UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An investigation of the relationship between sex of the counsellor, sex of the client, and empathy Hunt, Alfred Ian 1979

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A8 H86.pdf [ 4.39MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054336.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054336-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054336-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054336-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054336-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054336-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054336-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054336-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054336.ris

Full Text

AN INVESTIGATION OP THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEX OF THE COUNSELLOR, SEX OF THE CLIENT, AND EMPATHY b y N ALFRED IAN HUNT B.A., Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 197U A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School o f Education, . Department o f Counselling Psychology) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 1979 <g) A l f r e d Ian Hunt, 1979 In presenting th i s thesis in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers ity of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library shal l make i t f ree ly avai lable for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thesis for scholar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It i s understood that copying or publ icat ion of th i s thesis for f inanc ia l gain shal l not be allowed without my written permission. Department nf £du techno r\ '])QA^C»S^QJAL cv^ (^«-UASe(|/*\a The Univers ity of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 DE-6 BP 75-51 I E i i ABSTRACT The relationship between empathy and sex similarity of counsellors and clients was investigated in this study. Two objectives were advanced to determine: (a) i f counsellors of moderate or low empathic ability were more empathic with clients of the opposite sex, and (b) i f counsellors of high empathic ability could be equally empathic with clients of both sexes. The subjects were 96 Caucasian University of British Columbia students enrolled in education or counselling psychology, or volunteering at a campus crisis and information centre. They were tested on the Discrimination Em-pathy Test, a lU item, sexually unbiased revision of Carkhuff's (1969) Index of Discrimination. Their scores were ranked and the subjects designated as of high, medium, or low empathic ability. This designation and the sex of the subjects and the clients served as independent variables. The dependent variable was empathy, defined as the discrimination of client affect. It was measured by the Affective Sensitivity Scale, an empathy measuring instru-ment consisting of video-taped vignettes from real counselling sessions with clients of both sexes and a written scale on which the subjects recorded their empathic response. Seven null hypotheses were advanced and analysed by a three-way analysis of variance. Only two of the hypotheses were not rejected. Females were found to be more empathic than males, and subjects were more empathic with male than female video-taped clients. For the third main effect, i t was found that the three designated levels of empathic ability were not signific-antly different when re-tested on the Affective Sensitivity Scale. Non-significant results were found in interaction analyses of the three independ-ent variables. i i i Speculation was offered to explain these results. The lack of signifi-cant differences between the levels of empathic ability was probably respons-ible for the nonsignificance of three of the four interactions. The fourth, the finding of no interaction between the sex of the subjects and the sex of the video-taped clients could have been produced whether or not similarity was an important factor. The findings of additional t tests between each subject/video-taped client match by sex did not clarify any further the role of similarity. The highest mean score for the matches was for female subjects/ male video-taped clients, followed, in order, by male subjects/male video-taped clients, female subjects/female video-taped clients, and male subjects/ female video-taped clients. The same sex matches were not significantly different. Further research was recommended, especially into the relation of similarity to empathy. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i . Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 3 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . • • $ N u l l Hypotheses • • • • 6 Basic Assumptions • • 7 Limitations of the Study 8 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . 10 Problems with the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Studies I n d i c a t i n g a P o s i t i v e Relationship between S i m i l a r i t y and Counselling • • • • • • • • • 11 Studies I n d i c a t i n g No Relationship between S i m i l a r i t y and Counselling 1 5 Studies In d i c a t i n g a Complex Relationship between S i m i l a r i t y and Counselling • • • • 17 3 METHOD 21 Sample 21 Procedure •> 21 Instruments . . . . . 23 Design . . 31 S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s * • 32 Summary • • • 33 V Chapter Page h RESULTS 3h Hypothesis 1 (Factor A) 3 U Hypothesis 2 (Factor B) ?$ Hypothesis 3 (Factor C) 3 6 Hypothesis I t ( A x B ) 3 $ Hypothesis S (A x C) 37 Hypothesis 6 (B x C) 3 8 Hypothesis 7 (A x B x C) 39 Summary U l £ DISCUSSION U2 Int e r p r e t a t i o n of the Results • • • • • • • . . . h2 A d d i t i o n a l Analyses • • • • • • 5>1 Summary 5 . U 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5 7 A d d i t i o n a l Limitations 60 Recommendations f o r Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . 61, BIBLIOGRAPHY 6k APPENDIX A 6 . 8 APPENDIX B 6 9 APPENDIX C 70 APPENDIX D 71. APPENDIX E 72 APPENDIX F 73 APPENDIX G 7U v i LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Analysis of Variance of Sex of Observer-counsellors, Level of Empathic A b i l i t y , and Sex of Video-taped C l i e n t s . . . . . . . 3 5 Table 2» Means and Standard Deviations of Male and Female Observer-counsellors at High, Medium, and Low Empathic A b i l i t y . . . . . • 3 7 Table 3 » Means and Standard Deviations of Male and Female Observer-counsellors with Male and Female Video-taped C l i e n t s 3 8 Table U. Means and Standard Deviations of Observer-counsellors of High, Medium, and Low Empathic A b i l i t y with Male and Female Video-taped C l i e n t s . . . 3 9 Table 5 . Means and Standard Deviations of Male and Female Observer-counsellors of High, Medium, and Low Empathic A b i l i t y with Male and Female Video-taped C l i e n t s . . . . . . . . . . UO Table 6 . Results of t Tests f o r Si g n i f i c a n c e of Differences between Means of Observer-counsellor/Video-taped C l i e n t Matchings by Sex 5 2 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I express ray gratitude and appreciation to the many people who have contributed to the completion of this project. In particular, special thanks are offered to Dr. R.J. Tolsma, Chair-man of my thesis committee, and to the members, Dr. H. Ratzlaff and Dr. C.H. Chiko, for their help, support, and encouragement. I especially appreciate the interest each has shown and the time each has spent to discuss the project and the problems encountered. To Dr. Tolsma I also express sincere appreciation for his help in my understanding of the nat-ure of thesis work. I thank also the students who served as subjects and the professors who gave up valuable class time to allow me to conduct my testing. I also thank Dr. S.E. Marks for his generous loan of the Affective Sensitivity Scale test and research materials. I acknowledge the assistance given by the technicians in the Education Computer Centre and the I.R.C. Audio-Visual Centre. I also thank my typist, Joan Prentice, for her work. Finally, I reserve special gratitutde for some friends, Sandra, Tom, and Wendy, for their advice, empathy, and occasional push. 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Counselling effectiveness, to a large extent, i s predicated upon the counsellor's a b i l i t y to accurately empathize with the client's present inner experience. Of the core dimensions of helping which include respect, genuineness, concreteness, confrontation, and immediacy, empathy i s con-sidered to be the most c r i t i c a l (Berenson & Carkhuff, 1967; Carkhuff, 1969$ Carkhuff & Berenson, 1967; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). Carkhuff (1969) fur-ther states that without empathy "there i s no basis for helping" (p. 173)* Therefore, due to the importance of empathy i n the counselling process, research into i t s components i s essential for further understanding. One such component of empathy i s the similarity between the counsellor and the cl i e n t . It has been generally accepted that persons best understand those most l i k e themselves. Klages writes, "understanding i s possible only by virtue of some similarity between the perceiving self and the perceived object; and as dissimilarity grows, understanding gives way to failure to understand" (cited i n Allport, 1937, pp. 513-514). Gordon Airport (1937) states that experimental "studies have shown that i t i s indeed a fact that the best judges of a t r a i t i n another person are those who themselves pos-sess the t r a i t i n a high degree" (p. 5lh). He notes, however, that "the correlation i s not perfect, and the situation i s far from simple: f l e x i -b i l i t y of imagination i n one judge may be worth more than stores of unused experience i n another" (p. 5lU)« In this study, i t was proposed that the problem of this imperfect correlation be investigated. The sex of the counsellor and of the client 2 was u t i l i z e d as an e a s i l y c o n t r o l l e d example of s i m i l a r i t y . Many studies have inve s t i g a t e d , e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , the sex v a r i a b l e and i t s r o l e i n counselling (Cartwright & Leraer, 1963; Mendelsohn & G e l l e r , 1963, 1967j Taylor, 1972), O v e r a l l f i n d i n g s are generally i n c o n s i s t e n t and seem-i n g l y contradictory. The t h e o r e t i c a l background i s likewise unclear. For example, many counsellors consider i t appropriate to match c l i e n t s and counsellors of the same sex. The r a t i o n a l e behind t h i s i s the assumption that because of t h e i r very d i f f e r e n t experiences and self-concepts, men can best under-stand men, and women can best understand women. Feminist c o u n s e l l i n g , which seeks to f r e e women to recognize and develop t h e i r p o t e n t i a l as hu-man beings has, i n many cases, adopted t h i s assumption and thus promoted the counselling of women only by other women ( H i l l , 197$)• A l l p o r t (1937) again recognizes the exception. I f the male student of pe r s o n a l i t y i s able to free himself from h i s own self-consciousness i n r e l a t i o n to the opposite sex, i f he discounts h i s own i d e a l i s t i c or c y n i c a l b i a s and i s able to escape from h i s "mother image," i f he has no preconceptions of the proper s o c i a l and economic r o l e which women should play, he w i l l achieve a c e r t a i n o b j e c t i v i t y that w i l l improve h i s judgments of women. And i f he i s able through some i n t r i c a t e combination of personal t r a i t s t o take the feminine point of view, he w i l l do even b e t t e r . Convers-e l y , the woman who seeks to become a good judge of men must have a s i m i l a r i t y between the sexes to provide a basi s f o r considerable mutual understanding (p. $19)• C a r l Jung (196U) a l s o provides a t h e o r e t i c a l basis f o r the p o s s i b i l -i t y of empathic understanding of the opposite sex through h i s concepts of the "anima" and the "animus," the unconscious, opposite sex archetypes that form part of the human psyche. He explains t h a t : • , , every man c a r r i e s with him the et e r n a l image of woman, not the image of t h i s or that p a r t i c u l a r woman, but a d e f i n -i t e feminine image. This image i s fundamentally unconscious, an heredity f a c t o r of primordial o r i g i n engraved i n the l i v i n g 3 organic system of the man, an imprint or "archetype" of a l l the ancestral experiences of the female, a deposit, as i t were, of a l l the impressions ever made by woman—in short, an inherited system of psychic adaptation. Even i f no women existed, i t would s t i l l be possible, at any given time, to deduce from this unconscious image exactly how a woman would have to be constituted psychically. The same is true of the woman: she too has her inborn image of man. (p. 198) As Allport (1937) reports, a suspension of beliefs and a "certain ob-jectivity" (p. 519) are required to overcome the limitations to understand-ing that are imposed by our self-consciousness and our society. This sus-pension of beliefs and this objectivity are an integral part of empathy and are absolutely necessary for its expression. Broadly defined, empathy is the counsellor's ability "to allow himself to experience or merge in the ex-perience of the client, reflect upon this experience while suspending his own judgment, tolerating his own anxiety, and communicating this understand-ing to himself" (Carkhuff and Berenson, 1967, p. 27). Thus, the nature of empathy needs to be clarified, particularly in order to ascertain the degree to which empathy is predicated upon similar-ity between the counsellor and the client. If similarity, for instance, is an important condition of empathy, then lack of similarity between coun-sellor and client would lead to ineffective counselling. Further, i f simi-larity is significant only with counsellors with moderate or low empathic abil ity, then training in increasing counsellor empathic sensitivity could result in overcoming many counselling barriers, including the need for matching based on similarity. In conclusion, there is a need for further clarification of empathy, i ts role and its relationship to other variables, such as the sex variable investigated in this study. Definition of Terms Empathy. Empathy, much like intelligence, is probably a multi-dimen-sional concept (Buchheimer, 1963, 1961JJ Dimitrovsky, 1961i). It involves h the sensitive perception and understanding of both cognitive and affective information. It also involves the processes of discrimination and communi-cation, discrimination being the passive sensing and interpretation of an-other person's experience, and communication the active verbalization of this understanding to the experiencing person. In this study, the focus was on the discrimination of affective informa-tion, that i s , the ability to accurately judge another's feelings. Empathy was therefore defined as affective sensitivity which is conceptualized by Kagan, Krathwohl, and Farquhar in 1965 as "the ability to detect and des-cribe the immediate affective state of another, or in terms of communica-tion theory, the ability to receive and decode affective communication" (cited in Danish & Kagan, 1971, p. 51). Operationalized, empathy was the scores attained by subjects on the Discrimination Empathy Test and the Affective Sensitivity Scale. Note that in the context of this study, empathy acted as the dependent variable and an independent variable. To distinguish between these two roles and to maintain independence between the variables, the dependent variable was referred to as empathy and was measured on the Affective Sensitivity Scale, while the indep-endent variable was referred to as level of empathic ability or empathic level and was determined by scores on the Discrimination Empathy Test. Each of the instruments, the Affective Sensitivity Scale and the Discrimination Empathy Test, was intended to measure the same construct, empathy, as defined above. However, these instruments differed in the way they measured empathy. This difference is described below. Art i f ic ia l results due to this differ-ence were not expected. Discrimination Empathy Test. An empathy measuring instrument, the Dis-crimination Empathy Test, was a written, multiple choice instrument, altered for the purpose of this investigation from the Index of Investigation 5 (Carkhuff, 1969, pp. llii-123). Alteration of the Carkhuff test included changing or removing a l l references to gender in order to neutralize any sex bias. The Discrimination Empathy Test was created for the purpose of measuring and assigning the subjects to high, medium, and low levels of empathic ability, devoid of any influence of sex. Affective Sensitivity Scale. The Affective Sensitivity Scale, developed in 1967 by R. Campbell, measured the dependent variable, empathy. It con-sisted of a video-tape of hi vignettes of actual counselling sessions and a written test form. The male or female client in each vignette served as the empathy stimulus to subjects observing the video-tape. The subjects respon-ded to each vignette by selecting from the written test responses the one which best described the client's feeling state. Both clients and counsel-lors are present on the video-tape and wil l henceforth be referred to as video-taped clients and video-taped counsellors. The sex of the video-taped clients served as an independent variable in this study. Observer-counsellor. The subjects of this investigation were the ob-server-counsellors. Their role was to empathize with the feelings of the clients on the Affective Sensitivity Scale's video-tape and with the affect-ive information contained within written expressions of helper problems on the Discrimination Empathy Test. Their sex served as an independent variable of this study. Emotional Obviousness. This referred to the degree of restriction or free expression with which the video-taped clients revealed their emotions. Statement of the Problem It was proposed that there be an investigation into the relationship be-tween empathy and the sex similarity of counsellors and clients. The object-ives of the investigation were to determine: (a) i f counsellors of moderate or low empathic ability were more empathically responsive to the feelings of 6 c l i e n t s of the same sex than to c l i e n t s of the opposite sex, and (b) i f coun-s e l l o r s of high empathic a b i l i t y were equally empathic with c l i e n t s of both sexes* In order to c l a r i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between empathy and sex s i m i l a r i t y , using the terms defined f o r t h i s study, the following questions were asked: 1. Is e i t h e r sex of observer-counsellors more empathic than the other and, i f so, which one? 2. Is the ranking of observer-counsellors i n t o high, medium, and low em-pathic a b i l i t i e s substantiated by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale? 3. With which sex, i f e i t h e r , of video-taped c l i e n t s do the observer-coun-s e l l o r s demonstrate the greater degree of empathy? l u Which sex, i f e i t h e r , of observer-counsellors demonstrates the greater degree of empathy at each l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y ? 5« Which sex, i f e i t h e r , of observer-counsellors i s more empathic with each sex of video-taped c l i e n t s ? 6. With which sex, i f e i t h e r , of video-taped c l i e n t s do observer-counsellors at each l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y demonstrate the greater degree of empathy? 7. Which sex, i f e i t h e r , of observer-counsellors i s the more empathic with each sex of video-taped c l i e n t s at each l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y ? N u l l Hypotheses Seven n u l l hypotheses were established to answer the questions asked above and are presented r e s p e c t i v e l y as fol l o w s : 1, There i s 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 difference between the mean scores of male and female observer-counsellors as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. 2. There i s 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 difference between the mean scores of high, medium, and low empathic observer-counsellors as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. 7 3 . There i s 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 d i f f e r e n c e between the mean aver-age scores assigned to male and female video-taped c l i e n t s by observer-counsellors as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. 4. There i s 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 i n t e r a c t i o n between the sex of the observer-counsellors and the empathic l e v e l of the observer-counsellors as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y S c a l e . 5. There i s 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 i n t e r a c t i o n between the sex of the observer-counsellors and the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale, 6. There i s 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 i n t e r a c t i o n between the empathic l e v e l of the observer-counsellors and the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. 7. There i s 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 i n t e r a c t i o n among the sex of the observer-counsellors, the empathic l e v e l of the observer-counsellors, and the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s as measured by the a f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale, Basic Assumptions In t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i t was assumed t h a t : 1, Empathy, as defined i n the D e f i n i t i o n of Terms, i s d i s t i n c t and measur-able, and i s continuously and normally d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the popu-l a t i o n , 2, The instruments used, the Discrimination Empathy Test and the A f f e c t -i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale, are r e l i a b l e and v a l i d measures of empathy. 3 © The existence of unequal representation by sex of video-taped c l i e n t s and counsellors on the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale w i l l not s i g n i f i -cantly b i a s the observer-counsellors, 4, The existence of a non-Caucasian video-taped counsellor on the A f f e c t i v e 8 S e n s i t i v i t y Scale w i l l not s i g n i f i c a n t l y b i a s the observer-counsellors. 5 . Both male and female video-taped c l i e n t s are equal i n t h e i r emotional obviousness. Limitations of the Study There were several l i m i t a t i o n s i n t h i s study. The sample was not rep-resentative of the t o t a l population. I t consisted of f u l l - t i m e bachelor's and master's degree students at the Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, the mean age being 2 5 . 7 years. Subjects were selected from t h i r d and fourth year education and from counselling psychology at the graduate l e v e l . Sub-j e c t s were also selected from volunteer counsellors at a campus c r i s i s and information centre. These areas of i n t e r e s t i n d i c a t e d that the subjects had a p r i o r desire t o serve others, a bias which placed f u r t h e r l i m i t s on the sample. The sample was a l s o l i m i t e d to subjects of the Caucasian race only, a l i m i t a t i o n imposed to co n t r o l the e f f e c t s of r a c i a l d i f f e r e n c e . A l l video-taped c l i e n t s on the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale were also Caucasian, a l -though there was a non-Caucasian video-taped counsellor. F i n a l l y , a l l subjects were volunteers. Since the request f o r volun-teers was di r e c t e d towards groups, there was a p o s s i b i l i t y of peer pressure to conform and some r e s u l t i n g h o s t i l i t y . The study was f u r t h e r l i m i t e d i n i t s design and use of empathy measur-i n g instruments. Since empathy was treated as both the dependent v a r i a b l e and an independent v a r i a b l e , and since i t was important to maintain indep-endence of the uses of empathy, the design of the study required the use of two instruments to measure empathy i n a r e l i a b l e and precise manner. Both instruments, the Discrimination Empathy Test and the A f f e c t i v e Sensit-i v i t y Scale, however, were not previously r e l a t e d . R e l i a b i l i t y and 9 c o r r e l a t i o n were, therefore, computed concurrently with the i n v e s t i g a t i o n to e s t a b l i s h the degree of instrument relatedness. Also, since the Dis-crimination Empathy Test was a l t e r e d from the Index of Discrimination (Carkhuff, 1969), i t was necessary to obtain background s t a t i s t i c a l inform-a t i o n . F i n a l l y , the use of the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale f o r comparison of empathy shown f o r male and female video-taped c l i e n t s was l i m i t e d by the unequal representation by sex of video-taped c l i e n t s and counsellors. These instrument r e l a t e d l i m i t a t i o n s were t o l e r a t e d because no instruments of s i m i l a r c a p a b i l i t i e s could be found. 10 Chapter 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of t h i s study was to inves t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the sex of a counsellor, the sex o f the c l i e n t , and the empathic a b i l i t y of the counsellor. Many research studies have investigated aspects of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p or of s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v a r i a b l e s of cli e n t - c o u n -s e l l o r s i m i l a r i t y , and counselling process and outcome. O v e r a l l findings have been generally both inconclusive and contradictory, A c l e a r and con-s i s t e n t p i c t u r e of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p has f a i l e d to m a t e r i a l i z e . In t h i s chapter research f i n d i n g s to date are discussed, and some possible reasons f o r problems with these fin d i n g s are explored. Included are those studies i n d i c a t i n g a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between v a r i a b l e s , no r e l a t i o n s h i p bet-ween the v a r i a b l e s , and those i n d i c a t i n g a more complex r e l a t i o n s h i p between the v a r i a b l e s . Problems with the Research The inconsistency and inconclusiveness of the research findings to date i s due to several possible f a c t o r s , A major f a c t o r i s the lack of a c l e a r and c o n s i s t e n t l y used d e f i n i t i o n of empathy. Empathy i s a very broad term, both i n i t s conception and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n . As discussed i n the D e f i n i t i o n of Terms, empathy i s a multi-dimensional concept much l i k e i n -t e l l i g e n c e (Dimitrovsky, 1964), A comparison of empathy research can often be problematic, because each study i s exploring a d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e . This study attempted to p a r t i a l l y overcome t h i s problem by using a r e s t r i c t e d d e f i n i t i o n , focussing only on the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n of f e e l i n g s . Tied to the problem of the d e f i n i t i o n of empathy i s the great v a r i a t i o n i n t e s t instrumentso A large number of instruments have been created to t e s t f o r empathy, each based on i t s own p e c u l i a r conceptualization and methodology (Kurtz & Grummon, 1972j Olesker, 1971j T a f t , 1955). Aside from the p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e they are t e s t i n g , these t e s t s vary i n the way they are administered. They include p e n c i l and paper v a r i e t i e s , u t i l i z a -t i o n of audio and/or video stimulus, and rat i n g s by independent judges of subjects i n r e a l counselling s i t u a t i o n s . T a f t (1955) a l s o reported prob-lems due to the t r a i t s being measured (excluding empathy), the subjects, and the low r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the measures used. F i n a l l y , with respect to the sex v a r i a b l e , many d i f f i c u l t i e s have been reported (Gage & Cronbach, 1955; Luchins, 1957j Olesker, 1971). The two most prominent and c r i t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s are the degree of focus provided f o r the sex va r i a b l e and the l a c k of c o n t r o l f o r i t . Findings concerning the sex v a r i a b l e are often only i n c i d e n t a l to a l a r g e r research study. Luchins (1957) suggested that i n v e s t i g a t o r s systematically "vary the empa-t h i z e r s , the objects of empathy and the conditions under which the behav-i o u r occurs . . . [thus throwingJ . . . l i g h t on some problems that have been r a i s e d " (p. 17). I t was through such a v a r i a t i o n that the present study attempted to inves t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between sex of the counsel-l o r , sex of the c l i e n t , and empathy. Studies I n d i c a t i n g a Pos i t i v e Relationship between  S i m i l a r i t y and Counselling In many studies, s i m i l a r i t y has been found to be an important f a c t o r i n c o u nselling behaviour and outcome. Tuma and Gustad (1957), using meas-ures mostly derived from the C a l i f o r n i a Personality Inventory, found that p e r s o n a l i t y s i m i l a r i t y and counselling outcome are p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d . They concluded that "close resemblance between c l i e n t s and counsellors on 1 2 p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s i s associated with a r e l a t i v e l y b e t t e r c r i t e r i o n per-formance (self-knowledge) by c l i e n t s " (p. U i l ) . In a s i m i l a r study, Mendelsohn and G e l l e r ( 1 9 6 3 ) , using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a personality t e s t , found a strong p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the o v e r a l l s i m i l a r i t y between c l i e n t and counsellor, and counsel-l i n g outcome. Their r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that the greater the o v e r a l l s i m i l a r -i t y , the greater the duration of c o u n s e l l i n g . Halpem ( 1 9 5 5 ) , using the Guilford-Martin Inventory of Factors (GAMIN), tested female nursing students on s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r own behaviour. The student nurses also predicted each other's responses to the inventory, t h i s p r e d i c t i o n serving as an operational d e f i n i t i o n of empathy. The r e -s u l t was that empathy p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with s i m i l a r i t y of the p r e d i c t o r , and the predictee, and with the predictor's s a t i s f a c t i o n with her own behav-i o u r . This suggested that s i m i l a r i t y may be a v i t a l p a rt of the empathic process. Halpern ( 1 9 5 5 ) concluded th a t : What may instead be i n d i c a t e d i s that people cannot e f f e c t i v e l y p r e d i c t about what they have not phenomenologically experienced. . . . There i s a greater l i k e l i h o o d that a person would recognize f e e l i n g s and patterns of behaviour i n others i f he has known s i m i l a r f e e l i n g s and patterns of behaviour i n himself. When an i n d i v i d u a l i s confronted with the emotions and actions of another person that are a l i e n to h i s own experience, accurate recognition, and hence, accurate p r e d i c t i o n , i s l i t t l e b e t t e r than a chance matter. The degree of s i m i l a r i t y between two people may therefore r e f l e c t the overlapping of t h e i r c a p a c i t i e s to empathize with each other (p. U 5 D . Wolf and Murray (1936) reached a s i m i l a r conclusion based on an e x p e r i -ment that involved the r a t i n g and ranking of p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . T a f t ( 1 9 5 5 ) , however, expressed reservations about Wolf and Murray's (1936) conclusions by questioning whether they were measuring the a b i l i t y to judge or simply the degree to which the judge belonged to the c r i t e r i o n group. Bryson and Cody (1973) investigated the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l i e n t and counsellor race and the l e v e l of empathic understanding. This was f a c i l i t a t e d by stimulated r e c a l l sessions of interview excerpts and rated by three independent r a t e r s . They found that race was r e l a t e d to under-standing, that black counsellors understood black c l i e n t s best, that white counsellors understood white c l i e n t s best, and that whites understood the c l i e n t s of both races best o v e r a l l . Two studies i n v e s t i g a t i n g sex matching and r e t e n t i o n i n c o u n s e l l i n g i n d i c a t e d s i m i l a r p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , Heilburn (196l) found that sex matching increased c l i e n t r e t e n t i o n , Mendelsohn and G e l l e r (1967) i n v e s t i -gated the sex matching v a r i a b l e i n c l i e n t s who had f a i l e d to r e t u r n f o r c o u n s e l l i n g and thereby appeared to have terminated treatment. They found that most of those who returned (91 percent) were pa i r e d with same sex counsellors, while of those who never returned only 1^6 percent were paired with same sex c o u n s e l l o r s . There are four studies s p e c i f i c a l l y i n v e s t i g a t i n g sex matching and i t s r e l a t i o n to empathy. In a study by Daane and Schmidt (1957), a com-parison was made of patient s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n with those predicted by t h e i r c o u nsellors. The study found that the greater empathy occurred between counsellor and c l i e n t of the same sex. The study a l s o found that male counsellors were more empathic with female c l i e n t s than female counsellors with male c l i e n t s . In a study more relevant to t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , Feshbach and Roe (1968) defined empathy as "the experiencing of an emotion s i m i l a r to that of an-other person as a consequence of perceiving f e e l i n g i n the other persons" (p, 13l*), The subjects were s i x year old c h i l d r e n . The study found that boys were more empathic with boys than with g i r l s j and that g i r l s were more empathic with g i r l s than with boys. The study a l s o found that, over-a l l , boys were no l e s s empathic than g i r l s . H i l l (1975), i n an i n t e r e s t i n g and complex study, investigated the i n t e r a c t i o n between the sex of the c l i e n t , the sex of the counsellor, and empathy, Carkhuff's (1969) scale f o r t h e r a p i s t offered empathy (communi-c a t i o n empathy) was u t i l i z e d with 2k c o u n s e l l i n g students. While the study dealt with several v a r i a b l e s , i n c l u d i n g the experience l e v e l of counsellors, the c e n t r a l conclusion concerning sex matching and empathy was that coun-s e l l o r s "at a l l l e v e l s of experience have d i f f i c u l t y being as empathic with opposite-sex c l i e n t s as with same-sex c l i e n t s " (p. 10). F i n a l l y , the study by Olesker (1971) i s perhaps the most relevant to t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . She used the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale to examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the sex v a r i a b l e to empathy i n a systematically con-t r o l l e d f a s hion. The study involved "a comparison of the sexes as w e l l as a comparison of the e f f e c t s of judging persons of the same and opposite sexes i n making empathic judgments" (Olesker & B a i t e r , 1972, p, 56l). The f i n d i n g s showed that the judge i n same sex combinations was more empathic than i n opposite sex combinations. Also, and i n support of Feshbach and Roe (1968), both males and females expressed the same o v e r a l l degree of em-pathy. The author concluded that " t h i s study points to the importance of sexual s i m i l a r i t y when making empathic judgments as w e l l as the need to consider the sex of the object as w e l l as the sex of the judge when study-i n g empathy" (Olesker & B a i t e r , 1972, p. 562). The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Olesker's (1971) r e s u l t s as r e f l e c t i v e of the e f f e c t of the sex v a r i a b l e on empathy i s somewhat l i m i t e d , however. She l i m i t e d her sample to students of average i n t e l l i g e n c e (scoring w i t h i n one standard deviation of the mean). Her r a t i o n a l e was that emotional 15 s e n s i t i v i t y i s r e l a t e d to i n t e l l i g e n c e . Other corroborating evidence i n -dicates that t h i s i s the case (Davitz, 1961ij Rotheriberg, 1970j Smith, 1966j T a f t , 1955)• Thus the number of h i g h l y empathic subjects i n Olesker's (1971) study may have been l i m i t e d , and the research biased toward a compari-son of persons of r e l a t i v e l y lower empathy. This would have excluded poss-i b l e subjects who, because of t h e i r high empathic a b i l i t y , could p o s s i b l y have suspended t h e i r own b e l i e f system and empathized equally with those of the opposite sex as they d i d with t h e i r own sex. This was only conjecture but i t was f e l t to be worth i n v e s t i g a t i n g through the present study. Studies I n d i c a t i n g No Relationship between  S i m i l a r i t y and Counselling Few studies i n d i c a t e that there i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l i e n t -counsellor s i m i l a r i t y and various c o u n s e l l i n g v a r i a b l e s . This lends some support to the conclusion that s i m i l a r i t y and counselling v a r i a b l e s are p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d as o u t l i n e d i n the previous s e c t i o n . However, there are exceptions. Ewing (197k), using a counsellor evaluation form f i l l e d out by c l i e n t s a f t e r an i n i t i a l interview, found that r a c i a l s i m i l a r i t y of c l i e n t s and counsellors was not an important f a c t o r i n the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of c o u n s e l l i n g . In connection with other t r a i t s , Taft (1955)> i n a review of the f a c t o r s r e l a t e d to the a b i l i t y to judge behavioural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n people, stated that there was a f a i r l y consistent l a c k of c o r r e l a t i o n between em-pathy and age ( i n a d u l t s ) , t r a i n i n g i n psychology, and sex. Studies which u t i l i z e sex as the s i m i l a r i t y v a r i a b l e and which i n d i -cate no r e l a t i o n s h i p with counselling v a r i a b l e s are numerous. Mendelsohn and G e l l e r (1963), whose study was mentioned i n the previous se c t i o n , a l s o investigated the sex matching of counsellor and c l i e n t and the length of c o u n s e l l i n g . The r e s u l t s were not s i g n i f i c a n t , and they concluded that 16 sex matching has l i t t l e or no e f f e c t on the duration of c o u n s e l l i n g . This i s i n d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n to the findings of Heilburn (1961) and Mendelsohn and G e l l e r (1967) , both discussed i n the previous s e c t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , Scher (1975) reported that the sex of the counsellor and the sex of the c l i e n t d i d not contribute to success i n c o u n s e l l i n g . Valentine (1927) , i n a s e r i e s of experiments, had men and woman judge the character q u a l i t i e s and i n t e l l i g e n c e of c h i l d r e n and youths a f t e r a few minutes of general conversation. The sex of the c h i l d r e n was not system-a t i c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d , however. The only conclusion drawn from the r e s u l t s was that men and women do not d i f f e r i n t h e i r a b i l i t y t o judge the charact-ers of c h i l d r e n and youths. Rothenberg (1970) , using c h i l d r e n as subjects, investigated the r e l a -t i o n s h i p between the sex of the c h i l d , sex of the actor i n a tape recording, and the s o c i a l s e n s i t i v i t y score. S o c i a l s e n s i t i v i t y i s the a b i l i t y t o accurately perceive and comprehend the behaviour, f e e l i n g s , and motives of other i n d i v i d u a l s . The r e s u l t s showed no difference i n s o c i a l s e n s i t i v i t y scores between the boys and g i r l s . Furthermore, when the frequencies of the l e v e l s of responses were evaluated by sex, no s i g n i f i c a n t d ifferences were found i n the comparison. The Rothenberg (1970) study was one of 31 studies reviewed by Maccoby and J a c k l i n (1974) . They asked, "What of the stereotype that g i r l s are more s e n s i t i v e to the nuances of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s — m o r e 'tuned i n ' t o what other people are thinking and f e e l i n g — t h a n boys?" (p. 2 1 1 ) . Their conclusion was that the two sexes are "equally'* empathic, although the measures used have been "narrow" (p. 3^9) . Using Carkhuff's (1969) Index of Communication which rates empathic responses, Taylor (1972) explored the e f f e c t s of c l i e n t sex upon the l e v e l of empathic understanding expressed by male and female helpers. Taylor 17 (1972) concluded from the r e s u l t s t h a t : . . . sex i s not a c r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e i n determining the i n i t i a l l e v e l of empathic understanding expressed by coun-s e l l o r s . There i s , therefore, no evidence to support the assumption that sex matching or cross-sex matching of coun-s e l l o r and c l i e n t w i l l r e s u l t i n a higher l e v e l of function-i n g on the part of the counsellor.(p. 51) However, s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were found f o r the male counsellor-male c l i e n t match-up. This i n t e r a c t i o n r e s u l t e d i n lower l e v e l s of empathy than the other i n t e r a c t i o n s . The author f e l t that t h i s might have been due to a role-expectancy f a c t o r . These r e s u l t s o s t e n s i b l y contradict the r e s u l t s found by H i l l (1975), discussed i n the previous s e c t i o n . Both i n v e s t i g a -tors used the same instrument on s i m i l a r populations, graduate l e v e l coun-s e l l i n g students. Studies Indicating a Complex Relationship between  S i m i l a r i t y and Counselling Few conclusions can be drawn from the many studies c i t e d above. I t ap-pears as i f s i m i l a r i t y may be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n the counselling pro-cess. I t i s much more d i f f i c u l t , however, to speculate on the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the sex v a r i a b l e i n i n t e r a c t i o n with empathy. Findings i n t h i s area are highly inconclusive and worthy of f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . A few studies have shown that the i n t e r a c t i o n between s i m i l a r i t y and counselling process v a r i a b l e s i s neither simply one of a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n -ship nor of no r e l a t i o n s h i p . Grantham (1973), i n a study i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t s of counsellor race on black students i n i n i t i a l interviews, found that the race of the counsellor was a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n determining the depth of c l i e n t s e l f - e x p l o r a t i o n . U t i l i z i n g Carkhuff's (1969) Depth of S e l f - E x p l o r a t i o n Scale, Grantham (1973) found that the r e s u l t s reversed the p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n between s e l f - e x p l o r a t i o n and the l e v e l of counsellor f u n c t i o n i n g . The study found 18 that low functioning white counsellors e l i c i t e d a high l e v e l of s e l f - e x p l o r -a t i o n with black c l i e n t s , while high f u n c t i o n i n g black counsellors e l i c i t e d a lower l e v e l of s e l f - e x p l o r a t i o n with black c l i e n t s . The author f e l t that t h i s may have been caused by a need f o r black counsellors to e s t a b l i s h an i d e n t i t y with black c l i e n t s rather than moving d i r e c t l y to the exploration of personally relevant m a t e r i a l . With respect to the sex v a r i a b l e , Brooks (I97h) found that opposite sex dyads e l i c i t e d more s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e than same sex dyads and a female-female dyad r e s u l t e d i n more s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e than a male-male dyad. Cartwrlght and Leraer (1963) investigated the counsellor's empathic a b i l i t y as i t r e l a t e d to sex matching. Using 28 patients and 16 c l i e n t -centered t h e r a p i s t s , the authors measured empathy by the degree of discrep-ancy between the patient's s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s and the t h e r a p i s t ' s attempt to p r e d i c t the patient's s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n . I n i t i a l l y , the t h e r a p i s t s ob-tained higher scores with patients of the opposite sex. This difference d i d not hold by the end of therapy. The authors concluded that: . . . perhaps the r a p i s t s at the beginning of t h e i r contacts with patients of the same sex e r r i n understanding by assum-i n g that they are more l i k e themselves than i s warranted. This assumption of s i m i l a r i t y would be l e s s l i k e l y to occur with patients of the opposite sex, l e a v i n g the t h e r a p i s t f r e e r from a pr o j e c t i v e set and more open to discovering how i t i s that the p a t i e n t views himself (p. 11*2). Cartwright and Lerner's (1963) conclusion was very s i m i l a r to the conditions set by Carkhuff and Berensen (1967) and A l l p o r t (1937) f o r a high l e v e l of empathy. Credence f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y of high empathic persons overcoming the l i m i t a t i o n s of r o l e and being able to accurately empathize with others d i s -s i m i l a r to themselves was found i n the l i t e r a t u r e review i n Truax and Carkhuff (1967, pp. 165-167). These studies d e a l t with the matching of 19 probation o f f i c e r s to j u v e n i l e delinquents. Truax and Carkhuff (1967) gen-e r a l i z e d from the r e s u l t s and stated that " i t would seem l i k e l y that match-i n g of patient and t h e r a p i s t types plays a c r i t i c a l r o l e i n cases where the t h e r a p i s t i s quite r e s t r i c t e d i n h i s a b i l i t y to show understanding, warmth and genuineness to a l l but a narrow range of human beings" (pp. 166-167). In c l o s i n g , Olesker (1971), as mentioned e a r l i e r , found that same sex combinations r e s u l t e d i n greater empathy than opposite sex combinations. How-ever, she also reported that "23$ of the sample s t i l l showed more empathy with •other sex' i n d i v i d u a l s so that being of the same sex does not always r e s u l t i n increased empathy" (p. 102). Summary The i n t e n t i o n of t h i s study was to c l a r i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between sex s i m i l a r i t y and empathy. This r e l a t i o n s h i p i s p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant to the f i e l d of c o unselling, t o the issue of c l i e n t - c o u n s e l l o r matching according to sex, and to the need f o r e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l l i n g . In t h i s chapter, the f i n d i n g s of several research studies have been d i s -cussed. A survey of these f i n d i n g s has i n d i c a t e d no c l e a r , consistent picture of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between counselling and c l i e n t - c o u n s e l l o r s i m i l a r i t y , and more s p e c i f i c a l l y , between empathy and the sex of counsellors and c l i e n t s . While i t appears that s i m i l a r i t y may be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n the counselling process, i t i s more d i f f i c u l t to draw any conclusions as t o the s i g n i f i c a n c e of sex s i m i l a r i t y i n i n t e r a c t i o n with empathy. Most studies (Feshbach & Roe, 1968j Olesker, 1971j Rothenberg, 1970j Taylor, 1972) indicated no d i f f e r e n c e i n em-pathic a b i l i t y between males and females. Those studies that d e a l t d i r e c t l y with the r e l a t i o n s h i p of sex s i m i l a r i t y to empathy, however, were c l e a r l y d i v -ided. Daane and Schmidt (1957), Feshbach and Roe (1968), H i l l (1975), and Olesker (1971) a l l i n d i c a t e d that sex s i m i l a r i t y i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n 20 empathy, Maecoby and J a c k l i n (197U), i n t h e i r review of 31 studies, and Taylor (1972) both i n d i c a t e d that sex s i m i l a r i t y was not a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n empathy. The findings of Cartwright and Lerner (1963), however, and the comments by Truax and Carkhuff (1967) i n d i c a t e d that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s i m i l a r i t y and empathy may be more complex than i n d i c a t e d by other researchers. Several problems with the past research were discussed. These included the lack of a c l e a r and c o n s i s t e n t l y used d e f i n i t i o n of empathy and the wide v a r i a t i o n i n empathy measuring instruments and t e s t administration. Also, the inadequate degree of research focus on and lack of c o n t r o l f o r the sex v a r i a b l e often made findi n g s concerning the sex v a r i a b l e only i n c i d e n t a l to a l a r g e r study. In r e f l e c t i n g upon these issues and problems, t h i s study was designed with the r e l a t i o n s h i p between empathy and c l i e n t - c o u n s e l l o r sex s i m i l a r i t y as the c e n t r a l focus. P r o v i s i o n was made f o r possible complexity w i t h i n t h i s r e l a -t i o n s h i p by comparing high, medium, and low empathizers. To avoid problems of past research, empathy was c l e a r l y defined, and standard empathy measuring instruments were used. Both d e f i n i t i o n and instruments were consistent with recent theory and research. This study a l s o followed the suggestion by Luchins (1957) that the empathizers, objects of empathy, and the c o n d i t i o n under which the behaviour e x i s t s be systematically v a r i e d . Thus, the study was designed so that males empathized with males, females empathized with males, males empa-th i z e d with females, and females empathized with females. Empathy was measured by t e s t i n g groups of subjects who were to judge the f e e l i n g s of several video-taped c l i e n t s who presented a v a r i e t y of personal issues and f e e l i n g s . The design, procedure, and sample, as w e l l as a d i s c u s s i o n on the empathy measuring instruments used i n t h i s study are presented i n the following chapter. 21 Chapter 3 METHOD I t wa3 proposed that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between empathy, and the sex s i m i l a r i t y of counsellors and c l i e n t s be i n v e s t i g a t e d . The method of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s discussed i n t h i s chapter and includes the sample, pro-cedure, instruments, design, and s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . Sample The sample consisted of 96 f u l l - t i m e winter and summer session univer-s i t y students who were en r o l l e d i n bachelor or master's degree programs at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Undergraduate students i n educa-t i o n , graduate students i n cou n s e l l i n g psychology, and volunteers at a student c r i s i s and information centre were the subjects of the study. There were U8 male and U8 female subjects, t h e i r ages ranging from 17 t o U9 years, with a mean of 25.7 years. A l l subjects were Caucasian. Permission from cl a s s i n s t r u c t o r s and the c r i s i s and information centre co-ordinator was obtained to r e c r u i t p a r t i c i p a n t s f o r the study e A l l p o t e n t i a l subjects signed an Agreement of P a r t i c i p a t i o n form<Xsee Appendix A). P a r t i c i p a t i o n was. voluntary and without remuneration. Procedure The t o t a l time to administer both the Discrimination Empathy Test and the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale was approximately 90 minutes. Since t h i s was p r o h i b i t i v e w i t h i n the confines of normal c l a s s time (one hour), the t e s t i n g was c a r r i e d out over two sessions f o r the subjects. The f i r s t session involved w r i t i n g the Discrimination Empathy Test. Three hundred and twenty-five students volunteered to p a r t i c i p a t e . 22 Following some introductory remarks, the i n v e s t i g a t o r d i s t r i b u t e d the t e s t booklet and an answer card along with the Masters Thesis Research Project and Agreement of P a r t i c i p a t i o n form (see Appendix A), which b r i e f l y o u t l i n e d the project and procedure that would be followed. Any queries were answered by the i n v e s t i g a t o r . A l l subjects agreeing t o p a r t i c i p a t e then signed the form. The i n v e s t i g a t o r then asked a l l subjects to write t h e i r name, age, sex, c l a s s number and telephone number on the answer card. This was to pro-vide information necessary f o r follow-up. F i n a l l y , the i n v e s t i g a t o r _ read aloud the i n s t r u c t i o n s to the Discrimination Empathy Test. Testing l a s t e d approximately 2 0 to 2 5 minutes. Test booklets and answer cards were c o l l e c t e d when the subjects had f i n i s h e d . Subjects were thanked f o r t h e i r time and e f f o r t and were informed that they would be contacted by the i n -v e s t i g a t o r to arrange a time f o r a second session. Subjects were contacted by phone. Of the o r i g i n a l 3 2 5 subjects, 1 0 9 were av a i l a b l e and agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the second session. In order to c o n t r o l the e f f e c t s of r a c i a l d i f f e r e n c e s , 3 0 of the 3 2 5 were eliminated by the i n v e s t i g a t o r because they were not Caucasians and were not included i n the 1 0 9 . Various reasons, i n c l u d i n g l a c k of time and unwillingness to continue, were given by the other subjects who did not continue. Times were arranged f o r the second sessions and t e s t i n g took place i n small groups of up to s i x subjects i n small video equipped rooms of the Education C l i n i c . The A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale was administered i n the second session. The t e s t booklets and answer cards were d i s t r i b u t e d to the subjects. The subjects read the i n s t r u c t i o n s and the i n v e s t i g a t o r answered a l l questions. The t e s t i n g procedure had to be made very c l e a r to the subjects, since the t e s t ; u t i l i z e d a video-tape as the stimulus, and the tape could not be stop-ped once begun. The t e s t l a s t e d one hour. Subjects were asked to write any 2 3 comments that they had about the test and to leave them with the investiga-tor. They were again thanked for their participation. Following the testing procedure the answer cards were coded, according to sex of subject,and scored by computer. Discrimination Empathy Scale scores were used to assign subjects to groups. Six groups of 16 subjects each were created. They distinguished high, medium and low empathic a b i l -i t y for male and for female subjects. Assignment to the groups was based upon counting 16 subjects from the two extreme scores and assigning these to the high and low empathy groups. The medium empathy group consisted of those 16 subjects whose scores were not represented within the other two groups. The 1 3 subjects not included within the six groups had scores that were the same as those already included i n the groups. They were randomly eliminated from the f i n a l sample to give groups of equal proportion. Instruments Discrimination Empathy Test. The Discrimination Empathy Test was the basis for assigning subjects to groups. It was an adaptation of "A Des-cription of Helper Responses to Helper Expressions: An index of discrimina-tion, n a standardized test developed by Robert R. Carkhuff (1969, pp. llU-123). Carkhuffs test was a refinement of the Truax Accurate Empathy Scale (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967), which was based on the work of Carl Rogers. The instrument consisted of li; problem stimulus expressions, that i s , statements expressing a specific problem as stated by a helpee. These ex-pressions covered social-interpersonal, educational-vocational, child-rearing, sexual-marital, and confrontation content areas, and depression-distress, anger-hostility, and elation-excitement emotional areas. The problem stimulus expressions were presented to the subjects as a written test, and each one was followed by four brief helper or counsellor 2h responses i n multiple choice form. These responses were developed by Carkhuff (1969) to cover a representative sampling of the range of p o t e n t i a l helper res-ponses. The f o u r responses ranged from a demonstration of " l i t t l e " d i s c r i m i n -a t i v e empathy to a demonstration of a "high" degree o f d i s c r i m i n a t i v e empathy. The instrument was a l t e r e d so that each problem stimulus expression and i t s four responses could be interpreted as representing e i t h e r a male or a f e -male c l i e n t or counsellor. The pronouns "he" and "she" were changed t o "he/she" and reference to sex-typed behaviors or a c t i v i t i e s were changed by adding a be-havior or a c t i v i t y more representative of the sex not represented i n the o r i g -i n a l Index of Discrimination (Carkhuff, 1969)» For example, the o r i g i n a l pro-nouns "she" and "her" i n Carkhuff's (1969) "Excerpt 1" were changed to "she/he" and "her/him" as follows: I don't know i f I am r i g h t or wrong f e e l i n g the way I do. But I f i n d myself withdrawing from people, I don't seem t o s o c i a l -i z e and play t h e i r stupid l i t t l e games any more, I get upset and come home depressed and have headaches. I t a l l seems so s u p e r f i c i a l . There was a time when I used t o get along with everybody. Everybody sai d , *Isn't Cshe/he] wonderful. [She/he] gets along with everybody. Everybody l i k e s [her/him]." I used to think that was something to be r e a l l y proud of, but that was who I was at that time. I had no depth. I was what the crowd wanted me to b e — t h e p a r t i c u l a r group I was with. (p. 115) In t h i s way a l l references to gender i n the o r i g i n a l Carkhuff form were removed or a l t e r e d . Also, two items that were found to be unalterable were eliminated from the instrument. These changes were made i n an attempt to r e -move any sex bias from the t e s t , thus allowing the observer-counsellor the op-portunity to empathize with the problem stimulus expressions without reference to or influence from the sex of the helpee. The answering procedure was also a l t e r e d from the o r i g i n a l r a t i n g of res-ponses. The Discrimination Empathy Test simply had the subjects s e l e c t what they f e l t was the "best" response to the problem stimulus expression. The r a -t i o n a l e f o r t h i s procedure was the desire f o r the subjects to answer both t e s t s , the Discrimination Empathy Test and the A f f e c t i v e Empathy Scale, i n a s i m i l a r 25 fashion. A l s o , according to Wedek (19U7), "the empathy l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e d that an empathy measure that involved . . . a response of multiple choice type rather than r a t i n g or ranking c a l l e d i n t o e f f e c t a d i r e c t rather than i n f e r e n -t i a l reasoning type of response" (p. 133)• The t o t a l score f o r the t e s t consisted of the t o t a l number of correct answers out of a possible LU. A scoring key i s presented f o r the t e s t i n Carkhuff (1969, pp. 12U-125). Carkhuff !s (1969) Index of Discrimination has proved a popular i n s t r u -ment. I t has been used f o r research, f o r measurement of counsellor e f f e c t i v e -ness, and f o r evaluation of students i n counsellor t r a i n i n g programs. For Carkhuff's (1969) Index of Communication, a communicated empathy measuring t e s t r e l a t e d to the Index of Discrimination, f a c t o r analyses of the data from the 16 responses i n d i c a t e d : . . . a p r i n c i p l e f a c t o r accounting f o r approximately two-thirds of the v a r i a b i l i t y i n the indexes. Since a l l v a r i a b l e s load s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the f a c t o r , the d i r e c t suggestion i s that a l l of the t e s t s are e s s e n t i a l l y measuring the same v a r i a b l e 16 times. This i s true independent of both a f f e c t and content and independent of experience l e v e l . This i s not true independent of the l e v e l of functioning of helpers. (Carkhuff, 1969, pp. 102-103) Carkhuff (1969, p. lOlt) f u r t h e r reported that the l e v e l s of communication established by the t e s t f o r various populations i n c l u d i n g outpatients, college students, Lay personnel, and p r o f e s s i o n a l helpers were comparable with scores obtained from s i m i l a r population groups who responded to standard interviews ( i n Carkhuff & Berenson, 1967, Table 1, p. 9). This data "establishes not only the construct v a l i d i t y of the instruments employed but also the s t a b i l -i t y of the f i n d i n g s " (Carkhuff, 1969, p. 10li). Truax and Carkhuff (1967, Chapter 3) have summarized the v a l i d i t y of the Truax Accurate Empathy Scale to show a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s c a l e , and process and outcome v a r i a b l e s . Kurtz and Grummon (1973) a l s o i n d i c a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between the Carkhuff (1969) communication 26 r a t i n g scale and two outcome measures, c l i e n t s e l f - e x p l o r a t i o n ( r * ,1*7) and the t o t a l p o s i t i v e Tennessee S e l f Concept Scale ( r = ,1|2). Evidence of r e l i a b i l i t y of the Accurate Empathy Scales was r e a d i l y a v a i l -able and was presented i n Truax and Carkhuff (1967, Table 1, p. k%)» Correla-t i o n s f o r 28 studies i n v o l v i n g a v a r i e t y of t h e r a p i s t and patient populations were presented. Pearson product moment c o r r e l a t i o n s (r) ranged from ,2i3 t o .79 while Ebel i n t e r c l a s s r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r pooled data used i n the analysis of f i n d i n g s provided c o e f f i c i e n t s ranging from ,5>0 to ,93>. A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. The A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale, an empathy measuring instrument c o n s i s t i n g of a video-tape and an accompanying multiple-choice t e s t , was developed i n 196? by Robert J . Campbell, I t was designed to t e s t a subject's a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y the emotions of another. The video-tape served as the stimulus t o the subject answering the t e s t . I t consisted of U l short excerpts or vignettes from f i l m and video-tape scenes of a c t u a l counselling sessions (Kagan, Krathwohl, Goldberg, Campbell, Schauble, Greenberg, Danish, Resnikoff, Bowes, and Bondy, 1967, p, 137). Eleven d i f f e r -ent video-taped c l i e n t s and ten d i f f e r e n t video-taped counsellors were u t i l i z e d with the number of scenes per c l i e n t ranging from two to s i x . Four of the video-taped c l i e n t s were male and seven were female. Nine of these c l i e n t s were high school students, and the other two were older, married women. Nine of the video-taped counsellors were male, and one was female. The scenes ranged along a continuum of emotional obviousness from subtle to b l a t a n t . They a l s o v a r i e d i n emotional depth and i n the nature of the problem that the video-taped c l i e n t was experiencing. These problems included i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t s , s o c i a l maturity, and educational planning as w e l l as problems of a more serious nature (Kagan, et a l . , 1967, p, 137), With the use of three expert judges, Olesker (1971, pp, 62-63) had the degree of emotional obviousness rated. The means of male and female video-taped c l i e n t s were not 27 s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . Thus the p o s s i b i l i t y of bias from d i f f e r e n t degrees of emotional obviousness was c o n t r o l l e d . The w r i t t e n t e s t consisted of 67 multiple-choice items that represented the possible f e e l i n g s of the video-taped c l i e n t s . One choice represented the true underlying f e e l i n g s of the c l i e n t ; the other two were d i s t r a c t o r s . The subject observing the video-tape selected the response which he f e l t accurately r e f l e c t e d the f e e l i n g s of the video-taped c l i e n t . The t o t a l score f o r the t e s t consisted of the t o t a l number of corr e c t answers. A scoring key was a v a i l a b l e f o r the t e s t . For s t a t i s t i c a l purposes of t h i s study the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale was used as male and female video-taped c l i e n t subtests as well as i n i t s o r i g i n a l form, as a combination of the two subtests. To equalize the scoring of the subtests, since there were 1*6 female and 21 male items, a weight f a c t o r of .1*56522 applied to the scores on the female video-taped c l i e n t subtest. The t o t a l p o s s i b l e score, r e f l e c t i n g the presence of the weight f a c t o r , was 1*2 (21 male plus 21 female). The instrument was standardized with both r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y data provided. R e l i a b i l i t y , using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (K-R20), ranged from .53 to .73 with most c o e f f i c i e n t s i n the ,70's (Kagan, et a l . , 1967), p. 35). A K-R20 r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t using 232 subjects was .71* (Kagan, et a l . , 1967i p. 175). Using 26 undergraduate students a t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t was c a l c u l a t e d . The Pearson product moment c o r r e l a t i o n ( r ) between the two sets of scores was c a l c u l a t e d at .75 (Kagan, et a l . , 1967, p. 175). The v a l i d i t y was investigated by a number of studies. Concurrent v a l -i d i t y was obtained by Spearman rank c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s (rho's) between t e s t scores and t h e r a p i s t rankings of group members* s e n s i t i v i t y to f e e l -i ngs. Rho's of .35, .59, and .61* ( s i g n i f i c a n t a t .01 l e v e l when added 28 together and averaged) were obtained f o r a group of d o c t o r a l practicum stud-ents from t e s t scores and rankings by t h e i r supervisors on counsellor e f f e c t -iveness (Kagan, et a l . , 1967, p. 178). A p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y study between t e s t scores on an e a r l i e r v e r s i o n (form A) of the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale and l a t e r peer ratings of counsellor e f f e c t i v e n e s s resulted i n an r of .k9 ( s i g n i f i c a n t at .01 l e v e l ) (Kagan, et a l . , 1967, p. 179). Construct v a l i d i t y was i n d i c a t e d through an increase i n a f f e c t i v e s e n s i t i v i t y over a s i x month t r a i n i n g period f o r two groups. The increase f o r both groups was s i g n i f i c a n t , one at the .025 l e v e l and the other at the .005 l e v e l (Kagan, et a l . , 1967, p. 186). Content v a l i d i t y was indicated by the procedures used i n developing the t e s t , along with the r e s u l t s of various item analyses and other i n t e r n a l a n a l y s i s data (Kagan, et a l . , 1967, p. 189)» Rationale f o r Instrument S e l e c t i o n . The very nature of the multidimen-s i o n a l i t y of empathy made s e l e c t i o n of instruments d i f f i c u l t . I t was im-portant that the instruments should be v a l i d , r e l i a b l e , and e f f i c i e n t . This was even more c r u c i a l when two d i f f e r e n t instruments were needed to measure the same construct, empathy. S e l e c t i o n of the two instruments used, the Discrimination Empathy Test and the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale, kept the above i n mind. V a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y have been discussed above, while a discussion of the r a t i o n a l e f o r using these two instruments fol l o w s . The v a l i d i t y of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n required that the two instruments meet c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a . Considering the i n v e s t i g a t i o n ' s purpose of i n v e s t i -gating the e f f e c t of the sex v a r i a b l e on empathy, the f i r s t c r i t e r i o n was that the sex v a r i a b l e be s t r i c t l y c o n t r o l l e d . Thus Luchin's (1957) suggest-i o n that the empathizers, objects of empathy, and the conditions under which the behaviour occurs be systematically v a r i e d assumed a c r i t i c a l meaning. The instrument needed to have independent male and female objects of empathy. The A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale met t h i s c r i t e r i o n with i t s male and female c l i e n t s who served as objects of empathy. Since the i n v e s t i g a t i o n a l s o sought to determine the e f f e c t s of the sex v a r i a b l e on empathy of persons a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of empathic a b i l i t y , a second instrument was needed. The purpose of the second t e s t was, however, to determine s o l e l y the l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y divorced from any i n f l u -ence of a sex v a r i a b l e . Therefore the Discrimination Empathy Test was used. The objects of empathy, the stimulus expression statements, were phrased so that gender could not be recognized. F i n a l l y , the i n v e s t i g a t o r thought that the nature of answering the t e s t should be s i m i l a r . Both t e s t s conformed to a s t y l e that involved presenta-t i o n of a stimulus and s e l e c t i o n of the appropriate answer from a set of a l t e r n a t i v e s . This was deemed important, since the medium of stimulus pre-sentation d i f f e r e d f o r each instrument. The A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale was audio- v i s u a l , using a video-tape of r e a l counselling s i t u a t i o n s , while the Discrimination Empathy Test used the wr i t t e n word to convey the person's problem. However, some precedence f o r mixing two seemingly d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u -ments had been es t a b l i s h e d . Carkhuff (1969) discussed the research of Antonuzzo and K r a t o c h v i l who found a close r e l a t i o n s h i p between " ( l ) the ve r b a l or recorded presentation of the helpee stimulus expression s t a t e -ments and the w r i t t e n responses of subjects and (2) the w r i t t e n presenta-t i o n of the helpee stimulus expression statements and the wr i t t e n responses of subjects" (p. 108). When commenting on t h e i r study, Carkhuff (1969, p. 131) stated that, while the w r i t t e n form was useful f o r obtaining a quick and reasonable i n d i c a t i o n of the l e v e l of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by a large number of i n d i v i d u a l s , h i s b i a s was i n favour of f u n c t i o n a l indexes approximating 3 0 r e a l - l i f e experiences and that he therefore preferred the audio form wherever p o s s i b l e . The use of the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale video-tape, which con-tained many of the non-verbal cues found i n r e a l l i f e , was thought by the i n -v e s t i g a t o r to be even more superior than audio. The f i n a l c r i t e r i o n was that the two instruments be s e n s i t i v e to and t e s t the same v a r i a b l e , that i s , d i s c r i m i n a t i o n empathy. I t was f e l t that empirical evidence could substantiate t h i s s i m i l a r i t y . This proved to be d i f f i c u l t , however, since no c o r r e l a t i o n between the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale and the Index of Discrimination was found i n a search of the l i t e r a -t u r e . Evidence from some r e l a t e d studies was a v a i l a b l e , however. Kurtz and Grummon (1972) , i n a comprehensive study of the c o r r e l a t i o n s between v a r i -ous measures of empathy and various outcome measures reported a n o n - s i g n i f i -cant c o r r e l a t i o n of ,0$ between the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale and Cark-h u f f s (1969) Index of Communication, a tape-rating scale of communication empathy, Resnikoff (1972) had more p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s when he c o r r e l a t e d the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale with Truax's scales of F a c i l i t a t i v e Interper-sonal Functioning (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967) , an instrument from which C a r k h u f f s scale was a refinement. Resnikoff (1972) reported a n o n - s i g n i f i -cant c o r r e l a t i o n of . 3 6 between the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale and the Accurate Empathy Test. He also reported a s i g n i f i c a n t .70 c o r r e l a t i o n between the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale and the genuineness scale and stated that the high c o r r e l a t i o n " i n d i c a t e s the a b i l i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l to detect an 'honest' response on the part of a counsellor and to o f f e r that type of response himself" (Resnikoff, 1972, p. U 6 5 ) , While the above r e s u l t s were not an encouraging i n d i c a t i o n o f a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale and C a r k h u f f s empathy 31 s c a l e , i t was noted that the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale measured only the more r e s t r i c t i v e d i s c r i m i n a t i v e empathy, while the Carkhuff scale assessed the l e v e l of communication, a much broader conceptualization of empathy. As r e -ported i n Appendix C, t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n tested f o r s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale and the Discrimination Empathy Test. Design A 2 x 3 x 2 Three-factor Experiment with Repeated Measures (Case I I ) design (Winer, 1962, p. 337-3UU) was u t i l i z e d . Only the l a s t f a c t o r was r e -peated. Factor 'A' denotes the sex of the observer-counsellor, f a c t o r 'B' denotes t h e i r l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y , and f a c t o r 'C' denotes the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t . The l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y , f a c t o r *B', was determined by the score attained on the Discrimination Empathy Test and divided i n t o three independent groups as described i n the procedure. These three f a c t o r s com-pri s e d the independent v a r i a b l e s of the study. The dependent v a r i a b l e was the empathy score attained on the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale, Three scores were obtained: one f o r male video-taped c l i e n t s , one f o r female video-taped c l i e n t s , and a t o t a l which included both male and female video-taped c l i e n t s . There were a great number of possible extraneous v a r i a b l e s . These included race, i n t e l l i g e n c e , age, s o c i a l c l a s s , family background, p e r s o n a l i t y , values, and m a r i t a l s t a t u s . Research (Bryson & Cody, 1973) i n d i c a t e d a p o s s i b i l i t y of race b i a s i n g the r e s u l t s . Thus race was c o n t r o l l e d through l i m i t i n g the sample to one race (Caucasian). A l l other v a r i a b l e s were not c o n t r o l l e d . There was no reason to believe that the r e s u l t s would be biased by not c o n t r o l l i n g these extraneous v a r i a b l e s . Also, a l l subjects were u n i v e r s i t y student volunteers. Thirteen students were randomly eliminated from the f i n a l sample by computer random number generation. This was not expected to bias the r e s u l t s . 32 S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis The data was analyzed by a BMDP2V-Analysis of Variance and Covariance Including Repeated Measures (U.C.L.A., 1977) program. The purpose was t o de-termine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between sex of the observer-counsellor, l e v e l of em-pathy, and sex of the video-taped c l i e n t . Seven n u l l hypotheses were advanced. The F Ratio was employed to determine whether or not to r e j e c t each hypothesis. The l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e was set at .05. Most r e l a t e d studies r e l i e d on .05 as an acceptable l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Hypotheses one, two, and three were t e s t e d by comparing the means and t e s t i n g 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 w i t h i n each of the three main factors:: 1. Factor A: There i s 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 difference between the mean scores of male and female observer-counsellors as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. 2. Factor B: There i s 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 d i f f e r e n c e between the mean scores of high, medium, and low empathic observer-counsellors as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. 3. Factor C: There i s 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 d i f f e r e n c e between the mean scores assigned to male and female video-taped c l i e n t s by observer-counsellors as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. The remaining hypotheses were tested through analysis of the i n t e r -a c t i o n as f o l l o w s : U. I n t e r a c t i o n A x B: There i s 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 i n t e r a c t i o n between the sex of the observer-counsellors and the empathic l e v e l of the observer-counsellors as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. 5. I n t e r a c t i o n A x C: There i s 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 i n t e r a c t i o n between the sex of the observer-counsellors and the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y S c a l e . 3 3 6, Interaction B x C: There i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant interaction between the empathic level of the observer-counsellors and the sex of the video-taped clients as measured by the Affective Sensitivity Scale* 7. Interaction A x B x C: There i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant interaction among the sex of the observer-counsellors, the empathic level of the ob-server-counsellors, and the sex of the video-taped clients as measured by the Affective Sensitivity Scale. A variety of other s t a t i s t i c a l procedures were also executed on the re-sults from the Discrimination Empathy Test and the Affective Sensitivity Scale. The Affective Sensitivity Scale was treated as two subtests, one comprised of only male clients, and one comprised of only female clients, as well as a total test, combining the two subtests. For each of the tests and the subtests, the mean, the standard deviation, the range of scores, and the standard error of measurement (SEM) were calculated. Internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y was also computed using the Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y . Finally, correlations were calculated between the Discrimination Empathy Test and the total test and each of the subtests of the Affective Sensitivity Scale, and also between the Affect-ive Sensitivity Scale total test and subtests, and between the subtests. A summary of test statistics i s reported i n Appendixes B and C. Summary In summary, 96 male and female students, divided into three levels of em-pathic a b i l i t y , empathized with male and female video-taped cli e n t s . The degree of empathy was measured using the Affective Sensitivity Scale. A three-way analysis of variance was used to investigate the relationship between the sex of the counsellor-observer, the level of empathy, and the sex of the video-cl i e n t . The r e l i a b i l i t y of the instruments used and correlations among the data sets were also calculated. Chapter k 3k RESULTS Hypotheses were advanced to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the sex of the observer-counsellors, empathic a b i l i t y of the observer-counsel-l o r s , and the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s . A 2 x 3 x 2 Three-factor Experiment with Repeated Measures (Case I I I ) design (Winer, 1962, pp. 337-3kh) was u t i l i z e d . The dependent v a r i a b l e was measured by the empathy score attained on the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. The s t a t i s t i c a l analy-s i s was performed using BMDP2V - Analysis of Variance and Covariance Includ-i n g Repeated Measures (U.C.L.A., 1977). Factor "C", sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s , was repeated. To t e s t the seven n u l l hypotheses, an a n a l y s i s of the three main e f f e c t s and the four i n t e r a c t i o n s was done. The l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e was set at . 0 5 . The summary of t h i s a n a l y s i s i s presented i n Table 1. Hypothesis 1 (Factor A) I t was hypothesized that there i s 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 d i f f e r -ence between the mean scores of male and female observer-counsellors as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. An an a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s from Table 1 i n d i c a t e d an F Ratio of 6.78 (1, 90), s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the . 0 5 l e v e l . Hypothesis one was, therefore, r e j e c t e d . Female observer-counsellors responded with greater empathy to the f e e l i n g s of the video-taped c l i e n t s than d i d the male observer-counsellors. The means and stand-ard deviations of empathy scores f o r male and female observer-counsellors are reported i n Appendix D # 35 Table 1 Analysis of Variance of Sex of Observer-counsellors, l e v e l of Empathic A b i l i t y , and Sex of Video-taped C l i e n t s Source SS df MS F Sex of observer-counsellors (A) 57.6392 1 57.6392 6.78* Level of empathic a b i l i t y (B) 28.0515 2 lh.0258 1.65 A x B 7.8816 2 3.91*08 .1*6 E r r o r 76I* .651*0 90 8.1*962 Sex of video-taped c l i e n t s (C) 25U.2173 1 25U.2173 66.11** A x C 1.5388 1 1.5388 .1*0 B x C 10.1985 2 5.09921* 1.33 A x B x C 5.8025 2 2.9012 .75 E r r o r 3U5.9233 90 3.81*36 £ <.05 Hypothesis 2 (Factor B) I t was hypothesized that there i s 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 d i f f e r -ence between the mean scores of high, medium, and low empathic observer-coun-s e l l o r s as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. The F Ratio from Table 1 of 1.65 (2, 90) was not s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .05 l e v e l . The re s -u l t s , therefore, f a i l e d to r e j e c t hypothesis two. Observer-counsellors of high, medium, and low l e v e l s of empathic a b i l i t y as designated by t h e i r per-formance on the Discrimination Empathy Test d i d not r e t a i n the same l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y when re-tested by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. The 36 three " l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y " groups were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i n t h e i r l e v e l s of empathy i n response to the video-taped c l i e n t s . The means and standard deviations of empathy scores f o r observer-counsellors of high, medium, and low empathic a b i l i t y are reported i n Appendix E. Hypothesis 3 (Factor C) I t was hypothesized that there i s 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 d i f f e r -ence between the mean scores assigned to male and female video-taped c l i e n t s by observer-counsellors as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. An analysis of the r e s u l t s from Table 1 showed an F Ratio of 66.LU (1, 90), s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . Hypothesis three was, therefore, r e j e c t e d . The observer-counsellors, both male and female together, responded with greater empathy to the f e e l i n g s o f the male video-taped c l i e n t s than to the f e e l i n g s o f the female video-taped c l i e n t s . The means and standard deviations of empathy scored by observer-counsellors f o r male and female video-taped c l i e n t s are reported i n Appendix F. Hypothesis h (A x B) I t was hypothesized that there i s 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 i n t e r -a c t i o n between the sex of the observer-counsellors and the empathic l e v e l of the observer-counsellors as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. The F Ratio from Table 1 of .1+6 (2, 90) was not s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .05 l e v e l . The r e s u l t s , therefore, f a i l e d to r e j e c t hypothesis f o u r . There was no s i g -n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the sex of observer-counsellors to empathy at each l e v e l of the observer-counsellors' empathic a b i l i t y . Male and female observer-counsellors d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n empathy towards the f e e l i n g s of the video-taped c l i e n t s regardless of the l e v e l of t h e i r empathic a b i l i t y . Female observer-counsellors were more s e n s i t i v e t o a f f e c t at each l e v e l of t h e i r empathic a b i l i t y than were the males. The means and standard deviations f o r the groups are reported i n Table 2. 37 Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Male and Female Observer-counsellors at High, Medium, and Low Empathic A b i l i t y Sex of observer-counsellors a Empathic a b i l i t y High Medium Low Male M 23.79 21.68 21.09 SD 3.1U 3.90 U.U1 Female M 2U.8L 2U.U0 23.89 SD li.21 U.6U U.26 Note: Maximum score =h2 n = U8 f o r each sex Hypothesis $ (A x C) I t was hypothesized that there i s 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 i n t e r -a c t i o n between the sex of the observer-counsellors and the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. The F Ratio from Table 1 of .hO ( 1 , 90) was not s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .05? l e v e l . The r e s u l t s , therefore, f a i l e d t o r e j e c t hypothesis f i v e . There was no s i g -n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the sex of the observer-counsel-l o r s to the degree of empathy towards e i t h e r sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s . Conversely, male and female video-taped c l i e n t s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the degree of empathy scored f o r them by the observer-counsellors, regard-l e s s of the observer-counsellors' sex. The means and standard deviations f o r these groups are reported i n Table 3 . 38 Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Male and Female Observer-counsellors with Male and Female Video-taped Clients Sex of observer-counsellors 3 Sex of video-taped clients Male Female Male M 12.33 9.85 SD 2.61 2.15 Female M 13.25 11.13 SD 3.08 1.95 Note: Maximum score for each sex of video-taped clients = 21. n <= U8 for each sex Hypothesis 6 (B x C) It was hypothesized that there i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant inter-action between the empathic level of the observer-counsellors and the sex of the video-taped clients as measured by the Affective Sensitivity Scale. The F Ratio from Table 1 of 1.33 (2, 90) was not significant beyond the .05 l e v e l . The results, therefore, f a i l e d to reject hypothesis six. There was no significant variation i n the relationship of the sex of the video-taped clients to the degree of empathy scored for them by observer-counsellors of each level of empathic a b i l i t y . Male and female video-taped clients were responded to with significantly different degrees of empathy regard-less of the observer-counsellors' level of empathic a b i l i t y . Male video-taped clients received the higher empathy scores at each l e v e l . The means and standard deviations for these groups are reported i n Table l i . 39 Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations of Observer-counsellors of High, Medium, and Low Empathic Ability with Male and Female Video-taped Clients Empathic ability of observer-counsellors8 Sex of video-taped clients Male Female High M 13.19 11.13 SD 2.33 1.96 Medium M 12. hi 10.57 SD 2.87 2.38 Low M 12.72 9.77 SD 3.38 1.87 Note: Maximum score for each sex of video-taped clients = 21 a n •» 32 for each level of empathic ability Hypothesis 7 (A x B x C) Finally, i t was hypothesized that there is no statistically signific-ant interaction between the sex of the observer-counsellors, the empathic level of the observer-counsellors, and the sex of the video-taped clients as measured by the Affective Sensitivity Scale. As with the interactions of hypotheses four, five, and six, the F Ratio of .75 (2, 90) was not sig-nificant at the .05 level. There was no significant variation in the rela-tionship of the sex of the observer-counsellors to the empathy scored for l i O e i t h e r sex of video-taped c l i e n t s at each l e v e l of observer-counsellors' empathic a b i l i t y . Again, female observer-counsellors were more s e n s i t i v e to the f e e l i n g s of the video-taped c l i e n t s , and the male video-taped c l i e n t s received higher empathy scores, regardless of the l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y of the observer-counsellors. The means and standard deviations f o r a l l these groups are reported i n Table 5 . Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations of Male and Female Observer-counsellors of High, Medium, and Low Empathic A b i l i t y with Male and Female Video-taped C l i e n t s Empathic a b i l i t y of observer-counsellors 4 Sex of video-taped c l i e n t s Male Female Male observer-counsellors High M SD 13.06 2.U* 10.73 1.90 Medium M SD 12.06 2.20 9.61 2.58 Low M SD 11.88 3.32 9.21 1.69 Female observer-counsellors High M SD 13.31 2.58 11.53 2.00 Medium M SD 12.88 3.bh 11.53 1.77 Low M SD 13.56 3.33 10.33 1.93 Note: Maximum score f o r each sex of video-taped c l i e n t s = 21 n = 16 f o r each l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y hi Summary To summarize, n u l l hypotheses one and three were rejected by the r e -s u l t s of the three-way repeated measures a n a l y s i s of variance. The empathy score on the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale served as the dependent v a r i a b l e . The f i n d i n g s o f hypothesis one, t e s t i n g a main e f f e c t , were that female observer-counsellors were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more empathic than male observer-counsellors. The f i n d i n g s of hypothesis three, a l s o t e s t i n g a main e f f e c t , were that observer-counsellors of both sexes were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more em-pathic with male than female video-taped c l i e n t s . The r e s u l t s f a i l e d to r e j e c t hypotheses two, four, f i v e , s i x , and seven. The f i n d i n g s of hypothesis two, t e s t i n g the t h i r d main e f f e c t , were that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the mean scores of high, medium, and low l e v e l empathic a b i l i t y groups. The groups were designated by t h e i r performance on the Discrimination Empathy Test. The findings of hypothesis f o u r were that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between the sex of the observer-counsellors and the empathic l e v e l of the observer-counsellors. The find i n g s of hypothesis f i v e were that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between the sex of the observer-counsel-l o r s and the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s . The f i n d i n g s of hypothesis s i x were that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between the empathic l e v e l of the observer-counsellors and the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s . F i n a l l y , the findings of hypothesis seven were that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c -t i o n between the sex of the observer-counsellors, the empathic l e v e l of the observer-counsellors, and the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s . The s i g n i f i c a n c e and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these r e s u l t s i s discussed i n the fol l o w i n g chapter. For a summary of t e s t s t a t i s t i c s and c o r r e l a t i o n s between the empathy measuring instruments see Appendixes B and C r e s p e c t i v e l y . k2 Chapter $ DISCUSSION In the previous chapter, the data were analyzed and the seven null hypo-theses tested by the results of a three-way fa c t o r i a l analysis of variance. It was intended that the results examine the relationship between the three independent variables: the sex of the observer-counsellors, the empathic a b i l i t y of the observer-counsellors, and the sex of the video-taped clients. The dependent variable was empathy as measured by the Affective Sensitivity Scale. The results were unexpected. The findings of hypothesis one conflicted with much of the previous literature. Speculation of possible problems with the instruments and procedure i s offered to explain the findings of hypo-theses two and three. Analyses of the results of the four interaction hypotheses showed no significant interaction between and among the three independent variables. Interpretation of the Results A review of the literature indicated that there would be no difference between the empathic a b i l i t y of males and females (Feshbach & Roe, l ° 6 8 j Maccoby & Jacklin, 197h; Olesker, 1971; Rotheriberg, 1970j Taylor, 1972; Valentine, 1927). It was hypothesized, i n hypothesis one, that there i s no st a t i s t i c a l l y significant difference between the mean scores of male and fe-male observer-counsellors as measured by the Affective Sensitivity Scale. Hypothesis one was rejected at a highly significant .01 level of confidence, Male and female observer-counsellors demonstrated significantly different de-grees of empathy with the feelings of the video-taped clients. Females were measured as being more empathic than males. It i s important to note, 4 3 however, that i n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s f i n d i n g the difference that e x i s t s was not absolute but rather a matter of proportion and degree. Several, a l -though fewer, male observer-counsellors were as h i g h l y empathic with the video-taped c l i e n t s as were several high scoring female observer-counsellors. The apparent c o n f l i c t i n f i n d i n g s between t h i s and Olesker's (1971) study may have been due to differences between samples used. Recently, and subsequent to the gathering and a n a l y s i s of data, two l i t e r a t u r e reviews ( H a l l , 1978; Martin, 1977) p e r t a i n i n g to t h i s hypothesis have been published. These reviews re-examined and discussed previous stud-i e s concerned with the comparison, by sex, of empathic a b i l i t y . I n support of the r e s u l t s of hypothesis one, these reviews i n d i c a t e d a growing trend i n the d i r e c t i o n of divergence of empathic a b i l i t y i n favour of females. H a l l (1978) stated that the trend was a r e s u l t of a "combination of more prec i s e measuring instruments and more powerful data analyses" (p. 824). Her study a l s o showed that the divergence was greater f o r v i s u a l - p l u s -auditory s t u d i e s ' than f o r e i t h e r visual-alone or auditory-alone s t i m u l i . Also, i t was greater f o r v i s u a l s t i m u l i than f o r auditory s t i m u l i . The A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale f a l l s i n t o the v i s u a l - p l u s - a u d i t o r y s t i m u l i c l a s s . The second hypothesis tested the strength of the second independent v a r i a b l e , l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y , and p a r t i c u l a r l y the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the observer-counsellors i n t o groups of high, medium, and low empathic a b i l i t y . This t e s t was necessary since the groups were created on the b a s i s of the ranking of scores attained by subjects on the Discrimination Empathy Test while t h e i r empathy, as determined by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale, served as the dependent v a r i a b l e . Thus, i t was absolutely imperative t h a t these two instruments measure the same v a r i a b l e , empathy, and that the assumption that they were measuring the same v a r i a b l e be s t a t i s t i c a l l y v e r i f i e d . I t was hypothesized that there i s 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 d i f f e r -ence between the mean scores of high, medium, and low empathic observer-counsellors as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. The A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale was, to some degree, able to r e p l i c a t e the d i v i s i o n of the observer-counsellors i n t o high, medium, and low empathic a b i l i t y groups as created from the ranking of subject scores from the Disc r i m i n a t i o n Empathy Test. The di f f e r e n c e between group means was not s i g n i f i c a n t , how-ever, and the n u l l hypothesis was not r e j e c t e d . An a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s of t h i s hypothesis n a t u r a l l y leads t o specu-l a t i o n as to what happened and t o suggestions of f u r t h e r research which w i l l be discussed i n the f i n a l chapter. Several possible f a c t o r s , as w e l l as combinations of these f a c t o r s , may have accounted f o r the f a i l u r e t o r e j e c t hypothesis two. F i r s t , i t was important to consider the p o s s i b i l i t y of s t a t i s t i c a l regression to the mean having occurred. Assuming that both instruments were measuring the same v a r i a b l e , and noting that the l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y groups were selected on the b a s i s of t h e i r extreme high or low Discrimination Empathy Test scores, i t was pos s i b l e that regression t o the mean accounted f o r the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between groups when re-tested by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. Subjects who scored extremely high or extremely low on the Discrimination Empathy Test could have migrated s t a t i s t i c a l l y toward the mean when re-tested on the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. A second possible f a c t o r concerned the response s t y l e u t i l i z e d by the instruments. Both instruments r e l i e d upon a multiple-choice s t y l e o f subject Ii5 response. The use of t h i s s t y l e was based upon Wedek (19U7), who f e l t that the multiple-choice response s t y l e was preferable to ranking or r a t i n g since i t c a l l e d i n t o e f f e c t a d i r e c t rather than i n f e r e n t i a l reasoning type of response. The multiple choice response s t y l e , while probably accurate i n separating the high empathizers from the r e s t of the empathizers, however, could have produced l e s s v a l i d i n d i c a t i o n s of true empathic a b i l i t y at mod-erate and p a r t i c u l a r l y low l e v e l s . To i l l u s t r a t e , subjects of t r u l y moder-ate a b i l i t y i n empathy may have received very low scores on the Discrimina-t i o n Empathy Test because they selected mostly the second best responses, a l l of which would be scored as i n c o r r e c t . This problem of instrument response s t y l e was f u r t h e r complicated by an unforeseen problem i n the Discrimination Empathy Test, The Index of Discrimination (Carkhuff, 1969) upon which the Discrimination Empathy Test was based, u t i l i z e s "Action" as w e l l as " A f f e c t " i n i t s ranking of the f o u r alternate responses. Subjects scored highest when they selected a response with both high a f f e c t and high a c t i o n components. The Discrimination Em-pathy Test used t h i s high a f f e c t , high a c t i o n response as i t s " c o r r e c t " empathic response, while the high a f f e c t , low action.response, although showing the same degree of empathy towards the f e e l i n g s i n the w r i t t e n ex-pression of a helpee*s problem, was c l a s s i f i e d , f o r scoring purposes, as an " i n c o r r e c t " response. The other two responses, both low a f f e c t , were a l s o c l a s s i f i e d as " i n c o r r e c t . " The A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale, on the other hand, measured only s i g -n i f i c a n t understanding of video-taped c l i e n t a f f e c t . Observer-counsellors s e l e c t i n g high a f f e c t , low a c t i o n responses on the Discrimination Empathy Test could conceivably have been assigned to medium or low empathic a b i l i t y groups when, i n f a c t , they were highly s e n s i t i v e to a f f e c t . Thus the extra U6 a c t i o n component i n the Discrimination Empathy Test probably r e s u l t e d i n persons of high a f f e c t i v e empathy being placed i n medium or low empathic a b i l i t y groups. These persons, when tested by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale, might have scored highly, as did several observer-counsellors i n each group. F i n a l l y , the p o s s i b i l i t y that the two instruments were measuring two d i f f e r e n t constructs could not be discounted. The c o r r e l a t i o n between the two instruments at ,2k was low, although s i g n i f i c a n t (JD <.02, df =108), (see Appendix C). The stimulus information provided by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale's video-tape was f a r more glo b a l than the h i g h l y r e s t r i c t -i v e w r i t t e n problem stimulus expressions o f the Discrimination Empathy Test. The i n t e r n a l process of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and s e l e c t i o n by the subjects may have been completely d i f f e r e n t f o r each instrument. In hypothesis three, i t was hypothesized that there i s 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 d i f f e r e n c e between the mean scores assigned to male and female video-taped c l i e n t s by observer-counsellors as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. This hypothesis, a t an extremely s i g n i f i c a n t (.00) l e v e l of confidence, was r e j e c t e d . The observer-counsellors, both males and females together, responded with much greater empathy to the f e e l -ings of the male video-taped c l i e n t s than to the f e e l i n g s of the female video-taped c l i e n t s . These f i n d i n g s , l i k e those of hypothesis one, c o n f l i c t e d with the f i n d -ings of Olesker (1971), who had a l s o used the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. Two f a c t s may have accounted f o r t h i s c o n f l i c t — t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s and/or sample d i f f e r e n c e s . The r e j e c t i o n of hypothesis three, at such a high l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , suggested that the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale used f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n 1*7 v a r i e d considerably from the v e r s i o n used by Olesker (1971). Based on the findi n g s of Olesker (1971) i t was assumed that male and female video-taped c l i e n t s are equal i n the mean degree of emotional obviousness. This was based on the judgment of an independent panel who rated the video-taped c l i e n t s f o r emotional obviousness. The findings that the observer-counsel-l o r s were more empathic with male video-taped c l i e n t s than with female video-taped c l i e n t s i n d i c a t e d , however, that the male t e s t items were prob-ably l e s s d i f f i c u l t than the female items. Olesker had omitted several f e -male items to balance the number of male items with female items (Olesker & B a i t e r , 1972). Since no t e s t items were omitted f o r t h i s study, and since the observer-counsellors scored higher on male items, i t appeared that the female items omitted by Olesker were more d i f f i c u l t than the other t e s t items and tha t t h i s omission of items was probably the source of the c o n f l i c t . Also, a low although s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n of .34 (p. <..01, df 8 8 108) between the male and female video-taped c l i e n t items ind i c a t e d that the two subtests were only weakly r e l a t e d . The second f a c t o r , l e s s apparent although s t i l l p o s s i b l e , concerned the differences between the sample used i n t h i s study and the one used by Olesker (1971). The most obvious and relevant difference between samples was the empathic a b i l i t y of male compared to female subjects. Olesker 1s (1971) findi n g s were that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n empathic a b i l i t y between males and females. The f i n d i n g s of hypothesis one of t h i s study were, however, that females were more empathic than males. This apparent difference between the find i n g s of the present study and Olesker 1s (1971) study could be r e l a t e d to the r e s u l t s of hypothesis three. Assuming that male and female video-taped c l i e n t s were equal i n t h e i r emotional obviousness, speculation as to how t h i s difference occurred 18 i s o ffered as fo l l o w s : 1, Since the objectives of t h i s study were to determine i f persons of higher empathic a b i l i t y were more empathic with both sexes, while per-sons of lower empathic a b i l i t y were more empathic with persons of the same sex and i t i s assumed as soj 2. And since females were more empathic than males as found i n t h i s study while there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n empathic a b i l i t y between them as found i n Olesker's (1971) study; 3o Then, f o r t h i s study, females should have been more empathic with male video-taped c l i e n t s than males with female video-taped c l i e n t s , and therefore i t would be probable that observer-counsellors of both sexes should have been more empathic with male than female video-taped c l i e n t s , as were the f i n d i n g s of hypothesis three. k« And f o r Olesker's (1971) study, then, there should have been no s i g n i f i -cant diff e r e n c e i n empathy between females with male video-taped c l i e n t s and males with female video-taped c l i e n t s , as w e l l as between subjects and video-taped c l i e n t s of the same sex, and therefore i t would be prob-able that f o r subjects of both sexes there should have been no s i g n i f i -cant diff e r e n c e i n empathy f o r subjects with male compared to female video-taped c l i e n t s , as were Olesker's (1971) f i n d i n g s . E i t h e r f a c t o r , t e s t differences or sample di f f e r e n c e s , as speculated above, could have therefore accounted f o r the fin d i n g s of hypothesis three. While the former appears more probable, a combination of both f a c t o r s would have r e s u l t e d i n an enhancement to an extreme of one e f f e c t upon the other. The extreme s i g n i f i c a n c e of the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e s that t h i s may have occur-red. The f i n a l four n u l l hypotheses tested the i n t e r a c t i o n s of the three k9 dependent v a r i a b l e s : sex of observer-counsellors, l e v e l of empathic a b i l -i t y , and sex of video-taped c l i e n t s . The r e s u l t s f a i l e d to r e j e c t a l l four hypotheses. For hypotheses four, s i x , and seven, i t i s important to be aware that the r e s u l t s could probably be a t t r i b u t e d t o the lack of s i g -n i f i c a n t d ifferences between the l e v e l s o f empathic a b i l i t y as in d i c a t e d by the f i n d i n g s of hypothesis two. For hypothesis four, i t was hypothesized that there i s 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 i n t e r a c t i o n between the sex of the observer-counsellors and the empathic l e v e l of the observer-counsellors as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. An analysis of the r e s u l t s indicated that no s i g n i f i -cant i n t e r a c t i o n occurred. Thus f o r each l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y — l o w , medium, and h i g h — t h e female observer-counsellors were more empathic than the males, and the degree of difference was approximately the same. For hypothesis f i v e , i t was hypothesized that there i s 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 i n t e r a c t i o n between the sex of the observer-counsellors and the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. An analysis of the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r -a c t i o n occurred. The sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s had no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the difference between the empathy scores achieved by male and female observer-counsellors. Male video-taped c l i e n t s received higher scores than female video-taped c l i e n t s f o r e i t h e r sex of observer-counsel-l o r s . Female observer-counsellors scored higher i n empathy than male ob-server counsellors f o r each sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s . I t was expected that the r e s u l t s of hypothesis f i v e would c l a r i f y the r o l e of sex s i m i l a r i t y i n empathy. I f present, one would have expected s i m i l a r i t y to be equally i n f l u e n t i a l with both sexes. An analysis of the r e s u l t s , however, c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d that e i t h e r s i m i l a r i t y was not an 5 0 important f a c t o r o r that i f i t was a f a c t o r , the influence of the r e s u l t s of hypotheses one and e s p e c i a l l y three was even more important and masked the influence of s i m i l a r i t y . As discussed f o r hypothesis three, i f the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale used i n t h i s study was d i f f e r e n t from the ver-s i o n used by Olesker (1971) and i f the t e s t was therefore biased i n favour of male video-taped c l i e n t s , then the r e s u l t s of hypothesis f i v e would have a l s o been biased i n favour of male video-taped c l i e n t s . Such a b i a s , i f strong enough, would have masked a s i m i l a r i t y f a c t o r f o r higher empathy. To elaborate f u r t h e r , i t must be noted that the findings of hypothesis one were that female observer-counsellors were more empathic than males, and the f i n d i n g s o f hypothesis three were that the observer-counsellors were more empathic with male video-taped c l i e n t s than females. I f , on the b a s i s of these f i n d i n g s , s i m i l a r i t y was of greater influence i n a t e s t f o r i n t e r -a c t i o n of the two findings than e i t h e r or both of the i n d i v i d u a l r e s u l t s , then an i n t e r a c t i o n would have occurred. I f , however, s i m i l a r i t y was not an important f a c t o r , then the r e s u l t would have been the same as the non-i n t e r a c t i o n a l f i n d i n g s o f hypothesis f i v e . Even i f s i m i l a r i t y was import-ant, but was l e s s important than the f i n d i n g s of hypotheses one and three, the same r e s u l t s would have occurred. Thus the conclusion may be drawn that the f i n d i n g s of hypotheses one and three were c r i t i c a l f a c t o r s i n pro-ducing the fin d i n g s of hypothesis f i v e . Because the analysis of variance di d not i n d i c a t e the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the differences between the means of the various observer-counsellor/video-taped c l i e n t matchings by sex, i t was not possible to estimate the importance of each of the f a c t o r s : s i m i l a r -i t y , sex of the observer-counsellors, and sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s . For hypothesis s i x , i t was hypothesized that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between the empathic l e v e l of the observer-counsellors and the 51 sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. An analysis of the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that no i n t e r a c t i o n occurred. The sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s had no e f f e c t on the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the scores achieved by the subjects of each l e v e l of em-pathic a b i l i t y . Observer-counsellors of low, medium, and high empathic a b i l i t y were more empathic with male than with female video-taped c l i e n t s . Therefore the empathic a b i l i t y of observer-counsellors did not a l t e r the difference i n empathy scored f o r male or female video-taped c l i e n t s . F i n a l l y , f o r hypothesis seven, i t was hypothesized that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between the sex o f the observer-counsellors, the empathic l e v e l of the observer-counsellors, and the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s as measured by the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale. An analysis of the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n occurred. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the sex of the observer-coun-s e l l o r s to the degree o f empathy scored f o r e i t h e r sex of video-taped c l i -ents at each l e v e l of observer-counsellors 1 empathic a b i l i t y . Again, f e -male observer-counsellors were more empathic towards the f e e l i n g s of the video-taped c l i e n t s , and the male video-taped c l i e n t s received higher em-pathy scores, regardless of the l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y of the observer-co u n s e l l o r s . As w i l l be discussed i n the a d d i t i o n a l analysis that f o l l o w s , i t ap-pears that only the males were more empathically responsive to the f e e l i n g s of video-taped c l i e n t s of the same sex. As ind i c a t e d by an a n a l y s i s o f the r e s u l t s of hypothesis seven, t h i s appeared to be the case f o r a l l three l e v e l s of empathic a b i l i t y f o r male observer-counsellors. A d d i t i o n a l Analyses The data of hypothesis f i v e d i r e c t l y concerned the major purpose of 52 t h i s study, that of the r o l e of s i m i l a r i t y i n empathy. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the question was whether or not s i m i l a r i t y , i n terms of same sex matches, would r e s u l t i n greater empathy. According to sex, which observer-counsellors would be more empathic with which video-taped c l i e n t s ? What would be the order from highest to lowest of the same sex and opposite sex matches? In order to answer these questions, the data from hypothesis f i v e , concerning the i n t e r a c t i o n of the sex of the observer-counsellors and the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s , was subjected t o a s e r i e s of post hoc t t e s t s . These t e s t s determined the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the diff e r e n c e s between the means of the various observer-counsellor/video-taped c l i e n t matchings according to sex. A summary of these t t e s t s i s presented i n Table 6. Table 6 Results of t Tests f o r Si g n i f i c a n c e of Differences between Means o f Observer-counsellorAideo-taped C l i e n t Matchings by Sex Pooled Variance estimate Sex of observer-counsellors a Sex of video-taped c l i e n t s M SD df t value Female Male 13.25 3.08 > 9k - 1.57 Male Male 12.33 2.61 9k 2.6U* Female Female 11.13 1.95 - 3.05* 9k Male Female 9.85 2.15 Note: Maximum score f o r each sex of video-taped c l i e n t s = 21 a n = ua £ <.05 An analysis of the r e s u l t s of the t t e s t s indicated that male and f e -male observer-counsellors both scored highest with male video-taped c l i e n t s . 5 3 The t value of - 1 , 5 7 i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e beyond the . 0 5 l e v e l between the means of the two. Female observer-counsellors matched with female video-taped c l i e n t s scored next highest. The di f f e r e n c e s be-tween the means of t h i s group and the male observer-counsellor/male video-taped c l i e n t s group was s i g n i f i c a n t at the . 0 1 l e v e l f o r a t value of 2 . 6 U . The l e a s t empathy was shown by male observer-counsellors matched with f e -male video-taped c l i e n t s . The difference between means of t h i s group and the female observer-counsellors/female video-taped c l i e n t s group was s i g -n i f i c a n t a t the . 0 0 3 l e v e l f o r a t value of - 3 . 0 5 . Bias i n favour of the male video-taped c l i e n t s as a r e s u l t of the lac k of equivalence demonstrated by the r e s u l t s of hypothesis three was probably a powerful f a c t o r here. Much of the Review of the L i t e r a t u r e was devoted to the question of how the r o l e of s i m i l a r i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y sex s i m i l a r i t y , i s r e l a t e d to em-pathy. The l i t e r a t u r e was c l e a r l y divided over t h i s question. The r e s u l t s of the t t e s t s neither substantiated nor refuted e a r l i e r research. Consid-e r i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y of b i a s mentioned above, while i t does appear that f o r males s i m i l a r i t y was an important f a c t o r f o r empathy, c l o s e r examina-t i o n reveals that i t may have been f a r l e s s important than i s r e a d i l y apparent. The l a c k of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the male observer-counsellor/male video-taped c l i e n t and the female observer-counsellor/female video-taped c l i e n t matches i n d i c a t e d that the influence from the counsellor-observers' empathy was probably equal to the influence of the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s . These f i n d i n g s , however, do not c l a r i f y the r o l e of s i m i l a r i t y — i t may have been a f a c t o r here, or i t may not. I f i t was a f a c t o r i t may have only been a f a c t o r f o r males, since the female observer-counsellor/male video-taped c l i e n t match was much higher than the female observer-counsellor/female video-taped c l i e n t match. Some basic questions remain unanswered. Is s i m i l a r i t y a f a c t o r i n empathy? For which sex i s s i m i l a r i t y a factor? And, are females, who are more empathic than males, b e t t e r able to empathize with the opposite sex than males are? I t may be important to note that whereas Olesker (1971) reported that 23 percent of her sample demonstrated more empathy with the opposite sex, the raw scores of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n d i c a t e d that 1*7.92 percent of the sample demonstrated more empathy with the opposite sex (see Appendix G). Percentages were ca l c u l a t e d from the number of subjects s c o r i n g higher with same sex as opposed to opposite sex video-taped c l i e n t s . Using the raw score percentages, a s i g n i f i c a n t difference also appeared between males and females. While 1*2.71 percent of the male observer-counsellors were more empathic with t h e i r own sex, only 9.3d percent of the female observer-counsellors were more empathic with t h e i r own sex. Summary The purpose of t h i s study was to inves t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the sex of the observer-counsellors, empathic a b i l i t y of the observer-coun-s e l l o r s , and the sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s . In summary, the r e s u l t s f o r the most part f a i l e d to c l a r i f y with any degree of conclusiveness the quest-ions asked i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n . An analysis of the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that as a group, female observer-counsellors demonstrated greater empathy than d i d males. Since the r e s u l t s of t h i s hypothesis were not dependent upon the possible t e s t i n g flaws of the second and t h i r d hypotheses, t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n to the problem area i s a l l the more meaningful. Speculation was offered to explain possible causes f o r the f i n d i n g s of the second and t h i r d hypotheses. An analysis of the r e s u l t s of hypo-t h e s i s two i n d i c a t e d that the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale was unable t o r e p l i c a t e the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of observer-counsellors i n t o groups o f high, 55 medium, and low empathic a b i l i t y that were generated from the ranking of observer-counsellors' scores on the Discrimination Empathy Test. These r e -s u l t s may have been a t t r i b u t e d to regression t o the mean, problems of i n -strument response s t y l e , or measurement of d i f f e r e n t constructs by the i n -struments. An a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s of hypothesis three i n d i c a t e d that a l l observer-counsellors scored higher i n empathy with the male video-taped c l i e n t s than with the females. This f i n d i n g was a t t r i b u t e d to one or both of two f a c t o r s : the male and female video-taped c l i e n t subtests of the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale were not equivalent, or the greater empathic a b i l i t y of females, assuming th a t persons of higher empathic a b i l i t y are equally empathic with persons of both sexes while persons of lower empathic a b i l i t y are not, would lead to more empathy with male video-taped c l i e n t s than females. The r e s u l t s f a i l e d to r e j e c t the f i n a l f our n u l l hypotheses. A l l demonstrated no i n t e r a c t i o n between each of the three independent v a r i a b l e s : sex of the observer-counsellors, l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y of the observer-counsellors, and sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s . No one v a r i a b l e or a com-b i n a t i o n had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on another. However, f o r hypothesis f i v e an analysis o f the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d the p o s s i b i l i t y that sex s i m i l a r i t y may not have been an important v a r i a b l e . F i n a l l y , three post hoc t t e s t s were performed on the data from hypo-th e s i s f i v e . These t t e s t s examined the r o l e of s i m i l a r i t y , s p e c i f i c a l l y sex s i m i l a r i t y i n r e l a t i o n to empathy. Considering the possible b i a s i n favour of male video-taped c l i e n t s that was found i n hypothesis three, the t t e s t f i n d i n g s were that f o r male observer-counsellors, same-sex matching resu l t e d i n a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher empathy mean. The f i n d i n g s f o r female observer-counsellors, however, were the opposite. Opposite-sex matching se produced a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher mean that same-sex matching. I t i s s i g -n i f i c a n t to note, however, that male and female observer-counsellors d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r i n t h e i r empathy when matched with male video-taped c l i e n t s . Male observer-counsellors matched with female video-taped counsellors produced the lowest mean score. 57 Chapter 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Empathy i s probably the most important dimension i n the counselling process (Carkhuff, 1969). Research i n t o i t s components i s e s s e n t i a l f o r fu r t h e r understanding. In t h i s study i t was proposed that there be an i n -v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p of one possible component, sex s i m i l a r -i t y between counsellors and c l i e n t s and empathy. I t i s important to a s c e r t a i n the degree to which empathy i s predicated upon the sex s i m i l a r i t y between counsellors and c l i e n t s . Keeping the goal of e f f e c t i v e counselling i n mind, there are major p r a c t i c a l implications i n the assignment of c l i e n t s to counsellors, e s p e c i a l l y on the basi s of sex. I f sex s i m i l a r i t y i s an important condition of empathy, then opposite sex c l i e n t - c o u n s e l l o r matching may lead to i n e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l l i n g . I f s i m i l a r -i t y of sex i s not a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r with counsellors of high empathic a b i l i t y , then t r a i n i n g i n counsellor empathy could r e s u l t i n overcoming b a r r i e r s to co u n s e l l i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The problem, i n order to gain a more comprehensive understanding, was inves t i g a t e d along two f r o n t s . The f i r s t was a more general i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between sex and empathy. More s p e c i f i c -a l l y , three independent v a r i a b l e s — s e x of the observer-counsellors, sex of the video-taped c l i e n t s , and the l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y of the ob-ser v e r - c o u n s e l l o r s — a n d the i n t e r a c t i o n s among them were studied. The l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y was determined by ranking subject scores from the Discrimination Empathy Test and assigning the subjects i n t o groups of high, medium, and low empathic a b i l i t y . The score achieved by the ob-server-counsellors on the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale served as the 5 8 dependent measure of empathy and was used for comparative purposes. The second front examined the question of the need for sex similar-i t y for a high degree of empathy to occur. Two objectives were advanced i n the Statement of the Problem section of the Introduction. They were to determine: (a) i f counsellors of moderate or low empathic a b i l i t y were more empathically responsive to the feelings of clients of the same sex than to clients of the opposite sex, and (b) i f counsellors of high empathic a b i l i t y were equally empathic with clients of both sexes. From ai original group of 3 2 5 University of British Columbia students, 1 0 9 volunteered to serve as the sample for this study. After writing the Discrimination Empathy Test, 96 subjects—1*8 males and U8 females—were divided equally into three levels of empathic a b i l i t y . These subjects, the observer-counsellors, empathized with the male and female video-taped clients on the Affective Sensitivity Scale. The 1 3 subjects not included were randomly eliminated. Seven n u l l hypotheses were advanced. A 2 x 3 x 2 Three-factor Experi-ment with Repeated Measures (Case II) design (Winer, 1962, pp. 3 3 7 - 3 h h ) was employed. The data were analyzed and the hypotheses tested by means of BMDP2V - Analysis of Variance and Covariance with Repeated Measures (U.C. L.A., 1977) program. The F Ratio was employed to determine whether or not to reject each hypothesis. Only hypotheses one and three were rejected. Both tested a main ef-fect. The findings of hypothesis one were that the female observer-coun-sellors were more empathic than the male observer-counsellors. The find-ings of hypothesis three were that a l l observer-counsellors were more em-pathic with the male video-taped clients than with female video-taped clients. Speculation was offered that the male and female video-taped 5 9 c l i e n t subtests of the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale were not equivalent. I t was al s o demonstrated that the f i n d i n g s of hypothesis one, assuming that persons of higher empathic a b i l i t y are equally empathic with persons of both sexes while persons of lower empathic a b i l i t y are not, could have accounted f o r these f i n d i n g s . The r e s u l t s of hypothesis two, l i k e those of hypothesis three, proved problematic. The r e s u l t s f a i l e d to r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis and an analysis of these r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale was unable to r e p l i c a t e with s i g n i f i c a n c e the d i v i s i o n of the observer-counsellors i n t o groups o f high, medium, and low empathic a b i l i t y as designated by the ranking of subject scores from the Discrimination Empathy Test. These groups, when tested on the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale, demonstrated si m i -l a r degrees of empathy. This r e s u l t could be explained by s t a t i s t i c a l re-gression to the mean, inappropriate instrument response s t y l e , the unfor-seen problem of the "Action" component of the Discrimination Empathy Test's ranking of alt e r n a t e responses, and the p o s s i b i l i t y that each t e s t might be measuring a completely d i f f e r e n t construct. The four i n t e r a c t i o n n u l l hypotheses were a l s o not rejected by the r e s u l t s . Of the three independent v a r i a b l e s , no one v a r i a b l e or a combination had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the other. Based on the data from hypothesis f i v e , three t t e s t s were constructed between the means. The object was to examine the r o l e of s i m i l a r i t y , s p e c i f i c a l l y sex s i m i l a r i t y , i n r e l a t i o n t o empathy. The fi n d i n g s were that the greatest empathy occurred when e i t h e r male observer-counsellors oir female observer-counsellors were matched with male video-taped c l i e n t s . The female observer-counsellor/female video-taped c l i e n t match r e s u l t e d i n a s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower degree of empathic understanding. The male observer-counsellor/female video-taped c l i e n t match r e s u l t e d i n the lowest degree of 60 empathy. In terms of the role of s i m i l a r i t y i n r e l a t i o n to empathy, i t ap-pears that f o r the male observer-counsellors, sex s i m i l a r i t y may have been a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r while f o r the female observer-counsellors, s i m i l a r i t y was not a f a c t o r a t a l l . This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n must, however, be tempered by the f a c t that with the r e s u l t s of hypotheses one and e s p e c i a l l y three, the f i n d i n g s of hypothesis f i v e and the r e s u l t s of the t t e s t s can be pro-duced without s i m i l a r i t y being a f a c t o r a t a l l . From the r e s u l t s of t h i s study, i t i s not possible to s a f e l y conclude whether or not s i m i l a r i t y plays a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n empathy. A d d i t i o n a l (Post Analysis) Limitations In l i g h t of the r e s u l t s , several l i m i t a t i o n s should be recognized i n evaluating the conclusions and r e s u l t s of the study. These l i m i t a t i o n s have been discussed, p a r t i c u l a r l y throughput the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e -s u l t s i n the Discussion. Most r e l a t e to the r e s u l t s o f hypotheses two and three. Their e f f e c t p o s s i b l y involved a l l other hypotheses' r e s u l t s , ex-cept those of hypothesis one. B r i e f l y , the l i m i t a t i o n s are as follows: 1. S t a t i s t i c a l regression to the mean may have operated by negating the d i v i s i o n of observer-counsellors i n t o groups of low, medium, and high empathic a b i l i t y . A group of subjects who scored at extremes on one t e s t would n a t u r a l l y tend to migrate s t a t i s t i c a l l y toward the mean with subsequent t e s t i n g s . 2. Due to defection from the o r i g i n a l volunteer sample of 325, a f i n a l sample from which to draw subjects was a l e s s than preferred 109. Such a low sample l i m i t e d the number of subjects who scored e i t h e r very low or very high. 3. There were several problems with the instruments used i n t h i s study. Speculation included the following possible causes of the problems: 61 a) the multiple-choice response s t y l e may have been more accurate i n determining high empathic a b i l i t y , b) the presence of the "Action" component i n the Discrimination Empathy Test probably r e s u l t e d i n subjects of moderate and moderately high empathic a b i l i t y being assigned to low or moderate empathic a b i l i t y groups. The Discrimination Empathy Test could only discriminate empathy to two l e v e l s , not three as used i n t h i s study. c) the male and female video-taped c l i e n t subtests of the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale were probably not equivalent. They correlated at a low although s i g n i f i c a n t ,3U (JD <.01, df =108), d) the male video-taped c l i e n t subtest of the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale had a Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y value of ,1*5, a rather low l e v e l f o r i n t e r n a l consistency, e) subjects reported that the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale was long and tedious, r e q u i r i n g intense concentration i n observing a video-tape of r e l a t i v e l y poor v i s u a l q u a l i t y . This problem may have influenced outcome without a f f e c t i n g r e l i a b i l i t y . Recommendations f o r Further Research Analyses of the r e s u l t s , f o r the most part, f a i l e d t o c l a r i f y with any degree o f conclusiveness the questions asked i n the Introduction. This i s not to say that the i n v e s t i g a t i o n f a i l e d to make any contributions toward r e s o l v i n g the problem. Rather, previous unforeseen problems and'flaws have become more apparent and many questions have been r a i s e d . I t i s these ques-ti o n s which are l e f t f o r future researchers to attempt to resolve. Two major areas of concern have emerged from the f i n d i n g s . The f i r s t i s the t o p i c area examined i n t h i s study, that of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between sex s i m i l a r i t y and empathy. The second concerns the problems encountered 62 with the empathy t e s t s . U ltimately, however, both areas of concern must re -t u r n to the major t h e o r e t i c a l question of what i s empathy. A number of sug-gested research p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o llow. F i r s t , a r e p l i c a t i o n along the l i n e of t h i s study i s recommended. The r e s u l t that the female observer-counsellors were more empathic than the males, while i n c o n f l i c t with previous studies, appears to be i n l i n e with more r e -cent analyses of the t o p i c . Also, considering the t e s t problems, r e p l i c a t i o n with b e t t e r instruments could c l a r i f y with a greater degree of conclusiveness many of the other r e s u l t s of t h i s study. Perhaps a r e p l i c a t i o n could c l a r i f y , r e f u t e , or support the f i n d i n g that male and female observer-counsellors are equally empathic with male video-taped c l i e n t s , a f i n d i n g which appears t o show that s i m i l a r i t y may be a f a c t o r i n empathy f o r males but not f o r females. F i n a l l y , since i t has been demonstrated that the r e s u l t s may have occur-red without influence from sex s i m i l a r i t y , the whole issue of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between sex s i m i l a r i t y and empathy remains open and i n need of f u r t h e r study. To carry out a r e p l i c a t i o n , i t i s recommended t h a t : (a) the subjects should be tested, then re-tested with the same instrument, (b) i f the same instruments are used again, then the "Action" component of empathy i n the Discrimination Empathy Test be dropped or accounted f o r , (c) only two l e v e l s of empathic a b i l i t y , high, and low, be u t i l i z e d , and (d) e q u a l i t y of video-taped c l i e n t subtests of the A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale be ensured. I t i s also recommended that the fin d i n g s of hypothesis three be re-exam-ined. I t was found that the observer-counsellors were more empathic with male than with female video-taped c l i e n t s . This f i n d i n g , at l e a s t i n part, can be a t t r i b u t e d to the female video-taped c l i e n t items being more d i f f i c u l t than the male video-taped c l i e n t items. Olesker (Olesker and B a i t e r , 1972), i n her research, had eliminated several female video-taped c l i e n t items to 63. equalize the number of male and female items. No items were eliminated i n t h i s study. I t i s recommended, therefore, that Wendy Olesker be contacted to f i n d out which items she had eliminated. With t h i s information, the same items could be eliminated from the present data and the r e v i s e d data could then be re-analyzed and the fin d i n g s compared with those of Olesker (1971). A l l other hypotheses could a l s o be re-tested with the revised data. Further research i s recommended i n the development of hi g h l y r e l a t e d em-pathy instruments. As stated e a r l i e r , while low, the c o r r e l a t i o n of ,2k (p<.»02, df =108) between the instruments used i n t h i s study i s encouraging. C o r r e l a t i o n between the Discrimination Empathy Test and the female video-taped c l i e n t s i s an even more encouraging .32 (jo <. .01, df =108). Control of many of the l i m i t a t i o n s discussed above may r a i s e the degree of c o r r e l a -t i o n between the instruments. Research i n t o the instrument response s t y l e i s also strongly recommended. The problem here appears to be as much t h e o r e t i c a l as i t i s mechanical. A c l e a r understanding of the nature o f empathy and consistency i n d e f i n i t i o n are probably p r e r e q u i s i t e to deciding whether to use multiple choice, rank-i n g , r a t i n g , or some other system to assess empathic d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . A review of recent research (Goleraan, 1978) suggests th a t s c i e n t i s t s are on the threshold of new understanding about the r e l a t i o n between empathy and sex. I t appears that there are s i g n i f i c a n t sex differences i n b r a i n f u n c t i o n -i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n terms of b r a i n hemispheric arousal and s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and i n e l e c t r i c a l response l e v e l s , a l l of which play a r o l e i n a person's a b i l i t y to empathize with another's f e e l i n g s . The need f o r research i n t o empathy and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p with other v a r i -ables such as the sex v a r i a b l e i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s study i s beyond question. Since i t i s a most c r i t i c a l dimension i n the helping process, understanding of t h i s complex phenomenon i s imperative. 6U BIBLIOGRAPHY A l l p o r t , G. Personality, New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1937. Berenson, B.G., and R.R. Carkhuff. Sources of gain i n counseling and  psychotherapy. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1967. Brooks, L. Inte r a c t i v e e f f e c t s of sex and status on s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Journal of Counseling Psychology. 197U, 21(6), U69-U7U. Bryson, S., and J . Cody. Relationship of race and l e v e l of understanding between counselor and c l i e n t . Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1973, 20(6), U95-k98. Buchheimer, A. The development of ideas about empathy. Journal of  Counseling Psychology. 1963, 10(1), 61-70. Carkhuff, R.R. Helping and human r e l a t i o n s : A primer f o r l a y and  pro f e s s i o n a l helpers ( V o l . 1). S e l e c t i o n and t r a i n i n g . New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1969. Carkhuff, R.R., and B.G. Berenson. Beyond counseling and therapy. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1967. Cartwright, R.D., and B. Lerner. Empathy, need to change and improvement with psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, 27(2), 136-miu Daane, C.J., and L.G. Schmidt. Empathy and personality v a r i a b l e s . Journal of Educational Research. 1957, J>1, 129-135. Danish, S.J., and N. Kagan. Measurement of a f f e c t i v e s e n s i t i v i t y : Toward a v a l i d measure of interpersonal perception. Journal of Counseling  Psychology. 1971, 18(1), $l-5k. Davitz, J.R. (Ed.). The communication of emotional meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 196U. Dindtrovsky, L. The a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y the emotional meanings of vo c a l expressions a t successive age l e v e l s . In J.R. Davitz (Ed.), The  communication of emotional meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 196U. Ewing, T.N. R a c i a l s i m i l a r i t y of c l i e n t and counselor and c l i e n t s a t i s -f a c t i o n with counseling. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 197b, 21(5), UU6-ljlt9. Feshbach, N.D., and K.>Roe, Empathy i n s i x - and seven-year-olds. C h i l d  Development. 1968, 39, 133-Ui5. Gage, N., and L, Cronbach, Conceptual and methodological problems i n interpersonal perception. Psychological Review. 1955, 62(6), lill-U20. Goleman, D, Sp e c i a l a b i l i t i e s of the sexes: Do they begin i n the brain? Psychology Today. November 1978, pp. i*8-59j 120, 65 Grantham, R.J. Effects of counselor sex, race, and language style on black students i n i n i t i a l interviews. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1973, 20(6), 553-559. Hall, J.A. Gender effects i n decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological  Bulletin. 1978, 85(1*), 81*5-857. Halpem, H.M. Empathy, similarity, and self-satisfaction. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1955, 19(6), 1*1*9-1*52. Heilburn, A.B. Male and female correlates of early termination i n counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1961, 8(1), 31-36. H i l l , C E . Sex of client and sex and experience level of counselor. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1975, 22(1), 6-11. Hoffman, M.L. Sex differences i n empathy and related behaviors. Psycho-logical Bulletin. 1977, 8U(1*), 712-722. Jung, C.G. The collected works of C.G. Jung (Vol. 17). The development  of personality (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961*. Kagan, N., D, Krathwohl, A. Goldberg, R. Campbell, P. Schauble, B. Green-berg, S. Danish, A. Resnikoff, J. Bowes, and S. Bondy. Studies i n  human interaction: Interpersonal process r e c a l l stimulated by  yidepjitaP-e,. (Final Report RR-20, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.) East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, Educational Publication Services, 1967. Kurtz, R.R., and D.L. Grummon. Different approaches to the measurement of therapist empathy and their relationship to therapy outcomes^ Jo.urnal of Consulting and Cl i n i c a l Psychology. 1972, 39(1), 106-115. Luchins, A. A variational approach to empathy. Journal of Social  Psychology. 1957, 15, 11-18. Maccoby, E.E., and C.N. Jacklin. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, C a l i f . : Stanford University Press, 1971*. Mendelsohn, G.A., and M.H. Geller. Effects of client-centered similarity on the outcome of counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1963, 10(1), 71-77. Mendelsohn, G.A., and M.H. Geller, Similarity, missed sessions, and early termination. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1967, ll*(3), 210-215, Olesker, W.B. Physiognomic sensitivity, psychological differentiation, sexual similarity and empathy (Doctoral dissertation, New York Univer-s i t y , 1971), Dissertation Abstracts International. 1972, 32(7), 1*192B-1*193B. (University Microfilms No. 71-28, 551.) Olesker, W., and L, Baiter, Sex and empathy. Journal of Counseling  Psychology. 1972, 19(6), 559-562. 66 Resnikoff, A. A measure of discrimination for the prediction of counselor effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1972, 19(3), W>k-U65. Rotheriberg, B.B. Children's social sensitivity and the relationship to interpersonal competence, intrapersonal comfort, and intellectual l e v e l . Developmental Psychology. 1970, 2, 335-350. Scher, M. Verbal activity, sex, counselor experience, and success i n counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1975, 22(2), 97-101. Smith, H.C. Sensitivity to people. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Taft, R. The a b i l i t y to judge people. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, £2(1), 1-23. Taylor, C E . Counselor's level of empathic understanding as a function of counselor sex and client sex (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 3U(D, 1U3-A. (University Microfilms No. 73-16, 321.) Truax, C.B., and R.R. Carkhuff. Toward effective counseling and psycho-therapy: Training and practice. Chicago: Aldine, 1967. "" Tuma, A.D., and J.W. Gustad. The effects of client and counselor person-a l i t y characteristics on client learning i n counseling. Journal of  Counseling Psychology. 1957, U(2), 136-U|1. University of California, Los Angeles, Health Sciences Computing F a c i l i t y . BMDP2V - Analysis of Variance and Covariance Including Repeated Measures. Los Angeles: The Regents of the University of California, Copyright (C) 1977. Valentine, C.W. The relative r e l i a b i l i t y of men and women i n intuitive judgments of character. British Journal of Psychology, 1929, 19. 213-238. Wedek, J. The relationship between personality and psychological a b i l i t y . B r i t i s h Journal of Psychology. 19U7, 37, 133-155. Winer, B.J. S t a t i s t i c a l principles i n experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Wolf, R., and H.A. Murray. An experiment i n judging personalities. The  Journal of Psychology. 1937, J3, 3U5-365. 67 APPENDIXES 68 APPENDIX A MASTERS THESIS RESEARCH PROJECT The t e s t that you w i l l s h o r t l y be w r i t i n g i s the f i r s t part of a two-part study on empathy. The purpose of t h i s research i s to f u l f i l l the requirements of an MA t h e s i s f o r the researcher, Mr. Ian Hunt, Dept. of Counselling Psychology, Faculty of Education. In a n u t s h e l l , empathy i s the a b i l i t y of a person to understand the f e e l i n g s of another person, and f o r t h i s p r o j e c t , the emphasis i s on empathy as found i n a counselling or helping s i t u a t i o n , or i n a teaching s i t u a t i o n . The second p a r t of the research w i l l c o n s i s t of another, but s i m i l a r empathy t e s t . The t o t a l time involved f o r t h i s second t e s t w i l l be approximately one hour. This second part w i l l take place i n the l a s t week of March and may continue throughout A p r i l . Subjects f o r t h i s second t e s t w i l l be selected from those who agree to w r i t i n g the f i r s t t e s t . Thus, only about one-third of those who write the f i r s t t e s t w i l l be asked to write the second t e s t . Your cooperation and consent to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the research i s greatly appreciated. I f , however, you f e e l that you are unable to par-t i c i p a t e or would rather not p a r t i c i p a t e i n both parts, please f e e l f r e e to exercise that r i g h t and do not sign the consent form. For those who do wish t o p a r t i c i p a t e , please read and sig n the f o l l o w i n g Agreement of P a r t i c i p a t i o n , AGREEMENT OF PARTICIPATION I, » d o h e r e b y give consent (Name-Please P r i n t ) to my p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n both parts of Mr. Ian Hunt's MA. t h e s i s research p r o j e c t . I understand that any r i s k s involved w i l l be minimal and that a l l r e s u l t s w i l l remain c o n f i d e n t i a l to the researcher, Mr. Hunt. F i n -a l l y , I understand that I may withdraw from the project at any time, as provided by the s t i p u l a t i o n s of the O f f i c e of Research Administration. Signature: Date: 6 9 APPENDIX B Table A Summary of Test S t a t i s t i c s A f f e c t i v e S e n s i t i v i t y Scale S t a t i s t i c s 3 Discrimination Empathy Test Male video-taped c l i e n t s Female video-taped c l i e n t s b T o t a l T e s t c Number of items Hi 21 U6 (21) U2 Highest score Hi 19 35 (15.98) 32.15 Lowest score 0 5 11 (5.02) Hi.13 Mean 7.U5 12.81 22.66(10.34) 23.15 Standard d e v i a t i o n 3.07 2.83 U.88 (2.23) U.16 Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y .69 .U5 .60 (.72) .72 Standard e r r o r of measurement 1.6U 2.0U 3.07 (U.13) U.13 Croribach's alpha f o r composite .50 a n - 109 ^Numbers i n parentheses i n d i c a t e s t a t i s t i c s f o r female video-taped c l i e n t s weighted at .U56522 and are comparable to the s t a t i s t i c s f o r male video-taped c l i e n t s . c T o t a l t e s t i s a composite of male and weighted female video-taped c l i e n t s . 70 APPENDIX C Table B Correlations between Empathy Measuring Instruments Pearson Product Moment Empathy Measuring Instruments Correlation Coefficients 4 Discrimination Empathy Test Affective Sensitivity Scale (A.S.S.) .2U* Discrimination Empathy Test Male video-taped clients (A.S.S.) .10 Discrimination Empathy Test Female video-taped clients (A.S.S.) .32** A.S.S. Male video-taped clients (A.S.S.) .86** A • S • S * Female video-taped clients (A.S.S.) .77** Female video-taped clients (A.S.S.) Male video-taped clients (A.S.S.) .3U** ldf = 108 2 <.02 APPENDIX D Table C Empathy Means and Standard Deviations f o r Male and Female Observer-counsellors Observer-counsellors* M SD Male 22.19 3.95 Female 2U.38 U.30 Note: Maximum score = h.2 a n = U8 f o r each sex APPENDIX E Table D Empathy Means and Standard Deviations f o r Observer-counsellors of High, Medium, and Low Empathic A b i l i t y Empathic a b i l i t y of observer-counsellors 3 M SD High 2l*.32 3.5u Medium 23.01* 1*.U* Low 22.1*9 1*.1*8 Note: Maximum score = 1*2 n = 32 f o r each l e v e l of empathic a b i l i t y . APPENDIX F Table E Empathy Means and Standard Deviations Scored by Observer-counsellors f o r Male and Female Video-taped C l i e n t s Video-taped c l i e n t s M SD Male 12.79 2.28 Female 10.1*9 2.1U Note; Maximum score f o r each sex of video-ta ped c l i e n t s = 21. 7i* APPENDIX G Table F Percentage of Observer-counsellors More Empathic with Same Sex of Opposite Sex Video-taped C l i e n t s Observer-counsellors n Male 1*8 Female 1*8 T o t a l 9 6 Sex match of video-taped c l i e n t s Same sex {%) Opposite sex {%) 1*2.71 7.30 9.38 1*0.62 5 2 . 0 8 1*7.92 

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.831.1-0054336/manifest

Comment

Related Items