s p a r t o f t h e t r a i n i n g ? 4.  I asked you t o l i s t e n t o a b i t o f a t a p e - r e c o r d i n g o f how I j u s t f i n i s h e d t a l k i n g t o you and you would g i v e me a "mark" from "A" t o "E" depending upon how you  f e l t about what I had j u s t s a i d t o you.  What  d i d you t h i n k about t h i s p a r t o f t h e t r a i n i n g ? 5.  I asked you t o p r a c t i c e  a f t e r school with a f r i e n d .  What d i d you t h i n k o f t h i s p a r t o f t r a i n i n g ? 6.  How d i d you f e e l about t a l k i n g  to a g i r l  from an-  o t h e r s c h o o l f o r a few minutes w h i l e you t r i e d t o be 7.  interested  What was t h e r e about t h e t r a i n i n g t h a t you l i k e d the b e s t ?  8.  i n and u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f her?  Why?  What was t h e r e about t h e t r a i n i n g t h a t you l i k e d the  least?  Why?  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054219/manifest

Comment

Related Items