UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A comparison of the quantitative aspects of verbal and nonverbal noncontent dimensions of speech in depressed… Toogood, Susan Audrey 1978

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A8 T66.pdf [ 4.39MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094412.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094412-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094412-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094412-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094412-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094412-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094412-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094412-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094412.ris

Full Text

A COMPARISON OF THE QUANTITATIVE ASPECTS OF VERBAL AND NONVERBAL NONCONTENT DIMENSIONS OF SPEECH IN DEPRESSED AND NONDEPRESSED COLLEGE STUDENTS by SUSAN AUDREY TOOGOOD B.A., The Univ e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Psychology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July 1978 Susan Audrey Toogood, 1978 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements foi an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho la r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is fo r f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of cVsoXoaxy The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date <>t^k | IK i i ABSTRACT The purpose of th i s study was to see i f depressed and nondepressed college students d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r verbal and nonverbal noncontent dimensions of speech when exposed to a p o s i t i v e l y emotionally toned or a negatively emotionally toned experimental interview. Forty female undergraduate volunteers who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study were assigned to two groups, depressed or nondepressed, on the basis of th e i r scores on the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, 1967), the Depression Adjective Checklist (Lubin, 1965), and the M u l t i p l e A f f e c t Adjective Checklist (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965). Depressed subjects were then randomly assigned to the p o s i t i v e or negative interview, as were nondepressed subjects. There were 10 subjects i n each of the four groups: the depressed p o s i t i v e condition; the depressed nega-t i v e condition; the nondepressed p o s i t i v e condition, the nondepressed negative condition. Contrary to the hypotheses, there was only one s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ference between the depressed and nondepressed subjects.; the depressed subjects interrupted less times than the nondepressed subjects i n the combined interview conditions. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t interview by group membership i n t e r a c t i o n s . The analysis did reveal that f o r four of the eight noncontent dimensions of speech there were s i g n i -f i c a n t differences between the two interview conditions. These d i f -ferences were: les s i n t e r r u p t i n g i n the negative interview condi-t i o n ; l e s s eye contact i n the negative interview condition} fewer smiles i n the negative condition * fewer nods i n the negative condition. i i i During the negative interview the subjects' reactions to c r i t i c a l remarks, made by the interviewers, were scored i n three categories: agreements with the c r i t i c a l statements; challenging the c r i t i c a l statements; making no response to the c r i t i c a l statements. No s i g n i -f i c a n t differences between the depressed and nondepressed subjects i n the three categories were found. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A b s t r a c t i i L i s t o f T a b l e s v L i s t o f F i g u r e s v i Acknowledgement v i i C h a p t e r 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 C h a p t e r 2. Method 22 C h a p t e r 3. R e s u l t s 36 C h a p t e r 4. D i s c u s s i o n 57 R e f e r e n c e Note s 66 R e f e r e n c e s 67 A p p e n d i c e s 7t V LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Correlations between the Depression Measures Used i n the Study 27 Table 2. Alpha..Coefficient on Dependent Measures 29 Table 3. Correlations between the Two Scorers on the Adjective Checklist 32 Table 4. Summary of Analysis of Variance of the Mu l t i p l e A f f e c t Adjective Checklist Scores 38 Table 5a. Mean Scores on the MACL for Depressed Versus Nondepressed Subjects Collapsed over the P o s i t i v e and Negative Interview 39 Table 5b. Mean Scores on the MACL for P o s i t i v e and Negative Interviews Collapsed Over Depressed and Nondepressed Subjects 39 Table 6. Mean Scores on MACL for Depressed Subjects' Reactions to P o s i t i v e versus Negative Interview 42 Table 7. Mean Scores on MACL for Nondepressed Subjects' Reactions to P o s i t i v e versus Negative Interview 45 Table 8. Mean Number of Neutral, P o s i t i v e , and Negative Adjectives Checked During the Neutral Section of the Interview 47 Table 9. Mean Number of Neutral, P o s i t i v e , and Negative Adjectives Checked During the P o s i t i v e and Negative Sections of the Interview 48 Table 10. Scores of Interviewers on the Semantic D i f -f e r e n t i a l During Neutral Treatment Condition 49 Table 11. Scores of Interviewers on the Semantic D i f -f e r e n t i a l During P o s i t i v e and Negative Treatment Condition 51 Table 12. Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Measures 53 Table 13. Means and Standard Deviations of Subjects' Res-ponses to Interviewers' C r i t i c a l Remarks During Negative Interview Condition 55 v i LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Mean scores on the MACL for Depressed versus Nondepressed Subjects Collapsed over the P o s i t i v e and Negative Interview 'St'O Figure 2. Mean Scores on the MACL for P o s i t i v e versus Negative Interview Collapsed over Depressed and Nondepressed Subjects 41 Figure 3. Mean Scores on the MACL for Depressed Subjects' Reactions to P o s i t i v e versus Negative Interview 43 Figure 4. Mean Scores on the MACL for Nondepressed Subjects' Reactions to P o s i t i v e versus Negative Interview 46 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my appreciation to my committee chair-man, Dr. Demetrios Papageorgis, for his advice and encouragement throughout this study. I also wish to thank Drs. Park Davidson and Ralph Hakstian for consenting to serve on my committee and for sug-gestions concerning my research. I would also like to thank Susan Meaks, Dr. Carol MacPherson, Dr. Don Watterson, and my parents for their support and encouragement throughout. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The phenomenon of depression has been observed throughout h i s -tory. Although numerous theories have been generated as to i t s etiology and maintenance, there i s l i t t l e unequivocal empirical know-legde to substantiate many of these. I t has only been during recent years that a considerable increase i n research a c t i v i t y has been done on some aspects of depression. One v a r i a b l e which i s gaining prominence i n the research l i t e r a t u r e as a possible contributing factor i n the maintenance and/ or etiology of depression, i s s o c i a l competence or s k i l l (Lewinsohn, 1973; Seligman, 197S). The purpose of the present research i s to ex-plore one aspect of s o c i a l competence i n r e l a t i o n to depressed i n d i -v i d u a l s , that of communicative s k i l l s . A review of material relevant to t h i s p a r t i c u l a r topic follows. The area of verbal behaviour i n general has received a great deal of a t t e n t i o n i n the l a s t few years (e.g., Matarazzo & WJiens, 1972). Of more s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t to the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n , how-ever, are the formal properties of speech or i t s noncontent dimensions (e.g., frequencies and durations of utterance u n i t s , latency before answering questions, and i n t e r r u p t i o n s ) . Wiens, Matarazzo, Saslow, Thompson, and Matarazzo (1965) found that s i z e of the conversational group, content of the conversation, s e t t i n g , and r o l e expectancies can a f f e c t noncontent areas of speech. For example, they reported that i n d i v i d u a l s spoke les s i n a group as opposed to a dyadic s i t u a t i o n 2 and talked longer i n utterances with high status interviewers than with t h e i r peers. With respect to rea c t i o n time latency, they found that i t was influenced by the s i z e of the group: subjects i n a larger group exhibited shorter r e a c t i o n time lat e n c i e s than subjects i n a dyadic conversation. Content and personality can also influence noncontent areas of speech. Nathan, Schneller, and Lindsley (1964) found that more severely i l l p s y c h i a t r i c patients talked l e s s . In addition, patients talked le s s when discussing content that was personal and s t r e s s f u l . The amount of verbal p r o d u c t i v i t y improved i n patients as scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) showed improvement (•'Rronson & Weintraub, 1967). Kanfer (1960) reported that female p s y c h i a t r i c patients talked at a rate which was 25% slower when t a l k i n g to the interviewer about how they reacted to members of the opposite sex than when discussing t h e i r present i l l n e s s . I t has long been pos-tulated that d i f f e r e n t groups of people are characterized by d i f f e r i n g p ersonality configurations. To see i f such differences influenced noncontent areas of speech, Molde and Wiens (1967) compared p s y c h i a t r i c nurses with s u r g i c a l nurses on three measures: duration of speech, reaction time latency, and interruptions. The study showed that p s y c h i a t r i c nurses spoke longer per utterance, had a considerably longer reaction time latency, and interrupted l e s s often. Hackney (1974) found sex differences i n noncontent dimensions of speech. The review so f a r has focused on noncontent dimensions of speech occurring within.:the natural environment. We now turn to an examina-t i o n of research on experimental manipulations i n some noncontent 3 dimensions of speech. Apparently, one can change or modify noncontent dimensions of speech by introducing r e l a t i v e changes i n the speech behaviour of one of the conversational partners: changes i n the i n -terviewer's duration of utterance from one time period to another pro-duced s t r i k i n g and reproducible changes i n the speech behaviour of the interviewee (Matarazzo, 1962; Matarazzo, Saslow, Matarazzo, & P h i l l i p s , 1958). For example, i n one study (Matarazzo & W^Jens, 1972) the i n t e r -viewer systematically varied h i s own duration of utterance i n the following manner: during the f i r s t 15 minutes duration of utterance was 5 seconds; i n the second 15 minutes i t was 10 seconds; and i n the t h i r d 15 minutes i t was again 5 seconds. The r e s u l t was that as the interviewer modified h i s duration of utterance, the interviewee's speech behaviour changed i n the same d i r e c t i o n as the interviewer's. Matarazzo, Wie.ns, and Saslow (1965) reported that head nodding and a "um-humming" sound by the interviewer increased the duration of utterances of the interviewee. Exposure to p o s i t i v e nonverbal beha-viour cues from the interviewer, as opposed to negative cues,, r e s u l t e d i n the interviewees maintaining more eye contact and smiling more (Gatton & Taylor, 1974). Liberman (1970) trained a therapist to use tech-niques of s o c i a l reinforcement (such as saying " r i g h t " , "yes", "mm-humm", smiling, or headnodding) to f a c i l i t a t e the development of i n t e r -member group cohesiveness. He found that the therapist, through the s e l e c t i v e use of prompts and reinforcements, could modify and f a c i l i t a t e verbal behaviour r e f l e c t i n g cohesiveness. Reinforcement and punish-ment contingencies were manipulated by Aiken (1965) i n a group s i t u a -t i o n . He reported l i t t l e change between sessions i n the c o n t r o l group 4 and a c l e a r r i s e i n output for the rewarded subjects. Punished sub-j e c t s showed a s l i g h t decline. These studies demonstrate that at least f i v e v a r i a b l e s can influence noncontent areas of speech emitted by an interviewee: increases i n the units of speech duration;, head nodding; saying "mm-humm", " r i g h t " , "yes"; p o s i t i v e and negative be-havioural cues; and reward and punishment. Reaction time latency i s another noncontent dimension of speech which can be modified by manipulating interviewer behaviour. Matarazzo & Wiens (1972) reported that i f the interviewer kept h i s r e a c t i o n time latency at one second i n t e r v a l s throughout the interview, a s i m i l a r lack of change occurred i n the interviewee's behaviour. If the interviewer varied his reaction time latency i n a one second -f i v e second pattern, the reaction time.^latencies of the interviewee also changed i n a s i m i l a r pattern. In a natural s e t t i n g (Matarazzo & Wie'.ns, 1972), i t was reported that synchrony between the two con-v e r s a t i o n a l i s t s occurred. As the patient's reaction time latency increased i n one session or decreased i n another, the r e a c t i o n time latency of the therapist modelled p e r f e c t l y the reaction time latency of the patient. Interruptions can also be modified by experimental manipulation. The amount of i n t e r r u p t i n g one speaker does can be modified by i n -creasing or decreasing the extent of t h i s behaviour i n the other part-ner.:: (W:'\e.ns, Saslow, & Matarazzo, 1966). For example, i t was shown that i f the interviewer was on a schedule which increased and decreased i n i n t e r r u p t i v e behaviour, there were corresponding increases and decreases i n i n t e r r u p t i v e behaviour on the part of the interviewee. 5 Thus i t can be seen that many factors can modify the noncontent dimensions of speech: duration of utterance; reaction time latency; rate of interruptions; head nodding; saying " r i g h t " , "yes", "mm^ humm"; degree of disturbance of the patient; and personality of the i n t e r -viewee. Another area which has been investigated i s that of the r e l a t i o n -ship between duration of utterance, r e a c t i o n time latency, and i n t e r -ruptions. How much a speaker i s interrupted by another speaker i s to an extent a function of the reac t i o n time latency of the f i r s t speaker (Matarazzo & Wie.ns, 1972). For example, on days when a patient ex-h i b i t e d h i s shortest mean rea c t i o n time l a t e n c i e s , the therapist ex-h i b i t e d h i s highest i n t e r r u p t i v e behaviours. Conversely, when the patient exhibited h i s longest reaction time latencies the therapist interrupted l e a s t often. Some other findings concerning the r e l a t i o n -ship of duration of utterance, r e a c t i o n time latency, and interruptions are as follows: frequencies of interruptions were not re l a t e d to duration of utterance; the frequency with which a subject spoke was not r e l a t e d to how long he waited before speaking; duration of u t t e r -ance was moderately and negatively correlated with r e a c t i o n time latency (Matarazzo & W-.ie.ns, 1972). Putting these findings together suggests that people who t y p i c a l l y t a l k i n long utterances a l s o have a tendency to answer t h e i r conversational partner with a short reac-t i o n time latency, and that those who are more hesitant i n answering tend to.^speak i n shorter utterances. Some i n t e r e s t i n g data have been reported concerning l e v e l of empathy and noncontent areas of speech. A r e l a t i o n s h i p between the 6 interviewer's l e v e l of empathy and h i s silences and i n t e r r u p t i v e be-haviour has been found (Pierce & Mosher, 1967). Truax (1970) reported a r e l a t i o n s h i p between duration of utterance and l e v e l of accurate empathy. B a s i c a l l y , i t was found that therapists who talked more were rated as showing higher l e v e l s of accurate empathy, and t h e i r patients demonstrated greater degrees of o v e r a l l improvement than with therapists who talked l e s s . The above r e s u l t s are consistent with the findings reviewed e a r l i e r (Matarazzo, 1962; Matarazzo, Saslow, Matarazzo, & P h i l i p s , 1958). Taken together, one could speculate that these interview tac-t i c s are e f f e c t i v e because they have i n common the f a c t that they represent greater a c t i v i t y or more human output, and i n a sense greater involvement on the part of the interviewer. This involvement could suggest to the interviewee that the interviewer i s r e a l l y interested. The hypothesized r e s u l t i n g state of greater s a t i s f a c t i o n , produced i n the interviewee, may be the motivating force for the interviewee's longer speech durations (Matarazzo & W>v€.ns, 1972). Another related area which has been explored concerns the r e l a -tionship between noncontent speech v a r i a b l e s and the interviewer's s t y l e of interviewing. B a s i c a l l y , researchers have looked for under-l y i n g motivational and a t t i t u d i n a l states as these might be manifest i n noncontent dimensions of speech. Kanfer, PhiUips, Matarazzo, and* SO&IOVJI (1960) explored t h i s area by comparing two interviewing s t y l e s . They used the same population of people, student nurses, and the same content, the nurses' motivations and l i f e s t y l e s , thus holding constant subject population and content. The f i r s t interviewing s t y l e was 7 neutral, nonjudgemental, open-ended, and nondirectlve. The second s t y l e was extremely i n t e r p r e t i v e . I t was found that there was a s i g -n i f i c a n t drop i n the interviewee's mean duration of utterance under the i n t e r p r e t i v e condition. Expectancy or. motivational set was ex-perimentally induced i n interviewees. They were t o l d that they would be t a l k i n g to either a cold or warm interviewer. This affected t h e i r r eaction time lat e n c i e s (Allen, Wiens, Weitman, & Saslow, 1965). Craig (1966) reported that increased accuracy of an interviewer's statements about the interviewee's underlying personality and a t t i t u d e s , resulted i n an increase i n duration of utterance during subsequent noncontent verbal responses by the interviewee. Theseadata suggest that both speech and s i l e n c e indexes can be examined for t h e i r poten-t i a l to reveal underlying moods, a t t i t u d e s , or motivational states i n r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s . Although not as well-researched, there have been findings which suggest that actual content of speech influences noncontent dimensions of speech behaviour. I t has been reported (Matarazzo & Wiens, 1972) that there are s i g n i f i c a n t d ifferences i n college students' duration of utterances and silences when they discuss t h e i r family background and occupational h i s t o r y . Also with college students, discussing t h e i r major i n college had s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher i n t r i n s i c saliency than discussing t h e i r present l i v i n g conditions (Matarazzo, Wielns, Jackson, & Manaugh, 1970). Patrolmen (Matarrazo & Wiens, 1972) ex-h i b i t e d shorter reaction time lat e n c i e s and longer duration of u t t e r -ances i n content conditions involving t h e i r occupational h i s t o r i e s . These studies suggest that discussion of education with college 8 students and occupation with patrolmen tapped in each case an already present, differentially salient, motivational state appropriate to each subject's l i f e space. Moreover, this motivational state was re-vealed in each subject's noncontent speech behaviour (Matarazzo & Wiens, 1972). Hiiichliffe et a l . (1971) found that nondepressed individuals had significantly higher frequencies and lengths of eye contact than de-pressed individuals. Kleinke et a l . (1975) reported that subjects gave answers of shortest duration to interviewers who did not look at them, and, conversely, as eye contact maintained by the interviewer increased, duration of utterance increased. The last area of noncontent speech dimensions to be covered per-tains to i l l u s t r a t i v e hand movements. Illustrative hand movements are movements made by people when talking, in order to further des-cribe what they are discussing. Ekman and Friesen (1974) reported that i l l u s t r a t i v e hand movements were less frequent in depressed individuals and that they increased with c l i n i c a l improvement. From the above review i t can be seen that noncontent dimensions of speech can be influenced and modified by many variables. Two variables of noncontent dimensions of speech which have received l i t t l e attention are individual and group differences and differences produced in noncontent speech behaviours by varying the emotional tone of one of the partner's verbalizations. It is these last two areas towards which the present research is directed. The question of noncontent dimensions of speech and i t s rele-vance to depression has been discussed by two major theorists, 9 Lewinsohn (1973) and Seligman (197£). Lewinsohn (1973) proposes a theory which has as i t s ce n t r a l core the hypothesis that depression i s caused by a low rate of response contingent p o s i t i v e reinforcement. A low rate of response contingent p o s i t i v e reinforcement produces the various symptoms of depression. Decrease i n a c t i v i t y l e v e l , ..including s o c i a l behaviour, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of depression, are caused by a low rate of res-ponse contingent p o s i t i v e reinforcement. Response contingent p o s i t i v e reinforcement i s viewed as the causative condition as i t i s quite s i m i l a r to placing a person on an e x t i n c t i o n schedule. For other depressive behaviours, such as dysphoria and somatic complaints, response contin-gent p o s i t i v e reinforcement i s viewed as a n - e l i c i t i n g stimulus. These l a t t e r symptoms are i n turn strengthened by s o c i a l reinforcement from the environment i n the form of sympathy and concern. In add i t i o n , these same symptoms l a t e r contribute to the depression because they be-come aversive to people i n the depressive's environment. As a r e s u l t , these people s t a r t avoiding the depressed person, thus i s o l a t i n g him or her, which i n turn leads to a further decrease i n the rate of response contingent p o s i t i v e reinforcement. Three factors influence the t o t a l number of response contingent p o s i t i v e reinforcement one gains from the environment (Lewinsohn, 1973): the number of events which are p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c i n g to the person; the number of p o t e n t i a l l y p o s i -t i v e l y r e i n f o r c i n g events present i n the environment; and the extent to which the person possesses the s k i l l s and emits those behaviours which w i l l r e s u l t i n response contingent p o s i t i v e reinforcement. I t i s the l a s t factor which t h i s study w i l l explore: more s p e c i f i c a l l y , the area of noncontent verbal and nonverbal behaviours and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p 10 to depression. L&vii«saWfY • (1974) focused on interpersonal factors which may lead to or maintain depression. He hypothesized that s o c i a l s k i l l s deter-mine the amount of reinforcement a person receives from the s o c i a l environment. Further, he hypothesized that a lack of s o c i a l s k i l l s , such as found i n depressed i n d i v i d u a l s , leads to both the dispensing and the rec e i v i n g of a low rate of response contingent p o s i t i v e r e i n -forcement. A s o c i a l l y s k i l l f u l person emits behaviours which r e s u l t i n p o s i t i v e consequences from the s o c i a l environment and avoids be-haviours which r e s u l t i n negative consequences (Libet & Lewinsohn, 1973; Lewinsohn, Weinstein, & Alper, 1970; Lewinsohn, Weinstein, & Shaw, 1969). Depressed i n d i v i d u a l s are seen as being less s o c i a l l y s k i l l f u l , and t h i s lack of s o c i a l s k i l l i s considered important f o r the occurrence and maintenance of depression (Libet & Lewinsohn, 1973; Lewinsohn et a l . , 1970). This d e f i c i t i n depressed people's behaviour i s demonstrated i n several ways. The s o c i a l l y u n s k i l l e d depressed i n d i v i d u a l dispenses less s o c i a l reinforcement le s s f r e -quently or at les s opportune times than a s o c i a l l y s k i l l e d i n d i v i d u a l . In addition, t h i s person may possess a f u l l r e p e r t o i r e of s o c i a l be-haviours which others f i n d aversive (for example, somatic complaints and dominating the conversation with discussions of personal problems (Coyne, 1976)). Much of Lewinsohn's research has been directed at i d e n t i f y i n g and then modifying the depressed i n d i v i d u a l ' s behaviour so that he or she w i l l become more s o c i a l l y s k i l l f u l and thus increase the amount of response contingent p o s i t i v e reinforcement. In an early unpublished study by L»\><si *+:<4 (Note 1), i t was 11 found that the verbal output of depressed and nondepressed i n d i -viduals could be increased over a 45-minute conversation, butithe increase i n output was greater for the nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s . H i n c h l i f f e , Lancashire, and Roberts (1971) reported that depressed i n d i v i d u a l s used more personal references, negators, and f e e l i n g expressions than nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s . Depressed i n d i v i d u a l s also engage i n le s s eye contact than nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s (Waxer, 1974). The interpersonal behaviours of depressed and nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s i n a group s i t u a t i o n were found to d i f f e r i n the following ways: action vs. reaction; object vs. source of i n t e r a c t i o n ; and p o s i t i v e vs. negative i n t e r a c t i o n (Lewinsohn, 1973). Lewinsohn also reported that, i n i t i a l l y , depressed i n d i v i d u a l s engaged i n one-half the actions than those of the nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s , but t h i s d i f -ference attenuated over time. In addition, he found that the rate of behaviour emitted by subj.ects was p o s i t i v e l y correlated with the rate of behaviour e l i c i t e d from others i n the group. As depressed i n d i -v iduals emitted le s s behaviours, they e l i c i t e d l e s s behaviour from others i n the group. In the same study, Lewinsohn (1973) reported that depressed i n d i v i d u a l s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer l a t e n c i e s f o r d i s -pensing s o c i a l reinforcement than nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s . In the early part of the group i n t e r a c t i o n , the r a t i o of positive., versus negative responses was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher for nondepressed as compared to depressed i n d i v i d u a l s , but t h i s again attenuated over time. A l l of these outcomes would r e s u l t i n the depressive receiving l e s s res-ponse contingent p o s i t i v e reinforcement. Using home observation, Lewinsohn and Shaffer (1971) found that 12 depressives and t h e i r spouses emitted approximately the same number of verbal responses. The depressives, however, e l i c i t e d fewer p o s i -t i v e reactions and more negative reactions than did t h e i r spouses. Libet and Lewinsohn (1973) reported that depressed i n d i v i d u a l s , as a group, emitted actions at a lower rate than did nondepressed i n d i v i -duals; emitted p o s i t i v e reactions at a s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower rate; and that rate of a c t i v i t y i n the group was highly r e l a t e d to how much a group member was responded to by the others. As a r e s u l t , to the ex-tent that attention i s r e c i p r o c a l , the depressed i n d i v i d u a l s , by>. . emitting one-half the behaviours of the nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s , r e -ceive l e s s s o c i a l reinforcement. These inv e s t i g a t o r s also found that depressed males had a r e s t r i c t e d interpersonal range. For example, i f someone of importance to that person were removed ( i . e . , died), the depressed person's behavioural r e p e r t o i r e would be greatly depleted. In addition, they reported that depressed i n d i v i d u a l s emitted fewer p o s i t i v e reactions, suggesting that they withhold p o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c e -ment i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s though they do not act as an aversive d i s c r i m i n a t i v e stimulus i n the sense of punishing others. F i n a l l y , depressed i n d i v i d u a l s were found to have longer re a c t i o n time l a t e n c i e s than nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s , suggesting that the depressives' timing of s o c i a l responses i s o f f . The e f f e c t of a longer re a c t i o n time latency would be an increase i n the p r o b a b i l i t y of an i n i t i a t o r d i r e c -t i n g behaviour toward a source of more immediate r e a c t i v i t y , r e s u l t i n g again i n a s i t u a t i o n where the amount of p o s i t i v e reinforcement e l i c i t e d by the depressed i n d i v i d u a l creates an e x t i n c t i o n schedule. One can increase the l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n of depressed i n d i v i d u a l s by 13 providing them with a l o t of feedback as.to the consequences of t h e i r behaviour and a great deal of p o s i t i v e reinforcement (Lewinsohn, Weinstein, & Alper, 1970). On the other hand, Schrader and Craighead (Note 2) report d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s from those of Lewinsohn. They found no diffe r e n c e between depressed and nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s i n f r e -quency of responding and i n the timing of reinforcement. These r e s u l t s suggest depressed i n d i v i d u a l s , i n these two areas, are not l e s s so-c i a l l y s k i l l f u l than nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s . Lewinsohn, Lobitz, and Wilson (1973) did a study to examine the depressed i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e n s i t i v i t y to aversive s t i m u l i . They found that depressed i n d i v i d u a l s were more s e n s i t i v e to the aversive s t i m u l i while i t was occurring but not before or a f t e r i t s occurrence. These r e s u l t s are puzzling as one would expect that i f depressives found the s i t u a t i o n more aversive they would exhibit greater tendencies to-ward avoidance and withdrawal. Steward (Note 3) confirmed these r e s u l t s , f i n d i n g that depressed i n d i v i d u a l s d i s l i k e d negative s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s more than nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s . Most of the above supports Lewinsohn's (1973) hypothesis that depressed i n d i v i d u a l s are d e f i c i e n t i n verbal communicative s k i l l s , i n both content and noncontent areas, which r e s u l t s i n them gaining les s reinforcement than nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s from t h e i r s o c i a l environment. Seligman (197!T) has also proposed a theory as to the et i o l o g y and maintenance of depression. He l a b e l s i t "learned helplessness." He proposes that there are two major behavioural symptoms of depres-sion, lack of motivation and d i s t o r t i o n of cognitions. The motivational 14 symptom i s represented by the lowered rate of response i n i t i a t i o n found i n depressives; the cognitive dimension i s caused by a dampened a b i l i t y to learn that responding produces reinforcement. According to Seligman (197?), these behaviours occur when the i n d i v i d u a l perceives that responses are independent of reinforcement. The i n d i v i d u a l thinks that responding w i l l be i n e f f e c t i v e and t h i s reduces incentive to i n i t i a t e instrumental responses. Also, as the i n d i v i d u a l perceives responding to be independent of reinforcement .(a d i s t o r t e d cognition), he or she finds i t harder to learn that the responding can a f f e c t r e -inforcement. Thus, i t becomes harder to learn i n a task where re s -ponding does r e s u l t i n reinforcement. B a s i c a l l y , the i n d i v i d u a l ex-pects to have no co n t r o l over the environment and, therefore, stops any e f f o r t to co n t r o l i t . 1 Seligman has conducted many studies to demonstrate the v a l i d i t y of his theory and they a l l follow a s i m i l a r paradigm. Subjects are exposed to an uncontrollable s i t u a t i o n (for example, inescapable noise, or shock, or f a i l u r e on tasks such as anagram sol v i n g ) . Sub-j.ects placed i n these uncontrollable s i t u a t i o n s l a t e r f a i l to escape noise or shock or solve the anagrams and they f a i l to learn from t h e i r success. When the subjects are i n . t h i s state, Seligman f e e l s they are comparable to depressed i n d i v i d u a l s , as the behaviours emitted are.,similar to the behavioural symptoms of depressed i n d i v i d u a l s . Seligman concludes that these d e f i c i t s i n i n i t i a t i v e and cognitive behaviours are produced by the perception that response and reinforcement 1Very recently Seligman has introduced major modifications i n his theory.; by adding concepts from a t t r i b u t i o n theory (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). These modifications were made a f t e r t h i s study was .written. 15 are independent. The subject learns that he or she i s helpless i n c o n t r o l l i n g the environment, and hence, the l a b e l "learned h e l p l e s s -ness". Symptoms which Seligman views as analogous to the symptoms of depressives have been produced i n both animals and humans (Hiroto & Seligman,,1975; M i l l e r & Seligman, 1975). Some studies i n support of Seligman's theory are reviewed below. These studies have pertinence i n two areas relevant to the pre-sent study. F i r s t l y , they produce empirical support for Seligman's theory. Secondly, they demonstrate the r e a c t i o n of depressed and non-depressed i n d i v i d u a l s to success and f a i l u r e . In the present research, subjects are exposed to p o s i t i v e l y - or negatively-toned interviewing s t y l e s . The p o s i t i v e s t y l e i s s i m i l a r to success on a task, since the subject i s p o s i t i v e l y reinforced by success. The negatively-toned interview i s s i m i l a r to f a i l u r e on a task, since the subject i s negatively reinforced. Loeb, Beck, Feshbeck, and Wolf: (1964) found that experimentally manipulating superior and i n f e r i o r performance on a task had an e f f e c t on the a f f e c t i v e state and motivation of t h e i r subjects. Subjects who were led to believe that t h e i r performance was superior exhibited more self-confidence and were more w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n further competition. Depressed versus nondepressed subjects were not found to be more affected by the experimental manipulation i n terms of volun-teering for further studies or of t h e i r s o c i a l perception, but the depressed subjects f e e l i n g tone did suggest a trend to greater mood change. Also, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between depressed versus nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e i r l e v e l s of a s p i r a t i o n a f t e r 16 the experimental manipulation. Loeb, Beck, Diggory, and T u t h i l l (1967) reported that high depressed subjects were more pe s s i m i s t i c than low depressed subjects about success on the experimental tasks, since they gave lower pro-b a b i l i t y of success estimates concerning the chance of a t t a i n i n g the goal. Also, they found that high depressed subjects rated t h e i r per-formance as poorer than low depressed subjects. Success experiences ra i s e d the l e v e l of a s p i r a t i o n i n both groups. As l e v e l of a s p i r a t i o n can be considered a measure of motivation, the r e s u l t s suggest that i f one demonstrates to a depressed person that success i s possible, l e v e l of expectation w i l l be raised as w e l l . L a s t l y , Loeb et a l . (1967) reported that high depressed subjects performed as w e l l as low depressed subjects on the task, a .finding which c o n f l i c t s with reports of psychomotor retardation i n depressives. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between depression and perception of r e i n f o r c e -ment was investigated by M i l l e r and Se!>'groci»Y (1973). According to Seligman's (197 5) theory, depressives perceive reinforcement as inde-pendent of responding; thus, i n s k i l l tasks, depressed i n d i v i d u a l s should perceive reinforcement as more response-independent than non-depressed i n d i v i d u a l s . In s k i l l tasks, t h e i r l e v e l of expectancy should be lower than nondepressed subjects', while i n chance tasks t h e i r l e v e l of expectancy should be s i m i l a r to that of nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s . It follows that the more depressed the i n d i v i d u a l i s , the greater the tendency to perceive reinforcement and responding as independent i n s k i l l tasks; thus depressed people should exhibit l e s s change i n expectancy l e v e l i n s k i l l tasks. M i l l e r and Selignrtan (1973) 17 found that nondepressed subjects' expectancy changes are affected more by s k i l l tasks than are depressed subjects' l e v e l s of expectancy. In s k i l l tasks, depth of depression, as measured by the Beck Inven-tory (1967), i s associated with lower expectancy changes, while i n chance tasks depth of depression and expectancy l e v e l are uncorrelated. Rotter (1966) demonstrated that subjects change t h e i r expectancy l e v e l s f o r future success following reinforcement much more when they perceive that reinforcement i s contingent upon t h e i r responding than when they view i t as response-independent. The previous r e s u l t s plus those of Rotter (1966) suggest that the smaller expectancy changes of the depressed group on s k i l l tasks are due to the depressed i n d i v i d u a l s perceiving reinforcement i n s k i l l tasks as more response-independent than nondepressed subjects. Rotter (1966) hypothesized that depressed and nondepressed subjects perceive reinforcement i n chance tasks as independent of response. Since the depressed i n d i v i d u a l s were affected s i g n f i c a n t l y l e s s by the chance s k i l l manipulation than were nonde-pressed subjects, the author suggests that depressed i n d i v i d u a l s per-ceived the reinforcement contingencies i n the two tasks as s i m i l a r , whereas the nondepressed subjects did not. Also, as the depressed and nondepressed subjects did not d i f f e r on the chance task, depres-sion probably does not e n t a i l general pessimism, but rather a s p e c i f i c d i s t o r t i o n concerning consequences of s k i l l e d action. K l e i n , Fencil-Morse, and Seligman (1976) investigated the r e l a -tionship between learned helplessness, depression, and a t t r i b u t i o n of f a i l u r e . They u t i l i z e d three groups i n t h e i r study: depressed controls; nondepressed subjects who underwent a pretreatment where 18 they were given unsolvable problems to induce learned helplessness symptoms; and,nondepressed controls. They reported that depressed controls and pretreated nondepressed subjects demonstrated poorer performance i n solving anagrams.than di d nondepressed subjects. Thus, by t h e i r pretreatment they had induced learned helplessness i n i n i -t i a l l y nondepressed subjects. The authors then tested to see i f a t t r i b u t i o n of f a i l u r e would have any e f f e c t on these r e s u l t s . They found that for nondepressed subjects performance on the anagrams was the same regardless of any i n s t r u c t i o n s given concerning blame for f a i l u r e . For depressed and pretreated nondepressed subjects, however, d e f i c i t s i n performance were eliminated i f they were i n s t r u c -ted that t h e i r f a i l u r e was due to the d i f f i c u l t y of the problem and not to t h e i r own incompetence. These r e s u l t s suggest that the per-formance of depressed i n d i v i d u a l s can be enhanced i f they believe t h e i r f a i l u r e s are not due to t h e i r own incompetence. Seligman (1976) confirmed the r e s u l t s of K l e i n , Fencil-Morse, and Seligman (1976). He hypothesized that induced learned helplessness symptoms can be reversed by exposing subjects to s i t u a t i o n s over which^they have cont r o l and i n which they can succeed. He reported that by exposing h i s subjects to a therapy c o n s i s t i n g of success at problem solving, the learned helplessness symptoms were reversed. Jones, Nation, and Massad (1977) went one step further than the above research. They hypothesized that i t should be possible to "immunize" a person against the symptoms of learned helplessness. Subjects were placed i n three l e v e l s of success t r a i n i n g , 0%, 50%, and 100%, and then placed i n a s i t u a t i o n which would normally produce 19 learned helplessness symptoms. Immunization was e f f e c t i v e at the 50% l e v e l but not at the 0% or 100% l e v e l . These r e s u l t s suggest that p r i o r stimulus h i s t o r y i s important i n regulating human helplessness behaviour. The r e s u l t that the 50% l e v e l was better than the 100% l e v e l does not lend support to Seligman's theory, as i t would predict that the more success the l e s s l i k e l y the i n d i v i d u a l i s to react i n a helpless manner. Summary The research reviewed above demonstrates the r e l a t i o n s h i p of noncontent dimensions of speech to many v a r i a b l e s . I t suggests that noncontent dimensions of speech may be influenced by group versus dyadic s i t u a t i o n s , speech content, status of the interviewer, the p a r t i c u l a r group being examined, and increases and decreases i n the components of the partner's verbal behaviour. Lewinsohn's work sug-gests that depressed i n d i v i d u a l s are d e f i c i e n t i n communicative s k i l l s , i n both.content and noncontent dimensions, which r e s u l t s i n them gaining le s s positive reinforcement than normals from t h e i r s o c i a l environment. This, i n turn, r e s u l t s i n the maintenance of the depression. Seligman's work posits that depression i s induced when an i n d i v i d u a l f e e l s his/her responses are independent of reinforcement. This r e -sults:_in:.a d i s r u p t i o n of motivation and d i s t o r t e d cognitions, where the subject f e e l s that responses are independent of reinforcement r e s u l t i n g i n a decrement i n noncontent dimensions of speech. The work done i n the area of r e l a t i n g success and f a i l u r e to depression indicates that depressed i n d i v i d u a l s demonstrate le s s increases i n 20 expectancy of success than nondepressed individuals.on a task where reinforcement i s response dependent. On tasks where reinforcement i s response independent , depressed and normals do not d i f f e r . These r e s u l t s suggest that depressed i n d i v i d u a l s tend to perceive r e i n f o r c e -ment as response independent, and thus engage i n l e s s noncontent dimensions of speech. Matarazzo and Wt'vens1 (1972). work suggests noncontent dimensions of speech can be influenced by many var i a b l e s including group membership and modifications of noncontent dimensions of speech by one of the conversational partners. Lewinsohn's work indicates depressed i n d i -v iduals lack communicative s k i l l s , including noncontent dimensions of speech. One hypothetical reason for the maintenance of t h i s de-f i c i t i n noncontent dimensions-of speech could be a lack of respon-siveness to the s o c i a l environment, due to the fe e l i n g s of depression. Seligman's work plus the studies on success and f a i l u r e suggest that depressed i n d i v i d u a l s are less influenced by reinforcement than are nondepressed people. Taken together the material reviewed i n the introduction suggests that depressed i n d i v i d u a l s are less affected by p o s i t i v e reinforcement than are nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s . Also depressed i n d i v i d u a l s are less affected by negative reinforcement than nondepressed subjects. These general findings should be r e f l e c t e d i n the r e s u l t s of the pre-sent study i n the following manner. Ov e r a l l , the depressed subjects should d i f f e r from the nondepressed.subjects i n t h e i r mode of re s -ponding to the p o s i t i v e and the negative interview. Below i s a l i s t of the measures used and of the predicted differences between the 21 depressed and nondepressed subjects i n t h e i r mode of responding. 1) Duration of Utterance: l e s s f or the depressed subjects i n each interview condition; 2) Reaction Time Latency: longer for the depressed subjects i n each condition; 3) Interruptions: less f or the depressed subjects i n each condi-t i o n ; 4) Reaction to Aversive V e r b a l i z a t i o n s : higher on agreements and on no response for the depressed subjects; lower for the depressed subjects on challenges; 5) Eye Contact: l e s s f o r the depressed subjects i n each condi-t i o n ; 6) Nodding: les s f or the depressed subjects i n each condition; 7) Smiling: l e s s f or the depressed subjects i n each condition; 8) Hand Movements while Speaking: le s s for the depressed sub-j e c t s i n each condition. 22 CHAPTER 2 METHOD General Overview Female undergraduates were assigned to depressed or nondepressed groups on the basis of t h e i r scores on several depression measures. Subsequently, these subjects p a r t i c i p a t e d i n an experimental i n t e r -view which contained either p o s i t i v e or negative v e r b a l i z a t i o n s and behaviours on the part of the interviewer. The videotapes of"these interviews were then scored f o r various verbal and nonvernal noncon-tent dimensions of speech by the subjects. Subj ects The subjects were 40 female undergraduate psychology students, ranging i n age from 18 to 21. I n i t i a l l y , subjects were obtained by asking f o r female volunteers i n psychology undergraduate classes. The students were t o l d the study consisted of two parts, and that they were free to p a r t i c i p a t e or not. They were also informed that the f i r s t part of the study involved responses to two questionnaires, and that the second part would consist of a half-hour interview con-cerning t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward u n i v e r s i t y l i f e . They were t o l d the interview would be taped. Two hundred ninety-four female students agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e i n part one and 107 agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the second part of the study. Forty of these subjects were assigned to two groups, depressed and nondepressed, on the basis of t h e i r scores on the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, 1967) and the Depression 23 Adjective Checklist (Lubin, 1965). Subjects i n the depressed group were those students who had scores of 9 or above (X = 14.35) ( M i l l e r & Seligman, 1973) on the Beck Depression Inventory and 9 or above on the Depression Adjective Checklist (X = 15.65). Nondepressed subjects were those students who had scores of 2 or below on the Beck Depression Inventory (X = .55)' and 8 or below on the Depression Adjective Checklist (X = 4.35). Within these groups subjects were then randomly assigned to the two experimental conditions ( p o s i t i v e or negative interview). Both mea-sures were used as the Beck Depression Inventory i s s e n s i t i v e to r e l a -t i v e l y enduring symptoms of depression common among c l i n i c a l popula-tions while the Depression Adjective Checklist i s s e n s i t i v e to r e l a -t i v e l y t r a n s i t o r y depressive moods ( M i l l e r & Seligman, 1973). As there was a gap of two weeks to a month before the subjects were seen for the interview, the subjects were asked to f i l l out the Depression Adjective Checklist again as w e l l as the M u l t i p l e A f f e c t Adjective Checklist (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965). Subjects had to score 9 or above (X = 11.9) on the Depression Adjective Checklist and 14 or above (X = 17.9) on the M u l t i p l e A f f e c t Adjective Checklist i n order to remain i n the depressed group. To remain i n the nondepressed group, subjects had to score 8 or below (X = 2.95) on the Depression Adjec-t i v e Checklist and 13 or below (X = 6.85) on the M u l t i p l e A f f e c t Adjective Checklist. This r e t e s t i n g was done to ensure the subjects s t i l l f e l l within;the c r i t e r i o n f o r the group they had o r i g i n a l l y been assigned to. As a r e s u l t of the r e t e s t i n g , 10 subjects who o r i g i n a l l y scored as depressed and two who had scored as nondepressed 24 were dropped from the study as they were no longer in the group they has been placed in as a result of the i n i t i a l assessment. New subjects who met the criterion replaced them. Materials Depression Measures: Upon i n i t i a l contact with the experimenter, the Beck Depression Inventory was one of the two instruments used to measure depressed mood. The Beck Depression Inventory i s a paper-and-pencil test of affective, behavioural, cognitive, and somatic symptoms characteristic of depressed mood. It consists of 21 sets of statements. Each set contains 4 to 6 statements arranged i n levels which reflect increasing severity of depression. The subject circles one statement in each set, choosing the statement which most clearly approximates how he or she feels. Scores obtainable for each set of statements range from 0 to 2 or 3. Overall scores of severity of depression are obtained by adding together the scores in each set of statements. At any one administration a score of 0 to 61 i s obtainable. High scores reflect depressed mood and low scores reflect lack of depressed mood. As stated earlier, the cut-off score for inclusion into the depressed group was 9 or above; subjects scoring 8 or below were placed in the nondepressed group (Miller & Seligman, 1973). The c l i n i c a l cut-off score i s 18 (Beck, 1967). The Depression Adjective Checklist Form A (Lubin, 1965) was also used to measure depressed mood upon i n i t i a l contact with the experi-menter. (It was also used again, just before the experimental inter-views to determine i f subjects continued to meet the c r i t e r i a for 25 depression.) This instrument i s a b r i e f paper-and-pencil test which measures depressed a f f e c t by subjects' s e l f - r e p o r t . I t consists of 32 adjectives r e f l e c t i n g a f f e c t . Ten adjectives concern nondepressed a f f e c t and 22 deal with depressed a f f e c t . The subject c i r c l e s a l l the adjectives which r e f l e c t how he or she i s f e e l i n g at the moment. Ove r a l l scores of seve r i t y of depression are obtained by adding one point for every depression adjective c i r c l e d and by adding one point for every nondepressed.adjective not c i r c l e d . Scores obtainable range from 0 to 32, with 0 corresponding to the lowest possible depression score and 32 corresponding to the highest possible depression score. As stated previously, the cut-off score for i n c l u s i o n into the de-pressed group was 9 or above; subjects scoring 3 or below were placed i n the nondepressed group. The M u l t i p l e Adjective Checklist (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965) was used to measure depressed mood before and a f t e r the interview. This instrument, i s a self-administered paper-and-pencil test which measures depression, h o s t i l i t y , and anxiety; i n the present study, however, only the depression scale was of•concern. The complete c h e c k l i s t consists,,; of 132 adjectives r e f l e c t i n g the three a f f e c t s ; of these 20 adjectives r e f l e c t depressed a f f e c t and 19 r e f l e c t lack of depressed mood. T o t a l scores of se v e r i t y of depression are obtained by adding one point f o r every depression adjective checked and one point f o r every nondepressed adjective checked. Scores obtainable range from 0 to 39, with 0 corresponding to the lowest depression score and 39 to the highest possible depression.,score. The c r i t e r i o n f o r ac-ceptance into the depressed group, j u s t p r i o r to the experimental 26 interview, was 14 or above; subjects scoring 13 or below were placed i n the nondepressed group. A product moment c o r r e l a t i o n was obtained for the d i f f e r e n t measures of depression used i n the study. These c o r r e l a t i o n s are shown i n Table 1. A l l the c o r r e l a t i o n s were quite high. Dependent Measures: These were the verbal and nonverbal non-content dimensions of speech made by the subjects while they were p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the experimental interview. Measures of verbal behaviour included: (1) Duration of Utterance: the t o t a l amount of time i t takes the subject to emit a l l the words she i s contributing to a p a r t i c u l a r unit of exchange. (2) Reaction Time Latency^:, the average of the duration of the time from the moment the interviewer terminates an utterance and the subject begins to comment. (3) In-terruptions: the t o t a l amount of time of simultaneous speech where the subject interrupts the interviewer. The duration of the over-lap constitutes the i n t e r r u p t i o n (Matarrazo & W^ 'iens, 1972). Mea-sures of nonverbal behaviour included: (1) Eye Contact: the amount of time during which eye contact was present between the subject and the interviewer. (2) Smiling: the number of times the subject smiled . (3) Nodding: the number of times the subject nodded. (4) Hand Movements: the number of times the subjects engaged i n i l l u s t r a t i v e hand movements. Cronbach's c o e f f i c i e n t alpha was used to assess the i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y . between the three scorers on the dependent measures. These c o e f f i c i e n t s represent the r e l i a b i l i t y of the sum 27 Table 1 Correlations between the Depression Measures Used i n the Study Measure . C o r r e l a t i o n Beck and DACL, t o t a l subjects (N=291) .537 Beck and i n i t i a l DACL (N=40) .826 Beck and DACL administered before the interview (N=40) .881 Beck and MACL administered before the interview. (N=40) .830 DACL and MACL both administered before interview (N=40) .887 I n i t i a l DACL and DACL administered before interview (N=40) .856 28 of the three i n d i v i d u a l ratings. They also operationalize the r e l i a b i l i t y which removes the frame of reference of the raters (Wvwtf, 1971). Table 2 presents the r e s u l t s . A l l of the r e s l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s , except the p o s i t i v e / negative portion of the duration of utterance, are quite high. According to the r a t e r s , the low r e l i a b i l i t y on the positive/nega-t i v e portion of the duration of utterance was caused by the comp-l e x i t y of the behaviour the raters were t r y i n g to rate during that s p e c i f i c part of the interview. The subjects' reactions to aversive v e r b a l i z a t i o n s from the interviewer were measured. This was done by computing the number of times subjects agreed, had no response, or challenged aversive v e r b a l i z a t i o n s from the interviewer. Cronbach's c o e f f i c i e n t alpha was used to assess the i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of the three scorers who scored the subject's reaction to the aversive ver-b a l i z a t i o n s , made by the interviewers, during the negative interview. The r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the three measures was as follows: agreements, .868; no response, .973; challenges, .944. Again, these c o e f f i c i e n t s are high and of acceptable l e v e l s . F i n a l l y , a f f e c t before and a f t e r the interview was also measured by means of the subject f i l l i n g out the M u l t i p l e A f f e c t Adjective Checklist (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965) before and a f t e r the interview. Procedure Subjects whose i n i t i a l questionnaire scores met the c r i t e r i a f o r the depressed and nondepressed groups were subsequently contacted 29 Table 2 Alpha C o e f f i c i e n t on Dependent Measures Measure C o e f f i c i e n t Duration of Utterance T o t a l interview .989 Neutral p o r t i o n .991 Positive/negative portion .215 Reaction Time Latency T o t a l interview .969 Neutral portion .969 Positive/negative portion .944 Interruptions .833 Eye Contact .964 Nods-—.; .971 Smiles .953 Hand Movements .957 30 by telephone and asked i f they were s t i l l w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the second part of the study. An interview time was set up for those subjects who.agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e . This procedure was followed u n t i l 20 depressed and 20 nondepressed subjects, needed for the study, were c o l l e c t e d . Approximately one-third of the students who were contacted on the telephone either refused to p a r t i c i p a t e or f a i l e d to show up for the appointment. I t was anywhere between two to four weeks a f t e r i n i t i a l contact before p o t e n t i a l subjects were contacted. Accordingly, when the subjects a r r i v e d for the interview, they were immediately asked to f i l l out the Depression Adjective C h e c k l i s t , the M u l t i p l e A f f e c t Adjective Checklist, as w e l l as forms of consent to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study and be videotaped. Only data from subjects who con-tinued to meet the appropriate c r i t e r i a were used i n the subsequent analyses. The subject was then introduced to the interviewer and the experimenter explained that the interview would l a s t one half hour and that i t would cover only material pertaining to a t t i t u d e s toward u n i v e r s i t y l i f e . The subjects were also t o l d they could t e r -minate the interview at any time i f they so desired and that a f t e r the interview the experimenter would explain the r a t i o n a l e f o r the study and a l l the va r i a b l e s which were being measured. The experi-menter then l e f t the room and the interview began. The Interview: For the interview, four female undergraduate psychology students, naive of the purpose of the study, were trained as interviewers. The choice of female interviewers for the female subjects avoided the creation of possible i n t e r a c t i o n s a t t r i b u t a b l e to gender. Interviewers were counterbalanced across the four 31 experimental groups to avoid the creation of possible i n t e r a c t i o n s a t t r i b u t a b l e to interviewer expertise. Each interviewer underwent 20 hours of intensive t r a i n i n g i n order to minimize i n d i v i d u a l differences between them and to ensure that the correct amount of p o s i t i v e or negative reinforcement was expressed by each of them. Two tests were used to d i r e c t l y assess the adequacy of the interviewer's t r a i n i n g f o r these two goals, an Adjective Checklist (see Appendix 1) and a Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l (see Appendix 2). The r e s u l t s of these tests (see Tables 8, 9, 10, 11 i n the Results section of t h i s study) suggest that the t r a i n i n g was adequate to meet these goals. For the purpose of r e l i a b i l i t y checking a product moment c o r r e l a t i o n between the two scorers was obtained on both the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l and the Adjective Checks l i s t . On the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l f or the t o t a l interview the c o r r e l a t i o n was .94. For the neutral portion of the interview the c o r r e l a t i o n was .672 and for the positive/negative portion of the interview the c o r r e l a t i o n was .944. A l l three c o r r e l a t i o n s were quite high. Table 3 presents the c o r r e l a t i o n s on the Adjective C h e c k l i s t . On a two-tailed test a l l the c o r r e l a t i o n s were quite high. Each interview was of exactly 30 minutes duration, a period which has been demonstrated by Matarazzo and wiens (1972) to be long enough to give a r e l i a b l e index of verbal behaviour. The interview was structured i n terms of content and emotional tone (see Appendix 3). The content focused on the subjects' attitudes concerning the u n i v e r s i t y , 32 Table 3 Correlations between the Two Scorers on the Adjective Checklist Measure C o r r e l a t i o n The T o t a l Interview Neutral .958 P o s i t i v e .962 Negative .941 The Neutral Portion of the Interview Neutral .516 P o s i t i v e 1.000 Negative .447 The Positive/Negative Portion.of the Interview Neutral .846 P o s i t i v e .946 Negative .983 33 t h e i r present progress, and future goals. This content was chosen as i t has been shown to have a s i m i l a r salience value for u n i v e r s i t y students (Matarazzo & Wvdns, 1972). Saliency of the content i s impor-tant as verbal behaviour d i f f e r s according to the salience value of the subject matter (Matarazzo & Wiens, 1972). With respect to emotional tone, the interview was s p l i t into two 15-minute segments. The f i r s t 15 minutes was intended to be neu-t r a l i n tone. Neither verbal nor nonverbal responses were to be given to the subject by the interviewer, and there was no eye contact. Eye contact was excluded as i t could a f f e c t the noncontent dimensions of speech being measured (see page 8 -of t h i s study). The second 15 minutes was either p o s i t i v e or negative i n tone. One-half of the subjects within each group (depressed, nondepressed). were randomly assigned to receive the positively-toned interaction,: and the other half were assigned to receive the negatively-toned interview. During the p o s i t i v e condition, the interviewer smiled, nodded her head, and had a great deal of eye contact with the subject. She also agreed with everything the subject said. During the negative condition, the interviewer maintained eye contact, frowned, .and disagreed with and c r i t i c i z e d everything the subject said. The interviewers made equally long utterances to the subjects i n both the p o s i t i v e and negative conditions and the same opportunity for eye contact was a v a i l a b l e i n both conditions. The interview was videotaped, using one-half inch videotape, with the knowledge and consent of the subjects, for l a t e r analyses. When the interview was over the experimenter returned and „••--•• 34 requested the subject to again f i l l out the M u l t i p l e Adjective Check-l i s t . The point of the r e t e s t was to see i f f e e l i n g s of depression changed as a function of the interview. The assumption here i s that subjects should show a decrease i n depression under the p o s i t i v e condition and an increase i n depression under the negative condition. The r e t e s t also served as a means of determining i f mood, i n addition to behaviour, can be influenced by p o s i t i v e or negative interview conditions. The subjects were then given a 10- to 15-minute debriefing session by the experimenter. During t h i s session the purpose of the various measures was explained. The subjects were assured that the answers they gave during the interview had no bearing on the comments made by the interviewer. Subjects were also given the opportunity to watch themselves on the TV monitor for f i v e minutes. Scoring: The videotape of the interview was scored by two d i f -ferent sets of scorers. The f i r s t set of scorers, 1 male and 1 female, viewed 7% minutes of the neutral condition and 7^ minutes each of the p o s i t i v e and negative interview conditions. This was done to check whether the interviewers were being neutral, p o s i t i v e , and negative to the interviewees at the appropriate times. The scorers completed two separate adjective c h e c k l i s t s (see Appendix 1) and two separate semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s f or each segment viewed (see Appendix 2). The second set of three scorers, 1 male and 2 female, were used to measure the various verbal and nonverbal behaviours of the subjects. They went through 8 hours of t r a i n i n g i n how to score the videotape for the behaviours being examined. The t r a i n i n g was done to ensure i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y which as seen on page 29 was high on a l l dependent measures 35 except duration of utterance during the positive/negative portion of the interview. A l l three scorers scored each interview. 36 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS The main hypothesis was that the verbal and nonverbal behaviour of depressed and nondepressed subjects would d i f f e r in.response to a negative versus p o s i t i v e interview. The relevant r e s u l t s w i l l be pre-sented i n t h i s chapter. Further, a number of findings r e l a t i n g to the effectiveness of the interviews and the v a l i d i t y of the r e s u l t s w i l l be presented. Relationship between Beck Depression Scores and Noncontent Speech  Dimensions Though not c r u c i a l to the purposes of the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n , product moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n c t were computed between subjects' Beck Depression Inventory scores and two randomly selected measures of noncontent speech dimensions (Duration of Utterance and Frequency of Nodding) for each of the two fifteen-minute segments of the i n t e r -view. None of the four c o r r e l a t i o n s was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Tests of the Effectiveness of the Experimental Manipulation Three d i f f e r e n t measures were used to ensure that the appropriate tone was being produced by the four interviewers: The M u l t i p l e A f f e c t Adjective c h e c k l i s t , a second Adjective Checklist, and a S e m a n t i c D i f f e r e n t i a l . The M u l t i p l e A f f e c t Adjective Checklist was administered to the subjects before and a f t e r the interview. I t was 37 used to gauge the mood changes of the subjects a f t e r the experimental interview. Tables 4 through 7 show the means of the depressed and nondepressed subjects for the p o s i t i v e and negative interview condi-tions and Figures 1 thought 4 are graphic representations of these r e s u l t s . These r e s u l t s were analysed by means of a repeated measure design analysis of variance with subjects being the repeated measure (see Table 4). There were three s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . F i r s t , depressed subjects scored higher (X = 17.5) than nondepressed subjects (X = 7.95) on the Multi p l e A f f e c t Adjective Checklist, F(l,36) = 84.62, p_ < .01. Second as seen i n Table 5a and Figure 1, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t i n which nondepressed subjects exhibited an increase i n depres-sion following the interview while depressed subjects showed a s l i g h t change i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n , F_(l,36) = 10.98, _p_ < .01. Third, there was another s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n i n which subjects i n the p o s i t i v e interview condition showed a decrease i n depressed mood while subjects i n the negative condition showed an increase i n depressed mood, F(l,36) = 25.80, D_ < .01 (see Table 5b and Figure 2). In addition the r e s u l t s i n Tables 6. and 7 and Figures 3 and 4 are not s i g n i f i c a n t , they should be noted as they c l a r i f y the d i r e c t i o n of change found i n the two s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s j u s t reported. The r e s u l t s from Table 6 and Figure 3 suggest that depressed subjects may exhibit a s l i g h t 38 Table 4 Summary of Analysis of Variance of the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist Scores Source SS df MS F P. Total 2,919.95 79 Between Subjects 2,614.95 39 Depressed/Nondepressed(D) 1,842.05 1 1824.05 84.62 <.01 Positive/Negative Condition(P) 14.45 1 14.45 0.67 ns DxP 0.45 1 0.45 0.02 ns Between Subjects Error 776.00 36 21.56 Within Subjects 309.00 40 Before/After Scores (R) 9.80 1 9.80 2.39 ns DxR 45.00 1 45.00 10.98 <.01 PxR 105.80 1 105.80 25.80 <.01 DxPxR 0.80 1 0.80 0.20 ns Within Subjects Error 147.60 36 4.10 39 Table 5a Mean Scores on the MACL for Depressed versus Nondepressed Subjects Collapsed Over the P o s i t i v e and Negative Interview Pre Interview Post Interview Depressed 17.9 17.1 Nondepressed 6.85 9.05 Table 5b Mean Scores on the MACL for the P o s i t i v e versus the Negative Interview Collapsed Over the Depressed and Nondepressed Subjects Pre Interview Post Interview P o s i t i v e Negative 13.1 11.65 11.5 14.6 40 Figure 1 Mean Scores on the MACL for Depressed versus Nondepressed Subjects Collapsed Over the P o s i t i v e and Negative Interview I 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Pre Post 41 Figure 2 Mean Scores on the MA.CL for the P o s i t i v e versus the Negative Interview Collapsed over the Depressed and Nondepressed Subjects 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Pre Post 42 T a b l e 6 Mean S c o r e s on t h e MACL f o r t h e D e p r e s s e d S u b j e c t s ' R e a c t i o n to t h e P o s i t i v e v e r s u s t h e N e g a t i v e I n t e r v i e w P r e I n t e r v i e w P o s t I n t e r v i e w P o s i t i v e N e g a t i v e 18.8 17.0 15.5 18.7 43 Figure 3 Mean Scores on the MACL for the Depressed Subjects' Reaction to the Positive versus the Negative Interview 9osWtVt Pre Post 44 decrease iri depressed mood when exposed to the p o s i t i v e treatment and a s l i g h t increase i n depressed mood when exposed to the negative treatment. Table 7 and Figure 4 suggest that nondepressed subjects may exhibit a very s l i g h t increase i n depressed mood when exposed to the p o s i t i v e treatment and an increase i n depressed mood when ex-posed to the negative treatment. Taken together, these r e s u l t s suggest that the treatment condi-t i o n might a l t e r mood i n depressed and nondepressed subjects and t h i s , i n turn, reinforces the l i k e l i h o o d that the experimental interview treatments had the desired e f f e c t . An adjective c h e c k l i s t was also used to ensure the interviewers were exh i b i t i n g the emotional tone appropriate to the section of the interview they were doing. Tables 8 and 9 show these r e s u l t s . Table 8 shows that the interviewer was being neutral during the neutral section of the interview but also s l i g h t l y negative. Table 9 shows that during the p o s i t i v e interview condition the i n t e r -viewers were behaving appropriately, and during the negative i n t e r -view condition the interviewers were being negative and, to some extent, neutral. A semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l was the t h i r d measure used to assess the effectiveness of the experimental manipulation. A scale of 1-7 was used for the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l : 1 representing the most p o s i -t i v e the interviewers could be rated and 7 representing the most negative the interviewers could be rated. Table 10 represents the re s u l t s of t h i s measure for the neutral portion of the interview. To obtain these scores the two ra t e r s ' i n d i v i d u a l scores for each 45 Table 7 Mean Scores on the MACL for the Nondepressed Subjects' Reaction to the P o s i t i v e versus the Negative Interview Pre Interview Post Interview P o s i t i v e Negative 7.4 6.3 7.5 10.6 Figure 4 Mean Scores on the MACL for the Nondepressed Subjects' Reaction to the Positive versus the Negative Interview I 19 Pre Post 47 Table 8 Mean Number of Neutral, P o s i t i v e , and Negative Adjectives Checked During the Neutral Section of the Interview Groups Neutral P o s i t i v e Negative Depressed P o s i t i v e 6.45 0.00 1.75 Depressed Negative 5.70 0.00 2.40 Nondepressed P o s i t i v e 6.05 0.00 2.35 Nondepressed Negative 6.10 0.00 2.20 48 Table 9 Mean Number of Neutral, P o s i t i v e , and Negative Adjectives Checked During the P o s i t i v e and Negative Sections of the Interview Groups Neutral P o s i t i v e Negative Depressed P o s i t i v e 1.00 6.50 1.50 Depressed Negative 1.50 0.00 5.92 Nondepressed P o s i t i v e 0.25 7.70 0.00 Nondepressed Negative 1.60 0.00 7.20 49 Table 10 Scores of the Interviewers on the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l During the Neutral Treatment Condition Depressed Nondepressed f r i e n d l y - u n f r i e n d l y 6.65 6.65 pleasant-unpleasant 6.40 6.20 interested-uninterested 6.80 6.63 emotional-unemotional 6.83 6.53 kind-cruel 3.90 4.15 soft-hard 4.13 3.98 warm-cold 6.25 6.38 supportive-unsupportive 6.55 6.00 un d e r s t a n d i n g - c r i t i c a l 4.00 4.18 positive-negative 4.55 4.35 sociable-unsociable 6.20 6.13 considerate-inconsiderate 5.50 4.98 empathetic-unempathetic 4.38 5.98 50 adjective pole, for each subject, were averaged. Then the average for the depressed and nondepressed groups were obtained. Table 10 shows that the interviewers were not being completely neutral: some adjectives suggest a negative rather than neutral emotional tone. When the subjects and the two r a t e r s were asked what made the n e u t r a l interview negative they reported i t was the lack of eye contact between the interviewer and subject. These re -s u l t s are p a r t i a l l y i n keeping with the r e s u l t s on the adjective c h e c k l i s t . The negativeness i n the neutral portion of the interview was not r e f l e c t e d as much i n the adjective c h e c k l i s t as i n the seman-.'. t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l . Table 11 represents the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l r e s u l t s f or the p o s i t i v e and negative treatment conditions. I t shows that the i n t e r -viewers were being p o s i t i v e or negative as had been required by t h e i r respective interview conditions. These r e s u l t s were analyzed by means of a 2x2 analyses of variance (see Appendix H" ). For..each adjective pole there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the nega-t i v e and p o s i t i v e conditions. In addition there were three s i g n i f i -cant differences between depressed and nondepressed subjects: these differences were on the soft-hard, considerate-inconsiderate, and warm-cold adjective poles. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s . Taken together these r e s u l t s demonstrate the experimental mani-pulation was e f f e c t i v e . Changes i n mood by the subjects and behaviours by the interviewers except i n the neutral portion of the interview were found as had been expected. 51 Table 11 Means of the Interviewers on the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l During the P o s i t i v e and Negative Treatment Conditions Depressed Depressed Nondepressed Nondepressed P o s i t i v e Negative P o s i t i v e Negative f r i e n d l y - u n f r i e n d l y 1.30 pleasant-unpleasant 1.25 interested-uninterested 1.35 emotional-unemotional 3.55 kind-cruel 1.80 soft-hard 3.45 warm-cold 2.35 supportive-unsupportive 2.00 u n d e r s t a n d i n g - c r i t i c a l 1.75 positive-negative 3.15 sociable-unsociable 2.05 considerate-inconsiderate 2.55 empathetic-nonempathetic 2.95 6.80 1.15 6.05 6.65 1.20 5.85 3.35 1.15 3.85 4.80 3.65 5.00 5.00 1.45 4.50 5.70 3.05 4.85 6.10 1.30 5.85 5.40 1.65 5.20 5.90 1.50 5.45 3.75 3.05 4.50 5.00 1.70 5.50 5.75 1.75 5.15 3.90 3.15 4.50 52 Homogeneity of Variance The r e s u l t s of the dependent measures were analysed by means of a 2x2 between subjects analyses of variance. Due to large differences i n some of the standard deviations on the dependent measures, tests f o r homogeneity of variance were done to ensure that differences found between groups were not a t t r i b u t a b l e to differences of variance between them. In each case depressed and nondepressed subjects' scores were tested over the two experimental conditions ( p o s i t i v e and nega-tive) . The only s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e found was between interrup-tions i n the negative portion of the interview where the nondepressed subjects had the higher variance. Verbal and Nonverbal Responses of Depressed and Nondepressed Subjects  under P o s i t i v e and Negative Interview Conditions The main hypotheses of the experiment were that depressed subjects would d i f f e r from nondepressed subjects on seven verbal and nonverbal noncontent dimensions of behaviour i n response to the p o s i t i v e or negative interview conditions. The relevant means and standard devia-tions f or the seven dependent measures are shown i n Table 12. These r e s u l t s were analyzed by means of 2x2 between subjects' analyses of variance with group membership ( i . e . , Depressed versus Nondepressed) and interview conditions ( i . e . , P o s i t i v e versus Nega-tive) as the main e f f e c t s (see Appendix J&for the summary tables of these analyses). Contrary to the hypotheses, there was only one s i g n i f i c a n t difference between depressed and nondepressed subjects: the depressed subjects spent le s s time i n t e r r u p t i n g (X = 16.23) Table 12 Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Measures Depressed Depressed Nondepressed Nondepressed Dependent Variable Positive Negative Positive Negative Duration of Utterance 451.47 A 404.41 438.88 362.50 (in seconds) (156.63) (160.09) (94.62) (188.53) Reaction Time Latency 1.51 1.70 1.46 1.69 (in seconds) (0.77) (0.40) (0.63) (0.62) Length of Interruptions 14.09 2.14 20.76 14.31 (in seconds) (15.40) (3.80) (17.75) (13.72) Length of Eye Contact 117.40 40.59 130.20 51.53 (in seconds) (67.76) (49.73) (26.07) (28.70) Frequency of Nodding 35.40 8.77 49.86 18.01 (31.35) (4.91) (26.85) (11.01) Frequency of Smiling 50.57 22.33 74.53 17.97 (36.15) (22.13) (31.72) (11.21) Frequency of Hand Movements 19.91 12.96 27.49 17.52 (26.72) (13.21) (26.53) (34.58) * Standard deviations are in parentheses. 54 than the nondepressed subjects (X = 35.07) i n the p o s i t i v e and nega-t i v e conditions combined, 1/(1,36) = 4.70, p_ < .05. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t interview by group membership i n t e r a c t i o n s . On the other hand, the analyses showed that for four of the eight response measures there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the two i n t e r -view conditions. These differences were fewer interruptions i n the negative rather than the p o s i t i v e interview condition (X = 16.45 and 34.85, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , F_(l,36) = 4.49, p_ < .05; l e s s eye contact i n the negative as opposed to the p o s i t i v e interview condition (X = 92.12 and 247.6, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , F_(l, 36) = 28.19, £ < .01; l e s s smiling i n the negative rather than the p o s i t i v e interview condition (X = 40.30. and 125.1, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , F(l,36) = 24.56, jp_ < .01; and l e s s nodding i n the negative as opposed to the p o s i t i v e interview condition (X = 26.78 and 85.26, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , F(l,36) = 18.5, p_ < .01. Subjects' Reactions to the Interviewer's Remarks During the Negative  Interview Condition During the negative interview, the subjects' reactions to the c r i t i c a l remarks made by the interviewer were scored i n three cate-gories: agreements with the c r i t i c a l statements; challenging the c r i t i c a l statements; or making no response to the c r i t i c a l s tate-ments. It was hypothesized that there would be higher rates of agreement and no response, and a lower rate of challenging or d i s -agreeing for depressed subjects. The relevant means and standard deviations for a l l three categories are shown i n Table 13. These r e s u l t s were analyzed by means of one-way analyses of 55 Table 13 Means and Standard Deviations of Subjects' Responses to the Interviewer's C r i t i c a l Remarks During the Negative Interview Condition Responses Mean Standard Deviation Challenges Depressed 8.82 3.68 Nondepressed 7.43 3.66 Agreements Depressed 2.98 1.90 Nondepressed 3.50 3.01 No Response Depressed 4.81 4.11 Nondepressed 7.46 7.17 56 variance. Contrary to the hypotheses, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the depressed and nondepressed subjects on any of the three response categories. 57 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION The aim of the present study was to examine the verbal and non-verbal behaviours of depressed and nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s , i n order to compare t h e i r responses to a p o s i t i v e emotionally-toned dyadic i n -t e r a c t i o n versus a negative emotionally-toned dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n . The measures were generated on the basis of t h e i r relevance to non-content dimensions of verbal and nonverbal communicative s k i l l s or s o c i a l s k i l l s (Matarazzo & Wicns, 1972). The o v e r a l l strategy en-t a i l e d the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses of the data based on the coding of interpersonal behaviour of depressed and nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s under p o s i t i v e versus negative interview conditions. A d d i t i o n a l questionnaire data were used as checks on the effectiveness of the ex-perimental interview manipulations. Taken i n t h e i r t o t a l i t y , the r e s u l t s did not support the hypo-theses under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the depressed and nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s , i n t h e i r verbal and nonverbal behaviours, under p o s i t i v e versus negative interview conditions. Thus, the r e s u l t s suggest that, within the sampling and contex-t u a l l i m i t s of the present experiment, depressed i n d i v i d u a l s are as s o c i a l l y s k i l l e d as nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e i r v erbal and non-verbal communicative behaviours. These results- are i n contrast to the predictions made on the basis of the theories and research on depres-sion reviewed e a r l i e r (Seligman, 197S"; Lewinsohn, 1973, 1974; 58 Matarazzo & Wfens, 1972). As the present r e s u l t s c o n f l i c t with the general findings .reported i n the introduction, t h i s may suggest that the notion of depressed i n d i v i d u a l s being l e s s s o c i a l l y s k i l l e d than nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s i s not as general or pervasive i n si t u a t i o n s as previously assumed. It could also be argued that the hypothesis under i n v e s t i g a t i o n was not supported because of i n e f f e c t i v e experimental manipulations. This, however, does not appear to be the case. As stated e a r l i e r , several checks of the experimental manipulations were included. The Multiple A f f e c t Adjective Checklist strongly indicated that sub-j e c t s i n the p o s i t i v e interview condition decreased i n depressed mood while subjects i n the negative condition increased i n depressed mood. These r e s u l t s suggest that the experimental manipulation was indeed e f f e c t i v e i n changing depressed mood. Moreover, the interview condi-tions did have a d i f f e r e n t i a l impact on the subjects' responses, re-gardless of t h e i r depressed or nondepressed status. In addition, the scores of the subjects on the Mult i p l e A f f e c t Adjective Checklist and the Adjective Checklist given r i g h t before the interview, confirmed that a l l subjects were i n the appropriate group, depressed or non-depressed, as defined by the experimenter's c r i t e r i a for group member-ship. The r e s u l t s of the Adjective Checklist and the Semantic D i f -f e r e n t i a l demonstrated that the interviewers did behave i n neutral, p o s i t i v e , and negative fashions at the appropriate times. The i n t e r -r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y on the scorers' ratings showed that they were very s i m i l a r i n t h e i r r a t i n g of the interviewees' behaviours. Viewed to-gether, these experimental checks, suggest that the negative findings 59 did not r e s u l t from procedural flaws. As the r e s u l t s of the present research disagree with past research findings, a closer scrutiny i s c a l l e d f o r . One possible explanation i s that college students rather than c l i n i c a l l y depressed subjects were used i n t h i s study. The r e l a t i v e l y t r a n s i t o r y nature of depression i n college students could be a completely d i f f e r e n t e n t i t y from c l i n i -c a l depression. In f a c t , a number of researchers have questioned the use of the Beck Depression Inventory for diagnosing depression. Depue and Monroe (1978) state that the use of the Beck Depression Inventory to i d e n t i f y depression i s a misuse. I t was o r i g i n a l l y designed to mea-sure the se v e r i t y of depression with i n d i v i d u a l s who had already been diagnosed as depressed. They assert that elevated scores on the Beck Depression Inventory could be due to a number of independent f a c t o r s , such as sadness or loss of self-esteem, only one of which i s depression. Also the scale was o r i g i n a l l y designed to be used by a c l i n i c i a n and not as a s e l f - r a t i n g scale -which takes into account the i n d i v i d u a l ' s sub-j e c t i v e estimate of his/her symptoms and these ratings could r e f l e c t a d i f f e r e n t dimension of depressive disorders from those of c l i n i c i a n s ' r a t i n g s . Depue and Monroe (1978) also f e e l the Beck Depression Inven-tory i s . t o o weighted by subjective f e e l i n g s and does not include enough somatic and behavioural symptoms, which they f e e l are better at d i s -criminating between mild depression i n r e l a t i v e l y normal i n d i v i d u a l s and a more severely depressed c l i n i c a l population. If t h i s i s the case, basing a quantitative view of depression i n college students on the Beck Depression Inventory scores would be questionable. We'Jssrr>o.r\ et a l . (1975), Zung (1972), Hogarty and Katz (1971), and Katz (1970) concur 60 with Depue and Monroe's (1978) c r i t i c i s m s . They found behaviour and somatic complaints to be the best discriminators between c l i n i c a l depression and normal depression and unhappiness. They suggest that the Beck Depression Inventory's heavy loading on subjective f e e l i n g may make i t a poor discriminator between normal i n d i v i d u a l s i n a state of sadness, unhappiness, and loneliness and a moderately depressed population. Costello (1978) also states that the Beck Depression Inventory may be inappropriate f o r use with college students as i t was designed for a c l i n i c a l population. Smolerv (1978) questions the v a l i d i t y of using the Beck Depression Inventory with college students and whether the nominally depressed subjects i n the learned he l p l e s s -ness studies were depressed i n a c l i n i c a l sense. The questionable v a l i d i t y i n using the Beck Depression Inventory to diagnose depression i n the present study was strengthened by the fac t that ten subjects o r i g i n a l l y scoring as depressed and two scoring .as nondepressed on the Beck Depression Inventory no longer scored as depressed and nondepressed when brought i n f o r the experimental interview. Given the above reservations on the part of the researchers, i t i s possible that the subjects c l a s s i f i e d as depressed were not depressed i n a c l i n i c a l sense and t h i s could account f o r the lack of differences found i n the present study. Nevertheless, i t should be remembered that the Beck Depression Inventory was not the only measure used to select depressed and nondepressed subjects, and both Lewinsohn (1973, 1974) and Seligman (197f) used college students i n t h e i r studies, and found differences between depressed and nondepressed subjects i n t h e i r verbal communication s k i l l s . 61 Lewinsohn's (1973, 1974) theory and research r e s u l t s were one of the bases f o r the hypothesis of the present research. In most of h i s studies and the studies of other researchers based on h i s theory of depression, a d e f i n i t e d e f i c i t i n verbal communicative s k i l l s was found. But a few studies based on t h i s theory did f i n d no differences be-tween depressed and nondepressed subjects. Schrader and Craighead (Note 2) reported f i n d i n g no difference between depressed and nonde-pressed i n d i v i d u a l s i n frequency of responding and timing of r e i n -forcement during verbal i n t e r a c t i o n s . Lewinsohn, L o b i t z , and Wilson (1973) did a study to examine the depressed i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e n s i t i v i t y to aversive s t i m u l i . They found depressed i n d i v i d u a l s were more sen-s i t i v e while the stimulus was occurring, but not before or a f t e r i t s occurrence. Relating t h i s r e s u l t to the present study, one would not expect a change i n depressed college students' verbal and. nonverbal noncontent dimensions of speech during the negative portion of the interview. These studies suggest possible flaws i n Lewinsohn's (1973, 1974) theory and research upon which the hypotheses of the present study were p a r t i a l l y based, and as such could account for the lack of differences found between the depressed and nondepressed subjects' behaviours during the interview. Seligman's (197S) theory of depression, upon which the hypotheses of the present study were based, had been examined more c l o s e l y i n a series of studies published i n 1978. Seligman himself recognized inadequacies i n his own theory and has presented a new theory on the development of depression, using a t t r i b u t i o n theory (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). This theory was published a f t e r the 62 present research was completed. Cos t e l l o (1978) points out that although cognitive d e f i c i t s have been found i n depressives, Seligman had produced no proof that the d e f i c i t i s caused by the factors Seligman suggests. R i z l e y (1978) did a study using a novel achievement r e l a t e d task. He found that i n retrospect causal d e s c r i p t i o n for reinforcement depressed subjects did not view their, behaviour and consequent events as any more causally unrelated than did nondepressed subjects. Nor did they s e l f - a t t r i -bute any less or more control over, or causal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for re-inforcement than did nondepressed subjects. R i z l e y (1978) also found depressed subjects did not behave as though they were hel p l e s s , on the contrary they rated theor own actions as a more important influence on another i n d i v i d u a l than did nondepressed subjects. Abramson, Garber, Edwards, and Seligman (1978) found differences i n expectancy between depressed and nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s , as Seligman's theory would sug-gest, but they did not f i n d differences i n the subjects' perceived con-t r o l . These r e s u l t s are contrary to r e s u l t s expected from Seligman's theory,suggesting expectancy changes may be due to other factors than response independence. W i l l i s and Blaney (1978) found depressed college students perceived themselves i n greater co n t r o l of task outcome than nondepressed college students. They also found an index of noncontin-gency was not influenced by a learned helplessness manipulation, but i t did increase depressive a f f e c t . These r e s u l t s are consistent with those found i n the present research. They also found that although depressed subjects demonstrated an i n f e r i o r l e v e l of problem solving t h i s was not accompanied by reports of perceived noncontrol over outcome. A l l of these studies r a i s e 63 questionsas to the v a l i d i t y of Seligman's (1976) theory where the basic premise i s that depressed i n d i v i d u a l s perceive no r e l a t i o n s h i p be-tween t h e i r behaviour and outcome. Thus a reason for the lack of d i f -ference between depressed and nondepressed subjects i n the present study could be due to inadequacies i n Seligman's (197£) theory and research. Sacco and Hokanson (1978) found that once the experimenter was removed from the measurement s i t u a t i o n , the t o t a l expectancy change exhibited by the depressed subjects tended to increase. In the pri v a t e condition, depressed subjects manifested s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater expec-tancy changes than nondepressed subjects. These r e s u l t s on i n t e r -personal factors i n f l u e n c i n g experimental r e s u l t s may be of importance i n accounting f o r the findings of the present research. In the present study an experimenter, the interviewer, was always present and i t i s possible that t h i s continued presence led to the lack of differences found between the depressed and nondepressed subjects during the experimental interview. It i s also possible that the subjects did not take the interview s e r i o u s l y and t h i s influenced the r e s u l t s . Most of the subjects had pa r t i c i p a t e d i n previous psychological experiments. When t a l k i n g to the subjects a f t e r the interview, the experimenter did f i n d that many of them, and e s p e c i a l l y those i n the. negative interview, said that they found the interview funny and that they had been i n c l i n e d not to take the interviewer's remarks se r i o u s l y . Smolon (1978) did a study where depressed and nondepressed subjects' expectancy, mood, and 64 performance on s k i l l and chance tasks, were manipulated. Contrary to the studies by M i l l e r and Seligman (1973, 1976) and M i l l e r ofcc) SeltgN\ar\ (1975) they found no differences between the depressed and nondepressed subjects on the tasks. They suggest the f a i l u r e to r e p l i c a t e the studies was due to the s i t u a t i o n being of l i t t l e importance to the subject. Roth and Kubal (1975) and Klien A(1976) both found the more important the task was perceived to be, the more helplessness was pro-duced when the task was unsolvable. The lack of differences found i n the present study between depressed and nondepressed subjects could be due to the subjects f e e l i n g the task was unimportant. Other more minor considerations could also have led to the lack of differences between depressed and nondepressed subjects found i n the present research. Since mood was affected by the manipulations (e.g., the r e s u l t s from the M u l t i p l e A f f e c t Adjective C h e c k l i s t ) , i t i s possible that had.the interview been longer the subject's behaviour might have changed i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n . I t i s also possible that the experimental s i t u a t i o n was too a r t i f i c i a l . The videotape apparatus coupled with the interviewer asking questions from a written s c r i p t may have affected .subjects' responses. : Also, the neutral interview,, which every subject went through, was s l i g h t l y negative and may thus have affected the subjects' responses to the second part of the interview. Though there are a number of p o t e n t i a l explanations for the lack of differences between depressed and nondepressed subjects i n the present experiment, the present r e s u l t s do suggest that depressed college students are not l e s s s k i l l e d i n communication s k i l l s than 65 nondepressed college students. This would i n turn suggest that, contrary to some recent hypotheses, depressed "normal" i n d i v i d u a l s are not broadly d e f i c i e n t i n communicative s k i l l s . Although no p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s were found i n the present study, a future study, using a c l i n i c a l l y depressed population, and a longer interview, could probably reveal some s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n de-pressed and nondepressed i n d i v i d u a l s ' reactions to p o s i t i v e and negative in t e r a c t i o n s . If such differences were found they could have s i g n i f i -cant implications f o r the treatment of depressed i n d i v i d u a l s . 66 REFERENCE NOTES Lib e t , J . , Lewinsohn, P.M., & Javorek, F. The construct of s o c i a l s k i l l : an empirical study on several measures of temporal s t a b i l i t y , i n t e r n a l structure, v a l i d i t y , and s i t u a t i o n a l genera-l i z a b i l i t y . Mimeo, Univ e r s i t y of Oregon, 1971. Schrader, S.L. & Craighead, W.E. Reinforcement patterns i n depression. Mimeo, The Pennsylvania State U n i v e r s i t y . Stewart, R.C. The d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of p o s i t i v e and negative s o c i a l reinforcement upon depressed and non-depressed subjects. Unpub-l i s h e d Master's t h e s i s , University of Oregon. 67 REFERENCES Abramson, L.Y., Garber, J., Edwards, N.B., & Seligman, M.E.P. Ex-pectancy changes i n depression and schizophrenia. Journal of  Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 8]_, 102-109. Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J.D. Learned helpless-ness i n humans: critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal  Psychology, 1978, 87, 49-74. Allen, B.V., Wiens, A.N., Weitman, M., & Saslow, G. Effects of warm-cold set on interviewee speech. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 480-482. Aiken, E.C. Interaction process analysis changes accompanying operant condition of verbal frequency i n small groups. Perceptual and  Motor S k i l l s , 1965, 21, 52-57. Aronson, H. & Weintraub, W. Verbal productivity as a measure of change in affective status. Psychological Reports, 1967, ^0, 483-487. Beck, A.T. Depression: C l i n i c a l , experimental, and theoretical  aspects. New York: Hoeber, 1967. Costello, C.G. A" c r i t i c a l review of Seligman's laboratory experiments on learned helplessness and depression i n humans. Journal of  Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 8_7, 21-31. Coyne, J.C. Depression and the response of others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85, 186-193. Craig, K.D. Incongruencies between content and temporal measures of patient's responses to confrontation with personality descrip-tions. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966, 30, 550-554. 68 Depue, R.A. & Monroe, S.M. Learned helplessness in the perspective of depressive disorders: conceptual and definitional issues. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 3-20. Ekman, P.M. & Friesen, W.V. Non-verbal behavior in psychopathology. In R.J. Friedman & M.M. Katz (eds.) The psychology of depression:  Contemporary theory and research. Washington, D.C.: V.H. Winston, 1974. Gatton, M.J. & Taylor, J.D. Non-verbal interview behavior and depen-dency. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 93, 303-304. Hackney, H. Facial gestures and subject expression of feelings. Journal of Consulting Psychology,1974, 21, 173-178. Hinchliffe, M.K., Lancashire, M., & Roberts, F.J. Depression: De-fense mechanisms in speech. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1971, 118, 471-472. Hiroto, D.S. & Seligman, M.E.P. Generality of learned helplessness in man. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 311-327. Hogarty, G.E. & Katz, M.M. Norms of adjustment and social behaviour. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1971, 25, 470-480. Jones, S.L., Nation.-., J.R., & Massad, P. Immunization against learned helplessness i n man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1977, __6 , 75-83. Kanfer,F.H. Verbal rate, eye blink, and content in structured psychiatric interviews. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 341-347. Kanfer, F.H., Ph i l l i p s , J.S., Matarazzo, J.D., & Saslow, G. Experimental 69 modification of interviewer content i n standardized interviews. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 528-536. Katz, M.M. The classification of depression: Normal, c l i n i c a l , and ethnocultural. In R.R. Fieve (ed.) Depression in the 70's. Amsterdam: Exerpta Medica, 1970. Klein,D.C., Fencil-Morse, E., & Seligman, M.E.P. Learned helplessness, depression, and attribution of failure. Journal of Personality  and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 508-516. Kleinke, C.L., Staneski, R.A., & Berger, D.E. Evaluation of an inter-viewer as a function of interviewer gaze, reinforcement of sub-ject gaze, and interviewer attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, _31, 115-122. Lewinsohn, P.M. C l i n i c a l and theoretical aspects of depression. In K.S. Calhoun, H.E. Adams, & K.M. Mitchell (eds.) Innovative  treatment methods in psychopathology. New York: Wiley, 1973. Lewinsohn, P.M. A behavioural approach to depression. In R.J. Friedman & M.M. Katz (eds.) The psychology of depression: Con- temporary theory and research. Washington, D.C.: V.H. Winston, 1974. Lewinsohn, P.M., Lobitz, C , & Wilson, S. Sensitivity of depressed individuals to aversive stimuli. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 81, 259-263. Lewinsohn, P.M. & Shaffer, M. Use of home observation as an integral part of the treatment of depression: preliminary report and case studies. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1971, 37, 87-94. 70 Lewinsohn, P.M., Weinstein, M.S., & Alper, T.A. A behavioral approach to the group treatment of depressed persons. Journal of C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1970, 26, 525-532. Lewinsohn, P.M., Weinstein, M.S., & Shaw, J. Depression: A c l i n i c a l research approach. In R.D. Rubin & CM. Franks (eds.) Advances  in behaviour therapy. New York: Academic Press, 1969. Liberman, R.A. A behavioral approach to group dynamics: I. Rein-forcement and prompting of cohesiveness i n group therapy. Be- haviour Therapy, 1970, __, 141-175. Libet, J.& Lewinsohn, P.M. The concept of social s k i l l with special reference to the behaviour of depression persons. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1973, 40, 304-312. Loeb, A., Beck, A.T., Diggory, J.C, & T u t h i l l , R. Expectancy level of aspiration, performance, and self-evaluation in depression. Proceedings of the 75th Annual Convention of the American  Psychological Association Washington, D.C : APA, 1967. Loeb, A., Beck, A.T., Feshbeck, S., & Wolfe, A. Some effects of reward upon the social perception and motivation of psychiatric patients varying i n depression. Journal of Abnormal and Social  Psychology, 1964, 68, 609-61& Lubin, B. Adjective checklist for the measurement of depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1965, 1_2, 57-63. Matarazzo, J.D. Prescribed behaviour therapy: Suggestions from interview research. In A.J. Bachrach (ed.) Experimental foun- dations of c l i n i c a l psychology. New York: Basic Books, 1962. Matarazzo, J.D. & Wiens, A. The interview: Research on i t s anatomy 71 and structure. Chicago: Aldine, Atherton, 1972. Matarazzo, J.D., Wiens, A., Jackson, R.H., Manaugh, T.S. Interviewee speech behaviour under conditions of endogeneously-present and exogeneously-induced motivational states. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1970, 26, 141-148. Matarazzo, J.D., Saslow, G., Matarazzo, R.C., & P h i l l i p s , J.S. Stability and modifiability of personality patterns manifested during a standardized interview. In P.A. Hoch & J. Zubin (eds.) Psychopathology of communication. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1958. Matarazzo, J.D., Wiens, A.W., & Saslow, G. Studies in interview speech behaviour. In L. Krasner & L.P. Ullman (eds.) Research in behaviour modification: New developments and implications. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965. Miller, W.R. & Seligman, M.E.P. Depression and the perception of reinforcement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 8_2, 62-73. Miller, W.R. & Seligman, M.E.P. Depression and learned helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1975, 84, 228-238. Miller, W.R. & Seligman, M.E.P. Learned helplessness, depression, and the perception of reinforcement. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1976, 14, 7-17. Molde, D.A. & Wiens, A.W. Interview interaction: Behaviour of nurses with task versus person orientation. Nursing Research, 1967, 17, 45-51. Nathan, P.E., Schneller, P., & Lindsley, O.R.j Direct measurement of communication during psychiatric admission interviews. Behaviour 72 Research and Therapy, 1964, 2. 49-57. Pierce, W.D. & Mosher, D.L. Perceived empathy, interviewer behaviour, interviewee anxiety. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31, 101. Rizley, R. Depression and distortion in the attribution of causality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 32-48. Roth, S. & Kubal, L. Effects of noncontingent reinforcement on tasks of differing import: F a c i l i t a t i o n and learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 680-691. Rotter, J.B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80. Sacco, W.P. & Hokanson, J.E. Expectancies of success and anagram performance of depressives in a public and private setting. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 122-130. Seligman, M.E.P. Reversal of performance deficits and perceptual deficits in learned helplessness and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1976, 85, 11-26. Seligman, M.E.P. Helplessness. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1975. Smolen, R.C. Expectancies, mood, and performance of depressed and non-depressed psychiatric inpatients on chance and s k i l l tasks. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 97-101. Truax, C.B. Length of therapist response, accurate empathy, and patient improvement. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1970, 26, 539-541. Waxer, P. Nonverbal cues for depression. Journal of Abnormal  Psychology, 1974, 83, 319-322. 73 Wiens, A.W., Matarazzo, J . D . , Saslow, G., Thompson, S.M., & Matarazzo, R.G. Interview interaction behaviour of supervisors, head nurses, and staff nurses. Nursing Research, 1965, 14, 322-329. Wiens, A.W., Saslow, G., & Matarazzo, J.D. Speech interruption behaviour during interviews. Psychotherapy; Theory, Research,  and Practice, 1966, 3, 153-158. Weissman, M.M., Prusoff, B., & Pincus, C. Symptom patterns in de-pressed patients and depressed normals, jJournal of Nervous and l Mental Disease, 1975, 160, 15-23. Wi l l i s , M.H. & Blaney, P.H. Three tests of the learned helplessness I model of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87, 131-136. Winer, N.J. S t a t i s t i c a l principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw H i l l , 1971. Zuckerman, M. & Lubin, B. Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist. San Diego: Edits, 1965. Zung, W.K. How normal is depression? Psychosomatics, 1972, 8, 174-178. Appendix 1 The A d j e c t i v e C h e c k l i s t Used to Gauge i f the Interviewers were Showing the Appropriate Emotional Tone i n the Three Interview Conditions Please read each a d j e c t i v e q u i c k l y and put a check beside the ones you would consider to be d e s c r i p t i v e of the i n t e r v i e w e r . Do not spend too much time on any one a d j e c t i v e . Check as many or as few as you wish. n e u t r a l e n t h u s i a s t i c c r i t i c a l snobbish considerate m i l d obnoxious cool reserved s o c i a b l e a p a t h e t i c h o s t i l e p r a i s i n g r i g i d unkind bo r i n g complaining arrogant i n d i f ferent f r i e n d l y understanding u n i n t e r e s t e d unemotional pleasant good natured d u l l a l o o f warm kin d u n f r i e n d l y 75 Appendix 2 The Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l used to Gauge i f the Interviewers were Showing, the Appropriate Emotional Tone During the Three Interview Conditions Each set of a d j e c t i v e s below represent opposite ends of a c o n t i n -uous s c a l e . Using a range of 1 - 7, please r a t e the i n t e r v i e w e r ' s behaviour. On t h i s s c a l e : 1 = very 2 = q u i t e 3 = a b i t 4 = n e i t h e r one or the other ( n e u t r a l ) 5 = a b i t 6 = q u i t e 7 = very I f you t h i n k a set of a d j e c t i v e s are not d e s c r i p t i v e of the i n t e r v i e w e r then place a l i n e through them. f r i e n d l y u n f r i e n d l y pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 i n t e r e s t e d u n i n t e r e s t e d emotional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unemotional k i n d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 c r u e l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s o f t hard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 warm co l d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 supportive unsupportive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unde rstanding c r i t i c a l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . p o s i t i v e negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s o c i a b l e unsociable considerate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 i n c o n s i d e r a t e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 empathetic nonempathetic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Appendix .'3 INTERVIEW A. Neutral Condition 1. So I can get an impression of where you are at could you t e l l me, ge n e r a l l y speaking, what you t h i n k of U.B.C.? 2. Why d i d you choose to come to U.B.C. i n s t e a d of a j u n i o r c o l l e g e or another Canadian u n i v e r s i t y ? 3. What do you -think about the p h y s i c a l environment of the U n i v e r s i t y from an a e s t h e t i c or a r t i s t i c p o i n t of view? 4. What do you t h i n k about the p h y s i c a l environment of the U n i v e r s i t y from a p r a c t i c a l p o i n t of view? For example, i n terms of g e t t i n g to c l a s s e s on time? 5. Do you t h i n k the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s , busses and c a r s , are adequate to meet the needs of students who t r a v e l to and from U n i v e r s i t y each day, or do you t h i n k improvements can be made? 6. How do you f e e l about the present pa r k i n g f a c i l i t i e s f o r students? I guess most undergraduates have to park i n B or D l o t , both of which are q u i t e f a r away from the b u i l d i n g s the c l a s s e s are hel d i n . 7. What do you t h i n k of the idea of U.B.C. as a walking campus? This r u l e came i n t o e f f e c t a couple of years ago. Do you t h i n k i t was a wise d e c i s i o n ? 8. There are a number of c a f e t e r i a s on campus run by one company. What do you t h i n k of these f a c i l i t i e s i n terms of atmosphere and q u a l i t y of food? 9. Given the atmosphere and q u a l i t y of food, do you t h i n k the p r i c e s charged are f a i r ? 10. What do you think of the idea of the U n i v e r s i t y s u b s i d i z i n g these c a f e t e r i a s so food would be. cheaper? 11. What do you th i n k about your classrooms? Do you f e e l they are okay, or that they should be. updated a b i t to make them more comfortable? 12. The use of a u d i o - v i s u a l equipment f o r teaching i s becoming more popu-l a r . Do you f e e l your p r o f e s s o r s should make use of these f a c i l i t i e s more? 13. IF YES: How should they be used? IF NO: Why don't you t h i n k t h i s would be h e l p f u l ? 14. What about study space? Do you f e e l the U n i v e r s i t y has made enough room a v a i l a b l e f o r students to work in? 15. We have three l a r g e l i b r a r i e s at-the U n i v e r s i t y . Do you f i n d these f a c i l i t i e s are adequate i n meeting your needs f o r books and a r t i c l e s you have to read? 16. There are a number of clubs and teams students can j o i n at U.B.C. Do you f e e l that f i r s t - y e a r students are aware of t h i s and given easy access to these f a c i l i t i e s ? 17. IF CLUBS JOINED ARE MENTIONED: Are the a c t i v i t i e s you mentioned the only ones you've j o i n e d s i n c e coming to U.B.C? IF NO MENTION IS MADE OF JOINING CLUBS: Have you j o i n e d any of the clubs or a t h l e t i c teams si n c e s t a r t i n g u n i v e r s i t y ? 18. IF SOME ARE JOINED: Why d i d you decide to j o i n these p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s as opposed to others o f f e r e d ? IF NONE IS JOINED: What are your reasons f o r not j o i n i n g any of the clubs or teams? 19. Outside of clubs and a t h l e t i c s do you use any other of the U n i v e r s i t y ' s s o c i a l f a c i l i t i e s , such as a t t e n d i n g the dances or P i t ? 78 20. IF YES: How do you f i n d these? IF NO: Why not? 21. Money i s o f t e n a d i f f i c u l t y f o r students. Do you f e e l more p r o v i s i o n should be made f o r the f i n a n c i a l support of students? IF YES: In what form? Loans? B u r s a r i e s ? Jobs? IF NO: Why not? DON'T KNOW: W e l l , what about students who are i n f i n a n c i a l need? 23. Do you th i n k the fees f o r atte n d i n g U n i v e r s i t y are too high? 24. IF YES: How do you th i n k we can get around t h i s problem? IF NO: What about students who can't attend the U n i v e r s i t y because they can't a f f o r d the fees? 25. What about the cost of s u p p l i e s such as textbooks and the l i k e . Do you t h i n k the p r i c e s are too high and that perhaps textbooks should be made a v a i l a b l e i n the l i b r a r y i n s t e a d of students having to buy them? 26. The cost of l i v i n g i n Vancouver i s extremely expensive i f you are not l i v i n g at home. Do you t h i n k more residences should be b u i l t so s t u -dents could be provided w i t h low-cost housing? 27. IF YES: Why? IF NO: Why not? 28. What about the student h e a l t h s e r v i c e s provided on campus? Do you th i n k they are adequate? 29. What about the student c o u n s e l l i n g s e r v i c e ? Do you think i t f u l f i l l s the needs of students i n terms of h e l p i n g them decide what courses they should take, or i n terms of h e l p i n g them work out any d i f f i c u l t i e s they may be encountering i n t r y i n g to adj u s t to the U n i v e r s i t y ? 30. Many u n i v e r s i t i e s work on a semester system, where you can attend one semester, take a break, and then r e t u r n . Do you t h i n k U.B.C. should 77 change to t h i s system? 31. IF YES: Why? IF NO: Why not? 32. Another aspect of the semester system i s that of o f f e r i n g h a l f - y e a r as opposed to f u l l - y e a r courses. What do you th i n k of t h i s idea? 33. IF GOOD: Why? IF NOT: Why? 34. Could you review f o r me a b i t of your h i s t o r y concerning when you f i r s t thought of -coming to u n i v e r s i t y u n t i l you made your f i n a l d e c i s i o n ? 35. IF PARENTS NOT MENTIONED: What about your parents' f e e l i n g s toward your at t e n d i n g u n i v e r s i t y ? Do they approve? Disapprove? IF PARENTS ARE MENTIONED: You mentioned a b i t about y'our parents' f e e l i n g s toward your a t t e n d i n g u n i v e r s i t y . Could you expand on t h i s a b i t more' f o r me? 36. IF PARENTS' INFLUENCE ON DECISION TO COME NOT MENTIONED: Do you f e e l t h e i r a t t i d u d e toward your a t t e n d i n g u n i v e r s i t y had an i n f l u e n c e on your d e c i s i o n to come? IF PARENTS' INFLUENCE ON DECISION TO COME IS MENTIONED: You mentioned your parents' a t t i t u d e had an i n f l u e n c e on your attending the U n i v e r s i t y . How much do you th i n k i t c o n t r i b u t e d to your d e c i s i o n to come? 37. IF HAVEN'T SAID WHY PARENTS HAVE OPINION: Do you know why they h o l d a ( p o s i t i v e , negative) o p i n i o n on your attendance? IF HAVE SAID WHY PARENTS HAVE OPINION: Could you expand a b i t more -on why they h o l d t h i s ( p o s i t i v e , negative) o p i n i o n on your attendance? 38. In a n t i c i p a t i n g e n t e r i n g u n i v e r s i t y , what were some of the things about i t which i n t e r e s t e d you? 39. IF ALTERNATIVES TO UNIVERSITY WERE MENTIONED EARLIER: You mentioned 80 before that you considered a few other p o s s i b i l i t i e s other than u n i v e r s i t y upon completion of high school. Could you expand a l i t t l e f u r t h e r and t e l l my. why you didn't f o l l o w them up? IF ALTERNATIVES WERE NOT MENTIONED EARLIER: In a d d i t i o n to u n i v e r s i t y d i d you consider any other p o s s i b i l i t i e s a f t e r completion of high school? ( I f not, why?) ( I f so, can you t e l l me why you didn't choose them?) AO. Many students take a year o f f during the four years i t takes to o b t a i n a bachelor's degree. Do you t h i n k you w i l l do t h i s ? 41. IF YES: Why? IF NO: Why not? IF DON'T KNOW: Can you t h i n k of any reasons why i t might be a good idea? 42. What courses are you p r e s e n t l y t a k i n g , and how many hours of l e c t u r e time do they consume each week? 43. What made you choose these courses as opposed to others o f f e r e d to undergraduates? 44. Do you have some goals i n mind as to what you w i l l do w i t h your bachelor's degree a f t e r you o b t a i n i t ? 45. IF YES: What are they? And why d i d you choose these p a r t i c u l a r goals? IF NO: Could you speculate on what you might do? - TIME: 15 MINUTES -P o s i t i v e Condition 1. Generally speaking, what were your expectations concerning u n i v e r s i t y when you f i r s t came? RESPONSE: These seem f a i r and reasonable. 2. Would you say these expectations have been f u l f i l l e d ? RESPONSES: IF YES: That's good to hear. It i s probably the r e s u l t of you being reasonable in your expectations and w i l l i n g to compromise when they weren't f u l f i l l e d . IF YES & NO: That's pretty natural for any new s i t u a t i o n . One r a r e l y gets everything they want and i t sounds l i k e you accept t h i s i n a mature fashion. IF NO: I can empathize with what you are saying. The u n i v e r s i t y , l i k e most large i n s t i t u t i o n s , seems to expect the student to f i t into t h e i r mold, rather than t r y i n g to accommodate to at least some of the students' needs. 3. IF DON'T MENTION CHANGING EXPECTATIONS: Do you f e e l a f t e r a year of experience with u n i v e r s i t y you have changed your expectations and i f so, how? IF MENTION CHANGED EXPECTATIONS: You have mentioned you have changed your expectations since entering u n i v e r s i t y - could you elaborate a b i t more on how they have changed? RESPONSES: NO CHANGE: Well, that's nice to hear. So many students complain of disillusionment a f t e r a year of u n i v e r s i t y . It shows a mature a t t i t u d e when you accept r e a l i t y . 02 CHANGE GENERALLY POSITIVE: W e l l , that's good to hear. I t ' s so rare that students a p p r e c i a t e the u n i v e r s i t y , rather they tend to complain. I t ' s a s i g n of maturity when you appreciate what you have. CHANGE YES AND NO: W e l l , that's n a t u r a l . L i k e a mature person, you are accommodating to the s i t u a t i o n by changing your ex p e c t a t i o n s . I t ' s amazing how many students don't r e a l i z e that a l l new s i t u a t i o n s r e q u i r e accommodation. CHANGE NEGATIVE: We l l , I can empathize with your s i t u a t i o n . Yours i s a n a t u r a l response to an o f t e n c o l d inhuman environment where l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n i s p a i d to the i n d i v i d u a l needs of the students. Do you f e e l the u n i v e r s i t y i s academically s t i m u l a t i n g ? By t h i s , I mean do you f e e l i t motivates students to work and learn? RESPONSES: YES: Your response suggests you w i l l do w e l l at u n i v e r s i t y . I f you f e e l i t motivates you to work and l e a r n , then you w i l l . I t ' s those students who don't f e e l t h i s way who run i n t o t r o u b l e . YES AND NO: That's a reasonable answer. I know I f e e l that way too; i n some ways you f e e l encouraged to l e a r n , i n others you don't. NO: I can r e a l l y empathize w i t h your p o s i t i o n . I know I have f e l t that the u n i v e r s i t y makes l i t t l e e f f o r t to f o s t e r l e a r n i n g ; no one seems to care. We have already t a l k e d a l i t t l e about the s o c i a l l i f e at U.B.C. and I would l i k e to f o l l o w the subject through a b i t more. Do you f e e l that more o p p o r t u n i t i e s should be opened f o r students to meet each other? RESPONSES: IF YES: 1 agree w i t h you. I know I found i t hard to meet peope during my f i r s t couple of years at u n i v e r s i t y . 83 IF NO: That's good to hear. I t suggests you r e a l i z e that U.B.C.'s f u n c t i o n i s not to provide a s o c i a l l i f e f o r students. Have you found that s i n c e a t t e n d i n g u n i v e r s i t y you have l o s t touch w i t h your high school f r i e n d s ? And i f so, does t h i s bother you? RESPONSES: YES/YES AND NO/AND BOTHERS ME: I know what you mean. For me i t seems there i s never enough time to do my work, keep i n touch w i t h my u n i v e r -s i t y f r i e n d s and als o my high school f r i e n d s . Sometimes I r e a l l y miss them. YES/YES AND NO BUT DON'T CARE: I had the same experience of l o s i n g touch-with high school f r i e n d s . But I took the a t t i t u d e I guess you have, that as one changes t h e i r l i f e circumstances, one's c i r c l e of f r i e n d s change too and that's l i f e . NO: That's good to hear. Many people seem to drop t h e i r own f r i e n d s when them come to u n i v e r s i t y and I'm not sure t h a t ' s such a good idea. People you have known f o r a long time are o f t e n the ones you f e e l c l o s e s t to and can depend on the most. To get back to the u n i v e r s i t y i t s e l f , do you p a r t i c i p a t e i n the u n i v e r s i t y p o l i t i c s by v o t i n g f o r candidates? RESPONSES: YES: That's good. So many students are ap a t h e t i c i n terms of t u r n i n g out to vote. I t ' s n i c e you take an o v e r a l l i n t e r e s t i n the u n i v e r s i t y and show t h i s by v o t i n g . YES BUT DON'T REALLY EXAMINE CANDIDATES: W e l l , at l e a s t you vote. Some students are so a p a t h e t i c they don't even bother to vote. I t ' s understandable that you don't take a c l o s e look at the candidates, as t h i s takes time and e f f o r t which one o f t e n can't a f f o r d . 8? NO: I can understand that. I know I didn't vote my f i r s t couple of years out here because I r e a l l y d i d n ' t know anything about the c a n d i -dates and didn't f e e l I r e a l l y had much c o n t r o l over u n i v e r s i t y p o l i c y . Do you f e e l students should have a say i n p o l i c i e s made which concern the u n i v e r s i t y , e s p e c i a l l y when they i n v o l v e the student? RESPONSES: YES: I agree with you. A f t e r a l l , we are not c h i l d r e n , and e s p e c i a l l y i f the p o l i c i e s a f f e c t us we should have a v o i c e i n the making of them. IN SOME AND NOT IN OTHERS: That's a reasonable o p i n i o n . I t takes m a t u r i t y to r e a l i z e that there are some areas where students should have a voice but other areas where they shouldn't. NO: That's good to hear. So many students complain they don't have a voic e i n p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s . What they don't r e a l i z e i s that they are attending the u n i v e r s i t y , not running i t . Would you ever consider running f o r an o f f i c e , say i n the A.M.S., during your u n i v e r s i t y career? RESPONSES: YES/MAYBE: That's a reasonable a t t i t u d e . Students tend to be a p a t h e t i c or to cop out by saying they don't have the time. I t seems to me they are j u s t a v o i d i n g a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y which each i n d i v i d u a l should be w i l l i n g to take. NO: I can understand t h a t . I never ran f o r o f f i c e because I couldn't spare the time. Also I f e l t d o u b t f u l as to whether I r e a l l y would have a say i n what happened. Perhaps we could change the subject a b i t to focus more on the academic side of the u n i v e r s i t y . What do you th i n k about the s i z e of your c l a s s e s ? es RESPONSES: OKAY OR TOO BIG BUT REALIZE THIS BECAUSE COST OF TEACHERS: I'm glad to hear you say t h a t ; students o f t e n complain about the s i z e of c l a s s e s . These people are j u s t not being r e a l i s t i c , they don't consider the cost of h i r i n g enough pr o f e s s o r s to have small c l a s s e s . BAD: Yes, I can see l a r g e s i z e does make l e a r n i n g d i f f i c u l t . I know myself that l a r g e c l a s s e s o f t e n made me f e e l dehumanized, l i k e a number. I r e a l l y f e e l some e f f o r t should be made to decrease the s i z e of c l a s s e s , What, about your p r o f e s s o r s ? How do you f i n d t h e i r l e c t u r e s ? Do you f e e l they put the time and e f f o r t they should i n t o making l e c t u r e s i n t e r e s t i n g and understandable? RESPONSES: YES: That's n i c e to hear. I t suggests you are mature enough to get what you need from a l e c t u r e . You don't demand to be e n t e r t a i n e d or spoonfed. This i s an important accommodation to make i n coming from high school to u n i v e r s i t y . SOME YES/SOME NO: W e l l , t h a t ' s reasonable. L i k e i n e v e r y t h i n g e l s e there i s the good and the bad. At l e a s t you haven't overreacted to the bad as some students do and decided a l l your l e c t u r e s are b o r i n g . I t sounds l i k e you evaluate i n a fair-mature f a s h i o n . NO: I can empathize w i t h you. I have o f t e n f e l t p r o f e s s o r s could do a l o t b e t t e r teaching job i f they only took a l i t t l e more time and cared a l i t t l e more. Students o f t e n complain they don't r e c e i v e enough i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n from t h e i r p r o f e s s o r s . How do you f e e l about t h i s ? RESPONSES: SATISFIED: Your answer suggests you have the maturity to work on your own, or i f you need help you take the i n i t i a t i v e to get i t . This i s good, as to do w e l l at u n i v e r s i t y , you must develop these a b i l i t i e s . DISSATISFIED BUT UNDERSTAND: I t ' s good to hear you appreciate the l o g i s t i c s of the s i t u a t i o n . So many students f a i l to r e a l i z e that given the l a r g e s i z e of c l a s s e s i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n i s o f t e n i m p o s s i b l e . DISSATISFIED: I can understand your f e e l i n g s . I t i s f r u s t r a t i n g that p r o v i s i o n i s n ' t made so students can get the i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n they need. 13. What about teaching a s s i s t a n t s ? Do you f e e l they make themselves a v a i l a b l e to you i f you need help w i t h your work? RESPONSES: YES: That's n i c e to hear. Students o f t e n complain they can't see t h e i r T.A.s, but I f e e l they expect too much. They forget that T.A.s have t h e i r own work to do and t h e r e f o r e have only so much time a v a i l a b l e . YES ANT) NO: That's about what I have found, i t j u s t depends on the T.A. I guess some T.A.s take t h e i r jobs more s e r i o u s l y than others. NO: I can empathize w i t h what you are saying. T.A.s o f t e n don't make themselves a v a i l a b l e to t h e i r students; they seem to be too in v o l v e d i n t h e i r own work. 14. What about the e v a l u a t i o n system f o r students? Do you f i n d the mark-ing system f a i r , or do you f e e l i t doesn't r e a l l y evaluate your knowledge? RESPONSES: FAIR: W e l l , your answer suggests you are probably working.well. I have o f t e n found that students who complain about the system of e v a l u -a t i o n are those who don't work hard and yet they expect good marks. NOT FAIR: That's the way I f e e l . P r o f e s s o r s give a few o b j e c t i v e t e s t s and some papers and they f e e l they have tapped your knowledge. 97 What i f you aren't f e e l i n g w e l l w h i l e doing the exam or paper? And no c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s given as to the amount of work you have put i n . 15. What about g e t t i n g papers and exams back? Are you s a t i s f i e d w i t h the time period i t takes before they are returned? RESPONSES: YES: Your response suggests you are being reasonable. So many students expect t h e i r work back w i t h i n three days of handing i t i n , which i s n ' t f e a s i b l e i f one considers other commitments markers may have. Again your answer suggests you have accommodated to the demands of a u n i v e r -s i t y versus a high school. NO/NO AND YES: Yes, I f e e l the same way. I f i n d i t very f r u s t r a t i n g when I don't get my work back f o r - a long time. By the time I get i t back I am t h i n k i n g of other things and i t ' s hard to refocus on the returned work. As a r e s u l t I o f t e n don't l e a r n from mistakes I made. 16. When you f i r s t entered u n i v e r s i t y what k i n d of marks d i d you expect to get? RESPONSES: HIGH/AVERAGE: W e l l , that suggests you were w i l l i n g to work when you came. Some students j u s t don't seem to care about how they do at u n i v e r s i t y , they don't put i n the work and of course they don't get good grades. NO EXPECTATIONS: W e l l , that's reasonable. Coming to a d i f f e r e n t l e a r n i n g environment, i t ' s hard to p r e d i c t how you are going to do. 17. In general, what have your marks been l i k e t h i s year? RESPONSES: HIGH/AVERAGE/MIXTURE: That's n i c e to hear. The f i r s t year of u n i v e r -s i t y can be tough, many students drop out or f a i l . Your grades suggest 18. 88 you are working w e l l now, which i n turn suggests you w i l l do w e l l i n l a t e r years. LOW/MIXTURE OF AVERAGE LOU: W e l l , u n i v e r s i t y can be tough, e s p e c i a l l y i n your f i r s t year. I t o f t e n takes a while to accommodate to the d i f f e r e n t system. The main t h i n g i s not to get discouraged. Do you f e e l s a t i s f i e d w i t h your marks or do you f e e l you could do b e t t e r and would l i k e to improve? RESPONSES: SATISFIED: - I t i s good you are s a t i s f i e d . A f t e r a l l , as long as you f e e l comfortable w i t h how you are doing, then that's a l l that matters. Also c o n t i n u a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n could lead to anxiety which might i n t e r f e r e w i t h your work. DISSATISFIED: W e l l , most people f e e l d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r achieve-ments at d i f f e r e n t times i n t h e i r l i f e . The main t h i n g i s not to get anxious or depressed about how you are doing, as t h i s w i l l i n t e r f e r e with your work. I know a number of students don't attend many l e c t u r e s . Do you attend most of your l e c t u r e s or do you s k i p them? RESPONSES: ATTEND: That's good to hear. I t suggests you are r e a l l y motivated to l e a r n . I know one can o f t e n pass exams by j u s t reading the t e x t s but i t seems to me a very l a z y a t t i t u d e i n d i c a t i v e of someone not r e a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n l e a r n i n g . DON'T ATTEND: I guess you are l i k e me. I found out e a r l y on that a t t e n d i n g l e c t u r e s i s o f t e n a waste of time. Exams are u s u a l l y based on what i s i n the t e x t s , so why waste time l i s t e n i n g to a p r o f e s s o r . 20. Apart from l e c t u r e s , how much time would you say you spend a week 19, 8? working on your courses? RESPONSES: A LOT: Boy, you r e a l l y work hard. That's good; i t suggests you are motivated to do w e l l and are w i l l i n g to put the necessary work i n . That's a p o s i t i v e s i g n i n terms of r e a l l y g e t t i n g something out of u n i v e r s i t y . AVERAGE OR LOW: I t sounds l i k e you've learned to be s e n s i b l e i n terms of a l l o t t i n g your time. Many students are so nervous i n t h e i r f i r s t year they tend to overstudy. A person l i k e y o u r s e l f who l e a r n s to work e f f i c i e n t l y now- w i l l do w e l l when the workload becomes more. 21. Of course, that's my o p i n i o n . Do you f e e l you put the appropriate amount of time i n t o your s t u d i e s ? RESPONSES: YES: Good. As long as you are comfortable w i t h what you are doing, everything's okay. But i f you f e e l uncomfortable, a n x i e t y u s u a l l y a r i s e s which then i n t e r f e r e s w i t h your f u n c t i o n i n g . NO: W e l l , i t ' s , only your f i r s t year. I t takes a w h i l e to f e e l out what i s the r i g h t amount of work f o r you to be doing. I know myself I didn't study n e a r l y enough i n my f i r s t year. 22. Do you f e e l that g e t t i n g a degree from u n i v e r s i t y w i l l help you i n g a i n i n g employment which you otherwise couldn't have gotten? RESPONSES: IF YES: I agree w i t h you. G e t t i n g a job today i s hard and i f you want a job which o f f e r s good pay and p o s s i b i l i t i e s of advancement you d e f i n i t e l y need an education. IF NO: W e l l , that's probably a r e a l i s t i c e s t i m a t i o n of the u t i l i t y of a bachelor's degree. I t r e a l l y doesn't help i n g e t t i n g a job the way things are today. 9o C. Nc ga t 1.vc Cond L t ion 1. Generally speaking, what were your expectations concerning u n i v e r s i t y when you f i r s t came? RESPONSE: Well, they seem p r e t t y vague, but I guess th a t ' s usual f o r f i r s t - y e a r students. 2. Would you say these expectations have been f u l f i l l e d ? RESPONSES: IF YES: W e l l , t h a t ' s probably because you were f a i r l y vague i n the f i r s t place. The problem I see wi t h t h i s p o s i t i o n i s i t doesn't lea d to improvement i n the c a l i b r e of education at the u n i v e r s i t y which, as I see i t , i s f a i r l y poor. YES AND NO/NO: I have heard that o p i n i o n so of t e n from f i r s t - y e a r students; i t r e a l l y makes me wonder what you expect. I t seems to me that the reason students get disappointed i s because they expect too much from the s i t u a t i o n ; they tend to be u n r e a l i s t i c . 3. IF DON'T MENTION CHANGING EXPECTATIONS: Do you f e e l a f t e r a year of experience w i t h u n i v e r s i t y your expectations have changed and i f so, how? IF MENTION CHANGED EXPECTATIONS: You have mentioned you have changed your expectations s i n c e e n t e r i n g u n i v e r s i t y . Could you elab o r a t e a b i t more on how they have changed? RESPONSES: NO CHANGE: W e l l , that i s unusual. I guess you weren't very f i r m i n what you expected because' i t i s very rare that any new s i t u a t i o n doesn't demand some change i n a person's ex p e c t a t i o n s . CHANGE GENERALLY POSITIVE: W e l l , that i s an unusual response. I always wonder a b i t about people who react l i k e you, as to whether or not they aren't too e a s i l y s a t i s f i e d . 9 / CHANGE YES AND NO: That's r a t h e r an ambivalent response. I suppose i t stems from being unsure as to what i s r e a l l y important to you i n terms of your u n i v e r s i t y career. CHANGE NEGATIVE: W e l l , your response i s s i m i l a r to that of many students. What I don't understand i s how you f e e l you have the r i g h t to complain. A f t e r a l l , you have never had to run the u n i v e r s i t y and t h e r e f o r e aren't cognisant of a l l the problems inherent i n a l a r g e i n s t i t u t i o n . Do you f e e l the u n i v e r s i t y i s academically s t i m u l a t i n g ? By t h i s I mean do y o u - f e e l i t motivates students to l e a r n ? RESPONSES: YES: You c e r t a i n l y are i n a m i n o r i t y w i t h that o p i n i o n . I know I never found the u n i v e r s i t y s t i m u l a t i n g and n e i t h e r d i d most of my f r i e n d s . I u s u a l l y found that the standard of l e a r n i n g r e q u i r e d was so low that I had nothing to s t r i v e f o r . NO/YES AND NO: I hear that o p i n i o n so o f t e n from students. I don't know, I t h i n k perhaps i t comes from expecting to be spoonfed as you were i n high s c h o o l , r a t h e r than r e a l i z i n g that you can only get from u n i v e r s i t y as much as you are w i l l i n g to put i n . We have already t a l k e d a l i t t l e about the s o c i a l l i f e at U.B.C. and I would l i k e to f o l l o w the subject through a b i t more. Do you f e e l that more o p p o r t u n i t i e s should be opened f o r students to meet each other? RESPONSES: YES/YES AMD NO: W e l l , I guess you see one of U.B.C.'s fu n c t i o n s as promoting your s o c i a l l i f e . P e r s o n a l l y I don't f e e l that way. I th i n k the purpose of a u n i v e r s i t y i s to convey l e a r n i n g , not to a i d s o c i a l i z i n g . NO: W e l l , I suppose you are one of the lucky people who f i n d i t easy fa. to make new f r i e n d s . I think what you arc Ignoring i s the f a c t that many students are shy, or come from out of town and i t i s o f t e n d i f -f i c u l t f or them to make f r i e n d s and as a r e s u l t they f e e l s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d . 6. Have you found that since a t t e n d i n g u n i v e r s i t y you have l o s t touch with your high school f r i e n d s ? And i f so, does t h i s bother you? RESPONSES: YES/YES AND NO/AND BOTHERS ME/DOESN'T BOTHER ME: That has a f a m i l i a r r i n g . People o f t e n seem to drop t h e i r high school f r i e n d s who don't come to u n i v e r s i t y . I r e a l l y t h i n k t h i s i s a bad t h i n g as you l o s e good f r i e n d s and a l s o p o s s i b l y hurt these people by j u s t dropping them fo r new f r i e n d s . NO: W e l l , that i s unusual. Most people f i n d i t impossible to keep up o l d f r i e n d s h i p s when they move i n t o a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t environment. A l s o , u s u a l l y the people who do t h i s l e t something i n the new e n v i r o n -ment s l i p , such as your work or making new f r i e n d s . 7. To get back to the u n i v e r s i t y i t s e l f , do you p a r t i c i p a t e i n the u n i v e r s i t y p o l i t i c s by v o t i n g f o r candidates. RESPONSES: YES: W e l l , I don't see why. Don't you r e a l i z e that the whole t h i n g i s a farce? Students don't have any say i n the running of the u n i v e r s i t y even i f they are on any committees. YES BUT DON'T REALLY EXAMINE THE CANDIDATES: That seems l i k e an i r r e -s p o n s i b l e a t t i t u d e to me. I f you don't examine what the candidates stand f o r , how can you vote? I t takes so l i t t l e time and e f f o r t to f i n d out about what you are v o t i n g f o r I don't see why people aren't w i l l i n g to put i t i n . n NO: I don't understand people l i k e you. You have the opportunity to have a say i n what happens at the u n i v e r s i t y and yet you don't take i t . I t makes me th i n k you are avo i d i n g your r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Do you f e e l students should have a say i n p o l i c i e s made which concern the u n i v e r s i t y , e s p e c i a l l y when they i n v o l v e the student? RESPONSES: YES: To me that seems l i k e an immature a t t i t u d e . Students don't have enough knowledge of the u n i v e r s i t y as a whole, to be able to make res p o n s i b l e .decisions as to p o l i c i e s . I t h i n k these d e c i s i o n s should be l e f t to people who r e a l l y know. IN SOME AND NOT IN OTHERS OR NO: I can't understand that k i n d of an a t t i t u d e . Who could know b e t t e r than the student at t e n d i n g the u n i v e r -s i t y what are good and bad p o l i c i e s . P e r s o n a l l y I f e e l such an a t t i t u d e i s a cop-out to avoid r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Would you ever consider running f o r an o f f i c e , say i n the A.M.S., during your u n i v e r s i t y career? RESPONSES: YES/MAYBE: I don't see why. You can't p o s s i b l y do t h i s and a l s o put the appropriate amount of work i n t o your s t u d i e s . I t seems to me l i k e a t o t a l waste of time, time which could be spend working so you could achieve higher grades. NO: Your a t t i t u d e s u r p r i s e s me. I f everyone thought l i k e you, students wouldn't have any r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on u n i v e r s i t y committees. Sometimes I t h i n k students j u s t don't care about anything but t h e i r own l i f e . Perhaps we could change the subj e c t a b i t to focus more on the academic side of the u n i v e r s i t y . What do you t h i n k about the s i z e of your c l a s s e s RESPONSES: OKAY OR TOO BIG BUT REALIZE THIS BECAUSE OF COST OF TEACHERS: Boy, are you unusual. P e r s o n a l l y I found I learned very l i t t l e i n l a r g e c l a s s e s and I know most of my f r i e n d s f e l t the same way. This r e a l l y bugged me because I wanted to maximize my l e a r n i n g and I knew i t was p o s s i b l e to have smaller c l a s s e s so I could do t h i s . BAD: W e l l , they may be l a r g e , but s i z e of a c l a s s shouldn't i n h i b i t l e a r n i n g i f the student wants to l e a r n . Anyway, don't you r e a l i z e that i t i s not f e a s i b l e economically to have small c l a s s e s f o r the l a r g e number of f i r s t - y e a r students e n r o l l e d . 11. What about, your pr o f e s s o r s ? How do you f i n d t h e i r l e c t u r e s ? Do you f e e l they put the time and e f f o r t they should i n t o make l e c t u r e s i n t e r e s t i n g and understandable? RESPONSES: YES: W e l l , I have found very few students who f e e l t h i s way. I have always f e l t that l e c t u r e s tend to l a c k i n f o r m a t i o n that I didn't already know. On the whole, I t h i n k I have learned l i t t l e from my p r o f e s s o r s . SOME YES/SOME NO: W e l l , I'm glad to see you give c r e d i t to at l e a s t some of your p r o f e s s o r s . P e r s o n a l l y I don't t h i n k students r e a l i z e how hard i t i s to l e c t u r e to a sea of u n i n t e r e s t e d faces. Perhaps i f you as students seemed more i n t e r e s t e d your p r o f e s s o r s would t r y harder. NO: W e l l , I guess you're l i k e most students - f u l l of complaints about your i n s t r u c t o r . What you people don't r e a l i z e i s that i t i s hard to be i n t e r e s t i n g when you are l o o k i n g at a sea of bored faces. Perhaps i f you took more of an i n t e r e s t i n what i s being taught your p r o f e s s o r s would t r y harder. 12. Students o f t e n complain they don't r e c e i v e enough i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n from t h e i r p r o f e s s o r s . How do you f e e l about t h i s ? 95 RESPONSES: SATISFIED: Well you are l u c k y . I guess you must not have too many problems w i t h your work or i f you do, they don't worry you enough that you seek help. Of course you r e a l i z e that there are students who need t h i s help and aren't able to get i t . DISSATISFIED BUT UNDERSTAND: W e l l , you c e r t a i n l y are generous. I guess that's because you've never been i n the p o s i t i o n , as many students are, of r e a l l y needing or wanting some e x t r a i n f o r m a t i o n . Perhaps i f you were i n t h i s , p o s i t i o n your a t t i t u d e would change a b i t . DISSATISFIED: You know I j u s t can't f i g u r e out what students expect. Each professor has at l e a s t three c l a s s e s c o n t a i n i n g many students. I would t h i n k you could r e a l i z e i t j u s t i s n ' t humanly p o s s i b l e to meet each student's i n d i v i d u a l needs. What about teaching a s s i s t a n t s ? Do you f e e l they make themselves a v a i l -able to you i f you need help w i t h your work? RESPONSES: YES/YES AND NO: That's an unusual answer. As w i t h p r o f e s s o r s , most students f i n d they don't get enough help w i t h t h e i r work from T.A.s. I t ' s n i c e that you're s a t i s f i e d , but maybe you should t h i n k a l i t t l e more about your classmates who are l o s i n g out because they aren't as lucky as you. NO: You know, you should t r y being a T.A. sometime. Do you r e a l i z e they c a r r y a f u l l academic l o a d i n a d d i t i o n to be a T.A.? I r e a l l y t h i n k students are u n f a i r when they complain about not being able to t h e i r T.A.s enough. What about the e v a l u a t i o n system f o r students? Do you f i n d the marking system f a i r , or do you f e e l i t doesn't r e a l l y evaluate your knowledge? R F.SPONSES: FAIR: W e l l , you c e r t a i n l y are i n a m i n o r i t y . A number of students f i n d the present system of e v a l u a t i o n very d i f f i c u l t . They experience exam anxiety or have problems w r i t i n g papers. But I guess you don't consider these people and t h e i r t r o u b l e s . NOT FAIR: W e l l , i t may not be the best way, but i t ' s about the only method which i s f e a s i b l e . With so many students, there i s no way a p r o f e s s o r can get to know h i s students w e l l enough to evaluate them on a personal b a s i s . I r e a l l y t h i n k people who complain are being u n r e a l -i s t i c . What about g e t t i n g papers and exams back? Are you s a t i s f i e d w i t h the time period i t takes before they are returned? RESPONSES: YES: W e l l , unless you are i n an unusual c l a s s you must not get your work back f o r a l e a s t a week. And i f i t takes t h i s long or longer, then you gain l i t t l e i n terms of l e a r n i n g from your mistakes. But them maybe you are l i k e a number of students - you j u s t look at your makr but don't use i t or the comments i n order to improve next time. NO/NO AND YES: Of course you r e a l i z e your d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i s based on u n r e a l i s t i c expecations. P r o f e s s o r s and T.A.s can't j u s t drop every-t h i n g when exams and papers come i n ; they do have other commitments. But then most students tend to ignore the workloads of t h e i r i n s t r u c -t o r s and t h i n k only of themselves. When you f i r s t entered u n i v e r s i t y what kind of marks i d you expect to get? RESPONSES: HIGH: W e l l , that's p r e t t y u n r e a l i s t i c . You must e i t h e r have f e l t 9 7 u n i v e r s i t y would be easy or you are very i n t e l l i g e n t . Do you r e a l i z e approximately 1/4 of f i r s t - y e a r students drop out or f a i l and only a sm a l l percentage r e c e i v e f i r s t - c l a s s marks? AVERAGE OR LOW: W e l l , i t doesn't sound l i k e you expected much of your-s e l f . This s u r p r i s e s me because i f you don't expect a l o t of y o u r s e l f then you u s u a l l y don't work as hard as you could. Buy maybe you aren't that i n t e r e s t e d i n doing w e l l . NO EXPECATIONS: W e l l , that c e r t a i n l y doesn't suggest you thought much about u n i v e r s i t y before you came. One could assume from t h i s that you aren't p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n your academic l i f e . 17. In gen e r a l , what have your marks been l i k e t h i s year? RESPONSES: HIGH: W e l l , that's understandable; i t r e a l l y i s n ' t that hard to do w e l l at u n i v e r s i t y as the standards are q u i t e low. I know I u s u a l l y got f i r s t c l a s s marks and had to put l i t t l e work i n . I t h i n k they should r a i s e the standards so r e a l l y only good students get high marks. AVERAGE/LOW/MIXTURE AVERAGE LOW: W e l l , I guess you're not working too hard. Maybe l i k e a l o t of students you are ov e r i n v o l v e d i n s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s and i g n o r i n g your s t u d i e s . U n i v e r s i t y r e q u i r e s a l o t of work, you know. 18. Do you f e e l s a t i s f i e d w i t h your marks, or do you f e e l you could do b e t t e r and would l i k e to improve? RESPONSES: . SATISFIED: You know, i t ' s not that good an i d e a to ever f e e l s a t i s f i e d w i t h what you have achieved. When you f e e l t h i s way the tendency i s to s i t back and r e l a x and before you know i t your work goes down. One should always s t r i v e to do b e t t e r . 9B DISSATISFIED: W e l l , i f you r e a l l y f e e l t h i s way the only way to remedy the s i t u a t i o n i s to work hard. Often t h i s means g i v i n g up things you want to do, but i f you r e a l l y care about how you are doing, you would be w i l l i n g to do t h i s . '• 19. A know a number of students don't attend many l e c t u r e s . Do you attend most of your l e c t u r e s or do you s k i p them? RESPONSES: ATTEND: W e l l , you are an unusual person. Most students q u i c k l y r e a l i z e that a t t e n d i n g a l l l e c t u r e s i s i n e f f i c i e n t i n terms of u t i l i z a t i o n of time. Lecture time can o f t e n be used more f r u i t f u l l y by working on your own. You don't r e a l l y have to attend more than about 2/3 of your l e c t u r e s . DON'T ATTEND: I don't b e l i e v e how oft e n I hear t h i s . Sometimes I wonder why we have a u n i v e r s i t y when most students are so uncaring they don't even bother to attend t h e i r l e c t u r e s . I don't see how you expect to l e a r n i f you don't go to l e c t u r e s . 20. Apart from l e c t u r e s how much time would you say you spend a week working on your courses? RESPONSES: A LOT: Wow, that's r e a l l y a l o t of time. I t sounds l i k e you tend to overstudy. That's a bad hab i t to get i n t o because as you go on i n u n i v e r s i t y your workload w i l l increase and you won't be able to handle i t unless you l e a r n to work more e f f i c i e n t l y . AVERAGE OR LOW: That doesn't sound l i k e very much to me. I guess you're not very i n t e r e s t e d i n l e a r n i n g at u n i v e r s i t y . I f i n d I have to work much harder than that to r e a l l y get something out of my educa-t i o n . 9 ? Of course that's my o p i n i o n . Do you f e e l you put the appropriate amount of time i n t o your s t u d i e s ? R E S P O N S E S : YES: W e l l , i t ' s your l i f e . You are the one who w i l l have to l i v e w i t h the r e s u l t s of your d e c i s i o n , not me. I j u s t hope you f e e l t h i s way two years from now. NO: W e l l , that's good to hear. But of course you know that the best p r e d i c t o r of f u t u r e behaviour i s past behaviour, but you never can t e l l , maybe ..you w i l l change. Do you f e e l that g e t t i n g a bachelor's degree from u n i v e r s i t y w i l l help you i n g a i n i n g employment which you otherwhise couldn't have gotten? RESPONSES: YES: W e l l , i t seems to me you have a l o t to l e a r n . Many people won't h i r e a BA because they are e i t h e r o v e r q u a l i f i e d or u n d e r q u a l i f i e d for most of the jobs a v a i l a b l e . NO: Well then, why are you here? I suppose you j u s t had four years to dwindle away, so you decided to waste them here. APPENDIX 4 Summary of A n a l y s i s of Variance on the Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l Scores During the P o s i t i v e and Negative Interview Conditions F r i e n d l y - U n f r i e n d l y Source S_S d_f MS F T o t a l 298.78 39 Depressed/Nondepressed (D) 2. 03 1 2.03 2. 86 ns P o s i t i v e / N e g a t i v e C o n d i t i o n (P) 270.40 1 270.40 382. 49 <.01 DxP 0. 90 1 0. 90 1. 27 ns Between Subjects E r r o r 25.45 36 0.71 Pleasant-Unpleasant Source SS df MS F £ T o t a l 273.99 39 Depressed/Nondepressed (D) 1.81 1 1.81 3. 56 ns P o s i t i v e / N e g a t i v e Condition (P) 252.51 1 252.51 497. 41 <.01 DxP 1.41 1 1.41 2. 77 ns Between Subjects E r r o r 18.26 36 0.51 . .. continued toi APPENDIX 4"continued Interested-Uninterested Source SS df MS T o t a l 96. 29 39 Depressed/Nondepressed (D) 0. 23 1 0. .23 0. ,21 ns P o s i t i v e / N e g a t i v e C o n d i t i o n (P) 55. 23 1 55. .23 50. 21 <.01 DxP 1. 23 1 1. .23 1. , 11 ns Between Subjects E r r o r 39.. 60 36 1. .10 Emotional-Unemotional Source SS df MS F P_ T o t a l 54.98 39 Depressed/Nondepressed (D) 0.23 1 0.23 0.23 ns P o s i t i v e / N e g a t i v e C o n d i t i o n (P) 16. 90 1 16.90 17.21 <.o: DxP 2.50 1 2.50 0.03 ns Between. Subjects E r r o r 35.35 36 0.98 continued IQ2, APPENDIX 4 continued Kind-Cruel Source _SS df MS F P T o t a l 138.93 39 Depressed/Nondepressed (D) 1. 81 1 1.81 1. 92 ns l.'ositlvo/Negative Condition (P) 97.66 1 97.66 103.94 <.bi DxP 5. 63 .1 5. 63 0.06 ns Between Subjects E r r o r 33. 83 36 0.94 Soft-Hard Source SS df MS F T o t a l 72. 51 39 Depressed/Nondepressed (D) 3. 91 1 3. .91 5. 19 ns P o s i t i v e / N e g a t i v e C o n d i t i o n (P) 41. 01 1 41. .01 54. 52 <.o: DxP 0. 51 1 0. 51 0. 67 ns Between Subjects E r r o r 27. 08 36 0. 75 continued APPENDIX 4 continued Warm-Cold Source SS df MS F T o t a l 207 .60 39 Depressed/Nondepressed (D) 4 . 23 1 4. 23 5. , 15 ns P o s i t i v e / N e g a t i v e C o n d i t i o n (P) 172 . 22 1 172. 22 209. ,82 <.01 DxP 1 .60 1 1. 60 1. 95 ns Between Subjects E r r o r 29 .55 36 0. 82 Supportive-Unsupportive Source SS df MS F P T o t a l 164. 18 39 Depressed/Nondepressed (D) 0. 76 1 0. 76 0. , 74 ns P o s i t i v e / N e g a t i v e C o n d i t i o n (P) 120. 76 1 120. 76 117. .41 <.01 DxP 5. 63 1 5. 63 0. 06 ns Between Subjects E r r o r 37. 03 36 1. 03 continued /6v APPENDIX: 4 continued U n d e r s t a n d i n g - C r i t i c a l Source SS df MS T o t a l 203. 10 39 Depressed/Nondepressed (D) 1. 23 1 1. 23 . 1. 17 ns P o s i t i v e / N e g a t i v e Condition (P) 164. 02 1 164. 02 156. 42 <. 01 DxP 0. 10 1 0. 10 0. , 10 ns Between Subjects E r r o r 37. 75 36 1. 05 P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e Source SJ3 df_ MS F_ p_ T o t a l 46.76 36 Depressed/Nondepressed (D) 1.06 1 1.06 1.34 ns P o s i t i v e / N e g a t i v e Condition (P) 10.51 1 10.57 11.33 <.01 DxP 1.81 1 1.81 1.95 ns Between Subjects E r r o r 33.38 36 0.93 continued APPENDIX 4 continued Sociable-Unsociable Source SS df MS F P. T o t a l 157.18 39 Depressed/Nondepressed (D) 15.63 1 5.63 0. 06 ns P o s i t i v e / N e g a t i v e C o n d i t i o n (P) 113.91 1 113.91 114.47 <.01 DxP 1.81 1 1.81 1.82 ns Between Subjects E r r o r 35.83 36 1.00 Considerate-Inconsiderate Source SS df MS F P T o t a l 137.40 39 Depressed/Nondepressed (D) 4.90 1 4.90 7.51 <.01 P o s i t i v e / N e g a t i v e Condition (P) 108.90 1 108.90 166.83 <.01 DxP 0.10 1 0.10 0.15 ns Between Subjects E r r o r 23.50 36 0.65 continued -j ft' APPENDIX /, c o n t i n u e d Empathetic-Unempathetic Source S_S df_ MS I P T o t a l 38.88 39 Depressed/Nondepressed (D) 1.60 1 1.60 2.44 ns P o s i t i v e / N e g a t i v e Condntion (P) 13.23 1 13.23 20.14 <.01 DxP 0.40 1 0.40 0.61 ns Between Subjects Er r o r 23.65 36 0.66 107 APPENDIX 5 Verbal and Nonverbal Responses of Depressed and Nondepressed Subjects Under Positive and Negative Interview Conditions F-Test Results Source SS df MS F £ Length of Duration of Utterance Depressed/Nondepressed 74.26 1 74.26 0.31 ns Positive/Negative 38094.00 1 38094.00 1.61 Interaction 21.49 1 21.49 0.09 ns Error 8519.04 36 236.64 Lengths of Reaction Time Latency Depressed/Nondepressed 0.009 1 0.009 0.02 ns Positive/Negative 0.43 1 0.43 1.12 ns Interaction 0.005 1 0.005 0.01 ns Error 13.73 36 0.38 Length of Interruptions Depressed/Nondepressed 887.36 1 887.36 4.70 .05 Positive/Negative 846.40 1 846.40 4.49 .05 Interaction 75.63 1 75.63 0.40 ns Error 6752.90 36 - 188.69 Length of Eye Contact 1404.0,0 Depressed/Nondepressed 1409.60 1 6.66 ns Positive/Negative 60373.00 1 60373.00 28.19 .01 Interaction 8.65 i 8.65 0.00 ns Error 77114.00 36 2142.10 Frequency of Nodding Depressed/Nondepressed 1404.20 1 1404.20 3.04' ns Positive/Negative 8549.80 1 8549.80 18.50 .01 Interaction 68.12 1 68.12 0.15 ns Error 16639.00 36 462.20 Frequency of Smiling Depressed/Nondepressed 960.40 1 960.40 1.13 ns Positive/Negative 17578.00 1 17978.10 24.56 .01 Interaction 2005.10 1 2005.10 2.74 ns Error 26357.00 36 732.13 . continued 108 APPENDIX 5 continued Source SS df MS Frequency of Hand Movements Depressed/Nondepressed 368.35 1 368.45 0.53 ns Positive/Negative 715.72 1 715.72 1.03 ns Interaction 22.80 1 22.80 0.03 ns Error 25093.00 36 697.03 

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.831.1-0094412/manifest

Comment

Related Items