UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Investigation of the effectiveness of the laboratory experience in promoting self-actualization Vick, Judy Diana 1974

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 V53.pdf [ 5.22MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055679.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055679-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055679-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055679-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055679-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055679-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055679-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055679-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055679.ris

Full Text

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LABORATORY EXPERIENCE IN PROMOTING SELF-ACTUALIZATION by JUDY DIANA VICK B.Ed., University of Bri t i s h Columbia, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of (Guidance and Counselling) Faculty of Education We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 197k In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requ i rement s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia , I ag ree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f Guidance and Counselling The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date Ju^y 9 1974 ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of laboratory training i n promoting self-actualization i n fourth and f i f t h year Education students at the University of British Columbia. The experimental group was drawn from Education 435» the Guidance control group from Education 404, 426, 427, and the Mathematics control group from Education 499* A s t r a t i f i e d randomization procedure was used to assign a l l subjects within intact classes to pretest and posttest or posttest only conditions. The experimental group met twice weekly for two hour sessions over three months. Dr. E. Fiedler led the group i n a program that stressed experiential learning to improve personal and interpersonal growth i n communication, feelings, openness and awareness. His methods were those of an instrumented human relations laboratory where data supplied were members' behaviors as they participated i n various exercises and s k i l l training sessions. The control groups were Education classes with the purpose of learning techniques and methods f o r presenting material to high school students. The Personal Orientation Inventory (POl) was used as a criterion measure and was administered to half the entire group of subjects at the beginning of January, 1971 while the entire group was tested at the end of March, 1971. The results of this study indicated that there was no support for the hypothesis that the Laboratory group Is effective i n promoting s e l f -actualization i n university students as measured by the POI subscales. There were significant differences i n the ANOVA of posttest scores for Inner Direction, Feeling Reactivity and Spontaneity but these effects were removed by the ANCOVA analysis. The substantially lower Mathematics group i i means seem to account for the significant treatment effect for these three variables. There was a testing effect for Time Competence, Inner Direction, Existentiality, Self-Acceptance and Capacity for Intimate Contact. The groups who took the pretest scored significantly higher on these variables than those who took only the posttest. There were several limitations to the studyj the f i r s t was the sampling procedure. Intact classes were used rather than volunteer subjects. This presented two problems. Some of the subjects i n the Mathematics group were uncooperative. And the Mathematics group represented a population dissimilar to both the Guidance and Laboratory group as was revealed by the lower group means of the Mathematics group. Second, there were limitations i n the criterion measure. Since several items appear i n more than one subscale, the subscales of the POI are not independent and therefore are highly correlated. This makes the process of generalizing from the findings d i f f i c u l t i f not questionable. Third, the definition of self-actualization as described by Shostrom and measured by the POI i s only one way of examining this construct. And f i n a l l y with different sampling procedures and criterion measures the laboratory experience s t i l l may not have had an effect because of Insufficient intensity or duration. In future research i t would seem advisable to assign subjects to experimental and control groups randomly from a large i n i t i a l sample of volunteers requesting the same type of experience. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE L i s t of Tables.; v i L i s t of Figures • • v i i Acknowledgement of Assistance v i i i CHAPTER I Introduction • 1 Statement of the Problem and Hypothesis......... 3 Outline of the Study 3 Summary. 3 II Review of Literature...... 4 Self-Actualization and Related Literature 4 Laboratory Training and Related Literature 5 Statement of Hypotheses 13 Summary. 13 III Method 15 Design 15 Sample. • 16 Criterion Measure 20 Treatment 22 Data Collection and Analysis 25 Summary. •*•• 26 IV Results.. 27 Models for Data Analysis 3° Tests of Hypotheses 31 Treatment Effect 31 Pretest Effect • • • 35 i v CHAPTER PAGE No Effect 36 Summary... 37 V Summary1 Discussion and Conclusions.. 38 Summary 42 References. • 43 APPENDICES A Personal Orientation Inventory............. 46 B Exercises for the Group Experience by John Wallen 54 C Summary Analyses of Variance, POI Pretest for I n i t i a l Group Differences 67 D Intercorrelations and Correlations 70 E Distribution of Magnitudes of Intercorrelations.... 73 F Estimated R e l i a b i l i t y of POI Subscales 76 G Cell Means and Summaries of Analyses for Each Variable 77 v LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I Experimental Design to Test the Effects of a Personal Growth Laboratory Experience on University Students 17 II Numbers and Sex of Subjects Assigned to Pretest and Posttest Condition f o r Treatment and Control Groups. 18 III Summary Analyses of Variancei Pretest for I n i t i a l Group Differences on POI Subscales 28 IV Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for Twelve Dependent Variables by Groups 29 V Summary Table of ANOVA and ANCOVA for Treatment, Testing and Sensitization Effects 32 VI Group Mean Contrasts and Scheffe Tests...... 3^  vi LIST OP FIGURES PAGE APPENDIX E Distribution of Magnitudes of Intercorrelations of Pretest Scores for the POI 73 Distribution of Magnitudes of Intercorrelations of Posttest Scores f o r the POI 74 Distribution of Magnitudes of Intercorrelations of Pretest and Posttest Scores for the POI. 75 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ASSISTANCE I would l i k e to acknowledge and thank the members of my thesis committee, Drs. S. E. Marks, chairman, R. F. Conry, and W. L. Davis for sharing their knowledge and giving generously of their time. In addition, I would l i k e to thank my husband, Tony, for his invaluable support and encouragement. Finally, I would l i k e to thank the prayers of numerous people that gave me the strength to complete this paper. v i i i Chapter I Introduction In this thesis the relationship between two major areas are explored! self-actualization and group experiences. Both of these areas have received Increasing attention i n the f i e l d s of education, counselling and industry and r e f l e c t philosophical and theoretical processes which emphasize psychological health. The self-actualization construct and the group experience both draw upon the healthy personality and growth oriented theories presented by Allport (1955), Bugental (I965)t Maslow (195^ 1962), Rogers (1951, 1961), and Shostrom (1952, 1966). Self-actualization i s a core construct i n healthy personality and growth oriented theories. This construct, as used by Maslow (1954) and Rogers (1961) describes an individual who increasingly uses his endowments or potential to function with relative autonomy as well as interdependence. Additionally, a self-actualizing person uses time effectively, tends to l i v e In the present, possesses mutually rewarding interpersonal relationships and tends to have a benevolent outlook on l i f e and human nature (Gulbert, Clark and Bobele, 1968, p. 53). Several other authors have discussed self-actualization, but a l l definitions imply concensus ont (a) acceptance and expression of the inner core or self, i . e . , actualization of these latent capacities and potentialities.•. (b) minimal presence of i l l health, neurotic, psychosis... (Maslow, 1965, p. 308). In the l a s t twenty years the group movement has had a rapidly growing Impact on counselling and education. The group experience i s a forum for a broad spectrum of learnings which permeate many aspects of human relations. These include "increased authenticity, expanded awareness of self and environment, improved interpersonal relationships, discovery of 2 hidden capacities and potentials and increased learning efficiency... (Foulds and Guinan, 1965i P« 15)" for each individual. Other learnings included are personal growth, interpersonal competence and s e l f -actualization. Through an examination of the characteristics of self-actualization and the goals of a group experience, i t i s evident that they have commonalities. Both focus on self-disclosure, introspection, and openness which lead ultimately to self-acceptance and honesty. Their underlying aim i s to enable individuals to develop more congruence between self and experiences. Both are concerned with the development of healthy, integrated individuals. However, the crucial relationship between these two phenomena i s that the conditions which foster self-actualization are also the components of the group experience. The following characteristics of the laboratory or group experience lend themselves to the development of self-actualized individuals. F i r s t , the laboratory experience deals with present behavior and feelings i n which members become more acquainted with themselves and others. Second, i t stresses the constructive and positive aspects of each member. Third, members are able to develop alternate patterns of functioning because a psychologically safe environment i s fostered. Finally, each member i s furnished "information about his impact on others i n the group and feedback about the accuracy of the impression and feelings he derives from the behaviors of others (Dunnette and Campbell, 1968, p. 25)." Therefore, laboratory training can be seen as providing a medium for exploring one's behavior and i t s effect on others and f a c i l i t a t i n g the development of actualizing behavior. 3 Statement of the Problem and Hypothesis Many facets of the group movement have been investigated including the effect of the group experience i n promoting self-actualization, but the results of studies i n this area are as yet inconclusive. This i s the problem which this study addressed. The basic proposition underlying this research i s that a laboratory group i s effective i n promoting self-actualization i n university students. The Personal Orientation Inventory (POl) was used to assess the positive growth of these students. Outline of the Study The background, rationale and description of the problem have been outlined i n Chapter I. In Chapter II, a review of the relevant literature i s presented. Included i n this chapter i s a discussion of the theoretical formulations related to self-actualization and laboratory training. Chapter III i s composed of a discussion of the design, sample, procedures, treatment and the criterion measure used i n this study. The data are presented and interpreted i n Chapter IV, and the findings and conclusions are discussed i n Chapter V. Summary Self-actualization and the group experience are two major factors relevant to counselling and education. The group experience can be seen as a vehicle to achieve self-actualization. The theoretical foundations which support this premise are considered i n the following chapter. k Chapter II Review of Literature In this chapter the literature pertaining to the theoretical formu-lations underlying self-actualization and laboratory training i s reviewed. Self-actualization i s explored i n terms of i t s relation to Third Force theory and then defined and described more f u l l y . Following this discussion the theoretical framework underlying laboratory training i s examined including an account of i t s effectiveness i n promoting change. A statement of the hypotheses to be tested follows this review. Terms are defined as they appear i n the study. Self-Actualization and Related Literature The concept of psychological health i s based largely upon the Third Force theory of psychology. The Third Force embraces a number of related theories which include ego psychology, existentialism, humanistic psychology, phenomenology and rational psychology (Hall, 1965)* Included i n the group are Adlerians, Rankians, and Jungians as well as neo- and post-Freudians. The influence of Gestalt and Lewinian psychology and of personality psychologists such as Allport, Moreno and Murray has also been apparent within the movement (Maslow, 1962). Other major contributors can be grouped as self psychologists, Rogerian psychologists and growth psychologists. These numerous theories and theorists converge to form the Third Force movement because of their underlying concern to attain psychologically healthy men and societies by developing man to his f u l l e s t potential. The Third Force movement's emphasis on health can best be described by Maslow (1954» 1962) who viewed man as striving to attain his potential and called the process self-actualization, a term originally coined by Goldstein (1963). Other terms which later became synonymous with s e l f -5 actualization are Rogers' (1961) " f u l l y functioning person," Allport's (1963) "mature personality" and Bugental's (1965) "authentic personality." It would seem that these theorists are concerned with healthy growth and f u l l development of the individual. Healthy growth or psychological health as described i n this paper i s defined as growth toward self-actualization. The self-actualizer 1st a person who i s more f u l l y functioning and lives a more enriched l i f e than does the average person. Such a person i s seen as developing and u t i l i z i n g a l l of his unique capabilities, or potentialities, free of inhibitions and emotional turmoil of those less self-actualized (Shostrom, 1966, p. 5). Several objectively describable and measurable t r a i t s make up this construct. The following l i s t from Maslow's writings (1954, 1962) exemplifies the characteristics of the self-actualizing persont - Realistic orientation - Acceptance of se l f , others and the world - Spontaneity - Problem-centeredness, not self-centeredness - Detachment - Autonomy and independence - Appreciation - Spontaneity of experience - Identification with mankind - Deepness of interpersonal relationships - Democratic values and attitudes - Differentiation of ends and means - Philosophical humor - Creativeness - Resistant to conformity (Blocher, 1966, pp. 74-75), Thus, i t i s apparent that psychologically healthy people d i f f e r from the norm not only i n degree but also i n kind. Laboratory Training and Related Literature Laboratory training has a strong philosophical base i n Third Force theory. Laboratory training Is based on the assumption that man has the potential f o r self fulfillment, to grow and to become uniquely human. 6 Levin's F i e l d Theory which i s one of i t s major theoretical bases, stresses the importance of the individual and his relation to the group rather than the characteristics of the group. His five assumptions which underlie his conceptual system of the individual also underlie laboratory training. These arej (1) that the phenomena to be studied are what the individual perceives i n his environment} this assumption leads to the concept of the psychological f i e l d or l i f e space of the individual; (2) that a person occupies a position i n this l i f e space which i s related (near or distant) to the objects of which i t i s comprised; (3) that a person i s oriented towards goals, which ordinarily involve a change i n the relative positions of the individual and the objects i n the l i f e space; (4) that the individual behaves i n certain ways to achieve these goals, or locomotes; and (5) that i n the process of locomotion toward goals the individual may encounter barriers which have to be surmounted or circumvented, or which may result i n a change i n goals or i n l i f e space or i n both (Shepherd, 1964, pp. 24-25). In applying the F i e l d Theory approach to groups, the term individual i s changed to the term group. A group has a l i f e space, i t occupies a position relative to other objects i n this l i f e space, i t i s oriented toward goals, i t locomotes i n pursuit of these goals, and i t may encounter barriers i n the process of locomotion (Shepherd, 1964, p. 25). Based on these assumptions, Lewin (1952) identified three stages of change - unfreezing, changing and refreezing, which characterize the learning of new attitudes and behaviors during laboratory training. The f i r s t two stages are required conditions for change. Unfreezing i s similar to conditions proposed by Rogers (1961) i n achieving congruence such ast openness to experience, accurate awareness, absence of defensiveness, tolerating ambiguity and unconditional self-regard. During the f i r s t stage, feelings and attitudes of the group members as they relate 7 to the here-and-now content are the major focus. This i s often seen as the risk stage necessary for personal growth* This process Is the f i r s t step i n an individual's development towards self-actualization. Once the self i s open to experience, i t can begin to change by assimilating new perceptions derived from other members i n the form of constructive feedback and confrontation* This i s the second stage of growth i n which an individual gradually develops congruence between the way he sees himself and the way others see him. The third stage i s concerned with integrating whatever change occurs. Refreezing develops "as his perspective, his frame of reference shifts, he develops new beliefs about himself which, i n turn lead to new feelings and behavioral responses (Schein and Bennis, 1965, p. 276)." Lewin's theory of the process by which "fee individual changes from f i x i t y to changingness, from r i g i d structure to flow, or from stasis to process i s similar to Rogers (I96l) seven successive stages of personal growth which primarily involve a change i n the manner of experiencing. These seven successive stages i n psychotherapy involve the loosening of feelings, a change i n the manner of experiencing, a s h i f t from incongruence to congruence, a change i n the manner of communicating of the self to others, a loosening of the cognitive maps of experience, a change i n the individual's relationship to his problems, and l a s t l y , a change i n relating to others and expression of feelings i n relating to others. This classification seems to be useful i n understanding the process involved i n laboratory training. Laboratory training originated at Bethel Maine i n 1947 under the direction of L. Bradford, K. Benne, and R. Lipplt, a l l of whom were 8 influenced by Lewin. It providesi individuals with an opportunity to learn about themselves, obtain insight into behavior of others and gain an understanding of group processes. By interacting with others i n unstructured group situations i n which openness and emotional frankness are encouraged, i t i s claimed that individuals can become aware of behavioral inadequacies and perhaps modify their feelings, and attitudes and values (Myers, Myers, Ck>ldberg and Welch, 1969, p. 176). The essential characteristics of laboratory training aret (1) The trainer attempts to create a psychologically safe and permissive atmosphere. (2) Here-and-now data reflecting members' behavior and feelings are the focus. (3) Members are responsible for their learnings. (4) Members give and receive helpful feedback. From this description of the purposes and characteristics of laboratory training groups, i t i s log i c a l that they are used as vehicles f o r personal and interpersonal growth, or self-actualization, because they provide an environment which fosters growth. In examining the objectives of laboratory groups, Weschler, Massarik and Tannenbaum (1962) clearly point out that there has been a s h i f t from stressing the development of interpersonal s k i l l s and improvement of group functioning to a greater concern with an individual's understanding of himself and of his relationship with others. This change i n goals from a group dynamics focus to a personal and interpersonal focus would naturally place more emphasis on self-actualization as a possible goal. Thus, many laboratory training groups have become more concerned with the strengthening of the individual i n his desires to experience people and circumstance: more completely, to know himself more deeply and accurately, to find increased 9 fulfillment i n l i f e and to begin and continue a process of individual growth toward greater use of his total potential* This s h i f t toward personal growth i s clearly seen i n the goals of laboratory training outlined by Dunnette and Campbell (1968). These goals can be summarized as increased self-insight and increased sensitivity to the behavior of others. Understanding of group functioning and diagnostic s k i l l i n interpersonal relationships are heightened. And f i n a l l y the a b i l i t y to evaluate interpersonal behavior i s achieved. This goal statement closely parallels the description of the components of self-actualization which are f i r s t the emphasis on health, that i s , man's basic striving to grow and change and second, the emphasis on fulfillment, that i s , man's basic striving to achieve his potential. Consequently, growth i n accordance with the guidelines of the laboratory method would be tantamount to developing self-actualization i n the group members because each of these goals implies healthy development of one's potential. Measuring change as a result of laboratory training Dunnette and Campbell (1968) noted that some changes may occur after training. Other reviews of literature by House (1964), Stock (1964) and Buchanan (1965) reported that laboratory training i s effective as a means of f a c i l i t a t i n g change* The following research substantiates the use of laboratory groups to promote changes i n the direction of psychological health. Smith (1964), French, Sherwood and Bradford (1966), and Oshry and Harrison (1966) a l l using a middle management group as the sample, described the following changes. Smith (1964) examined changes i n attitudes toward social behavior, specifically control and affection behaviors, using Schutz's FIRO as a measure. The FIRO Questionnaire was completed near the beginning and again 10 neax the end of the management course. Those managers who participated i n human relations training were compared with those who did not. A definite change i n attitude, that i s , less need for control and greater need for affection, was found for "the group i n training but not for the group excluded from training. French et a l . , (1966) demonstrated a relationship between the amount of feedback that a person received i n a human relations training laboratory and the amount of change that occurred i n self-identity. They concluded that i a person's self-Identity i s influenced by the opinions that others have of him which they communicate to him and that the more that i s communicated, the more change there i s i n s e l f -identity. The data also suggest that the state of the individual plays a part as well - for the more he i s dissatisfied with his self-perceptions the more l i k e l y he i s to change them (p. 218). Oshry and Harrison (1966) also reported changes i n organizational settings. After a laboratory experience the managers i n their study perceived their work problems less impersonally and realized they were more directly involved i n the problems. Research has been conducted evaluating the effects of laboratory experiences on many different kinds of groups with mixed results. "Laboratory training does effect change i n participants but there i s conflicting evidence on the permanence and application of new attitudes and behavioral styles (Ck>lembiewski and Blumberg, 1970, p. 43l)»" Several studies have considered change specifically i n terms of self-actualization using the Personal Orientation Inventory (POI) as a criterion measure. Culbert et a l . , (1968) evaluated the effectiveness of sensitivity training groups for advanced university students aimed at increasing self-actualization which was measured by the POI. Two groups 11 of ten students, each with the same two co-trainers participated i n this study. Before sensitivity training began the POI was administered to Group 1 who scored significantly higher than Group 2 which indicates the two groups differed i n i t i a l l y . After sensitivity training Group 2's POI mean scores increased significantly (p>.05) on four scalest Inner Direction, Spontaneity, Synergy and Capacity f o r Intimate Contact; while Group l * s remained about the same. It would seem that participants who presently hold self-actualizing behaviors do not change, while those who have not acquired these behaviors change considerably after sensitivity training i n the direction of more self-actualizing behaviors and beliefs. Guinan and Foulds (1970) reported that POI scores of the experimental group changed i n a positive direction following a weekend marathon experience f o r ten college students, while none of the mean scores for the control group showed significant change. On"seven of the 12 scales, significant changes (p>.05) i n mean scores occurred. These weret Inner Direction, Existentiality, Feeling Reactivity, Spontaneity, Self-Acceptance, Acceptance of Aggression, Capacity f o r Intimate Contact. One limitation, excluding sample size, i s the difference between pretest mean scores of the experimental and control group. It i s d i f f i c u l t to compare two groups whose i n i t i a l scores are extremely different, with the former being lower than the latter. Groups that begin with high mean scores do not show as much change as those that begin with low mean scores. Another recent study exploring the effects of a personal growth group as an agent f o r fostering increased levels of self-actualization was conducted by Foulds (1970). He hypothesized that a group of college students who participated i n a personal growth group experience of nine weekly sessions (four hours each) would demonstrate significant positive changes in 12 POI scores while a nontreatment group controlled f o r pretest scores would not. The experimental group was composed of ten female and ten male undergraduate college students ranging from freshman (18 years) to seniors (22 years) who had requested to participate i n a growth group experience. An equal number of control subjects was selected from a population of 164 students who completed the POI i n an educational psychology course. Therefore, the groups differed as the experimental group was composed of volunteers while the control group was not. The group experience emphasized exploring and expressing of present feelings concerning self and other group members. A climate of safety and trust was established to f a c i l i t a t e the taking of risks and the communication of honest and open needs and desires. Behavioral f l e x i b i l i t y (learning to acquire the a b i l i t y to act appropriately i n varying interpersonal situations) and sensory awareness were also encouraged. Through removing social facades, members began to communicate openly and authentically, to understand themselves more r e a l i s t i c a l l y , and to realize their potentials more accurately. The results showed that following the group experience, the experi-mental group mean scores changed i n a positive direction on a l l POI scales; for eight of twelve scales these changes were significant at the .05 l e v e l , while for six scales (inner Direction, Existentiality, Feeling Reactivity, Spontaneity, Self-Acceptance, and Capacity f o r Intimate Contact) the significant changes occurred i n control group mean scores. These results concurred with Culbert et a l . , (1968) who found positive changes i n POI scores after sensitivity training. These three empirical studies suggested that the POI might be successfully employed to measure changes as a result of the group experience. 13 The scales on which the most changes reoccurred appear to be Inner Direction, Existentiality, Feeling Reactivity, Spontaneity, Self-Actualizing Values and Capacity f o r Intimate Contact. The laboratory training group seems to be an effective method fo r fostering increased self-actualization and the personal growth process i n normal university students. The POI appears to provide a comprehensive measure of values and behavior which seem to be of importance i n self-actualization development. Statement of Hypotheses The basic proposition underlying this research was to examine the effectiveness of a laboratory group i n promoting self-actualization i n college students. The POI was used as a criterion measure to assess the positive growth of these students. Thus the hypotheses are l o g i c a l l y generated i n consideration of the empirical research underlying this fundamental premise. A statement of the hypothesis i n the substantiative form to be tested i n this study i s that a group of people going through laboratory training w i l l demonstrate larger gains i n self-actualization as measured by the POI than a group not exposed to the same treatment. The specific hypotheses to be tested aret Hit The Laboratory group shall make larger gains i n Time Competence than either of the two control groups. There are twelve hypotheses and H 2 through K L 2 take the same form as HI. These eleven hypotheses are the same for each subscale of the POI. A l l these hypotheses were tested at the five percent level of confidence. Summary There i s empirical and theoretical support for the proposition that laboratory training i s effective i n promoting self-actualizing behaviors, values and precepts i n i t s members. Personal growth can be assessed by the POI i n an objective and reliable manner. The specific hypotheses that were used to test the problem were elaborated. Chapter III Method The methodology is discussed in Chapter three. First, the experimental design and then the sample used are described. Second, the criterion measure and the treatment are discussed and finally, the data collection, procedures, and analyses are outlined. Design In this study, i t was essential to adopt a design which would test the effects of a treatment condition on a group of subjects over a period of time. It was necessary to consider a design that would enable measures to be taken before and after the treatment. VanDalen (1962) explained that a one-group design permits the treatment to be influenced by extraneous variables such ast history, maturation, testing effects, statistical regression and instrument decay. Therefore, by including a control group which i s not exposed to the treatment, the assumption i s strengthened that the independent variable is entirely responsible for the change in the dependent variable. However, randomization of subjects to experimental and control groups was not possible due to the use of intact classes. But subjects were randomly assigned to testing conditions within intact classes. Since i t was also desirable to control for Interaction between the measuring instrument and the treatment, the Solomon four-group design, which includes a pretest was adopted (Campbell;and Stanley, 1970} VanDalen, 1962). In this study the Solomon four-group design was extended by adding another control group and shall hereafter be designated the Solomon six-group design. This design overcame the limitation in studies reported by Guinan and Foulds (1970) and Culbert et a l . , (1968) in which experimental and control groups differed on pretest mean POI scores which made comparing groups difficult. 16 In this design, half the entire group of subjects were administered the POI before the treatment began. Then, a one-way analysis of variance was computed on the pretest scores to check whether the groups were comparable. This Solomon six-group design was used as i t f u l f i l l s the requirements f o r this study and i t controls f o r effects other than the experimental treatment, as elaborated by Campbell and Stanley (1970). Table I Illustrates how the design was implemented. Each of the above groups was randomly divided into two subgroups. A l l subgroup a's were pretested and posttested, while a l l subgroup b's were only posttested. Group l a and lb both received the treatment while groups 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b were excluded from the treatment. Sex was controlled by a s t r a t i f i e d randomization technique which maintained heterogeneous groups because significant differences between male and female scores were found by Shostrom (1966) using the POI as a criterion measure. The size and sex composition of the three groups i s described i n Table II. Unequal c e l l sizes were unavoidable i n this design because the eligible members for each condition varied. Sample The subjects i n this study were fourth and f i f t h year Education students enrolled at the University of British Columbia. They were selected from three sourcesi the experimental group from Education 435, the Guidance control group from Education 404, 426, 427 and the Mathematics control group from Education 499» Education 435 was described i n the University of British Columbia Calendar for the year 1970-71 as an« Introduction to the Study of Individuals and Groups - an exploration of self awareness i n relation to the classroom 17 TABLE I Experimental Design to Test the Effects of a Personal Growth Laboratory Experience on University Students Groups Jan. 4-15/71 Mar. 22-31/71 l a Laboratory lb Laboratory 2a Guidance 2b Guidance 3a Mathematics 3b Mathematics Pretest Pretest Pretest Treatment Treatment Control Control Control Control Posttest Posttest Posttest Posttest Posttest Posttest 18 TABLE II Numbers and Sex of Subjects Assigned to Pretest and Posttest Condition for Treatment and Control Groups Treatment Group Control Groups Testing Condition Laboratory Group Mathematics Group Guidance Group Total Male Female Male Female Male Female Posttest only 5 15 10 2 11 14 57 Pre & Post-test 5 9 7 2 9 13 5^ Total 10 24 17 4 20 27 102 19 and other groups (p. L47). Before the course began, the students were given the choice of writing a paper or becoming an active, regular member of the group. The latt e r students met twice weekly for two hour sessions over a period of three months. The general focus was on experiential learning i n the areas of communication, trust, openness, sensory awareness and self-exploration. These specific areas are considered i n more detail i n the treatment section of this chapter. Education 435 students are hereafter referred as the "Laboratory" treatment group. The students enrolled i n Education 404, 426 and 427 were chosen because they represented a population similar to the experimental group, in that, these students were studying guidance and counselling which provided an orientation comparable to the experimental group. The focus was not aimed at experiential learning but concentrated on methods and techniques useful for a guidance program. The purpose of choosing this group was to compare growth between a similar population of individuals who received no treatment and one which did. This group w i l l be hereafter designated as the ''Guidance" control group. Education 499 consisted of mathematics students who were chosen because they represented a population dissimilar to the experimental group as their orientation was toward the theoretical aspect of mathematics. The emphasis i n this course was on methods and techniques of mathematics instruction applicable i n secondary schools. Education 499 students are hereafter referred to as the "Mathematics" control group. Only those students who had not or were not taking Education 435 were included i n the control groups. The total sample consisted of one hundred and two subjects of which 20 thirty-four were in the Laboratory group, forty-seven i n the Guidance control group and twenty-one i n the Mathematics control group. In the f i r s t group there were ten men and twenty-four women, while i n the second, there were twenty men and twenty-seven women. The l a s t group consisted of seventeen men and four women. Criterion Measure The Personal Orientation Inventory (POI) developed by Everett Shostrom (1966) was used as a measure of self-actualization i n this study. A copy of the POI i s included i n Appendix A. It consists of 150 two-choice comparative value and behavior judgments empirically selected from a pool of value judgment problems submitted by practicing therapists. The instrument has two major scales, the Time Ratio, which deals with effective use of time and Support Ratio, which deals with inner- and outer-direction. In addition, there are ten secondary scales. Each scale measures a conceptually relevant aspect of self-actualization ( i l a r d i and May, 1968). Each item on the scale i s scored twice, f i r s t for Time Competence (23 items) and Inner Direction (127 items) and second for the remaining ten subscales. A description of the scales by Shostrom (1966, p. 6) are as followst Time Ratio (Tc) Time Incompetence/Time Competence measures degree to which one i s present-oriented (23 items). Support Ratio (i) Other/Inner measures whether reac-t i v i t y orientation i s basically towards others or self (127 items). Self-Actualization Value (SAV) measures affirmation of a primary value of self-actualization people (26 items). Existentiality (Ex) measures a b i l i t y to react situa-tionally or existentially without r i g i d adherence to principles (32 items). 21 Feeling Reactivity (Fr) measures sensitivity of respon-siveness to one's own needs and feelings (23 items). Spontaneity (s) Self Regard Self Acceptance (Sa) Nature of Man (Nc) Synergy (Sy) Acceptance of Aggression (A) Capacity f o r Intimate Contact (C) measures freedom to react spontaneously or to be oneself (18 items). measures affirmation of self because of worth or strength (16 items). measures affirmation of acceptance of self i n spite of weaknesses or deficiencies (26 items). measures degree of the constructive view of "the nature of man, masculinity, femininity (l6 items). measures a b i l i t y to be synergistic, to transcend dichotomies (9 items). measures a b i l i t y to accept one's natural aggressiveness as opposed to defensiveness, denial and repression of aggression (25 items). measures a b i l i t y to develop contactful intimate relationships with other human beings, unencumbered by expec-tation and obligations (28 items). Several validity studies have been reported on the POI. Shostrom (1964) showed the effectiveness of the POI i n differentiating between c l i n i c a l l y judged self-actualized and non-self-actualized groups. In another study by Shostrom and Khapp (1966), i t was found that a l l twelve POI subscales were significantly higher fo r an advanced therapy group than for a beginning one. Fox (1965) showed that the POI significantly differentiated between a hospitalized group and a group of individuals selected as self-actualized by judges and also between a hospitalized and normal adult group. Additional support for the valid i t y of the POI can be found on normal 22 populations. Graff, Bradshaw, Danish, Austin and Altekruse (1970) demonstrated that several of the POI variables corresponded with student's ratings i n predicting effectiveness of dormitory assistants. McGlaln (1970) showed that nine of the twelve POI scales correlated significantly with highly reliable judges ratings of self-actualized individuals. These two studies offer evidence that the POI does measure self-actualization among normal adults. Only two r e l i a b i l i t y studies on the POI have been reported. KLavetter and Mogar (1967) reported test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients ranging from •52 to .82 on the twelve subscales over a one week interval. Lower test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients of .32 to .71 were found by H a r d i and May (1968) because they used a one year interval. Comparing these r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients f o r comparable groups and time intervals with other well-established personality inventories such as the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, showed that the POI r e l i a b i l i t i e s were comparable to the r e l i a b i l i t i e s of these two instruments ( i l a r d i and May, 1968). Norms for the POI are presented i n the manual for three different groups1 college students, selected occupational groups and c l i n i c a l groups (Shostrom, 1966). The college students comprise the largest sample (607) for which norms are given i n percentiles. For a l l three groups, there are plotted profiles, means and standard deviations. However, there i s no information about the group on which standardized scores were based, except to note, that the p r o f i l e sheet was constructed from adult norms. Treatment The treatment group, Education 435» met twice weekly for two hour sessions beginning the f i r s t week of January to the f i r s t week of Apr i l , 23 1971* Dr. E. Fiedler led the group during these sessions. The content of this course was mainly a group experience with the members contributing the data i n the here-and-now and concentrating on the persons and relationships that existed within the group i t s e l f . One primary aim was that students gain awareness of their feelings and qualities of the experience that underlie a l l interpersonal relations, and frequently govern behavior. Another purpose was to provide an experience-based study of the group process. It was expected that the students would gain some awareness, i n factors contributing to group feelings such as cohesiveness, trust and cooperation. Basically, the methods were those of an instrumented human relations laboratory i n which data studied were the behaviors of the members of the class as they participated i n various exercises and s k i l l training sessions, which resulted i n feelings such as trust, warmth, anxiety or other emotional states. Actions and reactions were related to theory. The processes occurring i n this group were similar to the outline presented i n the discussion of laboratory training. In this laboratory training group, three primary areas were considered. F i r s t , the development of communication s k i l l s was stressed i n order to improve Interpersonal relations. As Egan (1970) explaineds when a man enlarges the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of his language, he enlarges his own p o s s i b i l i t i e s . The laboratory gives him the opportunity to extend the range of language i n order to contact himself and others at deeper levels. In the safety of the laboratory, he can run risks i n his use of language that he could not take i n everyday l i f e (p. I63). To improve the use of language and aid the development of communication between participants, exercises outlined by John Wallen were used. Examples of these exercises are contained i n Appendix B. Secondly, a broad range of 24 techniques were implemented to build a climate of trust and openness i n the group. Trust i s absolutely essential for growth and this condition seems to precede openness, that i s , talking about oneself i n such a way as to reveal the real self to others. To achieve the development of trust and openness, the trainer used the microlab which i s a "kind of f e s t i v a l of communication games that involves many different kinds of exercises -verbal, nonverbal without physical contact, nonverbal with physical contact and mixtures (Egan, 1970, p. 180)." An example of a microlab exercise i s Fantasy and Communication at the Zoo. The class i s s p l i t into small groups. Each person names an animal and gives an explanation to the question "If my place of work were a zoo, my job would be held by a ." Other techniques employed were exercises suggested by Gunther (1968) which stress sensory awareness, and by Otto (1966) which stress self-actualization explorations. Thirdly, dealing with here-and-now feelings and content was carried out i n unstructured sessions with the group s i t t i n g i n a c i r c l e . For growth to occur, data presented by the participants must be based on openness and self-disclosure and this condition was maintained as much as possible by the trainer and the participants. In summary these participants experimented with and engaged i n responsible forms of communication, support, self-disclosure, expression of feelings, confrontation and self-exploration. Growth in interpersonal effectiveness was "considered to take place through practice i n establishing a responsible and viable dialogue of words and feelings among the members of the group (Egan, 1970, p. 7 9 ) T h e treatment centered around strengthening the participant i n his desires to experience people and circumstances more completely, to know himself more deeply and accurately, to find increased fulfillment i n l i f e and to begin and continue a process of individual growth 25 toward greater use of his total potential. Data Collection and Analysis The pretest POI data were gathered for half the experimental group i n the f i r s t meeting of the class before the group began the treatment or met the trainer. The subjects i n the pretest control group were tested over a period of two weeks during this same time period. Some of these classes used for controls had been i n session f o r four months, others were just beginning the session. The entire experimental group was posttested three months later during the second l a s t class session, again to ensure f u l l attendance. Absentee subjects were tested by appointment at a later time. Testing for experimental and control groups was scheduled at different times because of the restriction on available f a c i l i t i e s and to ensure maximum cooperation of the students involved. The author personally administered the POI to each group. The majority of subjects i n these groups were very willing to cooperate. However, some subjects resented being volunteered by their Instructor, losing the time involved or completing the POI. Thus, some of these subjects were uncooperative and hostile. Ramifications of these reactions w i l l be discussed further i n Chapter V. The POI was given as a pretest prior to the instructional period to determine the equivalence of the three groups. To ascertain this equivalency a one-factor analysis of variance was performed on the experimental and control groups' pretest mean scores. To test the null hypotheses, one through twelve, a series of analyses of variance and covariance were performed. These analyses were computed independently for each subscale. Because the subscales on the POI overlap, that i s , the 150 items are 26 used twice, f i r s t i n two major scales and second, i n the ten minor scales; correlation between the following variables and variable pairs were determinedj (l) Pretest scores, (2) Posttest scores, (3) Pretest and Posttest scores. These correlations and their Implications are discussed i n Chapter IV and V. Summary A Solomon six-group design was used to assess the effectiveness of laboratory training i n promoting self-actualization i n fourth and f i f t h year education students at the University of British Columbia. Intact classes were used for the experimental and control groups, however a st r a t i f i e d randomization procedure was employed to assign a l l subjects to pretest and posttest or posttest only conditions. The control group also consisted of education students enrolled i n fourth or f i f t h year at the University of British Columbia. The treatment group met twice weekly for two hour sessions f o r a period of three months. The group followed a program that emphasized experiential learning to improve personal and interpersonal growth i n the areas of communication, trust, openness, sensory awareness and se l f -exploration. Both control groups were classes engaged i n learning techniques and methods for presenting material to high school students. Half of the entire group of subjects were administered the POI at the beginning of January, 1971| while the entire group was tested at the end of March, 1971. Analyses of variance and covariance were performed on these test results. Intercorrelations among the twelve subscales were computed. 27 Chapter IV Results The results are presented i n this chapter. The means and standard deviations are given f o r the twelve dependent variables i n the pretest and posttest conditions. Correlations among pretest and posttest scores are presented and discussed. Data were analyzed by means of analysis of variance and covariance, hereafter referred to as ANOVA and ANCOVA. These results are summarized and discussed separately for each POI subscale. A series of one-factor ANOVAs was performed on each of the twelve POI pretest means to test for i n i t i a l differences among experimental and control groups. The results of these analyses are summarized i n Table 3 and indicate no i n i t i a l differences among the groups. Therefore, for the purpose of this study i t was assumed that the groups were comparable i n terms of their POI scores. Appendix C contains complete summaries of the one-factor ANOVA on the POI pretest for each of the twelve variables. The experimental and control groups' pretest and posttest mean scores and standard deviations for the twelve POI scales axe presented i n Table IV. On several of the variables the pretest and posttest means for the Mathematics group are somewhat lower than those for the Guidance or Laboratory group. The posttest differences are tested f o r significance. Intercorrelations among pretest measures, among posttest measures, and correlations between pretest and posttest measures on POI scales are presented i n Appendix D. This procedure was entered into because each POI variable was measured independently. Most striking are the consistently high correlations between Inner Direction and the other scales. KLavetter and Mogar (1967) also found this to be the case i n their study. An examination as to the make-up of Inner Direction reveals that i t draws 28 TABLE III Summary Analyses of Variancet Pretest for I n i t i a l Group Differences on POI Subscales Group Means Variable F (2,54) Laboratory Guidance Mathematics Time Competence 16.24 17.19 16.69 <1.00 Inner Direction 87.00 85.78 85.46 <1.00 Self-Actualizing Values 20.65 20.63 20.00 <1.00 Existential!ty 22.06 21.11 22.92 1.14 Feeling Reactivity 16.00 15.85 14.92 <1.00 Spontaneity 12.41 12.30 11.62 <1.00 Self-Regard 12.24 12.52 12.85 <1.00 Self-Acceptance 16.88 16.78 15.77 <1.00 Nature of Man 12.24 12.52 11.92 <1.00 Synergy 7.29 7.37 8.23 2.45 Acceptance of Aggression 16.24 15.89 16.70 <1.00 Capacity for Intimate Contact 18.24 17.89 18.38 <1.00 TABLE IV Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for Twelve Dependent Variables by Groups Guidance Mathematics Laboratory Dependent Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Variables Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Time Competence 17.36 3.05 17.32 3.26 16.78 3.56 15.38 2.58 15.86 2.48 16.62 3.04 Inner Direction 86.55 12.00 87.79 14.14 83.OO 13.63 80.14 12.13 85.86 9.56 88.38 9.35 Self-Actualizing 2.56 Values 20.55 3.80 20.14 3.46 19.33 3.^ 3 19.00 3.41 20.21 3.02 20.97 Existentiality 21.05 3.62 21.94 4.80 22.33 4.85 20.62 4.26 21.79 3.^ 5 22.59 3.92 Feeling Reactivity 15.95 2.34 16.34 3.06 14.22 4.63 14.29 2.94 15.86 2.28 16.97 2.49 Spontaneity 12.50 2.81 12.04 3.31 10.78 3.77 9.81 3.54 11.93 2.06 12.94 2.27 Self-Regard 12.91 2.60 12.62 2.64 13.00 1.87 12.29 2.26 11.93 2.06 11.62 2.37 Self-Acceptance 17.05 3.57 I6.83 3.19 15.11 3.76 14.71 3.21 16.50 3.74 16.03 3.44 Nature of Man 12.68 1.67 12.66 1.81 12.22 2.22 12.14 I.85 12.07 1.82 12.47 1.60 Synergy 7.50 1.34 7.17 1.36 8.22 0.97 7.43 1.16 7.00 1.36 7.62 1.21 Acceptance of 16.44 15.86 16.44 2.87 Aggression 16.09 2.96 16.43 3.30 2.55 15.38 3.93 2.54 Capacity for 17.67 16.62 3.56 3.06 Intimate Contact 18.18 3.40 18.21 4.44 3.20 I8.50 2.79 18.53 ro 30 heavily upon the items i n the other ten scales which would account for the high correlation between i t and the other scales. To i l l u s t r a t e the magnitude of the intercorrelations, a bar graph has been devised f o r i pretest POI scores, posttest POI scores, pretest and posttest POI scores. These are found i n Appendix E. The r e l i a b i l i t y studies on the POI by KLavetter and Mogar (1967) and ILardi and May (1968) are f u l l y described i n Chapter II. Their r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients ranged from .55 to .85 i n the 1967 study and from .32 to .71 i n the 1968 study. The POI manual bases i t s r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients on the KLavetter and Mogar (1967) study. Appendix F presents these test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients, along with those from this study, for each of the twelve variables. In this study, the r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients ranged from •57 to .94. Only the Mathematics and Guidance groups' POI scores were used. Models for Data Analysis Each of the following twelve n u l l hypotheses were tested according to the following algorithm» (1) Perform ANOVA on the posttest scores, estimating effects of Treatment (T), Pretest Condition (P), and the Interaction of T and P (T X P). (2) Perform ANCOVA on the posttest scores of subjects (Ss) who took the pretest, estimating the effect of treatment after removing the pretest variation on the same subscale. For each subscale, a set of three tables i s presented below1 (1) the summary of the ANOVA. (2) the summary of the ANCOVA. (3) a table of c e l l means, differentiated by treatment condition and pretest condition, and including adjusted c e l l means from 31 the ANCOVA. The purpose of the ANOVA for each scale i s to determine whether that subscale i s subject to testing effects or to diff e r e n t i a l pretest sensitization. The treatment effect can be only guardedly evaluated, by comparing any observed significance with the corresponding ANOVA on the pretest scores for the same scale with the corresponding ANCOVA because subjects were not randomly assigned to treatment groups. For the ANCOVA the object i s to estimate the significance of the treatment effect. Interpretations of any significant group differences obtained i n this analysis are conditional upon whether testing or sensitization effects are found i n the corresponding two-way ANOVA. Tests of Hypotheses The hypotheses w i l l be examined as to whether there was a treatment effect, a pretest effect or no effect. In each category the hypotheses w i l l be treated together as a group. Treatment effect H2t Inner Direction H5i Feeling Reactivity H6I Spontaneity The s t a t i s t i c a l n u ll hypotheses which correspond to these ares (a) i n the ANOVA, there w i l l be no significant differences among the group means. (b) in the ANCOVA, there w i l l be no significant differences among the three adjusted group means. For the above three hypotheses a significant treatment effect was indicated by the ANOVA of posttest scores (see Table V). There was no sensitization effect. A testing effect was shown for Inner Direction but 32 TABLE V Summary Table of ANOVA and ANCOVA for Treatment, Testing and Sensitization Effects Hypotheses F(T) ANOVA F(P) F(TxP) ANCOVA F(T) Time Competence 2.75 7.62* 0.12 2.68 Inner Direction 3.27* 5.42* 0.19 1.48 Self-Actualizing Values 2.41 1.34 0.23 0.70 Existentiality 1.36 8.17* 0.04 2.39 Peeling Reactivity 5.58* 2.05 0.10 O.85 Spontaneity 6.29* 0.93 0.51 1.53 Self-Regard 1.52 3.37 0.10 0.35 Self-Acceptance 2.63 6.83 0.54 0.49 Nature of Man 0.49 2.84 0.25 0.26 Synergy 1.20 3.39 0.82 2.12 Acceptance of Aggression 0.58 3.55 1.48 0.40 Capacity for Intimate Contact 1.75 5.44* 0.01 0.55 P>.05 33 not f o r Feeling Reactivity or Spontaneity. Appendix G presents c e l l means and summaries of analyses. Of the three possible mean comparisons, the difference between the Guidance group and the Laboratory group i s the smallest. For Inner Direction, a l l three groups who took the pretest obtained higher scores on the posttest, while those who only took the posttest scored significantly below the Pretest and Posttest group. A practise effect i s Indicated. The covariate used i n the ANCOVA was the set of pretest values for each variable. No significant treatment effect was found (see Table V). It was f e l t necessary to find -the source of the significant ANOVA effect f o r "Treatment". Scheffe's method for two-factor analysis of variance post-hoc comparisons (see eg. Kirk, 1968, pp. 90-91)"*" was employed to construct pairwise contrasts f o r Guidance versus Mathematics and Guidance versus Laboratory group means. The results of this analysis are given i n Table VI for these three hypotheses. For Inner Direction the absolute differences IG - XM and TG - Th were less than S, therefore these contrasts were not significant. Given the significant main effects of 3TMs test i s defined i n Kirk (1968) ast S = MSerror ft. <3.< 4 C * - 1 ) F - 5 V l v 2 where, k Number of treatment levels F V-jV2 Tabled value of F for VjV 2degrees of freedom MS Mean Square Cj Coefficient of the Contrast nj Number of scores i n the treatment level i s the Guidance group mean XM i s the Mathematics group mean TL i s the Laboratory group mean 34 TABLE VI Group Mean Contrasts and Scheffe Tests Variable Group Means XM Group XG XL Inner Direction XM 80.14 - 7.65 8.24** XG 87.79 - • 59 XL 88.38 -Feeling Reactivity XM 14.29 - 2.05* 2.68** XG 16.34 - .63 XL 16.97 -Spontaneity XM 9.81 - 2.23* 3.13** * XG 12.04 - .90 XL 12.94 -*Scheffe Test significance @ .05 **assumed to be significant @ .05 35 "group" i n the ANOVA, XM - XL i s assumed to be significant. For Feeling Reactivity and Spontaneity the absolute difference X~G - XM was greater than S, therefore, these contrasts were significant. The absolute differences XG - XL were less than S, therefore, these contrasts were not significant. Since the absolute difference XM - XL being larger i s assumed to be significant for both of these variables. The treatment effect for these hypotheses appears to be accounted for by the Mathematics group mean being substantially lower than the means of the other two groups. Null hypotheses H2a, H5a and H6a which postulated no significant group differences i n the ANOVA are rejected. The ANCOVA did not result i n the rejection of null hypotheses H2b, H5b and H6b. Pretest effect HI: Time Competence H4i Existentlality H81 Self-Acceptance KL2i Capacity for Intimate Contact The s t a t i s t i c a l n ull hypotheses which correspond to these ares (a) i n the ANOVA, there w i l l be no significant differences among the group means. (b) i n the ANCOVA, there w i l l be no significant differences among the three adjusted group means. The ANOVA of posttest scores revealed a testing effect but no signi-ficant treatment or sensitization effect as shown i n Table V. In a l l three groups, those who took the pretest obtained higher scores on the posttest on the above four subscales. This indicates a practise effect on these variables. Cell means and summaries of analyses are reported i n Appendix G. There 36 was l i t t l e difference among the Guidance, Mathematics or Laboratory group means after treatment. The covariate used in the ANCOVA was the set of pretest values for each of the above four variables. No significant treatment effect was revealed as reported in Table V. Null hypotheses HI, H4, H8 and KL2 are not rejected. No effect H3i Self-Actualizing Values H7i Self-Regard H9i Nature of Man H101 Synergy Hll i Acceptance of Aggression The statistical null hypotheses which correspond to these arei (a) in the ANOVA, there wil l be no significant differences among the group means. (b) in the ANCOVA, there wi l l be no significant differences among the three adjusted group means. No treatment, testing or sensitization effects were found in the ANOVA for the above hypotheses. Appendix G presents cel l means and summaries of analyses for these five hypotheses. The Guidance, Mathematics and Laboratory group means show l i t t l e difference after treatment. A summary table showing treatment, testing and sensitization effects for each hypothesis i s found in Table V. In the ANCOVA the covariate used was the set of pretest values for each variable. There was no significant treatment effect. Null hypotheses for 37 H3, H7, H9, H10 and H21 are not rejected. Summary A series of one-factor AHOVAs was performed on each of the 12 POI pretest means to test for i n i t i a l differences among experimental and control groups. No i n i t i a l differences among the groups were found. A testing effect was found i n the ANOVA of the posttest scores f o r Time Competence, Inner Direction, Existentiality, Self-Acceptance and Capacity fo r Intimate Contact. No sensitization effect was revealed for any of the twelve dependent variables. The ANOVA of posttest scores f o r Inner Direction, Feeling Reactivity and Spontaneity revealed a treatment effect. However, no significant treatment effect was found i n the ANCOVA. Subsequently Scheffe^s method for two-factor analysis of variance for post-hoc comparisons was employed to construct pairwise contrasts for Guidance versus Mathematics and Guidance versus Laboratory group means. The substantially lower Mathematics group means seem to account for the significant treatment effect for these variables. 38 Chapter V Summary. Discussion and Conclusions The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a laboratory group i n promoting self-actualization i n university students by using the POI as a basis from which to judge the positive growth of these students. Twelve hypotheses were generated and tested at the fiv e percent level of confidence. The substantive hypotheses took the form that the Laboratory group would make larger gains than the Guidance or Mathematics groups. Significant differences were found f o r hypotheses H2a, Inner Direction; H5a, Feeling Reactivity; and H6a, Spontaneity as revealed by the significant treatment effect i n the ANOVA of posttest scores. However, by controlling for effects of these i n i t i a l differences by means of ANCOVA in which the covariate was the pretest, no hypothesis was supported. The correlation for these variables between pretest and posttest was very high; and i t seems l i k e l y that removing the effects of the pretest l e f t only error variance to be analyzed, thus making i t impossible to detect any significant difference. Therefore, there was no support for the hypothesis that the Laboratory group i s effective i n promoting self-actualization i n university students as measured by the subscales of the POI. In using Scheffe's post-hoc comparison for two-factor analysis of variance, i t was found that the treatment effect f o r hypotheses H2a, Inner Direction; H5a, Feeling Reactivity; and H6a, Spontaneity; seemed to be accounted for mainly by the fact that the Mathematics group means were substantially lower than both the Guidance and Laboratory group means. The orientation and training of persons i n the Mathematics group had been quite different from that of persons in the Guidance or Laboratory 39 groups. In the f i r s t group the emphasis was on the theoretical aspects of mathematics while i n the other two, the emphasis was on awareness of self and others, although the content and methods varied. The method of presentation was generally lecture i n the first} while i n the l a t t e r i t was discussion, role-playing and small group interaction. It would therefore seem that the Mathematics group would attract persons of a different orientation and concern than the Guidance and Laboratory groups. This may pa r t i a l l y account for the fact that the Mathematics group means were substantially lower than the means of the other two groups. Further research of college groups with similar orientation and training appears to be needed to determine which factors are associated with POI score changes. Another reason the Mathematics group means were substantially lower than the other two groups may have been their h o s t i l i t y to participating i n the study. A l l Ss were involved through the cooperation of their instructors. Several individuals i n the Mathematics group resented giving their time to do the POI. This may have affected subsequent scores. In the Laboratory and Guidance group there was more cooperation and willingness to complete the POI. Although there were a few individuals who resented being involved, there was much less h o s t i l i t y i n this group. It may be that these two groups f e l t more sympathetic with the experimenter's objectives. In future research, where possible, voluntary participation of Ss would be more desirable than required participation of Ss as this would decrease reactive arrangements as described by Campbell and Stanley (1970, pp. 20-21). Five variables showed a testing effect. These aret Time Competence, Inner Direction, Existentiality, Self-Acceptance and Capacity f o r Intimate Contact. It seems that those groups who took the pretest scored significantly higher on these variables than those who took only the 40 posttest. The POI was used both as a pretest and posttest measure. Campbell and Stanley (1970, p. 9) point out that people taking the same measurement again usually do better than those taking i t the f i r s t time. To decrease the effect of testing, future studies should consider different pretest and posttest measures. A limitation of this study i s the sampling procedure. Intact classes were used rather than volunteer subjects. This presented problems i n that several subjects i n the Mathematics group were uncooperative. Another d i f f i c u l t y i s that the control subjects represented two specific yet very different orientations, one being Guidance and the other being Mathematics. The Mathematics group represented a population dissimilar to both the Guidance and Laboratory group as was revealed by the lower group means of the Mathematics group. It would therefore seem advisable i n future research to assign subjects to experimental and control groups randomly from a large i n i t i a l sample of volunteers requesting the same type of experience. Another limitation was the POI i n that the subscales are highly correlated. This i s due to the fact that each item on the scale i s scored twice} f i r s t for Time Competence and Inner Direction, and second for the remaining ten subscales. Therefore, these variables are not independent which makes generalizations i n this study d i f f i c u l t . It also makes the s t a t i s t i c a l procedures very complex. The POI may also be questioned as to i t s construct validity as the same item appears i n more than one subscale score and the number of items per scale varies from eight to one hundred and twenty-three. Also, the definition of self-actualization as described by Shostrom and measured by the POI i s only one way of examining this construct. There may be other values and behaviors that comprise self-actualization. Another problem i s 41 whether the definition of self-actualization as measured by the POI i s the same objective as expressed by the leader of the Laboratory group i n this study. It i s d i f f i c u l t to say whether the laboratory experience would have an effect with different sampling procedures and criterion measures. It i s also possible that the laboratory experience may not have been sufficiently intensive to produce the desired changes as i t was given only twice a week for two hours over a three month period. An important implication of this study i s that with the use of ANOVA and ANCOVA rather than gain-score comparisons, the Laboratory group did not show any larger gains than the Mathematics or Guidance group on any of the twelve POI variables. No other studies could be located that used data analytic procedures other than the common c r i t i c a l ratio or t test i n examining group experiences that foster self-actualization as measured by the POI. In applying the t test, two ts are computed, one for the pretest/ posttest difference i n the experimental group and one f o r the pretest/post-test gain i n the control group. These differences or gain scores are highly unreliable because of the large standard error. It seems that further research i s needed using the procedures of ANOVA and ANCOVA to determine how effective the group experience i s i n fostering s e l f -actualization. Another Important implication i s that i n i t i a l group differences were taken into account. In research by Culbert et a l . , (1968), Guinan and Foulds (1970) and Foulds (1970), their groups differed i n i t i a l l y , which might be expected to effect their results. It would seem that where equivalent groups are used, no significant differences were found, but where non-equivalent groups were used significant differences were found 42 on the POI variables f o r the personal growth group. The significant differences could very well be due to i n i t i a l differences rather than changes i n the groups. Summary This study demonstrated that there was no support for the hypothesis that the Laboratory group i s effective i n promoting self-actualization i n university students as measured by the POI subscales. However, significant differences were found among the Guidance, Mathematics and Laboratory group means in the ANOVA of posttest scores for Inner Direction, Feeling Reactivity and Spontaneity. But these significant effects were removed by the ANCOVA analysis. The significant treatment effect for Inner Direction, Feeling Reactivity and Spontaneity seem to be accounted for by the substantially lower Mathematics group means. Whether the Mathematics group means were substantially lower because of the kind of students attracted to mathematics or of their h o s t i l i t y i n participating i n the study i s open to question. Limitations of the sampling procedures and the criterion measures were discussed. It seems that further research i s needed using the procedures of ANOVA and ANCOVA to determine how effective the group experience i s i n fostering self-actualization. Also, further research i s required using voluntary subjects where i n i t i a l group differences are taken into account. 43 References Allport, G. W. Becoming. New Havenj Yale University, 1955. Allport, G. W. Patterns and growth i n personality. New Yorki Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963. Bellack, L. (Ed.) Handbook of community psychiatry and community mental health. New Yorkt Grune & Stratton, 1 9 6 4 . Bennett, G. L. (Ed.) Community psychology! A report of the Boston  conference on the education of psychologists f o r community mental health. Boston: Boston University, 1966. Blocher, D. H. Developmental counseling. New York: Ronald Press, 1966. Bradford, L. P., Gibb, J . R., & Benne, K. D. (Ed.) T-group theory and laboratory method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964. Brammer, L. M., & Shostrom, E. L. Therapeutic psychology! Fundamentals of counseling and psychotherapy. New YorktPrentice-Hall, i960. Buchanan, P. C. Evaluating the effectiveness of laboratory training i n industry. Explorations i n Human Relations Training and Research. Report  No. 1. 1965. Washington1 National Training Laboratories. Bugental, J. F. T. The search for authenticity. New Yorkt Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965. Burke, R. L., & Bennis, W. G. Changes i n perception of s e l f and others during human relations training. Human Relations. 1961, 14, I65-I82. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J . C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs  for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970. Clark, J. V. Authentic interaction and personal growth i n sensitivity training groups. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 1966, 2.* 1-13• Culbert, S. A., Clark, J. V., & Bobele, H. K. Measures of changes towards self-actualization i n two sensitivity training groups. Journal of  Counseling Psychology. 1968, 15.(1), 53-57• Dunnette, M. D., & Campbell, J. P. Laboratory education: Impact on people and organizations. Industrial Relations. 1968, 8(1), 1-27. Egan, G. Encountert Group processes for interpersonal growth. Californiat Wadsworth, 1970. Foulds, M. L., & Guinan, J. F. The counseling service as a growth center. Personnel and Guidance Journal. 1969, 48, 111-118. Foulds, M. L. Effects of a personal growth group on a measure of se l f -actualization. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 1970, 3,0, 33-38. 44 Fox, J. On the c l i n i c a l use of the personal orientation inventory (POl). Unpublished manuscript, 1965• French, J. R. P., Sherwood, J. J., & Bradford, D. L. Change i n s e l f -identity i n a management training conference. Journal of Applied  Behavioral Science. 1966, 2(2), 210-218. Goldstein, K. The organism. Bostoni Beacon Press, 1963« Golembiewski, R. T., & Blumberg, A. (Ed.) Sensitivity training and the  laboratory approach. Illinois t F. E. Peacock, 1970. Graff, R. V., Bradshaw, H. E., Danish, S. J., Austin, B. A., & Alterkruse, M. The POIJ A val i d i t y check. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1970, 20, 429-432. Guinan, J. F., & Foulds, M. L. Marathon groupt F a c i l i t a t o r of personal growth? Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1970, 1Z(2), 145-149. Gunther, B. Sense relaxation below your mind. New Yorkj Collier, 1968. Hall, C. Personality theory revisited and re-evaluated. Paper presented at the American Personnel and Guidance Association Convention, Minneapolis, April 1965* House, R. J. T-group training! A review of empiric evidence and an appraisal. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, 1964. I l a r d i , R. L., & May, W. T. A r e l i a b i l i t y study of Shostrom's personal orientation inventory. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 1968, 8, 68-72. Kirk, R. E. Experimental designt Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Californiat Brooks Cole, 1968. KLavetter, R. E., & Mogar, R. E. Stability and internal consistency of a measure of self-actualization. Psychological Reports. 1967» 21, 422-424. Lewin, K. F i e l d theory i n social science. England: Tavistock Publications, 1952. Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality. New Yorkt Harper and Row, 1954. Maslow, A. H. Toward a psychology of being. Princetont D. Van Nostrand, 1962. Maslow, A. H. Eupsychian managementt A .journal. I l l i n o i s ! Irwin, 1965* McClain, E. W. Further validation of the personal orientation inventory. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 1970 , 35.(2), 21-22. Myers, G. E., Myers, M. T., Goldberg, A., & Welch, C. E., Effects of feedback on interpersonal sensitivity i n laboratory training groups. Journal of  Applied Behavioral Science. 1969, 1(2), I75-I85. 45 Oshry, B. I., & Harrison, R. Transfer from here-and-now to there-and-then: Changes i n organizational problem diagnosis stemming from T-group training. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 1966, 2(2), 185-198. Otto, H. A. (Ed.) Explorations i n human potentialities. I l l i n o i s j Charles C. Thomas, 1966. Rogers, C. Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1951. Rogers, C. On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1961. Schein, E. H., & Bennis, ¥. G. Personal and organizational change through  group methods: The laboratory approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965. Shepherd, C. R. Small groups. San Francisco: Chandler, 1964. Shostrom, E. L., & Brammer, L. M, Dynamics of the counseling process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1952. Shostrom, E. L. An inventory for the measurement of self-actualization. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1964, 24(2), 207-21?. Shostrom, E. L. Personal orientation inventory manual. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1966. Shostrom, E. L., & Khapp, R. R. The relationship of a measure of s e l f -actualization (POI) to a measure of pathology (MMPl) and to therapeutic growth. American Journal of Psychotherapy. 1966, 20, 193-202. Smith, P. B. Attitude changes associated with training i n human relations. British Journal of Social and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 1964, 2, 104-112. Stock, D. A survey of research on T-groups. In L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb, & K. D. Benne, (Ed.), T-group theory and laboratory method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964, 395-441. Thomas, H. F. Self-actualization through the group experience. Journal  of Humanistic Psychology. 1964, 4, 39-44. Van Dalen, D. B. Understanding educational research. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Weschler, I. R., Massarik, F., & Tannenbaum, R. The self i n process: A sensitivity training emphasis. In I. Weschler, & E. Schein (Ed.), Issues  i n sensitivity training. Washington: National Training Laboratories, 1962, (5), 33-46. APPENDIX A P E R S O N A L O R I E N T A T I O N I N V E N T O R Y t i 1 DIRECTIONS Ph.D. V Section of Answer Column Correctly Marked a b i . I a b 2. ;•: 1 This inventory consists of pairs of numbered statements. Read each statement and decide which of the two paired statements most consistently applies to you. You are to mark your answers on the answer sheet you have. Look at the example of the answer sheet shown at the right. If the first statement of the pair is TRUE or MOSTLY TRUE as applied to you, blacken between the lines in the column headed "a". (See Example Item 1 at right.) If the second statement of the pair is TRUE or MOSTLY TRUE as applied to you, blacken be-tween the lines in the column headed "b". (See Example Item 2 at right.) If neither statement ap-plies to you, or if they refer to something you don't know about, make no answer on the answer sheet. Remember to give YOUR OWN opinion of yourself and do not leave any blank spaces if you can avoid it. In marking your answers on the answer sheet, be sure that the number of the statement agrees with the number on the answer sheet.. Make your marks heavy and black. Erase completely any answer you wish to change. Do not make any marks in this booklet. Remember, try to make some answer to every statement. Before you begin the inventory, be sure you put your name, your sex, your age, and the other information called for in the space provided on the answer sheet. NOW OPEN THE BOOKLET AND START WITH QUESTION 1. •p;^;^.^-r, . . . ..- . ..v, - • . . i')g^ j§S^ -< • -' • ©copyright 1962 by Everett L. Shostrom • -ij£>!%£;. ® Copyright 1963 by Educational & Industrial Testing Service EDUCATIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL TESTING SERVICE S A N D I E G O . C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 1 O 7 47 1. a. I am bound by the principle of fairness. b. I am not absolutely bound by the principle of fairness. 2. a. When a friend does me a favor, I feel that I must return it. b. When a friend does me a favor, I do not feel that I must return it. 3. a. I feel I must always tell the truth, b. I do not always tell the truth. 4. a. No matter how hard I try, my feelings are often hurt. b. If I manage the situation right, I can avoid being hurt. 5. a. I feel that I must strive for perfection in everything that I undertake. b. I do not feel that I must strive for perfection in everything that I undertake. 6. a. I often make my decisions spontaneously, b. I seldom make my decisions spontaneously. 7. a. I am afraid to be myself. b. I am not afraid to be myself. 8. a. I feel obligated when a stranger does me a favor. b. I do not feel obligated when a stranger does me a favor. 9. a. I feel that I have a right to expect others to do what I want of them. b. I do not feel that I have a right to expect others to do what I want of them. 10. a. I live by values which are in agreement with others. b. Hive by values which are primarily based on my own feelings. 11. a. I am concerned with self ^ improvement at all times. b. I am not concerned with self-improvement at all times. 12. a. I feel guilty when I am selfish. b. I don't feel guilty when I am selfish. 13. a. I have no objection to getting angry, b. Anger is something I try to avoid. 14. a. For me, anything is possible if I believe in myself. b. I have a lot of natural limitations even though I believe in myself. •15. a. I put others' interests before my own. b. I do not put others' interests before my own. 16. a. I s o m e t i m e s f ee l e m b a r r a s s e d by compliments. b. I am not embarrassed by compliments. 17. a. I believe it is important to accept others as they are. b. I believe it is important to understand why others are as they are. 18. a. I can put off until tomorrow what I ought to do today. b. I don't put off until tomorrow what I ought to do today. 19. a. I can give without requiring the other person to appreciate what I give. b. I have a right to expect the other person to appreciate what I give. 20. a. My moral values are dictated by society, b. My moral values are self-determined. 21. a. I do what others expect of me. b. Ifeelfreeto not do what others expect of me. 22. a. I accept my weaknesses. b. I don't accept my weaknesses. 23. a. In order to grow emotionally, it is necessary to know why I act as I do. b. In order to grow emotionally, it is not neces-sary to know why I act as I do. 24. a. Sometimes I am cross when I am not feeling well. b. I am hardly ever cross. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 25. a. It is necessary that others approve of what I do. b. It is notalways necessary that others approve of what I do. 26. a. I am afraid of making mistakes. b. I am not afraid of making mistakes. 27. a. I trust the decisions I make spontaneously. b. I do not trust the decisions I make spontaneously. 28. a. My feelings of self-worth depend on how much I accomplish. b. My feelings of self-worth do not depend on how much I accomplish. 29. a. I fear failure. b. I don't fear failure. 30. a. My moral values are determined, for the most part, by the thoughts, feelings and de-cisions of others. b. My moral values are not determined, for the most part, by the thoughts, feelings and de-cisions of others. 31. a. It is possible to live life in terms of what I want to do. b. It is not possible to live life in terms of what I want to do. 32. a. I can cope with the ups and downs of life. b. I cannot cope with the ups and downs of life. 33. a. I believe in saying what I feel in dealing with others. b. I do not believe in saying what I feel in deal-ing with others. 34. a. Children should realize that they do not have the same rights and privileges as adults. b. It is not important to make an issue of rights and privileges. 35. a. lean "stickmy neck out" in my relations with others. b. Iavoid "stickingmy neck out" in my relations with others. 36. a. I believe the pursuit of self-interest is op-posed to interest in others. b. I believe the pursuit of self-interest is not opposed to interest in others. 37. a. I find that I have rejected many of the moral values I was taught. b. I have not rejected any of the moral values I was taught. , 38. a. I live in terms of my wants, likes, dislikes and values. b. I do not live in terms of my wants, likes, dis-likes and values. 39. a. I trust my ability to size up a situation. b. I do not trust my ability to size up a situation. 40. a. I believe I have an innate capacity to cope with life. b. I do not believe I have an innate capacity to cope with life. 41. a. I must justify my actions in the pursuit of my own interests. b. I need not justify my actions in the pursuit of my own interests. 42. a. I am bothered by fears of being inadequate, b. Iam not bothered by fears of being inadequate. 43. a. I believe that man is essentially good and can be trusted. b. I believe that man is essentially evil and can-not be trusted. 44. a. I live by the rules and standards of society. b. I do not always need to live by the rules and standards of society. 45. a. I am bound by my duties and obligations to others. b. I am not bound by my duties and obligations to others. 46. a. Reasons are needed to justify my feelings, b. Reasons are not needed to justify my feelings. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 49 47. a. There are times when just being si lent is the best way I can express my feelings. b. I find it difficult to express my feelings by just being silent.• 48. a. I often feel it necessary to -defend my past actions. b. I do not feel it necessary to defend my past actions. 49. a. I like everyone I know. b. I do not like everyone I know. 50. a. Criticism threatens my self-esteem. b. Criticism does not threaten my self-esteem. 51. a. I believe that knowledge of what is right makes people act right. b. Idonot believe that knowledge of what is right necessarily makes people act right. 52. a. I am afraid to be angry at those I love, b. I feel free to be angry at those I love. 53. a. My basic responsibility is to be aware of my own needs. b. My basic responsibility is to be aware of others' needs. 54. a. Impressing others is most important, b. Expressing myself is most important. 55. a. To feel right, I need always to please others. b. I can feel right without always having to please others. 56. a. I will risk a friendship in order to say or do what I believe is right. b. I will not risk a friendship just to say or do svhat is right. 57. a. I feel bound to keep the promises 1 make. b. I do not always feel bound to keep the promises I make. 58. a. I must avoid sorrow at all eosts. b. It is not necessary for me to avoid sorrow. 59. a. I strive always to predict what will happen in the future. b. I do not feel it necessary always to predict what will happen in the future. 60. a. It is important that others accept my point of view. b. It is not necessary for others to accept my point of view. 61. a. I only feel free to express warm feelings to my friends. b. I feel free to express both warm and hostile feelings to my friends. 62. a. There are many times when it is more im-portant to express feelings than to carefully evaluate the situation. b. There are very few times when it is more im-portant to express feelings than to carefully evaluate the situation. 63. a. I welcome criticism as an opportunity for growth. b. I do not welcome criticism as an opportunity for growth. 64. a. Appearances are all-important. b. Appearances are not terribly important. 65. a. I hardly ever gossip. b. I gossip a little at times. 66. a. I feel free to reveal my weaknesses among friends. b. I do not feel free to reveal my weaknesses among friends. 67. a. I should always assume responsibility for other people's feelings. b. I need not always assume responsibility for other people's feelings. 68. a. I feel free to be myself and bear the consequences. b. I do not feel free to be myself and bear the consequences. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 50 69. a. I already know all I need to know about my feelings. b. As life goes on, I continue to know more and more about my feelings. 70. a. I hesitate to show my we akne s s e s among strangers. b. I do not hesitate to show my weaknesses among strangers. 71. a. I will continue to grow only by setting my sights on a high-level, socially approved goal. b. I will continue to grow best by being myself. 72. a. I accept inconsistencies within myself. b. I cannot accept inconsistencies within myself. 73. a. Man is naturally cooperative, b. Man is naturally antagonistic. 74. a. I don't mind laughing at a dirty joke, b. I hardly ever laugh at a dirty joke. 75. a. Happiness is a by-product inhuman relationships. b. Happiness is an end in human relationships. 76. a. I only feel free to show friendly feelings to strangers. b. I feel free to show both friendly and unfriendly feelings to strangers. 77. a. I try to be sincere but I sometimes fail, b. I try to be sincere and I am sincere. 78. a. Self-interest is natural, b. Self-interest is unnatural. 79. a. A neutral party can measure a happy relation-ship by observation. b. A neutral party cannot measure a happy rela-tionship by observation. 80. a. For me, work and play are the same, b. For me, work and play are opposites. 81. a. Two people will get along best if each con-centrates on pleasing the other. b. Two people can get along best if each person feels free to express himself. 82. a. I have feelings of resentment about things that are past. b. I do not have feelings of resentment about things that are past. 83. a. I like only m a s cu line men and feminine women. b. I like men and women who show masculinity as well as femininity. 84. a. I actively attempt to avoid embarrassment whenever I can. b. I do not actively attempt to avoid embarrassment. 85. a. I blame my parents for a lot of my troubles, b. I do not blame my parents for my troubles. 86. a. I feel that a person should be silly only at the right time and place. b. I can be silly when I feel like it. 87. a. People should always repent their wrong-doings. b. People need not always repent their wrong-doings . 88. a. I worry about the future. b. I do not worry about the future. 89. a. Kindness and ruthlessness must be opposites. b. Kindness and ruthlessness need not be opposites. 90. a. I prefer to save good things for future use. b. I prefer to use good things now. 91. a. People should always control their anger, b. People should express honestly-felt anger. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 51 92. a. The truly spiritual man is sometimes sensual, b. The truly spiritual man is never sensual. 93. a. I am able to express my feelings even when they sometimes result in undesirable consequences. b. I am unable to express my feelings if they are likely to result in undesirable consequences. 94. a. I am often ashamed of some of the emotions that I feel bubbling up within me. b. I do not feel ashamed of my emotions. 95. a. I have had mysterious or ecstatic experiences. b. I have never had mysterious or ecstatic experiences. 96. a. I am orthodoxly religious. b. I am not orthodoxly religious. 97. a. I am completely free of guilt, b. I am not free of guilt. 98. a. I have a problem in fusing sex and love, b. I have no problem in fusing sex and love. 99. a. I enjoy detachment and privacy. b. I do not enjoy detachment and privacy. 100. a. I feel dedicated to my work. b. I do not feel dedicated to my work. 101. a. lean express affection regardless of whether it is returned. b. I cannot express affection unless I am sure it will be returned. 102. a. Living for the future is as important as living for the moment. b. Only living for the moment is important. 103. a. It is better to be yourself, b. It is better to be popular. 104. a. Wishing and imagining can be bad. b. Wishing and imagining are always good. 105. a. I spend more time preparing to live, b. I spend more time actually living. 106. a. I am loved because I give love, b. I am loved because I am lovable. 107. a. When I really love myself, everybody will love me. b. When I really love myself, there will still be those who won't love me. 108. a. I can let other people control me. b. lean let other people control me if I am sure they will not continue to control me. 109. a. As they are, people sometimes annoy me. b. As they are, people do not annoy me. 110. a. Living for the future gives my life its primary meaning. b. Only when living for the future ties into living for the present does my life have meaning. 111. a. I follow diligentlythe motto, "Don't waste your time. " b. Idonot feel bound by the motto, "Don't waste your time.n 112. a. What I have been in the past dictates the kind of person I will be. b. What I have been in the past does not neces-sarily dictate the kind of person I will be. 113. a. It is important to me how I live in the here and now. b. It is of little importance to me how I live in the here and now. 114. a. I have had an experience where life seemed just perfect. b. I have never had an experience where life seemed just perfect. 115. a. Evil is the result of frustration in trying to be good. b. Evil is an intrinsic part of human nature which fights good. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 5 2 116. a. A person can completely change his essential nature. b. A person can never change his essential nature. 117. a. I am afraid to be tender. b. I am not afraid to be tender. 118. a. I am assertive and affirming. b. I am not assertive and affirming. 119. a. Women should be trusting and yielding. b. Women should not be trusting and yielding. 120. a. I see myself as others see me. b. I do not see myself as others see me. 121. a. It is a good idea to think about your greatest potential. b. A person who thinks about his greatest poten-tial gets conceited. 122. a. Men should be assertive and affirming. b. Men should not be assertive and affirming. 123. a. I am able to risk being myself. b. I am not able to risk being myself. 124. a. I feel the need to be doing something signifi-cant all of the time. b. I do not feel the need to be doing something significant all of the time. 125. a. I suffer from memories. b. I do not suffer from memories. 126. a. Men and women must be both yielding and assertive. b. Men and women must not be both yielding and assertive. 127. a. I like to participate actively in intense discussions. b. I do not like to participate actively in intense discussions. 128. a. Iam self-sufficient. b. I am not self-sufficient. 129. a. I like to withdraw from others for extended periods of time. b. I do not like to withdraw from others for ex-tended periods of time. 130. a. I always play fair. b. Sometimes I cheat a little. 131. a. Sometimes I feel so angry I want to destroy or hurt others. b. I never feel so angry that I want to destroy or hurt others. 132. a. I feel certain and secure in my relationships with others. b. I feel uncertain and insecure in my relation-ships with others. 133. a. I like to withdraw temporarily from others. b. I do not like to withdraw temporarily from others. 134. a. I can accept my mistakes. b. I cannot accept my mistakes. 135. a. I find some people who are stupid and uninteresting. b. I never find any people who are stupid and uninteresting. 136. a. I regret my past. b. I do not regret my past. 137. a. Being myself is helpful to others. b. Just being myself is not helpful to others. 138. a. I have had moments of intense happiness when I felt like I was experiencing a kind of ecstasy or bliss. b. I have not had moments of intense happiness when I felt like I was experiencing a kind of bliss. GO ON TO Till: NEXT PAGE 53 139. a. People have an instinct for evil. b. People do not have an instinct for evil. 140. a. For me, the future usually seems hopeful, b. For me, the future often seems hopeless. 141. a. People are both good and evil. b. People are not both good and evil. 142. a. My past is a stepping stone for the future, b. My past is a handicap to my future. 143. a. "Killing time" is a problem for me. b. "Killing time" is not a problem for me. 144. a. For me, past, present and future is in mean-ingful continuity. b. For me, the present is an island, unrelated to the past and future. 145. a. My hope for the future depends on having friends. b. My hope for the future does not depend on having friends. 14(5. a. I can like people without having to approve of them. b. I cannot like people unless I also approve of them. 147. a. People are basically good. b. People are not basically good. 148. a. Honesty is always the best policy. b. There are times when honesty is not the best policy. 149. a. I can feel comfortable with less than a perfect performance. b. I feel uncomfortable with anything less than a perfect performance. 150. a. I can overcome any obstacles as long as I be-lieve in myself. b. I cannot overcome every obstacle even if I believe in myself. APPENDIX B 54 Conn Tractive Openness Rarely do two persons talk openly about their reactions to each other's actions. Most of us withhold our feelings about the other (even in relations that are very important or dear to us) because we fear hurting the other, making him angry, or being rejected by him. Because we don't know how to be constructively open we say nothing. The other continues totally unaware of our reaction to his nc'o.cns. Likewise, we continue ignorant of the effect our actions produces in him. As a result many relationships that could be productive and enjoyable gradually founder and sink under the accumulated load of tiny annoyances., hurt feelings and misunder-standings that were never talked about openly. The following points increase the probability that openness will improve a relation-ship rather than harming i t . 1. Openness must stem from a der,ire to improve your relationship with the other. Openness is not an end in itself but a means to an end. We are not open with people about whom we do not care. When attempting to elicit an open sharing of reactions to each other, try to convey that this encounter indicates that you value your relation with the other and wish to improve it because i t is important. 2. Aim at creating a shared understanding of your relationship. You wish to know how the. other perceives and feels about your actions. You wish him to know how you perceive and feel about his actions. (See "The Interpersonal Gap.") Each of you, thus, will view the relationship from more nearly the same viewpoint. 3. R.ecognize that openness involves risk- taking , You cannot receive a maximum guarantee with minimum risk. Your willingness to risk your self-esteem, being rejected or hurt by the other, etc. depends upon the importance of the relation-ship to you. Likewise, you cannot ask that the other guarantee not to become angry or feel hurt by your comments. The important point is that you are willing to risk his being himself -- whatever he feels -- in the effort to make the encounter into a learning situation for both of you, 4. Although the discussion may become intense, spirited, angry, or tearful, i t should be noncoercive and not an attempt, to get the other to change. Each should use the information as he sees f i t . The attitutde should not be "Who's wrong and who's right?" but "What can each of us learn from this discussion that will make our working together more productive and more satisfying?" As a result of the discussion one, both, or neither of you may act differently in the future. Each, however, will act with fuller awareness of the effect of his actions on the other as well as with more understanding of the other's intentions. Any change, thus, will be self-chosen rather than to placate or su';:-rj t to the other. 5.' Timing is important. Reactions should be shared as close to the behavior that aroused them as possible so that the other will know exactly what behavior is being discussed. For example, behavior during the encounter itself can be ccn:.:.enteu on. E.G., "What you just sr.id if. tho 1: Lad of remark that makes me feel pushed away." 6. Disturbing situations should be cUccuf.r.od as I hoy occur rathe-: than saving un mms ivc ncciuv.u]at:inns of hurt fool ingr: and c.'.w.ovr.-M-o an-? t'unvi jnp, thor.i cn the O!:1H';- ;.;!]. i; C'.K: t.'Ii.e. 55 Consti'uctivc Openness - Page 2 7. Paraphrase the other's comments about you to make sure you understand them as he intends them. Check to make sure the other understands your comments in the way you intend them. 3. Statements are more helpful if they are . . . ...Specific rather than general. "You bumped my cup." rather than "You never watch where you're going." ...Tentative rather than absolute. "You seem unconcerned about Jimmy." rather than "You don't give a damn about Jimmy and you never will." ...Informing rather than ordering. "I hadn't finished yet." rather than "Stop interrupting me." 9. The most helpful kinds of information are ... a) Behavior Description: reporting specific acts of the other that affect you. "You cut in before I had finished my sentence." b) Descriptions of your own feelings: "I like what you just said." "I feel blue. c) Percept ion-checking responses: "I thought you weren't interested in trying to understand my idea." "Are you feeling discouraged?" 10. The least helpful kinds of statements are . . . a) Generalizations about the other. "You never pay any attention." b) Name-calling, trait labelling. "You're too rude." "You're a phony." c) Accusations, imputing undesirable motives to the other. "You enjoy putting people down." "You always have to be in the center of attention." d) Commands and orders. "Don't talk so much." "Stop laughing." PRACTICE: In each blank, put the appropriate number and letter from categories 9 and 10 above. Sample: "Did my remark confuse or irritate you ( 9c), I'd really like to know (9b )." 1. "When you told me to cheer up ( ) I felt more alone then ever. ( ) It made me feel that you didn't understand me and didn't want to." ( ) 2. "You're too dominating and bossy. ( ) You always want your own way." ( ) 3. "I get annoyed ( ) when you give me advice before I have had time to think for myself. ( ) Just hold your tongue." ( ) 4. "Why can't you ever be on time? ( ) I was worried about you." ( ) 5. "You really like to hog the limelight. ( ) You're very self-centered." ( ) 6. "You've spoken more than the others. ( ) I'd like to hear what others think." (_ 7. "You are too arrogant, ( ) always striving to be top dog." ( ) 8. "When you make a comment that isn't funny and laugh like you just did ( ) I feel you're making fun of me. ( ) It makes me feel rejected." ( ) 9. "I'm getting frustrated and upset ( ) because we said we wanted to discuss this topic but we keep on talking about other things." ( ) 10. "When you patted me on the shoulder just now ( ) I felt warm and close to you ( then I began to wonder whether you were feeling sorry for me." ( ) John L. Wallen Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory 56 Behavior Description A Basic Communication Skill for Improving Interpersonal Relationships The problem: If you an another person are to discuss the way you work together or what is happening in your relationship, both of you must be able to talk about what each of you does that affects the other. This is not easy. Most of us have trouble describing another's behavior clearly enough that he can understand what actions of his we have in mind. Instead of describing the other person's behavior we usually discuss his attitudes, his motivations, his traits and personality characteristics. Often our statements are more expressive of the way we feel about the other's actions than they are informing about his behavior. And yet we may be unaware of our feelings at the time. Let's suppose you t e l l me that I am rude (a trait) or that I don't care about your opinion (my motivation). Because I am not trying to be rude and because I feel that I _do care about your opinion, I don't understand what you are trying to communicate. We certainly have not moved closer to a shared understanding. However, i f you point out that several times in the past few minutes I have interrupted you and have over-riden you before you could finish what you were saying, I would receive a clearer picture of what actions of mine were affecting you. • The s k i l l : .Behavior description means reporting specific, observable actions of others without (1) placing a value on them as right or wrong, bad or good, (2) making accusations or generalizations about the other's motives, attitudes, or personality traits. You try to let others know what behavior you are responding to by describing i t clearly enough and specifically enough that others know what you observed. To do this you must describe visible evidence — actions that are open to anybody's observation. Sometimes, for practice, i t is helpful to try beginning your description with "I see that...." or "I noticed that...." or "I heard you say...." to remind yourself that you are trying to describe specific actions. Examples: "Jim, you've talked more than others on this topic. SeveraL times you cut others off before they had finished." NOT: "Jim, you're too rude!" which names a trait and gives no evidence. NOT: "Jim, you always want to hog the center of attention!" which imputes an undersirable motive or intention. "Bob, you've taken the opposite of nearly everything Harry has suggested today." NOT: "Bob, you're just trying to show Harry up." which is an accusation of undesirable motivation. NOT: "Bob, you're being stubborn." which is name calling. 57 Behavior Description -2-"Sam, you cut in before I had finished." NOT: "Sam, you deliberately didn't let me finish." The word "deliberately" implies that Sam knowingly and intentionally cut you off. A l l that anybody can observe, is that he did cut in before you had finished. Several members of the group had told Ben that he was too arrogant. Ben was confused and puzzled by this judgment. He was confused because he didn't know what to do about i t ; he didn't know what i t referred to. He was puzzled because he didn't feel arrogant or scornful of the others. In fact, he admitted that he really felt nervous and unsure of himself. Finally, Joe commented that Ben often laughed explo-sively after Ben made a comment that seemed to have no humorous aspects. Ben said he had been unaware of this. Others immediately recognized that this was the behavior that made them perceive Ben as looking down on them and, therefore, arrogant. The pattern, thus, was as follows. Ben's feelings of insecurity expressed themselves in an explosive laugh after Ben made a statement Ben's laugh lead the other person to feel put down and humiliated the other person perceived Ben as laughing at him the other said Ben was arrogant. Note that Ben had no awareness of his own behavior which was being misread until Joe accurately described what Ben was doing. To develop s k i l l in describing behavior you must sharpen your observation of what actually did occur. You must force yourself to pay attention to what is observ-able and to hold inferences in abeyance. As you practice this you may find that many of your conclusions' about others are based less on observable evidence than on your own feelin'gs of affection, insecurity, irritation, jealousy, or fear. For example, accusations that attribute undersirable motives to another are. usually expressions of the speaker's negative feelings toward the other and not descriptions at a l l . John L. Wallen Northwest Regional Educational Laborato 1968 58 Description of Feelings A Basic Communication Skill for Improving Interpersonal Relationships. The problem: To communicate your own feelings accurately or to understand those of others is difficult. First, expressions of emotion take many different forms. Feelings can express themselves in bodily changes, in action, and in words. (See attached diagram.) Second, any specific expression of feeling may come from very different feelings. A blush, for example, may indicate that the person is feeling pleased, but i t may also indicate that he feels annoyed, or embarrassed, or uneasy. Likewise, a specific feeling does not always get expressed in the same way. For example, a child's feeling of affection for his teacher may lead him to blush when she stands near his desk, to touch her as he passes her, to watch her as she walks around the room, to t e l l her "You're nice," to bring his pet turtle to show her, etc. —different forms of expression for the child's feeling of affection. Communication of feelings, thus, is often inaccurate or even misleading. What looks like an expression of anger, for example, often turns out to result from hurt feelings or from fear. A further obstacle to the accurate communication of feelings is that your perception of what another is feeling is based on so many different kinds of infor-mation. When somebody speaks, you notice more than just the words he says. You note his gestures, voice tone, posture, facial expression, etc. In addition you are aware of the immediate present situation — the context in which the interaction is occurring. You are aware of whether somebody is watching, for example. And so you make assumptions about how the situation influences what the other is feeling. Beyond a l l of this you also have expectations based on your past experiences with the other. You make inferences from a l l of this information — his words, nonverbal cues, the situational context, your expectations of the other. These inferences are influ-enced by your own current emotional state. What you perceive the other to be feeling, then, often depends more upon what you are feeling (e.g., to be afraid of or wishing for) than upon the other person's actions or words. For example, i f you are feeling guilty about something, you may perceive others as angry with you. If you are feeling depressed and discouraged about yourself, others may seem to be expressing disapproval of you. And so — communicating your own and understanding the feelings of others is an extremely difficult task. And yet, i f you wish others to respond to you as a person, you must help them understand how you feel. Likewise, if you are concerned about the other as a person and about your relationship with him, you must try to understand his emotional reactions. 59 Description of Feelings -2-The s k i l l : Although we usually try to describe our ideas clearly and accurately, we often do not try to describe our feelings clearly. Feelings get expressed in many different ways, but we do not usually attempt to identify the feeling itself. One way to describe a feeling is to identify or name i t . "I feel angry." "I feel embarrassed." "I feel comfortable with you." However, we do not have enough names or labels to encompass the broad range of human emotions, and so we invent other ways to describe our feelings, such as the use of similes. "I feel like a tiny frog in a huge pond." A g i r l , whose friendly overture had just been rebuffed, said, "I feel like I have just had an arm amputated." A third way to describe a feeling is to report what kind of action the feeling urges you to do. "I feel like hugging and hugging you." I'd like to slap you." "I wish I could walk off and leave you." In addition, many figures of speech serve as descriptions of feeling. "I just swallowed a bushel of spring sunshine." Describing your own feelings: You try to make clear what feelings you are experiencing by identifying them. The statement must (1) refer to "I", "me", or "my", and (2) specify some kind of feeling by name, simile, action urge, or other figure of speech. The following examples attempt to illustrate the difference between expressions of feeling and descriptions of feeling. Notice that any expression of feeling may represent quite different descriptions of feeling..... Expressions of Feeling Descriptions of Feeling Person blushes and says nothing. "I feel embarrassed," "I feel pleased." "I feel annoyed." Person suddenly becomes silent in "I feel angry." the midst of a conversation. "I'm worried about this." "I feel like I've been slapped." "She's a wonderful person." "I enjoy her sense of humor." "I respect her abilities." "I love her but I feel I shouldn't say so." "Shut up!" "I hurt too much to hear any more." "I feel angry at myself." "I'm angry with you." "You shouldn't have bought me "I really like yWir gift." such an expensive gift!" "I feel obligated to you and resent i t . " "I feel inferior to you when I think of the cheap present I gave you." 60 • Description of Feelings -3-The aim in describing your own feelings is to start a dialogue that will improve your relationship with the other. After a l l , others need to know how you feel i f they are to take your feelings into account. Negative feelings are indicator signals that something may be going wrong in a relationship with another person. To ignore negative feelings is like ignoring a warning light that indicates that an electrical circuit is overloaded. Negative feelings are a signal that the two of you need to check for misunderstandings and faulty communication. After discussing how each of you sees the situation or your relationship, you may discover that your feelings resulted from false perceptions of the situation and of his motives. In this case, your feelings would probably change. However, the other may discover that his actions are arousing feelings in you that he wasn't aware of — feelings that others beside you might experience in response to his behavior - and he may change. In short, describing your feelings should not be an effort to coerce the other into changing so that you won't feel as you do. Rather you report your inner state as just one more piece of information that is necessary i f the two of you are to understand and improve your relationship. Perception check: You describe what you perceive to be the other's inner state in order to check whether you do understand what he feels. That i s , you test to see whether you have decoded his expressions of feeling accurately. You transform his expressions of feeling into a tentative description of his feeling. A good percep-tion check conveys this message, "I want to understand your feelings — is this (making a description of his feelings) the way you feel?" Examples: "I get the impression you are angry with me. Are you?" (NOT: "Why are you so angry with me?" This is mind reading, not perception checking.) "Am I right that you feel disappointed that nobody commented on your suggestion?" "I'm not sure whether your expression means that my comment hurt your feelings, irritated you, or confused you." Note that a perception check (1) describes the other's feelings, and (2) does not express disapproval or approval. It merely conveys, "This is how I understand your feelings. Am I accurate?" John L. Wallen Northwest Regional 1968 Educational Laboratory 61 exercises in communication of Feelings Expression in Words Any statement can express' feelings. For example, even the factual report, "Tf's three p.m." can be said in an angry or a sorrowful way. However, the feeling is not expressed by the content of the words but by the speaker's nonverbal actions — his voice tone and emphasis, gestures, facial expression, etc. The content of some sentences, however, express feelings even when you cannot see or hear the speaker. A l l of the sentences in each set below could have been spoken by the same person in the same situation. Some sentences in each set describe what the speaker is feeling while others express his feeling but do not refer to i t directly. Put a JJ before each sentence that describes the speaker's feeling and reveals that the feeling is in him. Put an _E before each sentence that expresses feeling but does not refer directly to i t . 1. ( ) a. This has been an upsetting day. ( ) b. I have felt upset today. 2. ( ) a. I like you. ( ) b. You're a very likeable person. 3. ( ) | a. Shut up! Not another word! ( ) b. Don't you dare talk to me like that! ( ) c. I'm really annoyed by what you just said! 4. ( ) a. You certainly know how to make people feel comfortable and at. ease. ( ) b. I feel comfortable and free to be myself xvith you. ( ) c. We a l l think you're a wonderful person. ( ) d. Everybody likes you. 5. ( ) a. If things don't improve around here, I ' l l look for a new job. 1 ^ b. Did you ever hear of such a lousy outfit. I'm afraid to admit that I need help with my work. 6. c _) a. Can't you see I'm busy? Get our! _) b. I'm beginning to resent your constant interruptions. _) c. You have no consideration for anybody else's feelings. You're completely selfish. ) a. This is a very poor workshop. _) b. I feel this is a very poor workshop. I'm confused, frustrated, and annoyed by this workshop. c a. Why don't we ever spend a week-end at the beach? b. We never go to the beach for a week-end. c. I'd really enjoy spending next week-end at the beach. 62 Exorcises j_n Communication of KeS] j n ., r J v ' r - ' m ! f a i l u r e " 1 , 1 1 n ^ e r amount to anything. ( — } t\:tdS8r:bSrSaedt^.terribly d i S C ° U r a g C d * ™ 1 d " - Poorly on ( ) Inthing?6^3 teaChC'r 15 rCaliy aWfu1' He can,t tea<* anybody 10. ( ) a. ( ) b. I f e e l lonely and i s o l a t e d i n my groun. I f e e l that nobody in my group cares whether I am there or not. I I . Nonverbal Expressions of Fe e l i n g Each s i t u a t i o n below points out a nonverbal expression of f e e l i n g s . For each s i t u a t i o n , you are to describe two d i f f e r e n t f e e l i n g s that might have given r i s e to such a nonverbal expression. 11. In a group, Betty who had been t a l k i n g a l o t suddenly became s i l e n t . Describe two d i f f e r e n t f e e l i n g s that might have lead her to become s i l e n t . 1) 2) 12, In a group, Jane abruptly changed the subierr , „ - i - u „ t two d i f f e r e n t f e e l i n g s that mifht have ^ ^ ^ ^ • ^ ^ 1) 2) 13, 14, Everytime J e r r y made a comment i n the group he kept his eyes focused on the leader's face. Describe two d i f f e r e n t f e e l i n g s that might have lead J e r r y to watch the leader so i n t e n t l y . 1) 2) As the group d i s c u s s i o n continued, Mary became more and ,-?.ore tense and r e s t l e s s . F i n a l l y , she got up abruptly, saying nothing, and l e f t the room. Describe two d i f f e r e n t f e e l i n g s that might have lead Mary to leave. 1) 2) Exercises in Communion Lion of Fee lino -3-III. How Do You Express Your Feelings? Below are some feelings you may have experienced. For each of these you aic to report two different ways.that you express such feelings. The first answer should be something you would say that would express but not  describe your feelings. The second answer should report how you might express such feelings by actions without using words. 15. When you feel bored with what is going on in a group, how does your feeling usually express itself? In words? Without words? 16. When you feel very annoyed with another staff member, but reluctant to say so openly, how does your feeling usually express itself? In words? Without words: 17. When another person says or does something to you that deeply hurts youi feelings, how does your feeling usually express itself? In words? Without words? 18. 19, Another person asks you to do something that you are afraid you canno- do very well. You also do not wish him to know that you feel inadequate . How do your feelings express themselves? In words? Without words? When you feel fondness and affection for another person and at t same time are not sure that the other feels the same toward you, how does ?ur feeling usually express itself? In words? Without words? John Wallen Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory 1968 y 64 Paraphrase A Basic Communication Skill for Improving Interpersonal Relationships The problem; Tell somebody your phone number and he will usually repeat i t to make sure he heard i t correctly. However, i f you make a complicated state-ment most people will express agreement or disagreement without trying to insure that they are responding to what you intended. Most people seem to assume that what they understand from a statement is what the other intended. How do you check to make sure that you understand another person's ideas, information, or suggestions as he intended them? How do you know that his remark means the same to you as i t does to him? Of course, you can get the other person to clarify his remark by asking, "What do you mean?" or "Tell me more." or by saying "I don't understand." However, after he has elaborated you s t i l l face the same question. "Am I under-standing his idea as he intended i t to be understood?" Your feeling of certainty is no evidence that you do in fact understand. (See "On Misunderstanding".) The s k i l l : If you state in your own way what his remark conveys to you, the other can begin to determine whether his message is coming through as he intended. Then, i f he thinks you misunderstand, he can speak directly to the specific misun-derstanding you have revealed. I will use the term "paraphrase" for any means of  showing the other person what his idea or suggestion means to you. Paraphrasing, then, is any way of revealing your understanding of the other person's comment in order to test your understanding. An additional benefit of paraphrasing is that i t lets the other know that you are interested in him. It is evidence that you do want to understand what he means. If you can satisfy the other that you really do understand his point, he will probably be more willing to attempt to understand your views. Paraphrasing, thus, is crucial in attempting to bridge the interpersonal gap. (1) It increases the accuracy of communication, and thus the degree of mutual or .shared understanding. (2) The act of paraphrasing itself conveys feeling — your interest in the other, your concern to see how he views things. Learning to paraphrase: People sometimes think of paraphrasing as merely putting the other person's ideas in another way. They try to say the same thing with different words. Such word-swapping may merely result in the illusion of mutual understanding as in the following example. Sarah: Jim should never have become a teacher. Fred: You mean teaching isn't the right job for him? Sarah: Exactly! Teaching is not the right job for Jim. 6 5 Paraphrase -2-Instead of trying to reword Sarah's statement Fred might have asked himself, "What does Sarah's statement mean to me?" In that case the interchange might have sounded l i k e this. Sarah: Jim should never have become a teacher. Fred: You mean he i s too harsh on the children? Maybe even cruel? Sarah: Oh, no. I meant that he has such expensive tastes that he can't ever earn enough as a teacher. Fred: Oh, I see. You think he should have gone into a field, that would have insured him a higher standard of l i v i n g . Sarah: Exactly! Teaching is not the right job for Jim. Effective paraphrasing is not a trick or a verbal gimmick. It comes from an attitude, a desire to know what the other means. And to satisfy this desire you reveal the meaning his comment had for you so that the other can check whether i t matches the meaning he intended to convey. If the other's statement was general, i t may convey something specific to you. Larry: I think this is a very poor textbook." You: Poor? You mean i t has too many inaccuracies? Larry: No, the text i s accurate, but the book comes apart too easily. Possibly the other's comment suggests an example to you. Laura: This text has too many omissions; we shouldn't adopt i t . You: Do you mean, for example, that i t contains nothing about the Negro's role in the development of America? Laura: Yes, that's one example. It also lacks any discussion of the development of the arts in America. If the speaker's comment was very specific, i t may convey a more general idea to you. Ralph: Do you have 25 pencils I can borrow for my class? You: Do you just want something for them to write with? I have about 15 ball-point pens and.10 or 11 pencils. Ralph: Great. Anything that w i l l write w i l l do. Sometimes the other's idea w i l l suggest i t s inverse or opposite to you. Stanley: I think the Teacher's Union acts so irresponsibly because the the Administration has ignored them so long. You: Do you mean that the T.U. would be less militant now i f the Administration had consulted with them in the past? Stanley: Certainly. I think the T.U. is being forced to more and more desperate measures. 66 Paraphrase To develop your s k i l l i n understanding others, try different ways of (1) conveying your interest in understanding what they mean, (2) revealing what the other's statements mean to you. Find out what kinds of responses ar helpful ways of paraphrasing for you. The next time someone i s angry with you or is c r i t i c i z i n g you, try to paraphrase u n t i l you can demonstrate that you understand what he is trying to convey as he intends i t . What effect does this have on your feelings and on his? John L. Wallen Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory 1968 APPENDIX C Summary Analyses of Variance, POI Pretest for I n i t i a l Group Differences Source Group Persons within Groups Total Source Group Persons within Groups Total Source Group Persons within Groups Total Source Group Persons within Groups Total Time Competence d£ SS MS 2 9.57 4.79 54 451.90 8.37 56 461.47 Inner Direction d£ SJ3 MS 2 21.82 10.91 54 6,923.9 128.22 56 6,945.72 Self-Actualizing Values §£. S§. MS_ 2 4.07 2.03 54 636.I8 11.78 56 640.25 Existentiality d£ SS MS 2 30.35 15.17 54 716.53 13.27 56 746.88 68 Source Group Persons within Groups Total Source Group Persons within Groups Total Source Group Persons within Groups Total Source Group Persons within Groups Total Source Group Persons within Groups Total Feeling Reactivity df SS MS F 2 9.99 4.99 1 54 448.33 8.30 56 458.32 Spontaneity df_ SS_ MS. F 2 5.^ 2 2.71 1 54 498.82 . 9.24 56 504.24 Self-Regard df SS Mg_ F 2 2.75 1.38 1 54 311.49 5.77 56 314.24 Self-Acceptance df SS MS F 2 11.16 5.58 1 54 686.74 12.72 56 697.90 Nature of Man df SS MS F 2 3.21 1.60 1 54 196.72 3.64 56 199.93 69 Synergy Source Group Persons within Groups Total df 2 54 56 SS 8.01 88.13 96.14 Acceptance of Aggression  Source df SS Group 2 5-75 Persons within Groups 54 450.49 Total 56" 456.24 Capacity of Intimate Contact  Source df SS Group 2 2.57 Persons within Groups 54 578.80 Total 56 581.37 MS 4.00 1.63 MS 2.88 8.34 MS 1.28 10.72 F 2.45 APPENDIX D Intercorrelations of Pretest Score^for the POI POI Scales Tc I SAV Ex Fr S Sr Sa Nc Sy A C Time Competence Tc Inner Direction I 53 Self-Actualizing Values SAV 33 76 Existential!ty Ex 46 72 37 Feeling Reactivity Fr 27 69 48 46 Spontaneity S 50 78 69 45 59 Self-Regard Sr 32 59 74 21 18 50 Self-Acceptance Sa 51 61 22 59 24 42 30 Nature of Man Nc 09 31 37 09 17 10 31 07 Synergy sy 35 55 62 39 24 37 57 21 32 Acceptance of Aggression A 28 58 55 41 57 59 44 17 05 50 Capacity f o r Intimate Contact C 37 77 42 63 54 51 25 48 07 31 42 Note - sample size i s 45. a at oc.05 scores higher than 25 axe significant Interrorrelations of Posttest Scores 8 , for the POI POI Scales Tc I SAV Ex Fr S Sr Sa Nc Sy A C Time Competence Tc Inner Direction I 62 Self-Actualizing Values SAV 40 73 Existential!ty Ex 60 82 42 Feeling Reactivity Fr 40 73 70 47 Spontaneity S 49 84 68 67 67 Self-Regard Sr 54 64 54 43 40 49 Self-Acceptance Sa 62 77 33 68 41 57 47 Nature of Man Nc 30 39 38 20 28 27 16 20 Synergy Sy 24 49 68 36 50 42 21 18 41 Acceptance of Aggression A 36 65 50 46 68 55 41 43 11 39 Capacity f o r Intimate Contact c 59 86 55 81 62 74 49 59 24 40 60 Note - sample size i s 102. a at <5<.05 scores higher than 16 are significant. Correlations Between Pretest and Posttest Scores for the POI POI Scales Tc I SAV Ex Fr S Sr Sa Nc Sy A C Time Competence Tc 68 52 28 37 37 50 34 45 05 11 34 47 Inner Direction I 60 92 70 62 67 76 52 57 24 41 53 76 Self-Actualizing Values SAV 49 72 76 43 55 61 48 36 10 39 39 62 Existentiality Ex 51 80 47 71 53 53 60 39 63 34 29 46 Feeling Reactivity Fr 42 67 59 47 68 56 30 39 11 30 46 52 Spontaneity S 53 77 65 49 70 82 38 41 16 25 53 59 Self-Regard Sr 44 64 48 27 31 59 65 35 07 27 33 48 Self-Acceptance Sa 64 73 43 57 43 56 51 63 14 33 35 54 Nature of Man Ne 19 47 45 29 33 28 22 10 56 33 20 27 Synergy Sy 40 50 63 27 32 39 39 18 18 64 46 46 Acceptance of Aggression A 36 65 59 42 55 59 41 26 09 39 75 58 Capacity f o r Intimate Contact c 47 76 57 46 62 66 41 45 10 32 60 71 Note - sample size i s 45. a at <=< .05 scores higher than 25 axe significant. APPENDIX E 4 0 36 3 2 2 8 2 4 FREQUENCY 2 0 1 6 1 2 8 4 . 0 1 - . 2 0 . 2 1 - . 4 0 . 4 1 - . 6 0 . 6 1 - . 8 0 CORRELATION Distribution of Magnitudes of Intercorrelations of Pretest Scores for the POI ?4 36 32 28 24 I FREQUENCY 20 16 | 1 12 8 4 .01 - .20 .21 - .40 .41 - .60 .61 - .80 .81 - 100 CORRELATION Distribution of Magnitudes of Intercorrelations of Posttest Scores for the POI 56 52 48 44 40 36 32 1 28 FREQUENCY 24 20 16 12 8 4 .01 - .20 .21 - .40 .41 - .60 .61 - .80 .81 - 100 CORRELATION Distribution of Magnitudes of Intercorrelations of Pretest and. Posttest Scores for the POI APPENDIX F Estimated Reli a b i l i t y of POI Subscales POI KLavetter Ilardi Present Scale Manual & Mogar & May Study (1966) (1967) (1968) (1971) Time Competence 71 71 55 70 Inner Direction 84 77 71 94 Self-Actualizing Values 74 69 60 80 Existentiality 85 82 74 71 Feeling Reactivity 69 65 32 67 Spontaneity 81 76 51 87 Self-Regard 75 71 66 75 Self-Acceptance 80 77 71 57 Nature of Man 66 68 49 68 Synergy 72 71 40 64 Acceptance of Aggression 55 52 64 77 Capacity for Intimate Contact 75 67 58 77 Sample 48 48 46 31 Time interval (in weeks) 1 1 50 12 Note - Retest R e l i a b i l i t y Coefficients, decimals omitted. 77 APPENDIX G Time Competences Cell Means and Summaries of Analyses Means Treatment Condition Pretest Condition Guidance Mathematics Laboratory Combined Post Only 16.68 14.58 15.80 15.92 Pre and Post 18.05 16.44 17.79 17.64 Combined 17.32 15.38 16.62 16.68 Co variance-Adjusted Treatment Means (Pre and Post) 17.6? 16.44 18.38 17.87 ANOVA Source SS df MS 11 Treatment (T) 48.85 2 24.42 2.75 Pretest (P) 67.69 1 67.69 7.62* T - P 2.09 2 1.05 0.12 Error 853.09 96 8.89 Total 971.72 101 ANCOVA Source SS d£ MS. F Treatment 20.25 2 10.12 2.68 Covariate 154.45 1 154.45 40.83 Error 155.09 41 3-78 Total 229.79 44 *p>.05 78 Inner Directioni Cell Means and Summaries of Analyses Means Treatment Condition Pretest Condition Guidance Mathematics Laboratory Combined Post Only 85.12 76.92 86.45 83.86 Pre and Post 90.82 84.44 91.14 89.64 Combined 87.79 80.14 88.38 86.41 Covariance-Adjusted Treatment Means (Pre and Post) 89.86 87.I6 90.90 89.64 ANOVA Source SS . <3£ MS F Treatment (T) 965.33 2 482.67 3.27* Pretest (P) 800.05 1 800.05 5.42* T - P 25.49 2 12.74 .09 Error 14,167.72 96 147.58 Total 15.958.59 101 ANCOVA Source SS df. MS F Treatment 78.00 2 39.00 1.48 Covariate 6,098.60 1 6,098.60 231.39 Error 1,080.61 41 26.36 Total 7.257.21 44 *p>.05 79 Existentialityi Cell Means and Summaries of Analyses Means Pretest Condition Post Only Pre and Post Combined Covariance-Adjusted Treatment Means (Pre and Post) Treatment Condition Guidance 20.60 23.45 21.94 23.85 Mathematics 19.50 22.11 20.62 21.47 Laboratory 21.65 23.93 22.59 23.73 Combined 20.74 23.33 21.88 23.34 ANOVA Source SS df MS F Treatment (T) 49.83 2 24.92 1.36 Pretest (P) 149.44 1 149.44 8.17* T - P 1.60 2 0.80 0.04 Error 1,756.82 96 18.30 Total 1,957.69 101 ANCOVA Source SS df MS F Treatment 38.77 2 19.38 2.39 Covariate 398.52 1 398.52 49.10 Error 332.75 41 8.12 Total 770.04 44 *P >.05 80 Self-Actualizing Values $ Cell Means and Summaries of Analyses Means Pretest Condition Post Only Pre and Post Combined Covariance-Adjusted Treatment Means (Pre and Post) Treatment Condition Guidance 19.52 20.86 20.14 20.60 Mathematics 18.75 19.33 19.00 20.01 Laboratory 20.80 21.21 20.97 21.20 Combined 19.81 20.67 20.19 20.67 ANOVA Source ss df F Treatment (T) 49.01 2 24.50 2.41 Pretest (P) 13.66 1 13.66 1.34 T - P 4.75 2 2.38 0.23 Error 976.64 96 10.17 Total 1,044.06 101 ANCOVA Source SS df m £ Treatment 8.03 2 4.02 0.70 Covariate 310.18 1 310.18 54.17 Error 234.77 41 5.73 Total 552.98 44 Feeling Reactivity» Cell Means and Summaries of Analyses Means Treatment Condition Pretest Condition Guidance Mathematics Laboratory Combined Post Only 15.96 13.75 16.75 15.77 Pre and Post 16.7? 15.00 17.29 16.58 Combined 16.34 14.29 16.97 16.13 Covariance-Adjus ted Treatment Means (Pre and Post) 16.53 15.89 17.10 16.58 ANOVA Source SS d£ MS £ Treatment (T) 91.77 2 45.88 5-58* Pretest (p) 16.82 1 16.82 2.05 T - P 1.62 2 0.81 0.10 Error 789.68 96 8.23 Total 899.89 101 ANCOVA Source SS df • MS Treatment 7.91 2 3.96 0.85 Covariate 152.40 1 152.40 32.85 Error 190.32 41 4 .64 Total 350.63 44 *P>.05 Spontaneity» Cell Means and Summaries of Analyses Means Pretest Condition Post Only Pre and Post Combined Covariance-Adjusted Treatment Means (Pre and Post) Treatment Condition Guidance 11.56 12.59 12.04 12.12 Mathematics 9.33 10.44 9.81 11.52 Laboratory 13.05 12.79 12.94 12.83 Combined 11.61 12.22 11.88 12.22 ANOVA ^ - _ Source Treatment (T) Pretest (P) T - P Error Total SS 118.77 8.79 9.66 905.67 1,042.89 df 2 1 2 _96 101 • MS 59.39 8.79 4.83 9.43 F 6.29* 0.93 0.51 ANCOVA Source Treatment Covariate Error Total SS 9.73 267.99 129.90 407.62 df 2 1 41 44 MS 4.86 267.99 3.17 H 1.53 84.58 *P?*.05 Self-Regardt Cell Means and Summaries of Analyses Means Pretest Condition Post Only Pre and Post Combined Covariance-Adjusted Treatment Means (Pre and Post) Treatment Condition Guidance 12.16 13.14 12.62 12.96 Mathematics 11.75 13.00 12.29 12.?6 Laboratory 11.35 12.00 11.62 12.43 Combined 11.79 12.76 12.22 12.76 ANOVA Source Treatment (T) Pretest (P) T - P Error Total SS 18.58 20.62 1.20 5^6.75 627.15 df 2 1 2 _96 101 MS 9.29 20.62 0.60 6.11 F 1.52 3.37 0.10 ANCOVA Source Treatment Cbvariate Error Total SS 2.27 87.55 133.04 222,86 df 2 1 41 44 MS 1.13 87.55 3.24 F 0.35 26.98 84 Self-Acceptances Cell Means and Summaries of Analyses Means Treatment Condition Pretest Condition Guidance Mathematics Laboratory Combined Post Only 16.32 13.50 15.45 15.42 Pre and Post 17.41 16.33 16.86 17.02 Combined 16.83 14.71 16.03 16.13 Covariance-Ad justed Treatment Means (Pre and Post) 17.11 17.07 16.85 17.02 movk Source SS d£ M £ Treatment (T) 54.52 2 27.26 2.63 Pretest (P) 70.78 1 70.78 6.83* T - P 11.12 2 5.56 0.54 Error 994.42 96 10.36 Total 1,130.84 101 ANCOVA Source SS df MS F Treatment 0.61 2 0.30 0.49 Covariate 159.54 1 159.54 25.60 Error 255.50 41 6.23 Total 415.65 44 *P>.05 85 Nature of Manj Cell Means and Summaries of Analyses Means Pretest Condition Post Only Pre and Post Combined Covariance-Adjusted Treatment Means (Pre and Post) Treatment Condition Guidance 12.52 12.82 12.66 12.66 Mathematics 11.75 12.67 12.14 12.77 Laboratory 12.20 12.86 12.47 13.05 Combined 12.25 12.80 12.49 12.80 ANOVA Source Treatment (T) Pretest (P) T - ? Error Total SS 3.03 8.73 1.53 294.68 307.97 df 2 1 2 _96 101 MS 1.52 8.73 O.76 3-07 F 0.49 2.84 0.25 ANCOVA Source SS df M L Treatment 1.29 2 O.65 0.26 Covariate 47.06 1 47.06 18.93 Error 101.92 41 2.49 Total 150.27 44 86 Synergy» Cell Means and Summaries of Analyses Means Pretest Condition Post Only Pre and Post Combined Co variance-Adjusted Treatment Means (Pre and Post) Treatment Condition Guidance 6.76 7.64 7.17 7.63 Mathematics 7.25 7.67 7.43 7.15 Laboratory 7.55 7.71 7.62 8.06 Combined 7.14 7.67 7.37 7.67 ANOVA Source Treatment (T) Pretest (P) T - P Error Total SS 3.75 5.29 2.56 149.71 161.31 df 2 1 2 _96 101 MS 1.87 5.29 1.28 1.56 1.20 3.39 0.82 ANCOVA Source Treatment Covariate Error Total SS 4.11 34.30 39.65 78.06 df. 2 1 41 44 2.05 34.30 0.97 F 2.12 35.47 87 Acceptance of Aggressioni Cell Means and Summaries of Analyses Means Treatment Condition Pretest Condition Guidance Mathematics Laboratory Combined Post Only 16.40 14.08 16.10 15.81 Pre and Post 16.45 i 7 . l l 16.93 16.73 Combined 16.43 15.38 16.44 16.22 Covariance-Adjusted Treatment Means (Pre and Post) 16.45 16.78 17.14 16.73 ANOVA Source SS df MS F Treatment (T) 12.41 2 6.21 0.58 Pretest (P) 38.11 1 38.11 3.55 T - P 31.68 2 15.84 1.48 Error 1,029.99 96 10.73 Total 1,112.19 101 ANCOVA Source SS df MS F Treatment 4.12 2 2.06 0.40 Covariate 278.66 1 278.66 54.77 Error 208.61 41 5.09 Total 491.39 44 Capacity for Intimate Contacts Cell Means and Summaries of Analyses Means Treatment Condition Pretest Condition Post Only Pre and Post Combined Covariance-Adjusted Treatment Means (Pre and Post) Guidance 17.28 19.27 18.21 19.27 Mathematics 15.83 17.67 16.62 18.13 Laboratory 17.80 19.57 18.53 19.28 Combined 17.16 19.04 17.99 19.05 ANOVA Source Treatment (T) Pretest (P) T - P Error Total SS 50.25 78.07 0.26 1,377.70 1,506.28 df 2 1 2 _96 101 is 25.12 78.07 0.13 14.35 F 1.75 5.44* 0.01 ANCOVA Source Treatment Covariate Error Total SS 9.29 354.40 343.39 707.08 2 1 41 44 4.65 354.40 8.38 F 0.55 42.32 *P>.05 

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.831.1-0055679/manifest

Comment

Related Items