Education, Faculty of
Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Pachal, Doreen Mae
Doctor of Education - EdD
University of British Columbia
This study sought to test the feasibility of training sixth-grade girls to assist in the counselling process. In particular, their ability to learn and demonstrate the skill of empathic responding was assessed. The research study involved 24 volunteer girls who were randomly assigned to three groups, those who; (a) received training in paraphrasing and reflection of feeling, (b) received training which included paraphrasing, reflection of feeling and positive self-instruction, and (c) formed a control group. Because of the possibility that empathy may often be inhibited by self-concern, positive self-instruction was included to discover whether reminders to concentrate on another person would reduce anxiety in trainees and facilitate their expressions of empathy. Subjects' skills were assessed by: (a) girls in the same grade at a different school, (b) expert adult judges relying upon audiotapes, and (c) an expert adult judge who also acted as client. Experts used the Carkhuff (1969) Scale of Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes, and the peers used a modified Carkhuff scale constructed for the study. The findings were as follows: (a) significant increases in empathy for the trained groups, when compared to the control group, on the basis of expert ratings, (b) no significant difference in empathy among groups when rated by peers acting as clients, (c) no significant correlation between ratings of peer clients and experts, (d) no significant difference in empathy between the two trained groups. Thus, training produced significant increases in empathy, as measured by experts; however, other findings suggested that sixth-grade girls wanted good advice along with empathy from their peers. Training at this developmental stage should probably include problem-solving skills in addition to empathy.
EMPATHY TRAINING FOR ADOLESCENT PEER COUNSELLING by Doreen Mae Pachal B.A., Brandon College, University of Manitoba M.Ed., Univ e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTORATE OF EDUCATION THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Counselling Psychology Faculty of Education We accept t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA i n March, 1982 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 DE-6 (3/81) i i S u p e r v i s o r : Dr. Myrne B. Nevison. A b s t r a c t T h i s s t u d y sought t o t e s t the f e a s i b i l i t y o f t r a i n i n g s i x t h -grade g i r l s t o a s s i s t i n the c o u n s e l l i n g p r o c e s s . I n p a r t i -c u l a r , t h e i r a b i l i t y t o l e a r n and demonstrate the s k i l l o f empathic r e s p o n d i n g was a s s e s s e d . The r e s e a r c h s t u d y i n v o l v e d 24 v o l u n t e e r g i r l s who were randomly a s s i g n e d t o t h r e e groups, those who; (a) r e c e i v e d t r a i n i n g i n p a r a p h r a s i n g and r e f l e c -t i o n o f f e e l i n g , (b) r e c e i v e d t r a i n i n g w h i c h i n c l u d e d p a r a -p h r a s i n g , r e f l e c t i o n o f f e e l i n g and p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n , and (c) formed a c o n t r o l group. Because o f the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t empathy may o f t e n be i n h i b i t e d by s e l f - c o n c e r n , p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n was i n c l u d e d t o d i s c o v e r whether reminders t o c o n c e n t r a t e on another p e r s o n would reduce a n x i e t y i n t r a i n -ees and f a c i l i t a t e t h e i r e x p r e s s i o n s o f empathy. S u b j e c t s ' s k i l l s were a s s e s s e d by: (a) g i r l s i n the same grade a t a d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l , (b) e x p e r t a d u l t judges r e l y i n g upon a u d i o -t a p e s , and (c) an e x p e r t a d u l t judge who a l s o a c t e d as c l i e n t . E x p e r t s used the C a r k h u f f (1969) S c a l e o f Empathic U n d e r s t a n d i n g i n I n t e r p e r s o n a l P r o c e s s e s , and the peers used a m o d i f i e d C a r k h u f f s c a l e c o n s t r u c t e d f o r the stu d y . The f i n d i n g s were as f o l l o w s : (a) s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e s i n empathy f o r the t r a i n e d groups, when compared t o the c o n t r o l group, on the b a s i s o f e x p e r t r a t i n g s , (b) no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n empathy among groups when rated by peers acting as c l i e n t s , (c) no s i g n i f i c a n t correlation between ratings of peer c l i e n t s and experts, (d) no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n empathy^ between the two trained groups. Thus, tr a i n i n g produced s i g n i f i c a n t increases i n empathy, as measured by experts; however, other findings suggested that sixth-grade g i r l s wanted good advice along with empathy from th e i r peers. Training at thi s develop-mental stage should probably include problem-solving s k i l l s i n addition to empathy. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page ABSTRACT i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i x I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1 Nature of the Problem 1 Empathy 2 Empathy Assessment.. 3 Empathy Tra in ing with Students 4 Purpose of the Study 5 Research Questions 6 Implications of the Study 6 L imitat ions of the Study 7 De f in i t i ons 7 Summary 9 Overview of the Study 9 II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10 Empathy 10 Research on Empathy 10 Teaching the Use of Empathy 11 Problems i n Evaluat ing Empathy 12 Pos i t i ve Se l f - I n s t ruc t i on 13 Pos i t i ve Se l f - I n s t ruc t i on with Students 14 Empathy and Pos i t i ve Se l f -Ins t ruct ion 15 Ear ly Adolescence: A Suitable Stage for Empathy Tra in ing 17 Student Peers as Counsellors 18 Review of School-Based Studies 18 Def i c ienc ies of School-Based Studies 19 Summary 21 Formulation of the Study 21 III METHODOLOGY 2 3 Population and Sample 23 De f in i t i ons 25 Data Analys is 2 8 Hypothesis Test ing 2 9 Design 31 General Design 31 Dependent Var iab le 31 Hypothesis Test ing 32 Group Comparisons 32 Spec i f i c Procedures 32 V TABLE OF CONTENTS - c o n t i n u e d Chapter Page P r o c e d u r e s 32 Treatment P r o c e d u r e s 32 S p e c i f i c D e s i g n 33 T e s t i n g P r o c e d u r e s 34 Samp l i n g P r o c e d u r e s and Assignments 35 Measurement o f Dependent V a r i a b l e 36 S c o r i n g I n s t r u m e n t s 36 C a r k h u f f S c a l e f o r Measurement 'o o f Empathy 36 N a i v e - P e e r - R a t e r S c a l e o f U n d e r s t a n d i n g : A u t o - S c a l e o f Empathy 38 S c o r i n g P r o c e d u r e s '40 L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study 41 D e s i g n 41 S c a l e s 42 R a t i o n a l e s 43 One to-one S e t t i n g 43 N u l l Hypotheses 44 IV RESULTS 47 A n a l y s i s o f Data . 47 H y p o t h e s i s One 50 H y p o t h e s i s Two 52 H y p o t h e s i s Three 54 H y p o t h e s i s Four 55 H y p o t h e s i s F i v e 60 H y p o t h e s i s S i x 61 H y p o t h e s i s Seven 62 V DISCUSSION AND'IMPLICATIONS 66 F i n d i n g s 66 Re s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n (a) 66 Re s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n (b) 68 Rese a r c h Q u e s t i o n (c) 69 Re s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n (d) 71 Summary o f F i n d i n g s and . x : C o n c l u s i o n s 7 3 D i r e c t i o n s f o r F u t u r e R e s e a r c h . 78 REFERENCES 83 APPENDICES 9 3 v i LIST OF TABLES T a b l e Page 1 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : A u d i o t a p e d Responses t o S t i m u l u s Statement (Expert R a t e r s : Group 1) 51 2- Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : A u d i o t a p e d Responses o f T r a i n e e I n t e r v i e w s ( E x p e r t R a t e r s : Group 1) 52 3 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : T r a i n e e I n t e r v i e w ( N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s : Group 1) 53 4 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t ^ V a l u e s f o r Empathy S c o r e s : A u d i o t a p e d Responses t o S t i m u l u s Statement ( E x p e r t R a t e r s : Group 2) 53 5 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : A u d i o t a p e d Responses o f T r a i n e e I n t e r v i e w s ( E x p e r t R a t e r s : Group 2) 5 3 6 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : T r a i n e e I n t e r v i e w s ( N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s : Group 2) 53 7 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : A u d i o t a p e d Responses t o S t i m u l u s Statement ( E x p e r t R a t e r s : C o n t r o l Group) 54 8 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : A u d i o t a p e d Responses o f S u b j e c t I n t e r v i e w s ( E x p e r t R a t e r s : C o n t r o l Group) 55 9 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : S u b j e c t I n t e r v i e w s ( N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s : C o n t r o l Group) 55 10 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Three Groups, P o s t t e s t 1: A u d i o t a p e d Responses t o S t i m u l u s Statement ( E x p e r t R a t e r s ) 57 11 Tukey M u l t i p l e - C o m p a r i s o n , P o s t t e s t 1: A u d i o t a p e d Responses t o S t i m u l u s Statement (Expert R a t e r s ) 57 v i i LIST OF TABLES - c o n t i n u e d T a b l e , Page 12 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Three Groups, P o s t t e s t 2: A u d i o t a p e d Responses o f I n t e r v i e w s w i t h P e e r s (Expert R a t e r s ) 58 13 Tukey M u l t i p l e - C o m p a r i s o n , P o s t t e s t 2: A u d i o t a p e d Responses o f I n t e r v i e w s w i t h P e e r s ( E x p e r t R a t e r s ) 58 14 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Three Groups' Empathy S c o r e s ( N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s : P o s t t e s t I n t e r v i e w ) 5 9 15 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Three Groups' Empathy S c o r e s ( E x p e r t C l i e n t R a t e r : P o s t t e s t I n t e r v i e w ) 5 9 16 Tukey M u l t i p l e - C o m p a r i s o n ( E x p e r t -C l i e n t R a t e r : P o s t t e s t I n v e r v i e w Empathy S c o r e s ) . . . 60 17 C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s : E x p e r t v e r s u s N a i v e R a t e r s ( P r e t e s t I n t e r v i e w ) 61 18 C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s : E x p e r t v e r s u s N a i v e R a t e r s ( P o s t t e s t Peer I n t e r v i e w ) 62 19 C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r Empathy S c o r e s : N a i v e and E x p e r t C l i e n t -R a t e r s ( P o s t t e s t I n t e r v i e w s ) 63 2 0 Empathy S c o r e s : P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , t - V a l u e s and P r o b a b i l i t i e s : A u d i o t a p e d Responses o f S u b j e c t I n t e r v i e w s 6 4 21 Empathy S c o r e s : t - V a l u e s and P r o b a b i l i t i e s , P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s : S u b j e c t I n t e r v i e w s ( N a i v e -P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s : Three Gro u p s ) . . . 65 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES F i g u r e Page 1 E f f e c t o f Empathy T r a i n i n g on I n t e r -v i e w B e h a v i o u r : (Expert R a t e r s ) 48 2 E f f e c t o f Empathy T r a i n i n g on I n t e r -v i e w B e h a v i o u r : (Naive R a t e r s ) 48 3 Mean Empathy R a t i n g s f o r Three Groups: ( P r e t e s t ) 49 4 Mean Empathy R a t i n g s f o r Three Groups: ; ( P o s t t e s t ) . . . . 49 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I w i s h t o e x p r e s s my thanks t o thos e p e o p l e who h e l p e d make c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e r e s e a r c h p r o -j e c t and d i s s e r t a t i o n p o s s i b l e : My Chairman, Dr. Myrne N e v i s o n , and t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n committee, Dr. H a r o l d R a t z l a f f , Dr. W i l l i a m Borgen, Dr. John A l l e n and Dr. Norman Amundson f o r t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i v e sug-g e s t i o n s ; t h e Burnaby S c h o o l B o a r d , and C h a f f e y Burke and M a r l b o r o u g h E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h e r s f o r a l l o w i n g me t o work w i t h t h e i r p u p i l s ; t h e p u p i l s f o r b e i n g g r e a t t o work w i t h ; and E l l e n Moore f o r t h e e x c e l l e n t t y p i n g . 1 CHAPTER I . INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Nature of the Problem Our s o c i e t y has been defined as an unhealthy one where symptoms of d i s t r e s s are widespread (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; LaLonde, 1976; S r o l e , Lagner, M i s c h a e l , Opter & Rennie, 1972). With regard t o the young, r i s i n g problems of a l c o h o l and drug abuse, a l i e n a t i o n , depression and s u i c i d e have overburdened the h e a l t h f a c i l i t i e s (Rice, 1977). T r a d i t i o n a l forms of help must be d r a m a t i c a l l y improved or changed i n order to deal w i t h c u r r e n t p s y c h o s o c i a l problems. One p a r t of the problem may be that adolescent peer groups g e n e r a l l y c o n t r i b u t e l i t t l e to the self-esteem of t h e i r members (Delworth, 1974), but adolescence i s the stage of development when emotional independence from parents i s u s u a l l y sought and young people depend upon the peer group f o r understanding (Havighurst, 1951). In order to improve i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s , such as understanding of one another, some schools have i n i t i a t e d peer c o u n s e l l i n g programs (Anderson, 197 6; Andrade, 1975; Brown, 1980; Dyer, 1975; Varenhorst, 1974). In attempting to deal w i t h the r i s e i n acute problems among t h e i r students, some c o u n s e l l o r s have reasoned that i f students could l i s t e n w i t h understanding to t h e i r peers' p r o b l -mens, there could be a re d u c t i o n i n teenage a l i e n a t i o n , depres-s i o n , and i n drug and a l c o h o l abuse (Merchant & Z i n g l e , 1977; Samuels & Samuels, 1975). However, i t seems i m p e r a t i v e t h a t such young c o u n s e l l o r s be t r a i n e d and a s s e s s e d t o be c e r t a i n t h a t t h e y respond t o o t h e r s a t a l e v e l o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h i c h i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be m i n i m a l l y f a c i l i t a t i v e , t h a t i s , t o be b e n e f i c i a l t o o t h e r s by h e l p i n g them t o e x p l o r e t h e i r own tho u g h t s and f e e l i n g s . T h i s q u a l i t y o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g may be c a l l e d "empathy." Empathy R e s e a r c h e r s have found t h a t empathy, u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the f e e l i n g and meaning o f an o t h e r p e r s o n and t h e communi-c a t i o n o f t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o t h a t p e r s o n (Rogers, 195 9 ) , can be sharpened t h r o u g h t r a i n i n g ( C a r k h u f f , 1969; I v e y , 1978). The i m p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s i s t h a t e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l l o r s can be t r a i n e d and t h a t t h e r e may be many p o t e n t i -a l l y e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l l o r s who have not y e t had the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s u i t a b l e t r a i n i n g . Perhaps an e x p l a n a t i o n needs t o be made w i t h r e g a r d t o the term "empathy." I n one sense t h i s term i s used t o de-s c r i b e t h e deep f e e l i n g s o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f one p e r s o n f o r a n o t h e r , a g l o b a l c oncept w h i c h , so f a r , cannot be v a l i d a t e d e m p i r i c a l l y . I t may o r may not be p o s s i b l e f o r t r a i n i n g t o f a c i l i t a t e p o s i t i v e changes i n t h e deep f e e l i n g s o f one p e r s o n f o r a n o t h e r and measurement o f such f e e l i n g s cannot be made w i t h any degree o f a c c u r a c y . T h e r e f o r e , r e s e a r c h has g e n e r a l l y u t i l i z e d r a t i n g s c a l e s t o measure changes i n t h e f a c i l i t a t i v e s k i l l s o f empathy, warmth, and genuineness w h i c h r e l y t o a 3 g r e a t e x t e n t upon v e r b a l r e s p o n s e s as an i n d i c a t i o n o f f e e l i n g s o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g . The s c a l e s cannot measure a l l a s p e c t s o f a g l o b a l empathy c o n s t r u c t . I t may a l s o be noted t h a t t h e r e i s not y e t c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e communication o f empathy as measured by t h e C a r k h u f f S c a l e s p r o v i d e s f o r e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l l i n g w i t h a l l p e r s o n s i n a l l s i t u a t i o n s . S t u d i e s have f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t an-answers to. t h e i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n : "Which c o u n s e l l o r s , under what c o n d i t i o n s , w i t h w h i c h t y p e s o f c l i e n t s a t what s t a g e o f l i f e , need t o use w h i c h k i n d s o f s k i l l s t o e f f e c t what k i n d s o f c l i e n t changes?" There i s even an unanswered q u e s t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o when i n t h e c o u r s e o f a c o u n s e l l i n g i n t e r v i e w o r s e r i e s o f i n t e r v i e w s c o u n s e l l o r empathic r e s p o n d i n g i s most f a c i l i t a t i v e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t was c o n c l u d e d , a f t e r an e x t e n -s i v e r e v i e w o f r e s e a r c h t h a t "The r e c e n t e v i d e n c e , a l t h o u g h e q u i v o c a l , does seem t o su g g e s t t h a t empathy, warmth, and genuineness a re r e l a t e d i n some way t o c l i e n t change but t h a t t h e i r p o t e n c y and g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y a r e not as g r e a t as once t h o u g h t " ( M i t c h e l l , B o z a r t h , & K r a u f t , 1977, p. 483). Empathy Assessment C a r l Rogers' work i n t h e 1950's and '60's found empathy i n s t r u m e n t a l i n t h e growth o f e m o t i o n a l h e a l t h (Rogers, 1957, 1959, 1968). C a r k h u f f (1969) attempted t o i s o l a t e the empathy element i n human i n t e r a c t i o n s , t e s t i n g f o r i t s p r e s e n c e w i t h a 5 - p o i n t s c a l e . S u b j e c t s s c o r i n g a t l e v e l 3 on t h i s s c a l e were c o n s i d e r e d t o demonstrate empathy t o a degree t h a t would be e f f e c t i v e and f a c i l i t a t i v e i n c o u n s e l l i n g (Truax & C a r k h u f f , 1964). 4 I t i s d i f f i c u l t to capture evidence of a c o u n s e l l o r ' s personal impact and document t h i s e m p i r i c a l l y . However, teas -i n g out the i n g r e d i e n t s t h a t are i n v o l v e d i n making a p o s i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e has been what much of the research of Rogers and h i s f o l l o w e r s has been about. Imperfect though they are, the Carkhuff s c a l e s have been widely used i n such research and empathy, as measured by these s c a l e s , has shown a p o s i t i v e r e -l a t i o n s h i p i n most of the outcome s t u d i e s . Although there i s no e m p i r i c a l evidence t h a t v e r b a l and nonverbal responses equate p r e c i s e l y w i t h deeper f e e l i n g s , research has continued to use C a r k h u f f - l i k e scales i n attempting to provide o b j e c t i v e accounts of the personal f a c t o r s which c o r r e l a t e w i t h p o s i t i v e change. Reviewers of research i n which empathy was evaluated have recommended, however, that i n n o v a t i v e measures, p a r t i c u l a r l y of c l i e n t - p e r c e i v e d empathy, should be used to supplement the Carkhuff-type s c a l e s ( F i s k e , 197 7; Gurman, 1977; M i t c h e l l , Bozarth & K r a u f t , 1977). Empathy T r a i n i n g w i t h Students College and secondary school students have been able to p r o f i t from t r a i n i n g , and have undertaken some e f f e c t i v e coun-s e l l i n g f u n c t i o n s w i t h t h e i r peers (Montes & Ortega, 1976; Wrenn & Wencke, 1972). Vogelsong's (1976) study suggested th a t perhaps elementary school students can be t r a i n e d to r e -spond more empathically to one another. The assumption i s t h a t an increase i n communicated empathy may develop b e t t e r peer r e l a t i o n s . More study should be undertaken w i t h t h i s '. age group because of the preventive p o s s i b i l i t i e s of t r a i n i n g 5 before s e r i o u s problems might a r i s e . E f f e c t i v e communication s k i l l s may be h e l p f u l i n forming meaningful peer r e l a t i o n s h i p s before adjustments to the more impersonal secondary school s i t u a t i o n must be made. Purpose of the Study Because of the incidence of adolescent problems and the presumed b e n e f i t s of peers who respond w i t h empathy there i s a p a r t i c u l a r need to assess the impact of empathy t r a i n i n g on young people. Past experience w i t h groups of young students who acted w i t h h o s t i l i t y and de s t r u c t i v e n e s s to other students had prompted me to t r y to develop some means of changing s t u -dent values so that more humane behaviour might r e s u l t . As a c o u n s e l l o r , I had used one-to-one t r a i n i n g t o teach some e l e -mentary school students, who e x h i b i t e d a n t i s o c i a l a c t i o n s and who apparently lacked empathy, how to respond w i t h a degree of understanding towards others. The present study emerged out of t h a t a c t i v i t y , out of concern f o r many young students, and out of promising research w i t h o l d e r adolescents and others (Andrade, 1973; B e r g i n , 1971; Haynes & Avery, 1979; Hefele, 1 979; Hundleby, 1 973). Grade s i x g i r l s were chosen because developmental issues are of great concern i n the middle school years (Morris, 1 978) , and adolescence i s a time of concern w i t h self-esteem and peer r e l a t i o n s , of changing goals and r o l e s (Buttery & A l l a n , 1981; Freud, 1958). I t seems p o s s i b l e t h a t i f g i r l s i n the 11 to 13 age group could t a l k and l i s t e n to one another w i t h empathy, t h e s e communication s k i l l s c o u l d c o n t i n u e t o be used and l a t e r l e s s e n some o f t h e s e r i o u s problems t h a t o f t e n accompany l a t e a d o l e s c e n c e , such as a l i e n a t i o n and a n x i e t y . The s t u d y s e t out t o b o t h t r a i n and t h e n a s s e s s improve-ment i n empathy s k i l l s o f t r a i n e e s , not o n l y from t h e vantage p o i n t s o f n o n p a r t i c i p a n t e x p e r t r a t e r s , but a l s o t h a t o f c l i e n t s , p e e r s and an a d u l t . An a d d i t i o n a l purpose was t o a s s e s s t h e e f f e c t o f i n c l u d i n g p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n i n th e t r a i n i n g o f one group. T h i s t e c h n i q u e w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r . R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s I n s h o r t , t h e s t u d y s e t out t o answer t h e s e q u e s t i o n s : W i l l s h o r t - t e r m one-to-one t r a i n i n g i n t h e use o f p a r a p h r a s -i n g and r e f l e c t i o n o f f e e l i n g be s u f f i c i e n t t o enhance empa-t h i c r e s p o n d i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y ? W i l l p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n combined w i t h p a r a p h r a s i n g and r e f l e c t i o n o f f e e l i n g be more e f f e c t i v e i n t r a i n i n g f o r empathic r e s p o n d i n g ? What w i l l be the r e l a t i o n s h i p among assessments o f empathy from t h e van-t a g e p o i n t s o f c l i e n t s , p eer and a d u l t , and e x t e r n a l r a t e r s ? I m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e Study I f t h e s t u d y i n d i c a t e d t h a t the t r a i n i n g i s e f f e c t i v e i n i n c r e a s i n g t r a i n e e s ' empathic r e s p o n d i n g t o p e e r s o r a d u l t s , t h e n such t r a i n i n g c o u l d be suggested f o r use w i t h s i m i l a r p o p u l a t i o n s . I f r e s u l t s showed t h a t the i n c l u s i o n o f p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n as a component p a r t o f t r a i n i n g i s r e l a t i v e l y 7 e f f e c t i v e i t c o u l d be recommended f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t r a i n i n g . The l o n g - t e r m i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r improved s c h o o l c l i m a t e and p r e v e n t i o n o f s e r i o u s problems o f a d o l e s c e n c e would r e q u i r e f u r t h e r s t u d y . L i m i t a t i o n s o f the Study 1. On l y v o l u n t e e r s among grade s i x g i r l s were employed i n the s t u d y w h i c h l i m i t s g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f the r e s u l t s t o s i m i l a r p o p u l a t i o n s . 2. T e s t i n g i n c l u d e d c o u n s e l l i n g i n t e r v i e w s w i t h p e e r s from a d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l so t h a t g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f r e s u l t s t o d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h f r i e n d s i s not known. 3. G i r l s who formed t h e c o n t r o l group d i d not r e c e i v e the same i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n g i v e n t o t r a i n e e s ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e y were not a t r u e p l a c e b o c o n t r o l group. F u r t h e r d e t a i l s o f l i m i t a t i o n s w i l l be g i v e n i n Chapter I I I where o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f terms used w i l l a l s o be found. D e f i n i t i o n s The d e f i n i t i o n s w h i c h f o l l o w a re t h o s e w h i c h may be h e l p -f u l i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g terms used i n t h e f i r s t two c h a p t e r s . Empathy: The a c c u r a t e communication o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g and sen-s i t i v i t y t o b o t h t h e f e e l i n g s and e x p e r i e n c e o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n and t h e i r meaning and s i g n i f i c a n c e (Truax & M i t c h e l l , 1971). 8 C l i e n t - p e r c e i v e d empathy: The e x t e n t t o w h i c h a h e l p e e i s aware o f a h e l p e r ' s empathy w h i c h has been communicated t o h e r . T h i s p e r c e i v e d empathy i s sometimes r e f e r r e d t o as r e -c e i v e d o r e x p e r i e n c e d empathy. M i n i m a l l y - f a c i l i t a t i v e l e v e l o f empathy: That l e v e l o f r e s p o n d -i n g assumed t o e n a b l e a c l i e n t t o e x p l o r e h i s own t h o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s . A t t h i s l e v e l , t h e e x p r e s s i o n s o f the h e l p e r , o r p e r s o n t r y i n g t o be f a c i l i t a t i v e , a r e e s s e n t i a l l y i n t e r c h a n g e -a b l e w i t h t h o s e o f t h e h e l p e e o r c l i e n t . On t h e C a r k h u f f S c a l e f o r Measurement o f Empathy, a 5 - p o i n t s c a l e , t h e number "3" i s d e f i n e d as the m i n i m a l l y f a c i l i t a t i v e l e v e l . C o g n i t i v e s e l f - r e h e a r s a l : One o f a number o f t e c h n i q u e s used by a group o f r e s e a r c h e r s who c a l l t h e m s e l v e s " c o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o u r m o d i f i e r s " i n w h i c h a l l s u b j e c t s a r e t r a i n e d t o v e r b a l i z e t o the m s e l v e s c e r t a i n e x p r e s s i o n s , g e n e r a l l y o f a p o s i t i v e o r e n c o u r a g i n g n a t u r e (see Meichenbaum, 1979). P o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n : The o v e r t v e r b a l i z a t i o n s w h i c h sub-j e c t s a re encouraged t o use and w h i c h are d e s i g n e d t o d i r e c t t h e i r t h o u g h t s t o r e l e v a n t a s p e c t s o f empathic r e s p o n d i n g and s e l f - e n c o u r a g e m e n t , and the h y p o t h e s i z e d s i l e n t r e p e t i t i o n o f t h o s e v e r b a l i z a t i o n s as " t h o u g h t s . " A t t e n d i n g b e h a v i o u r : B e h a v i o u r n o r m a l l y used by p e r s o n s when t h e y c l o s e l y a t t e n d t o o r l i s t e n t o a n o t h e r p e r s o n , such as a p o s t u r e o f l e a n i n g somewhat towards t h a t o t h e r p e r s o n and m a i n t a i n i n g c o m f o r t a b l e eye c o n t a c t . 9 P a r a p h r a s i n g : The v e r b a l i z a t i o n o f a summary o f t h e c o n t e n t o f what a n o t h e r p e r s o n communicates. R e f l e c t i o n o f f e e l i n g : The v e r b a l i z a t i o n o f t h e f e e l i n g s assumed t o be o p e r a t i n g i n an o t h e r p e r s o n who i s a c t i n g as a c l i e n t . Summary I n summary, then,, t h e l i t e r a t u r e s u g g e s t s t h a t empathy i s a q u a l i t y w h i c h can be d e v e l o p e d by t r a i n i n g ( C a r k h u f f , 1969; I v e y , 1978; Truax & C a r k h u f f , 1964). I t has been demon-s t r a t e d t h a t e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l p u p i l s can master some components o f empathy (Vogelsong, 1976), and t r a i n i n g them t o be under-s t a n d i n g o f t h e i r p e e r s c o u l d have i m p o r t a n c e f o r p r e v e n t i o n o f some o f the problems o f l a t e a d o l e s c e n c e . A t t h i s age l e v e l , however, t r a i n i n g and a s s e s s i n g empathy i s p r o b l e m a t i c , and i t remains t o be seen whether t h e C a r k h u f f s c a l e s by th e m s e l v e s are s u f f i c i e n t t o measure empathy o f e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l s t u d e n t s o r whether s u p p o r t i n g measures a r e n e c e s s a r y t o supplement t h e s c a l e s . Overview o f t h e Study I n t h e n e x t c h a p t e r the l i t e r a t u r e on empathy t r a i n i n g , on p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n , and s c h o o l s ' p e e r c o u n s e l l i n g programs w i l l be r e v i e w e d . I n Chapter I I I t h e methodology o f t h e s t u d y i s p r e s e n t e d and i n Chapter IV, t h e r e s u l t s a r e g i v e n . A d i s c u s s i o n o f the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the r e s e a r c h , and s u g g e s t i o n s f o r f u t u r e s t u d y , a re p r e s e n t e d i n Chapter V. 10 CHAPTER I I . REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose of the f o l l o w i n g chapter i s to examine l i t e r a -t ure on empathy, p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n , and peer counsel-l i n g among., students. Since Gurman and Razin (1977) have already e x t e n s i v e l y r e -viewed research on empathy and i t s t r a i n i n g , and since Carr and Saunders (1980) o f f e r summaries of most of the s t u d i e s and pro-grams d e a l i n g w i t h peer c o u n s e l l i n g , only those s t u d i e s of p a r t i -c u l a r relevance to the present study w i l l be reviewed here. Empathy Research on Empathy The research on empathy by C a r l Rogers and h i s a s s o c i a t e s (Rogers, 1959, 1961, 1968; Rogers & Dyamond, 1954; Rogers, Gendlin, K i e s l e r & Truax, 1967) has had a profound impact on the f i e l d of c o u n s e l l i n g ; r e s u l t s of such s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e d that c o u n s e l l o r s demonstrating a high degree of empathy f a c i l i t a t e d improvement i n c l i e n t s . L a t e r s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e d p o s i t i v e im-provement i n the behaviour of students who i n t e r a c t e d w i t h others who showed them empathy (Brown, 1974; Gartner & Riessman, 1974). Comprehensive reviews of research have concluded t h a t , i n general, empathy f a c i l i t a t e s p o s i t i v e movement towards emo-t i o n a l , h e a l t h (Luborsky, Auerbach, Chandler, Cohen, Bachrach, 1971; Rachman, 1973). However, some c r i t i c s c l a i m that empathy may not be so important i n s i t u a t i o n s other than Rogerian 11 t h e r a p y ( G l a d s t e i n , 1977; Rappaport & C h i n s k y , 1972). There i s a need f o r knowledge o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s under w h i c h a c o u n s e l l o r ' s empathy i s most b e n e f i c i a l t o c l i e n t s . T e a c h i n g t h e Use o f Empathy As mentioned i n t h e f o r e g o i n g c h a p t e r , c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h has been dev o t e d t o e x a m i n i n g ways i n w h i c h p e o p l e ' s c a p a c i t y f o r empathy can be d e v e l o p e d (Andrade, 1973; Bierman, C a r k h u f f & S a n t i l l i , 1972; Haynes & A v e r y , 1979). I v e y ' s (1968) work i n t r a i n i n g c o u n s e l l o r s t o use empathy i n v o l v e d b r e a k i n g down complex i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s i n t o manageable l e a r n i n g u n i t s because, l i k e most complex q u a l i t i e s , empathy to o has component p a r t s . F o r example, " a c t i v e l i s t e n i n g " i s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n b e f o r e t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g can be p a r a p h r a s e d and communicated. I v e y ' s f l e d g l i n g c o u n s e l l o r s were encouraged t o master one component s k i l l b e f o r e p r o g r e s s -i n g t o the n e x t so t h a t s u c c e s s was ensured i n one s k i l l be-f o r e a n o t h e r was a t t e m p t e d . Some secondary s t u d e n t s have a p p a r e n t l y been t r a i n e d t o communicate more e m p a t h i c a l l y (Hundleby, 1973). However, i t may be n o t e d t h a t a l t h o u g h Hundleby's program used t h e term "empathy" e x t e n s i v e l y , the a c t u a l t a s k s e t f o r assessment by p e e r s was t o choose w h i c h o f two s t u d e n t s t h e y c o u l d "go and t a l k t o . " T h i s may not n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t t h e most empathic communicator. Younger s t u d e n t s may w e l l be a b l e t o a c h i e v e s i m i l a r r e -s u l t s . G i v e n i n d i v i d u a l t r a i n i n g and a program w h i c h t e a c h e s b a s i c s k i l l s — i n o t h e r words, a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n o f I v e y ' s 12 mi q r o c o u n s e l l i n g model—they may be able to l e a r n to employ empathic communication more i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l d e a l i n g s . Problems i n E v a l u a t i n g Empathy Since empathy i s somewhat i n t a n g i b l e , i t f o l l o w s t h a t i t s measurement i s subject to many d i f f i c u l t i e s . One reason f o r problems i n e v a l u a t i n g empathy i s t h a t p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s i n many st u d i e s could f o l l o w from t r a i n e e s ' s e n s i t i z a t i o n to the assessment instruments. The Hundleby study i s noteworthy p a r t l y because peers d i d the ass e s s i n g so th a t the e v a l u a t i o n was not subject to t h i s c r i t i c i s m . Another problem i s that most eva l u a t i o n s have used s c a l e s s i m i l a r t o those developed by Truax and Carkhuff (1967) and i t i s not known i f empathy as r a t e d by experts using these s c a l e s a l s o appears f a c i l i t a t i v e to those who have not been t r a i n e d to use the s c a l e s . A t h i r d problem i s that c l i e n t s and e x t e r n a l judges have r a r e l y agreed on the degree of empathy a c o u n s e l l o r demonstrated i n a c o u n s e l l i n g s i t u a t i o n ( F i s h , 1970; Gurman, 1977). F i s k e (1977), t h e r e f o r e , has suggested t h a t i t would be va l u a b l e to r a t e empathy from more than one vantage p o i n t . The r a t i n g s could be expected to dis a g r e e , he concluded, but c l i e n t - p e r -ceived empathy should be given more weight. In seeking to evaluate empathy t r a i n i n g among elementary school students, c o u n s e l l o r s must address a l l of these c r i t i -cisms. As w e l l , they should look f o r answers t o s e v e r a l questions: 1 3 (a) How can e m p a t h y - r e l a t e d s k i l l s be t a u g h t t o young s t u d e n t s ? (b) I s c o u n s e l l i n g a s s e s s e d by e x p e r t r a t e r s as b e i n g h i g h i n empathy vi e w e d s i m i l a r l y by young s t u d e n t s ? (c) How can c l i e n t - p e r c e i v e d empathy be a s s e s s e d when t h e c l i e n t s a re young s t u d e n t s ? P o s i t i v e S e l f - I n s t r u c t i o n C o g n i t i v e c o n s t r u c t s have become i n c r e a s i n g l y prominent i n t h e b e h a v i o u r - m o d i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e and i n r e s e a r c h (Bandura, 197 7; G o l d f r i e d & Merbaum, 1973; Mahoney, 1977; Meichenbaum, 1973; R o s e n t h a l , 1976; Thoresen & C o a t e s , 1976). However, t h e y are by no means new, f o r e a r l y l i t e r a t u r e abounds w i t h a c c o u n t s o f t e c h n i q u e s t o h e l p c l i e n t s based on c l i e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n t h r o u g h c o g n i t i v e f a c t o r s such as p o s i t i v e s e l f -i n s t r u c t i o n (Coue, 1922; E l l i s , 1962; K e l l y , 1955; P e r l s , 1969; L u r i a , 1961). A b a s i c p r i n c i p l e o f p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n i s t h a t t h o u g h t s a f f e c t emotion and b e h a v i o u r ( E l l i s , 1973; Meichenbaum, 1978) and t h e r e f o r e c l i e n t s can be t a u g h t t o v e r b a l i z e , o v e r t l y and t h e n c o v e r t l y , a p p r o p r i a t e p o s i t i v e s t a t e m e n t s about them-s e l v e s and a t a s k w h i c h i s l i k e l y t o f a c i l i t a t e s u c c e s s w i t h t h e t a s k . Homme (1965) m a i n t a i n e d t h a t b e h a v i o u r i s con-t r o l l e d t o a g r e a t e x t e n t by b e l i e f s , a t t i t u d e s and o t h e r cog-n i t i o n s . C o v e r t b e h a v i o u r s , some b e l i e v e , obey t h e same p s y c h o l o g i c a l laws as o v e r t b e h a v i o u r s and a r e thus c a p a b l e o f b e i n g m a n i p u l a t e d by s i m i l a r methods (Bandura, 1969; 14 E l l i s , 1973). F l a n n e r y (1 972) and Mahoney (1971) have s a i d t h a t u s i n g p o s i t i v e s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s , t h a t i s , s a y i n g encourag-i n g t h i n g s t o o n e s e l f , m o d i f i e s m a l a d a p t i v e t h o u g h t s and i s somewhat s i m i l a r t o u s i n g r e l a x a t i o n t o ease a n x i e t y . I t r e -sembles, t h e y say, t e c h n i q u e s used by Wolpe and L a z a r u s (1966) i n w h i c h s u b j e c t s were asked t o imagine f e a r f u l e v e n t s d u r i n g r e l a x a t i o n s e s s i o n s and g r a d u a l l y l e a r n e d t o cope w i t h a n x i e t y . P o s i t i v e S e l f - I n s t r u c t i o n w i t h S t u d e n t s Many o f t h e s e p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n (PSI) s t u d i e s have p r e s e n t e d d a t a w h i c h may be m e a n i n g f u l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e development o f empathy i n communication among e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l s t u d e n t s ( B u f f i n g t o n & S t i l l w e l l , 1980; E l l i s , 1969; G e r l e r & Omiza, 1981; G o l d f r i e d & Merbaum, 1973; Knaus, 1974; Mahoney, 1977; Meichenbaum, 1978). E n c o u r a g i n g r e p o r t s o f s u c c e s s have been noted i n many a r e a s , such as w i t h i m p u l s i v i t y (Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971), a g g r e s s i o n (Camp, 1975), and h y p e r a c t i v i t y ( G e r l e r & Omiza, 1981). W i t h r e g a r d t o many o f t h e p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t u d i e s f o r w h i c h c l a i m s o f s u c c e s s have been made, t h e r e a r e , however, s e r i o u s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l weaknesses. F o r example, a s t u d y by Meichenbaum and Goodman (1971) i n w h i c h c l a i m s were made f o r a program t o c o n t r o l i m p u l s i v i t y i n c h i l d r e n , the M a t c h i n g F a m i l i a r F i g u r e s t e s t was used as an assessment. T h i s measure was endorsed as a v a l i d assessment o f i m p u l s i v i t y o n l y by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r s t h e m s e l v e s and by Kagan, who had o r i g i n a t e d t h e assessment. There was no e v i d e n c e o f c o n t r o l o f i m p u l s i v i t y i n t h e c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e 15 f i v e members of the trained group. There are s t i l l many un-answered questions about the cognitive control of behaviour. Nevertheless, i t would appear that a cognitive approach may f a c i l i t a t e empathy i n the responses of people who are over-anxious and self-conscious because, according to Bucheimer (1963), most empathy errors were caused by a counsellor's s e l f -doubt, personal anxieties, and such concern about s e l f that the problems of others were not noticed; therefore, increas-ing a trainee counsellor's concentration on the words and feelings of the c l i e n t presumably should help to eliminate barriers to empathy. Empathy and Positive S e l f - I n s t r u c t i o n Only two studies were found which combined empathy t r a i n -ing with p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n and both studies involved univ e r s i t y students. One, by Cabush and Edwards (1976), com-pared two groups on the l e v e l of empathy i n responses they made to themselves. The students had sought counselling for personal s o c i a l problems at a campus c l i n i c . The students' l e v e l of empathy i n self-responding, as rated from tapes, i n -dicated s i g n i f i c a n t improvement. The second study that included p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n , by Yager, Ochiltree and Brekke (1975), claimed s i g n i f i c a n t gains i n empathy ratings for the cognitive group over those trained with the empathy model alone. The subjects, volunteers from a psychology c l a s s , practised responding with empathy. Dependent measures of the study consisted of pre and posttra i n -ing empathy ratings made using C a r k h u f f s 5-point scale. 16 F o r p o s t t e s t i n g , s u b j e c t s responded v e r b a l l y i n t o a tape r e c o r d e r t o v i d e o t a p e d e m o t i o n a l v i g n e t t e s . The p r e t e s t asked o n l y f o r w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e s . I n e x a m i n i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e l a t t e r s t u d y , and t h e im-p r e s s i v e g a i n i n empathy r e p o r t e d f o r t h e group w h i c h added c o g n i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e C a r k h u f f t r a i n i n g method, one t h i n g s t a n d s o u t . A t p o s t t e s t , t h e two groups averaged a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l s c o r e s i n empathy, 2.75 on t h e C a r k h u f f s c a l e . The s i g n i f i c a n t g a i n on t h i s c r i t e r i o n measure c l a i m e d f o r the c o g n i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l group r e s u l t e d from t h e f a c t t h a t t h e group had s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o wer p r e t e s t s c o r e s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e was a n e g a t i v e (-.17) c o r r e l a t i o n be-tween t h e p r e and p o s t t e s t s c o r e s f o r a l l s u b j e c t s . I t may be t h a t t r a i n i n g r e s u l t e d i n l e a r n i n g f o r most s u b j e c t s up t o the 2.75 average empathy l e v e l , and t h a t t h i s formed a c e i l i n g f o r l e a r n i n g i n t h a t s i t u a t i o n . I t may a l s o be t h a t the w r i t t e n empathy r e s p o n s e s used f o r t h e p r e t e s t were not r e l a t e d t o r e s p o n s e s w h i c h might have been g i v e n v e r b a l l y . Because a p e r s o n can a c c u r a t e l y i d e n t i f y the f e e l i n g s o f an o t h e r does not mean he has the a b i l i t y t o use t h e knowledge e f f e c t i v e l y i n a c o u n s e l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p ( F i s k e , Hunt, L u b o r s k y & Orne, 1970). I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , q u e s t i o n a b l e whether the r e s u l t s o f the Yager s t u d y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l c o g n i -t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l component would i n c r e a s e t h e empathy communicated i n a c o u n s e l l i n g s i t u a t i o n . The s u p e r i o r i t y c l a i m e d f o r t h i s a d d i t i o n t o empathy t r a i n i n g r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r v e r i f i c a t i o n . 17 I n summary, c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h has been u n d e r t a k e n i n t o empathy as a t e a c h a b l e body o f s k i l l s s i n c e empathy was p e r c e i v e d as q u a n t i f i a b l e , b u t t h e t r a i n i n g and i n s t r u m e n t s d e s i g n e d t o measure c o u n s e l l o r s ' empathy have come under some c r i t i c i s m . S e c o n d l y , p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n , a c o g n i t i v e t e c h n i q u e , has t w i c e been l i n k e d w i t h empathy t r a i n i n g and i t appears t h a t i t may b e n e f i t c o u n s e l l o r s whose p e r s o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s t h r e a t e n t o o b s c u r e t h e i r c o n c e n t r a t i o n on c l i e n t p roblems. On t h i s b a s i s , the c u r r e n t s t u d y was f o r m u l a t e d t o u n i t e p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n w i t h t h e empathy t r a i n i n g o f young s t u d e n t s and t o a s s e s s r e s u l t s from a number o f vantage p o i n t s . E a r l y A d o l e s c e n c e ; A S u i t a b l e Stage f o r Empathy T r a i n i n g As young p e o p l e e n t e r e a r l y a d o l e s c e n c e , t h e y are l i k e l y t o r e l y more upon t h e i r p e e r s f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g and h e l p w i t h p e r s o n a l problems t h a n t h e y d i d i n t h e e a r l y g r a d e s . S i n c e Schoeppe and H a v i g h u r s t (1952) found t h a t change i s more l i k e l y t o o c c u r among the 11 t o 13 age group t h a n i n t h o s e 13 t o 16 y e a r s o l d , i t seems t o f o l l o w t h a t , t o d e v e l o p s k i l l s o f em-p a t h y i n c o u n s e l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h p e e r s , e a r l y a d o l e s -cence i s a s u i t a b l e s t a g e f o r t r a i n i n g . Because s e r i o u s p r o b -lems such as d e p r e s s i o n and d r u g abuse are more common i n a d o l e s c e n t s 16 and o l d e r t h a n i n younger a d o l e s c e n t s (Muus, 1968), f o r p r e v e n t i v e purposes i t may be b e n e f i c i a l f o r t r a i n i n g t o be g i v e n t o younger p e o p l e . 18 Student Peers as Counsellors Peers exert an important i n f l u e n c e on s o c i a l i z a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y d u r i n g adolescence (De Courcy & D u e r f e l d t , 197 3; Muus, 1968). During the past decade, school c o u n s e l l o r s have been i n c r e a s i n g l y c a p i t a l i z i n g on t h i s i n f l u e n c e by arranging f o r students to help one another i n c o u n s e l l i n g and other c a p a c i t i e s (Carr & Saunders, 1980; Hamburg & Varenhorst, 1972; Keat, 1976; Krueger, 1971; Soby, 1971). O b j e c t i v e research w i t h young students i s r a r e , although s c h o o l c h i l d r e n have f o r m a l l y and i n f o r m a l l y helped one another i n p u b l i c school s e t t i n g s f o r a long time. The two most r e l e -vant s t u d i e s , those which r e l a t e most c l o s e l y to the present study, i n v o l v e empathy t r a i n i n g w i t h young students and the use o f c l i e n t - p e r c e i v e d assessments. These stud i e s w i l l be reviewed i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . Review of School-Based Studies Vogelsong (1976) t r a i n e d e i g h t f i f t h - g r a d e students to respond to one another w i t h empathy. He taught them to i d e n t i f y and express emotions while c o u n s e l l i n g and then had them prac-t i s e i n p a i r s . The dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n s were evaluated by expert judges using audiotapes; assessment was l i m i t e d to i n t e r -a c t i o n s between t r a i n e e s . Although g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of e f f e c t s to other peers i s l i m i t e d , the study suggests t h a t f a i r l y young students can l e a r n to respond to one another w i t h empathy. C l i e n t - p e r c e i v e d empathy was used f o r assessment i n an i n n o v a t i v e study w i t h senior secondary students t r a i n e d to 19 communicate empathy (Hundleby, 1973). Peers who d i d not know th e t r a i n e e s , o r t h o s e i n t h e c o n t r o l group, t o o k p a r t i n i n -d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w s w i t h members o f b o t h groups. They p e r -c e i v e d t h e t r a i n e e s t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r t o t a l k t o i n a one-to-one s i t u a t i o n t h a n t h o s e who had not been t r a i n e d . H u n d l e b y 1 s i s one o f the few s c h o o l - b a s e d s t u d i e s i n w h i c h e v a l u a t i o n employed c l i e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f r e c e i v e d empathy, an assessment t h o u g h t t o be more r e l e v a n t t o outcome t h a n th e p e r c e p t i o n s o f e x t e r n a l judges ( F i s k e , 1977; G l a d s t e i n , 1 977; R o g e r s, 1968) . A l s o , i t d i d not r e l y upon assessments s i m i l a r t o m a t e r i a l s used i n t r a i n i n g and t h i s form o f a s s e s s -ment m e r i t s r e p l i c a t i o n . D e f i c i e n c i e s o f S c h o o l - B a s e d S t u d i e s A l t h o u g h th e use o f s t u d e n t f a c i l i t a t o r s appears t o be a p r o m i s i n g development, s t u d i e s have not y e t shown what l e v e l o f empathic r e s p o n d i n g i s p o s s i b l e f o r young a d o l e s c e n t s . As p u b l i c s c h o o l s d e s i g n and implement peer c o u n s e l l i n g programs, p r o f e s s i o n a l c o u n s e l l o r s s h o u l d be aware o f t h e s k i l l s o f t h e i r young t r a i n e e s and t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e program on t h e i r h e l p e e s and c l i e n t s . Because a low l e v e l o f c o u n s e l l o r em-p a t h y has been found t o have a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t on a d u l t c l i e n t s ( B e r g i n , 1971; Truax & C a r k h u f f , 1967), t h i s may a l s o be t r u e o f a d o l e s c e n t s c o u n s e l l e d by t h e i r p e e r s , and the p u b l i c s c h o o l s have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t t h e c l i e n t s o f young c o u n s e l l o r s . 20 As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , not enough a t t e n t i o n has g e n e r a l l y been p a i d t o c l i e n t assessments o f empathy, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l s , where no s t u d i e s were found t o employ c l i e n t - p e r c e i v e d assessments a l t h o u g h p e o p l e i n g e n e r a l have shown an a b i l i t y t o r e c o g n i z e empathy i n th o s e w i t h whom t h e y i n t e r a c t ( M i t c h e l l , 1975). S i n c e i n d i c a t i o n s a r e t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f e x p r e s s e d empathy i s h i g h l y c o n t i n g e n t upon t h e r e -c e i v e r o f empathy ( M c N a l l y , 1973), and s i n c e t h e a d o l e s c e n t d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e i s d i f f e r e n t from o t h e r l i f e s t a g e s , perhaps t h e r e s h o u l d be comparisons made between a d o l e s c e n t and a d u l t r a t i n g s o f empathy, p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e i t i s not c l e a r whether o r not t h e language p e r c e i v e d as empathic by e x p e r t judges u s i n g t h e C a r k h u f f s c a l e s i s s i m i l a r l y p e r c e i v e d by young c l i e n t s . P u b l i s h e d e v a l u a t i o n s o f f a c i l i t a t i v e s k i l l s - t r a i n i n g programs i n e l e m e n t a r y and secondary s c h o o l s have g e n e r a l l y been p o s i t i v e (Anderson, 1976; Andrade, 1973; Buck, 1977); but s i n c e many o f th e s e programs were an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e s c h o o l system, f o r m a l e v a l u a t i o n was u s u a l l y seen as unne c e s s a r y . Some group t r a i n i n g programs have c o n c l u d e d w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n o f f e e l -i n g s and the b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s o f l i s t e n i n g and c a r i n g (McCann, 1975). H e l p e r s have f r e q u e n t l y f i l l e d out q u e s t i o n n a i r e s about the programs, and feedback from t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s has been s o l i c i t e d (Buck, 1977; Gumaer, 1973), g e n e r a l l y i n a n e c d o t a l form. I t seems t h a t more o b j e c t i v e r e s e a r c h i s needed o f peer 21 c o u n s e l l i n g w i t h young s t u d e n t s . F u r t h e r m o r e , i n n o v a t i o n i s needed i n t r a i n i n g . A l t h o u g h group methods have g e n e r a l l y been used f o r t r a i n i n g s c h o o l peer c o u n s e l l o r s , perhaps i n d i v i d u a l i z e d t r a i n i n g s h o u l d a l s o be a s s e s s e d . Because p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n o f f e r s p o t e n t i a l as an a i d t o empathy t r a i n i n g and s i n c e t h i s p r o c e d u r e has o n l y been s t u d i e d once i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e t r a i n i n g o f u n i v e r s i t y peer c o u n s e l l o r s , t h e e f f e c t s w i t h younger s t u d e n t s s h o u l d a l s o be a s s e s s e d . Summary S c h o o l c h i l d r e n have t r a d i t i o n a l l y h e l p e d one an o t h e r i n t h e c l a s s r o o m , but f o r m a l peer c o u n s e l l i n g programs a r e a f a i r l y r e c e n t i n n o v a t i o n . R e s e a r c h on e l e m e n t a r y - s c h o o l s t u d e n t s coun-s e l l i n g one an o t h e r i s g r o u n d - b r e a k i n g i n n a t u r e and r a i s e s as many q u e s t i o n s as i t answers. C o n s i d e r i n g t h e im p o r t a n c e o f im-pro v e d peer r e l a t i o n s w i t h a d o l e s c e n t s , t h i s seems a w o r t h w h i l e age group f o r f u r t h e r work. F o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e Study Because o f t h e p o t e n t i a l i m p o r t a n c e o f i n c r e a s i n g empathic r e s p o n s e s i n young a d o l e s c e n t s , t h i s s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o an-swer t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s : (a) Can 11 t o 13 y e a r o l d s a c h i e v e a m i n i m a l l y f a c i l i -t a t i v e l e v e l o f empathy t h r o u g h s h o r t - t e r m , i n d i v i -d u a l i z e d t r a i n i n g ? (b) Does t h e a d d i t i o n o f p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n en-hance empathic r e s p o n d i n g o f young p e o p l e ? (c) What i s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between empathic r e s p o n d i n g judged by e x p e r t s and empathic r e s p o n d i n g judged by young c o u n s e l l o r s ' peer c l i e n t s ? (d) Do young a d o l e s c e n t c l i e n t s r a t e empathy d i f f e r e n t l y from an a d u l t - e x p e r t c l i e n t ? 23 CHAPTER I I I . METHODOLOGY The p r e s e n t s t u d y f o c u s s e d on empathy as t h e dependent v a r i a b l e and used assessments by n a i v e as w e l l as e x p e r t r a t e r s . S u b j e c t s were randomly a s s i g n e d t o two t r e a t m e n t and one con-t r o l c o n d i t i o n , w h i c h were used t o t e s t f o r t r a i n i n g e f f e c t s . One e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n i n c l u d e d a p o s i t i v e s e l f - v e r b a l i z a -t i o n component a l o n g w i t h t h e b a s i c t r a i n i n g i n empathic r e -sp o n d i n g , such as t h a t r e c e i v e d by t h e o t h e r e x p e r i m e n t a l group. There were t h r e e p r e t e s t s and f o u r p o s t t e s t r a t i n g s , i n c l u d i n g t h e r a t i n g s by t h e n a i v e p e e r s . P o p u l a t i o n and Sample S u b j e c t s . Twenty-four female grade s i x s t u d e n t s were t h e sub-j e c t s i n t h i s s t u d y . The t r a i n e r went i n t o t h e two grade s i x c l a s s r o o m s i n t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g s c h o o l and asked w h i c h g i r l s would l i k e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t r a i n i n g d e s i g n e d t o e n a b l e them t o be " b e t t e r l i s t e n e r s " t o t h e i r f r i e n d s and o t h e r s . They were t o l d t h a t o n l y 16 g i r l s would p a r t i c i p a t e i n the t r a i n -i n g <4!jhli.t) t h a t the c h o i c e o f who was t r a i n e d would be d e c i d e d randomly from among t h e v o l u n t e e r s . Requirements f o r p a r t i -c i p a n t s were s p e c i f i e d : ( i ) They must be w i l l i n g t o keep t h e i r s c h o o l work up t o d a t e and have t h e p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e i r t e a c h e r t o m i s s one o r two c l a s s e s p e r week f o r a p e r i o d o f up t o e i g h t weeks. ( i i ) They must be committed t o t h e t r a i n i n g so t h a t , i f a t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n must be missed because o f examina t i o n s , absences o r o t h e r r e a s o n s , t h e y would be w i l l i n g t o make up t h e s e s s i o n a f t e r s c h o o l i f neces s a r y . ( i i i ) They must be a b l e t o o b t a i n p e r m i s s i o n f o r t r a i n i n g from t h e i r p a r e n t s or g u a r d i a n s , ( i v ) They must be w i l l i n g t o do a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10 minutes o f "homework" weekly; t h a t i s , t o p r a c t i c e what t h e y have l e a r n e d w i t h someone from among th o s e b e i n g t r a i n e d and r e c o r d t h e p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n on an a u d i o t a p e so t h a t i t c o u l d be r e v i e w e d i n i n d i -v i d u a l t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s . cc X A s s e s s i b l e P o p u l a t i o n . V o l u n t e e r s from grade s i x f e males a t t e n d i n g an urban p u b l i c s c h o o l i n t h e lower m a i n l a n d o f B r i t i s h C olumbia. Sample. Twenty-four s u b j e c t s were randomly s e l e c t e d from a l l v o l u n t e e r s and t h e n randomly d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e groups. Ex-p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s were t h e n randomly a s s i g n e d t o each group. Thus, t h e r e were 16 e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s and t h e e i g h t c o n t r o l group s u b j e c t s ( e x p e r i m e n t a l a s s i s t a n t s ) . D e f i n i t i o n s F o r t h i s s t u d y t h e f o l l o w i n g o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s were adopted: Dependent v a r i a b l e : Empathy ( i ) a s c o r e on t h e C a r k h u f f S c a l e f o r Measurement o f Empathy as judged by t r a i n e d r a t e r s from a u d i o t a p e s o f : a) r e s p o n s e s t o s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t s r e c o r d e d on a u d i o t a p e , and b) c o u n s e l l i n g i n t e r a c t i o n s o f s u b j e c t s w i t h p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s , ( i i ) a s c o r e on the C a r k h u f f S c a l e f o r Measurement o f Empathy as judged by a t r a i n e d r a t e r from a l i v e i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h s u b j e c t s , and ( i i i ) a s c o r e on a s c a l e f o r measurement o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g as judged by n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s a f t e r an i n t e r a c t i o n o f up t o f i v e minutes w i t h s u b j e c t s . Independent v a r i a b l e : E x p e r i m e n t a l t r e a t m e n t . Time spent i n i n d i v i d u a l t r a i n i n g i n s k i l l s such as p a r a p h r a s i n g and r e f l e c t i o n o f f e e l i n g presumed t o improve s u b j e c t s ' r e s p o n d i n g w i t h empathy. Treatments: The t e a c h i n g o f s k i l l s o f a t t e n d i n g b e h a v i o r , p a r a p h r a s i n g and r e f l e c t i o n o f f e e l i n g s t o s t u d e n t t r a i n e e s i n b o t h e x p e r i m e n t a l groups. ( i ) Treatment 1: The i n t e n s i v e p r a c t i c e o f empathic r e s p o n d i n g by t r a i n e e s f o r a p e r i o d o f 10 minutes included i n each 35-minute t r a i n i n g session, ( i i ) Treatment 2: The practice of a form of cognitive-behavior modification known as "cognitive s e l f -i n s t r u c t i o n " for a period of 10 minutes of each 35-minute t r a i n i n g session. Experimental Group 2 participated i n Treatment 2 (see Appendix C-6). Subjects: The g i r l s i n t h i s experiment who were presented with; (1) tape-recorded stimulus statements to which they provided a verbal response recorded on an audiotape (2) a peer-client-rater to whom they responded i n a manner they thought of as f a c i l i t a t i v e or under-standing. (3) an adult expert rater to whom they responded i n a manner they thought of as f a c i l i t a t i v e or under-standing . Naive-peer-client rater; A person who had minimal exposure to rating scales for empathic responding, had no experience with empathic-responding-skills t r a i n i n g programs and who did not know personally the subjects i n the experiment. The g i r l communicated to a subject whom she subsequently rated as to the degree of understanding or empathy that subject communicated - to her. The c l i e n t - r a t e r was of approximately the same age as subjects i n the experiment and was referred to also as a peer-client rater and as a c l i e n t rater. 27 N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t - R a t e r S c a l e o f U n d e r s t a n d i n g : A 5 - p o i n t s c a l e on w h i c h a peer r a t e r was asked t o check t h e degree o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c a r i n g she f e l t from t h e i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e peer t o whom she had j u s t communicated a problem. T h i s was a l s o r e f e r r e d t o as a S c a l e o f U n d e r s t a n d i n g (Appendix A-2) . T r a i n e r ( a l s o t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ) : The p e r s o n who communicated w i t h and asked f o r i n t e r a c t i o n s from t r a i n e e s f o r t h e purpose o f i n c r e a s i n g t r a i n e e s ' a b i l i t y t o u n d e r s t a n d a n o t h e r p e r s o n and t o respond w i t h empathy. T r e a t m e n t - e f f e c t i v e n e s s measures: S c o r e s on r a t i n g s c a l e s were used t o i n d i c a t e i n c r e a s e d empathy as judged by r a t e r s . R a t i n g s c a l e s used were: (a) C a r k h u f f S c a l e f o r t h e Measurement o f Empathy ( u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l p r o c e s s e s ) , and (b) a s e l f - c o n s t r u c t e d 5 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r r a t i n g o f e x p e r i e n c e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g by n a i v e p e e r - c l i e n t -r a t e r s . Judges: Three d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t s i n t h e Department o f Coun-s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , e x p e r i e n c e d i n t h e use o f t h e C a r k h u f f s c a l e , who judged t h e l e v e l o f empathy e x p r e s s e d by s u b j e c t s . T r a i n e e s : S i x t e e n female g r a d e - s i x s t u d e n t s who were randomly s e l e c t e d from among.the v o l u n t e e r s t o t a k e p a r t i n t h e t r a i n -i n g program. They were randomly d i v i d e d i n t o two e x p e r i -m e n t a l groups o f e i g h t t r a i n e e s each. 28 S t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t s : Messages, i n p r i n t , o f a p e r s o n who was e x p r e s s i n g a s u i t a b l e c o n c e r n f o r d i s c u s s i o n . D i f f e r e n t tape r e c o r d e d messages were used a t pre and p o s t t e s t one. C l i e n t : A p e r s o n who adopted t h e r o l e o f one who was e x p r e s s i n g p e r s o n a l c o n c e r n s t o a n o t h e r p e r s o n who, i n t u r n , was t r y i n g t o be u n d e r s t a n d i n g o r f a c i l i t a t i v e . Communications t r a i n i n g : A p l a n n e d program o f i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t i n v o l v e d a c t i v i t i e s f o c u s s e d on t h e l e a r n i n g o f s p e c i f i c s k i l l s f o r i m p r o v i n g v e r b a l , f a c e - t o - f a c e , one-to-one communication. Data A n a l y s i s The s t a t i s t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s used were t h e Pearson P r o d u c t -Moment C o r r e l a t i o n , r , t h e t t e s t f o r dependent means, and a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e . A l l d a t a were p r o c e s s e d a t the U n i v e r -s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Computing C e n t r e . I n o r d e r t o t e s t hypotheses one, two and t h r e e , t t e s t s f o r dependent samples were performed t o determine whether o r no t t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between p r e and p o s t -t e s t means o f each o f t h e t h r e e groups. A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was used t o examine the d a t a f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the t h r e e groups on t h e p r e t e s t s and p o s t t e s t s . A m u l t i p l e c o m parison t e s t , i f n e c e s s a r y , was proposed i n v o l v i n g t h e Tukey method. A P e a r s o n Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n between r a t i n g s by e x p e r t and n a i v e r a t e r s was de t e r m i n e d f o r each o f the t h r e e groups a t p r e t e s t and a t p o s t t e s t . R a t i n g s by e x p e r t judges u s i n g a u d i o t a p e s o n l y , and by an e x p e r t judge i n a l i v e i n t e r -v i e w s i t u a t i o n were a l s o c o r r e l a t e d w i t h r a t i n g s by n a i v e r a t e r s 29 a l l o f whom were i n v o l v e d i n a l i v e i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n . H y p o t h e s i s T e s t i n g I n i t i a l e q u i v a l e n c e o f t h e t h r e e groups w i t h r e g a r d t o empathic r e s p o n d i n g was a s c e r t a i n e d by a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e . The means o f empathy s c o r e s , as r a t e d by e x p e r t j u d g e s , were used i n a s s e s s i n g t h e magnitude o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r f o r m -ance o f t h e t h r e e groups f o r b o t h p r e t e s t 1 and p r e t e s t 2. Means o f empathy s c o r e s f o r a l l t h r e e groups, as r a t e d by n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s , were a l s o used and an a n a l y s i s o r v a r i a n c e performed. The assumptions u n d e r l y i n g t h e use o f a t t e s t f o r de-pendent samples are t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s are drawn randomly from p o p u l a t i o n s w i t h i n which t h e dependent v a r i a b l e i s n o r m a l l y d i s -t r i b u t e d and t h a t p o p u l a t i o n v a r i a n c e s are homogeneous. Sub-j e c t s i n t h i s s t u d y were v o l u n t e e r s randomly a s s i g n e d t o groups. S i n c e sample one was composed o f r a t i n g s made b e f o r e a d m i n i s -t r a t i o n o f t h e t r e a t m e n t and sample two a c o l l e c t i o n o f s c o r e s made by the same s u b j e c t s a f t e r t r e a t m e n t , t h e y were c o n s i d e r e d t o be s c o r e s f o r dependent samples. A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was s e l e c t e d t o d e t e r m i n e i f the d i f -f e r e n c e s among groups were s i g n i f i c a n t . Assumptions f o r use o f t h i s s t a t i s t i c a l p r o c e d u r e a r e t h a t s u b j e c t s used have been drawn a t random from normal p o p u l a t i o n s w i t h e q u a l v a r i a n c e s and t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t samples a r e independent. These assump-t i o n s were a p p r o x i m a t e l y met i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . The .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was s e l e c t e d as t h e l e v e l a t w h i c h t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s would be r e j e c t e d . 3CL F o r c a l c u l a t i n g c o r r e l a t i o n s t h e Spearman Rank-Order C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t was r e j e c t e d as b e i n g l e s s s a t i s -f a c t o r y t h a n the Pearson Product-Moment C o e f f i c i e n t . The C a r k h u f f s c a l e p r o v i d e s f o r r a t i n g s r a n g i n g from 1 t o 5 so t h a t t h e r e would be, o f n e c e s s i t y , a l a r g e number o f t i e d s c o r e s i f o r d i n a l r a n k i n g were imposed upon t h e d a t a and much u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n would be l o s t . Empathy appears t o v a r y among p e o p l e . Some i n d i v i d u a l s seem t o alm o s t merge w i t h o t h e r s i n s e n s i t i v i t y , seeming t o b l e n d t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f s e l f so t h a t t h e i r o b j e c t i v e a p p r a i s a l may be m i n i m a l i n some e n c o u n t e r s . Other i n d i v i d u a l s appear t o t a l l y unaware o f t h e th o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s o f o t h e r s and t o be w h o l l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r own t h o u g h t s . A l t h o u g h the C a r k h u f f s c a l e p r o v i d e s d e s c r i p t i o n s w h i c h a r e q u i t e e x a c t , even t r a i n e d j u d g e s ' r a t i n g s a r e not i d e n t i c a l and some doubt i s e v i d e n t as t o the e x a c t placement o f r a t i n g s w h i c h t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n b o t h v e r b a l and n o n v e r b a l a s p e c t s o f an en c o u n t e r . Empathy, l i k e most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p e o p l e , appears t o be d i s t r i b u t e d n o r m a l l y b u t , u n l i k e h e i g h t o r w e i g h t , cannot be measured w i t h s u f f i c i e n t a c c u r a c y t o c o n s i d e r an u n d e r l y i n g i n t e r v a l s c a l e . However i t can be thought o f as b e i n g q u a s i - i n t e r v a l . P a r a m e t r i c t e s t s can be used w i t h such a c o n t i n u o u s s c a l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . The Tukey method i s sometimes used t o d e t e c t , a f t e r an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e , w h i c h group means a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each o t h e r . The Tukey method i s s u p e r i o r , i n terms o f i t s power t o d e t e c t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s 31 between sample means t o the S c h e f f e method when c o n s i d e r i n g p a i r w i s e comparisons and i t acc o u n t s f o r alm o s t a l l o f t h e a p p l i -c a t i o n s o f m u l t i p l e c o mparison p r o c e d u r e s used i n e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h ( G l a s s & S t a n l e y , 1976). Thus, i t was used i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . D e s i g n a) G e n e r a l D e s i g n T h i s s t u d y f o c u s s e d on the t e a c h i n g o f empathic r e s p o n d i n g t o e a r l y a d o l e s c e n t s u s i n g two e x p e r i m e n t a l and one c o n t r o l group. A p r e t e s t , p o s t t e s t c o n t r o l group d e s i g n was used, d i a -g r a m m a t i c a l l y .^represented as f o l l o w s : R 0 1 X l 0 2 R 0 1 X 2 0 2 R 0 1 -- 0 2 Key: R = random assignment 0^ = p r e t e s t s X.J = t r e a t m e n t p l u s empathic r e s p o n d i n g p r a c t i c e ( i . e . , t r e a t m e n t one) X 2 = t r e a t m e n t p l u s c o g n i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n ( i . e . , t r e a t m e n t two) Q>2 = p o s t t e s t s b) Dependent V a r i a b l e The dependent v a r i a b l e was communicated empathy as measured by: ( i ) e x p e r i e n c e d r a t e r s u s i n g the C a r k h u f f S c a l e f o r Measurement o f Empathy, and 32 ( i i ) n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s a s s e s s i n g on t h e b a s i s o f ex-p e r i e n c e d o r r e c e i v e d empathy, u s i n g a 5 - p o i n t s c a l e based upon t h e degree o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c a r i n g t h a t r a t e r s f e l t was g i v e n them. c) H y p o t h e s i s T e s t i n g N u l l Hypotheses w i t h r e g a r d t o judged empathy were examined u s i n g the C a r k h u f f S c a l e f o r Measurement o f Empathy s c o r e s . N u l l Hypotheses w i t h r e g a r d t o e x p e r i e n c e d empathy were examined u s i n g t h e s c o r e s r e g i s t e r e d by n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s on a s e l f - c o n s t r u c t e d s c a l e o f empathy c a l l e d a S c a l e o f Under-s t a n d i n g . N a i v e r a t e r s were s t r a n g e r s t o t h e s u b j e c t s u n t i l t h e t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n . d) Group Comparisons Comparisons were made between: ( i ) E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 1 and t h e c o n t r o l group, ( i i ) E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 2 and t h e c o n t r o l group, ( i i i ) E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 1 and E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 2. e) S p e c i f i c P r o c e d u r e s T r a i n i n g proceeded f o r f i v e weeks e x c l u s i v e o f t h e p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t s e s s i o n s . The f i r s t t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n was a group s e s s i o n f o r o r i e n t a t i o n . A l l o t h e r t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s were i n -d i v i d u a l i z e d and l a s t e d 35 m i n u t e s . I n t h e s t u d y t h e r e were two e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s and one c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n . P r o c e d u r e s a) Treatment P r o c e d u r e s S p e c i f i c p r o c e d u r e s a r e d e t a i l e d i n Appendix C and an o v e r -v i e w o f p r o c e d u r e s i s p r e s e n t e d i n S p e c i f i c D e s i g n (p. 33 ). 33 S p e c i f i c Design Day Experimental Treatment Condition 1 Experimental Treatment Condition 2 Control: Group 3 1 2 Pretest 1 and 2 Pretest 1 and 2 Pretest 1 and 2 3 group o r i e n t a t i o n group o r i e n t a t i o n 4-8 5 minutes: trainee's pre-sentation of concerns, and t r a i n e r responses. 5 minutes: trainee rates t r a i n e r , using taped t r a i n e r responses (above) 5 minutes: trainee's pre-sentation of concerns, and t r a i n e r responses. 5 minutes: trainee rates t r a i n e r , using taped t r a i n e r responses (above) 10 minutes: trainee, prac-t i c e s paraphrasing and r e -f l e c t i o n of f e e l i n g . 10 minutes: trainee prac-t i c e s paraphrasing, re-f l e c t i o n of f e e l i n g , and p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n . 5 minutes: l i s t e n i n g to trainee's p r a c t i c e session on audiotape. 5 minutes: l i s t e n i n g to trainee's p r a c t i c e session on audiotape. 10 minutes: trainee re-sponds with empathy to t r a i n e r ' s personal con-cerns, playback of t h i s taped i n t e r a c t i o n and feedback to trainee. 10 minutes: trainee re-sponds with empathy to t r a i n e r ' s personal con-cerns , playback of t h i s taped i n t e r a c t i o n and feedback to trainee. 9, 10 Posttest 1, 2 and 3 Posttest 1, 2 and 3 Posttest 1, 2 and 3 T o t a l t r a i n i n g time was the same f o r each of the e x p e r i -mental groups. Each t r a i n i n g session was 35 minutes long. De-t a i l s of treatment and r a t i n g procedures are inc l u d e d (Appendix C-6 and C-7). 34 b) T e s t i n g P r o c e d u r e s A l l s u b j e c t s were i n f o r m e d t h a t t h i s t e s t i n g and t r a i n i n g would be p a r t o f a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t and t h a t t h e i r l e v e l o f s k i l l s a t e n a b l i n g a p e r s o n t o f e e l u n d e r s t o o d and c a r e d f o r would be a s s e s s e d b e f o r e and a f t e r t a i n i n g . S u b j e c t s were g i v e n e x t e n -s i v e w r i t t e n i n f o r m a t i o n f o r themselves and t h e i r p a r e n t s o u t -l i n i n g p r o c e d u r e s and time e x p e c t a t i o n s as w e l l as t h e i r r i g h t s (see Appendix B ) . There were no e x t r a n e o u s i n c e n t i v e s o f f e r e d t o s u b j e c t s such as academic g r a d e s . I n f a c t , t h e y were t o l d t h a t t h e i r t e a c h e r s would h o l d them r e s p o n s i b l e t o make up any work m i s s e d w h i l e t h e y were p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e t r a i n i n g . F o r P r e and P o s t t e s t 1, i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s were asked t o respond t o an a u d i o t a p e d s t i m u l u s statement and t h e response was a u d i o t a p e d f o r l a t e r r a t i n g . P r e and P o s t t e s t 2 c o n s i s t e d o f an i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h a p e e r , a s t r a n g e r t o t h e s u b j e c t , w i t h whom she communicated. T h i s i n t e r a c t i o n was r a t e d not o n l y by a n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r b u t , a l s o , t h r o u g h t h e use o f a u d i o -t a p e , by e x p e r t r a t e r s . F o r an a d d i t i o n a l p o s t t e s t , an a d u l t male a c t e d as c l i e n t and a l s o as a r a t e r o f t h e empathy f o r each s u b j e c t . D e t a i l s o f t h e above t e s t i n g p r o c e d u r e s are g i v e n i n Appendix C. A f t e r c o m p l e t i o n o f a l l t e s t i n g , a u d i o t a p e s were r e t a p e d b e f o r e e x p e r t s r a t e d them. P r e and P o s t t e s t s 1 and 2 were numbered and a t a b l e o f random numbers used i n o r d e r t o r a n -domize t h e o r d e r o f r a t i n g . Sampling Procedures and Assignments Because of ind i v i d u a l i z e d t r a i n i n g , random assignment of subjects to experimental and control groups was possible. In order to be able to correct s t a t i s t i c a l l y for possible imbalances i n pretraining performance, pretests were used and an analysis of variance performed on the r e s u l t s . A table of random numbers was used to prevent systematic biases i n the selection of the 24 females from among the volunteers. Subjects were then randomly assigned to three groups. Treatment for groups .was decided randomly as well. Random sampling was also used to select eight students from among the female volunteers from a d i f f e r e n t elementary school to act as c l i e n t - r a t e r s . Four of these grade six student-raters were randomly selected for the pretest s i t u a t i o n and four for the posttest. They were randomly assigned to two subjects from each of the three experimental groups. They discussed a similar concern with each of the six and rated each as to the degree of empathic responding they experienced during each session of up to fi v e minutes duration. Prio r to the interview they were given minimal i n s t r u c t i o n i n the use of the Scale of Understanding (Append A-2). Suggestions were also given regarding the types of concerns considered suitable for discussion during the tes t i n g interview (Appendix D - l ) . 36 Measurement of Dependent V a r i a b l e (a) The Carkhuff S c a l e f o r Measurement of Empathy was used by experienced r a t e r s t o assess the l e v e l of the s u b j e c t s ' empathy. Raters l i s t e n e d to audiotaped r e c o r d i n g s of the s u b j e c t s ' responses t o : (i) stimulus statements prerecorded on audiotapes, and ( i i ) p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s d u r i n g a c o u n s e l l i n g i n t e r a c t i o n of up to f i v e minutes d u r a t i o n . (b) An expert judge, a c t i n g as c l i e n t and a l s o as r a t e r o f the same i n t e r v i e w presented a problem s i t u a t i o n , s i m i l a r f o r each of the 24 s u b j e c t s , and r a t e d the l e v e l o f apparent empathy of each s u b j e c t d i r e c t l y a f t e r each i n t e r a c t i o n . He used the Carkhuff Scale f o r Measurement of Empathy. (c) A 5-point s c a l e was used by n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s to assess the l e v e l of empathy experienced from the s u b j e c t s d u r i n g a c o u n s e l l i n g i n t e r a c t i o n of up to f i v e minutes d u r a t i o n . S c o r i n g Instruments a) Carkhuff S c a l e f o r Measurement of Empathy (Appendix A - l ) Ca r k h u f f ' s empathy s c a l e has been used much more f r e q u e n t l y to assess l e v e l s o f f a c i l i t a t i o n o f c o u n s e l l o r s and t r a i n e e s than has1 any other of C a r k h u f f s s c a l e s such as those f o r genuineness or nonpossessive warmth. Empathy has shown a c l o s e r r e l a t i o n s h i p to outcome c r i t e r i a than have ot h e r of the f a c i l i t a t i v e s k i l l s (Gurman & Razin, 1977) . The empathy s c a l e ranges from l e v e l 1, a t which the responses of the h e l p e r i n d i c a t e l i t t l e or no awareness of even obvious 37 f e e l i n g s e x p r e s s e d by t h e h e l p e e , t o l e v e l 5, a t v/hich the h e l p e r e x p r e s s e s a c c u r a t e l y the f e e l i n g l e v e l s and seems t o be f u l l y " w i t h t h e h e l p e e i n h i s deepest moments." C a r k h u f f d e s c r i b e d t h e l e v e l s as i n d i c a t e d i n Appendix A - l . W i t h r e g a r d t o t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y and i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y t h e r e a r e a number o f s t u d i e s c o n t r i b u t i n g d a t a . C a r k h u f f , K r a t c h o v i l and F r i e l (1963) r e p o r t e d i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y r e l i a b i l i t i e s o f .90, .99, and .94; Cannon and C a r k h u f f (1969) r e p o r t e d P e a r s o n Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r r a t e r - r e r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y o f two r a t e r s o f .94, .93, and .92. There does not appear t o be v e r y c l e a r e v i d e n c e con-c e r n i n g the c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y o r p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y o f C a r k h u f f s s c a l e f o r measurement o f f a c i l i t a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s (Caracena & V i c o r y , 1969; K i e s l e r , M a t h i e u & K l e i n , 1967; Rappaport & C h i n s k y , 1972; S h a p i r o , 1968). S h a p i r o (1969)' contended t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e s c a l e may have a p p a r e n t f a c e v a l i d i t y " t h e r e was l i t t l e e v i d e n c e o f what t h e s c a l e a c t u a l l y measures s i n c e most o f the r e s e a r c h e v i d e n c e r e l a t e s t h e s c a l e t o outcome and o t h e r t h e r a p y v a r i a b l e s " (p. 352). The f a l l a c y o f r e a s o n i n g t h a t c o r r e l a t i o n a l d a t a between a v a r i a b l e and outcome i n d i c a t e a c a u s e - e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p has been f r e q u e n t l y p o i n t e d o u t (Rappaport • & " C h i n s k y , 1971, p. 401). Many s t u d i e s have shown a c o r r e l a t i o n between empathy as measured by t h e C a r k h u f f s c a l e and outcomes such as g l o b a l r a t i n g o f c l i e n t improvement; however, t h e j u d g i n g o f im-provement has g e n e r a l l y been r a t e d by t h e c l i e n t o r t h e r a p i s t (Truax, 1970; Truax, Wargo, F r a n k , Imber, B a t t l e , Hoehn-S a r i c , Nash & Stone, 1966). I n a d d i t i o n , r e s e a r c h e v i -dence has f a i l e d t o show t h a t , even i n normal c l i e n t s , o b j e c t i v e l y measured l e v e l s o f empathy match t h e c l i e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f f a c i l i t a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s (Caracena & V i c o r y , 1969). The c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y o f t h e s c a l e s remains v e r y much i n q u e s t i o n but the c r i t i c s have y e t t o produce i n s t r u -ments i n w h i c h one can p l a c e g r e a t e r c o n f i d e n c e . The s c a l e s c o n t i n u e t o be u t i l i z e d by many r e s e a r c h e r s . b) N a i v e - P e e r - R a t e r S c a l e o f U n d e r s t a n d i n g : A u t o - S c a l e o f Empathy A 5 - p o i n t s c a l e was used f o r p e e r s ' judgments o f what t h e y c o n s i d e r e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c a r i n g ; t h a t i s , empathic o r non-empathic r e s p o n d i n g . Each p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r was asked t o check th e d e s c r i p t i o n w h i c h was c l o s e s t t o her o p i n i o n about a j u s t - c o m p l e t e d i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h a s u b j e c t . A l e v e l 1 judgment was one i n w h i c h t h e p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r f e l t t h a t her i d e a s and f e e l i n g s were not u n d e r s t o o d by t h e s u b j e c t . F o r a l e v e l 5 r a t i n g , t h e p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t she thought t h a t her f e e l i n g s and i d e a s were u n d e r s t o o d e x t r e m e l y w e l l and t h a t she, as a p e r s o n , was c a r e d about. L e v e l s 2, 3 and 4 p r o v i d e d f o r l e v e l s o f em-p a t h y between the two extremes (Appendix A-2). A s c a l e on w h i c h the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y have been a s s e s s e d , such as t h e C a r k h u f f s c a l e , was r e j e c t e d because t r a i n i n g t h e s e e a r l y a d o l e s c e n t s t o s c o r e a c c u r a t e l y on the s c a l e may have p r e j u d i c e d them i n f a v o u r o f comments and interactions which adults tend to rate as empathic when a major objective of the study was to discover more about communication deemed understanding by adolescents. There-fore the naive-peer-client raters were asked to rate the following statement on the 5-point scale: "I think that the g i r l I just talked to understood what I was saying and how I f e l t and that she also cared about me and what I was t a l k i n g about." Shapiro (1968) reported correlations of three Carkhuff scales with a semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l rating for dimensions of understanding - not-understanding and good - bad. Accurate empathy ratings correlated .67 and warmth .87 with the understanding - not understanding dimensions. Accurate empathy correlated .71 with the evaluation of good - bad. The study involved relationships between expert and neophyte ratings of therapeutic conditions. A semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l measure of empathy was developed by B e l l u c c i (1973). The Truax-Carkhuff measure of accurate empathy showed a c o r r e l a t i o n of .79 with the empathic d i f f e r e n t i a l scale. The words understanding-nonunderstanding, listen i n g - n o n l i s t e n i n g , caring-uncaring, t r u s t i n g - d i s t r u s t i n g , and l i k i n g - d i s l i k i n g were those with the highest loading on the factor c a l l e d empathy. It would therefore seem reasonable that the scale used by the naive peers should s a t i s f a c t o r i l y measure t h e i r idea of empathy. If we assume that there w i l l be l i t t l e change i n the empathic responding of the control group between pre and posttesting then the ratings of the naive peers for th i s group should o f f e r a measure of the v a r i a b i l i t y of peer r a t i n g s . c) Scoring Procedures. Expert r a t e r s were three experienced c o u n s e l l o r s who had almost completed a d o c t o r a l program i n c o u n s e l l i n g psychology. They had a l l taught communication s k i l l s p r o f e s s i o n a l l y and a l l had extensive p r a c t i c e i n the use of the Carkhuff Scale f o r Measurement of Empathy. A l s o , they had ra t e d empathy i n previous p i l o t s t u d i e s and showed very c l o s e agreement i n t h e i r judgment of empathy. Before r a t i n g i n t h i s study they were each given a copy of C a r k h u f f s d e s c r i p t i o n s of empathic understanding (Appendix A - l ) . Rating f o r Pre and P o s t t e s t 2. Each expert r a t e r l i s t e n e d to each tape-recorded i n t e r v i e w and recorded a score on the Carkhuff s c a l e r epresenting the r a t e r s ' judg-ment of the subject's empathy. A g l o b a l score f o r the e n t i r e i n t e r v i e w between the subject and the n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r was given. Rating f o r P o s t t e s t 3. An expert r a t e r performed the fun c t i o n s of both c l i e n t and r a t e r . He had had many years of experience working w i t h young people i n c o u n s e l l i n g s i t u a t i o n s and now taught communication s k i l l s p r o f e s s i o n a l l y . He had used the Carkhuff Scale f o r Measurement of Empathy e x t e n s i v e l y . The r a t e r , i n h i s r o l e as c l i e n t , t a l k e d about a personal problem s i t u a t i o n r e l a t i n g to i n s i n c e r e behavior of some of h i s f r i e n d s , a problem to which each of the subjects responded r e a d i l y . He stopped each i n t e r v i e w a f t e r f i v e m i n u t e s . A f t e r each s u b j e c t had r e t u r n e d t o c l a s s t h e r a t e r im-m e d i a t e l y r e c o r d e d an empathy s c o r e a l o n g w i t h b r i e f n o t e s as t o cues w h i c h h e l p e d t o p r o v i d e t h e b a s i s f o r h i s assessment (Appendix E - 2 ) . R a t i n g s by N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s . A s c o r e from one t o f i v e was i n d i c a t e d by each o f t h e s e r a t e r s , r i g h t a f t e r each i n t e r v i e w w i t h a s u b j e c t , t o r e f l e c t t h e degree o f u n d e r s t a n d -i n g and c a r i n g the n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r thought was shown by t h e s u b j e c t . D e t a i l s o f p r e p a r a t i o n f o r r a t i n g by p e e r r a t e r s i s i n c l u d e d i n Appendix C-2. L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study D e s i g n The d e s i g n o f t h e s t u d y , w i t h i t s p r e t e s t , p o s t t e s t , and c o n t r o l g r o u p s , s h o u l d c o n t r o l f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g s o u r c e s o f i n -t e r n a l i n v a l i d i t y : h i s t o r y , m a t u r a t i o n , t e s t i n g , s e l e c t i o n and i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n (Campbell & S t a n l e y , 1963). W i t h r e g a r d t o e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y , however, i t may be weak i n c o n t r o l l i n g f o r t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f some o f t h e t e s t i n g and t r e a t m e n t . There may be r e a c t i v e e f f e c t s o f t h e t r e a t m e n t and t e s t -i n g where r a t i n g s are made by t r a i n e d judges o f empathy u s i n g t h e C a r k h u f f s c a l e because t h e t r a i n e r , aware o f the n a t u r e o f r e s p o n s e s r a t e d h i g h l y on t h e C a r k h u f f s c a l e , may have en-couraged s i m i l a r r e s p o n s e s d u r i n g t r a i n i n g . T h e r e f o r e , p e r -c e p t i o n s o f empathy by n a i v e p e e r s were added i n an attempt t o a l l e v i a t e t h e problem and t o p r o v i d e a comparison f o r t h e two forms o f r a t i n g . Three f u r t h e r p o s s i b l e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e s t u d y ' s d e s i g n are as f o l l o w s : a) t h a t s u b j e c t s become s e n s i t i z e d t o e x p e r i m e n t a l t e s t i n g ; b) t h a t f a c t o r s o t h e r t h a n t r e a t m e n t — s u c h as t h e amount o f i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d — may be o p e r a t i n g i n changes i n t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e , i n v a l i d a t i n g t h e comparison between the e x p e r i -m e n t a l and c o n t r o l g r o u p s , and c) t h a t the s m a l l n e s s o f t h e sample, a l t h o u g h randomly a s s i g n e d t o groups, admits t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e groups were not comparable i n v a r i a b l e s w h i c h may be r e l e v a n t , such as p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e s e t s , o r m o t i v a t i o n f o r change. S c a l e s A s i m p l e r a t i n g s c a l e ( S c a l e o f U n d e r s t a n d i n g ) was con-s t r u c t e d f o r t h i s s t u d y . There are no e m p i r i c a l d a t a on i t s r e l i a b i l i t y o r v a l i d i t y , b u t i t s use was c o n s i d e r e d d e s i r a b l e i n an attempt t o see whether s i x t h - g r a d e g i r l s g e n e r a l l y agreed w i t h t h e r a t i n g s o f e x p e r t s . C o n c l u s i o n s based upon th e C a r k h u f f S c a l e may be weakened by c r i t i c i s m s w h i c h have been l e v e l l e d a t t h i s i n s t r u m e n t (Caracena & V i c o r y , 1969; K i e s l e r , M a t h i e u & K l e i n , 1 967; Rappaport & C h i n s k y , 1972; S h a p i r o , 1968). 43 R a t i o n a l e s S u b j e c t C h o i c e P a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s s t u d y , s i x t h - g r a d e g i r l v o l u n t e e r s who had r e c e i v e d p a r e n t a l c o n s e n t , had spent t h e i r s c h o o l l i v e s i n t h e same l a r g e l y m i d d l e - c l a s s suburb. Only one s t u d e n t l i v e d o u t s i d e the s c h o o l ' s catchment a r e a . Thus, t h e r e i s l i k e l y t o be more homogeneity o f s u b j e c t s t h a n would be t h e s i t u a t i o n i n s c h o o l s s e r v i n g w i d e l y d i f f e r i n g s o c i o -economic groups. Boys were n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t u d y f o r two r e a s o n s : F i r s t , sex may be a c o n f o u n d i n g f a c t o r where empathy i s con-c e r n e d , because some young a d o l e s c e n t s l a c k openness i n d i s -c u s s i n g a n y t h i n g w i t h p e e r s o f the o p p o s i t e sex (Muus, 1968). I n a d d i t i o n , g i r l s o f 11 t o 13 have matured much more homo-gene o u s l y t h a n boys (Hembling, 1971). U s i n g g i r l s as s u b j e c t s , t h e r e f o r e , p r o v i d e s a g r e a t e r p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t measured e f f e c t s w i l l be t h e r e s u l t o f t r a i n i n g and not o f random f a c t o r s r e -s u l t i n g from m a t u r a t i o n a l l e v e l . A t t e m p t s were made t o e l i m i n a t e s e l e c t i o n b i a s . Almost e v e r y s t u d e n t g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o v o l u n t e e r d i d so. One-to-one S e t t i n g I n d i v i d u a l i z e d t r e a t m e n t e n a b l e d r a n d o m i z a t i o n o f e x p e r i -m e n t a l o c c a s i o n s t o o c c u r . P o s s i b l e s o u r c e s o f b i a s , such as t h e time o f day, t h e day o f t h e week o r t h e nearness o f e x a m i n a t i o n s , were more b a l a n c e d among s u b j e c t s t h a n i f the t r a i n i n g had been done i n groups w i t h t r e a t m e n t h i s t o r y s h a r e d by a l l group members. A l s o , because o f co n c e r n s about s t u d e n t s 44 l o s i n g c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n a l t i m e , i t seemed t h a t i n d i v i d u -a l i z e d r a t h e r t h a n grouped i n s t r u c t i o n would be more e f f i c i e n t . N u l l Hypotheses H.| : There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e = .05) between t h e p r e t e s t mean and t h e p o s t t e s t mean o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 1 based on: a) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f t r a i n e e s t o a g i v e n s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t . b) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f t r a i n e e ; i n t e r v i e w s w i t h n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t s . c) R a t i n g s o f t r a i n e e i n t e r v i e w s by n a i v e - p e e r -c l i e n t r a t e r s u s i n g a s e l f - c o n s t r u c t e d , C a r k h u f f -l i k e , 5 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r empathy. H 2: There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (•xz. = .05) between the p r e t e s t mean and t h e p o s t t e s t mean o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 2 based on: a) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f t r a i n e e s t o a g i v e n s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t . b) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f t r a i n e e i n t e r v i e w s w i t h n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t s . c) R a t i n g s o f t r a i n e e i n t e r v i e w s by n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s u s i n g a s e l f - c o n s t r u c t e d , C a r k h u f f - l i k e , 5 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r empathy. There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (c*c = .05) between the p r e t e s t mean and t h e p o s t t e s t mean o f t h e c o n t r o l group based on: a) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f sub-j e c t s t o a g i v e n s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t ; b) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f sub-j e c t s ' i n t e r v i e w s w i t h n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t s ; c) R a t i n g s o f s u b j e c t i n t e r v i e w s by n a i v e - p e e r -c l i e n t r a t e r s u s i n g a s e l f - c o n s t r u c t e d , C a r k h u f f -l i k e , 5 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r empathy. There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (»c = .05) among the p o s t t e s t means o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 1, E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 2, and t h e C o n t r o l Group based on: a) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f t r a i n e e s t o a g i v e n s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t . b) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f t r a i n e e i n t e r v i e w s w i t h n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t s . c) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s by an e x p e r t judge a c t i n g a l s o as c l i e n t i n an i n t e r v i e w . d) R a t i n g s o f t r a i n e e i n t e r v i e w s by n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s u s i n g a s e l f - c o n s t r u c t e d , C a r k h u f f - l i k e , 5 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r empathy. There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n = .05) between the empathy s c o r e s a s s i g n e d by ex-p e r t r a t e r s and n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s f o r t h e p o s t t e s t 46 interview involving each group and measured by the Pearson Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n , r. Hg: There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n (=<^ = . 0 5 between the empathy scores assigned by expert raters and naive-peer-client raters for the posttest interview involving each group and measured by the Pearson Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n , r.'. H 7: There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n ( ~ o = . 0 5 ) between the empathy scores assigned i n a l i v e interview s i t u a t i o n by an expert rater and naive-peer-c l i e n t r a t e r s , involving each group and measured by the Pearson Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n , r. 47 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS T h i s s t u d y was s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s e d t o an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : 1. An assessment o f t h e impact o f a t r a i n i n g program on t h e empathic r e s p o n d i n g o f e a r l y a d o l e s c e n t s , as judged by: (a) e x p e r t r a t e r s , based on a u d i o t a p e s ; (b) an e x p e r t r a t e r i n a l i v e i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n ; (c) n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s . 2. An assessment o f t h e impact o f a p o s i t i v e - s e l f - v e r b a -l i a a t i o n component i n c l u d e d i n t h e t r a i n i n g . 3. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between empathy s c o r e s as judged by: (a) e x p e r t and n a i v e a d o l e s c e n t r a t e r s ; (b) e x p e r t r a t e r s u s i n g a u d i o t a p e s and an e x p e r t r a t e r i n a l i v e i n t e r v i e w s i t u a -t i o n ; (c) n a i v e a d o l e s c e n t and e x p e r t c l i e n t - r a t e r s . A n a l y s i s o f Data . The p r o c e s s i n g o f d a t a was performed by computer program (SPSS, v e r s i o n 8) and y i e l d e d means, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , s t a n d a r d e r r o r s , t and F v a l u e s as w e l l as P e a r s o n P r o d u c t -Moment c o r r e l a t i o n s . The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s t u d y a r e p r e s e n t e d by s t a t i n g the h y p o t h e s i s , g i v i n g the s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s and t h e c o n c l u s i o n s based on t h e f i n d i n g s . F i g u r e s 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 a r e p r e s e n t e d t o g i v e an o v e r v i e w o f r e s u l t s . F i g u r e 1 E f f e c t o f Empathy T r a i n i n g on I n t e r v i e w Behav iour : (Expert Raters ) Means o f Empathy Scores P r e t e s t P o s t t e s t F i g u r e 2 E f f e c t o f Empathy T r a i n i n g on I n t e r v i e w Behav iour (Naive Raters ) Means o f Empathy Scores _ - * * " .-, • • Key: Exp. 1 Exp. 2 Control P r e t e s t P o s t t e s t F i g u r e 3 Mean Empathy R a t i n g s f o r Three Groups: ( P r e t e s t ) E x p e r t R a t e r s N a i v e C l i e n t R a t e r s Group: Group: 1 2 C o n t r o l 1 2 C o n t r o l F i g u r e 4 Mean Empathy R a t i n g s f o r Three Groups: ( P o s t t e s t ) E x p e r t R a t e r s E x p e r t C l i e n t R a t e r N a i v e C l i e n t R a t e r s Group: Group: Group: 1 2 C o n t r o l 1 2 C o n t r o l 1 2 C o n t r o l There are s e p a r a t e s u b s e c t i o n s t o each o f t h e major hypo t h e s e s . The s u b s e c t i o n s w i l l be examined s e p a r a t e l y r a t h e r t h a n t r e a t i n g t h e major h y p o t h e s i s as a u n i t . Hypothe s i s One; There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (<=<= = .05) between t h e p r e t e s t mean and t h e p o s t t e s t mean o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 1 based on: a) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f t r a i n e e s t o a g i v e n s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t . b) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f t r a i n e e i n t e r v i e w s w i t h n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t s ; c) R a t i n g s o f t r a i n e e i n t e r v i e w s by n a i v e - p e e r -c l i e n t r a t e r s u s i n g a s e l f - c o n s t r u c t e d , C a r k h u f f -l i k e , 5 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r empathy. I n s p e c t i o n o f T a b l e 1 and T a b l e 2 r e v e a l s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e s i n t r a i n e e s ' communicated empathy as i n d i c a t e d i n r e s p o n s e s t o a s t i m u l u s statement and a l s o i n a l i v e i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n w i t h a pe e r . These measurements were made by r a t e r s e x p e r t i n t h e use o f t h e C a r k h u f f S c a l e . However, when measurements were made by n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t s (Table 3 ) , a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t g a i n was not e d . Chapter V w i l l a d d r e ss a number o f p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r e x p l a i n i n g t h e s e d i f -f e r e n c e s i n mean empathy s c o r e s . 51 T a b l e 1 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : A u d i o t a p e d Responses t o S t i m u l u s Statement (E x p e r t R a t e r s : Group 1) V a r i a b l e Means S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n t -V a l u e P r e t e s t 1 1 . 31 .06 P o s t t e s t 1 3. 40 . 44 12.97 .000 T a b l e 2 Means, S c o r e s : S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy A u d i o t a p e d Responses o f T r a i n e e I n t e r v i e w s ( E x p e r t R a t e r s : Group 1) V a r i a b l e Mean St a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n t -V a l u e E P r e t e s t 2 1 . 40 .15 P o s t t e s t 2 2.83 .78 6.05 .001 T a b l e 3 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : T r a i n e e I n t e r v i e w ( N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s : Group 1) V a r i a b l e Mean St a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n t -V a l u e E P r e t e s t 3.50 . 89 P o s t t e s t ' 3. 75 1 .28 .43 .681 T a b l e 3 i n d i c a t e s t h a t the g a i n s i n empathy, as r a t e d by s i x t h - g r a d e g i r l s , d i d not r e a c h the s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f .05. 52 H y p o t h e s i s Two: There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e ( = .05) between t h e p r e t e s t mean and t h e p o s t t e s t mean o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 2 based on: a) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f t r a i n e e s t o a g i v e n s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t . b) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f t r a i n e e i n t e r v i e w s w i t h n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t s . c) R a t i n g s o f t r a i n e e i n t e r v i e w s by n a i v e - p e e r -c l i e n t r a t e r s u s i n g a s e l f - c o n s t r u c t e d , C a r k h u f f -l i k e , 5 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r empathy. I n s p e c t i o n o f T a b l e s 4 and 5 r e v e a l s s i m i l a r r e s u l t s f o r Group 2 t o t h o s e f o r Group 1. S i g n i f i c a n t p r e t e s t t o p o s t -t e s t g a i n s i n empathic r e s p o n d i n g a re noted when based upon e x p e r t r a t i n g s . N a i v e r a t i n g s (Table 6) i n d i c a t e s t a t i s t i c a l l y n o n s i g n i f i c a n t g a i n s i n empathy. Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations and t-Values for Empathy Scores: Audiotaped Responses to Stimulus Statement (Expert Raters: Group 2) 53 Variable Mean Standard deviation t -Value Pretest 1 Posttest 1 1 .27 3.67 12 30 20.37 000 Table 5 Means, Standard Deviations and t-Value for Empathy Scores: Audiotaped Responses of Trainee Inverviews (Expert Raters: Group 2) Variable Mean Standard deviation t -Value Pretest 2 Posttest 2 1 .48 2. 90 .17 1.14 3.87 .006 Table 6 Means, Standard Deviations and t-Value for Empathy Scores: Trainee Interviews (Naive-Peer-Client Raters: Group 2) Variable Mean Standard deviation t -Value Pretest 2 3.25 1.17 1.99 .087 Posttest 2 4.13 .84 54 T a b l e 6 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e g a i n s i n empathy, as r a t e d by the young c o u n s e l l o r s ' p e e r s , d i d not r e a c h t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f .05. H y p o t h e s i s Three: There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (•=<= = .05) between t h e p r e t e s t mean and t h e p o s t t e s t mean o f t h e c o n t r o l group based on: (a) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f sub-j e c t s t o a g i v e n s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t ; (b) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f sub-j e c t s ' i n t e r v i e w s w i t h n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t s ; (c) r a t i n g s o f s u b j e c t i n t e r v i e w s by n a i v e - p e e r -c l i e n t r a t e r s u s i n g a s e l f - c o n s t r u c t e d , C a r k h u f f -l i k e , 5 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r empathy. I n e x a m i n i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f T a b l e 7 i t i s ap p a r e n t t h a t e x p e r t r a t e r s n o t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s t t e s t g a i n i n empathy by the c o n t r o l group w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r r e s p o n s e s t o an a u d i o -t a p e d s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t . Some p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s f o r t h i s r e s u l t w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 5. T a b l e 7 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : A u d i o t a p e d Responses t o S t i m u l u s Statement (Ex p e r t R a t e r s : C o n t r o l Group) V a r i a b l e Mean S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n t -V a l u e E P r e t e s t 1 1 .25 .13 3.87 .006 P o s t t e s t 1 1 .52 .14 55 The c o n t r o l group made s i g n i f i c a n t g a i n s i n e x p r e s s e d empathy i n re s p o n s e s t o a t a p e d s t i m u l u s statement (see T a b l e 7) but not t o a peer i n a c o u n s e l l i n g i n t e r v i e w (Table 8 ) . Tab l e 8 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : A u d i o t a p e d Responses o f S u b j e c t I n t e r v i e w s (Expert R a t e r s : C o n t r o l Group) V a r i a b l e Mean S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n i t -V a l u e E P r e t e s t 2 1 .52 .30 r* — : -.96 .370 P o s t t e s t 2 1 . 42 .22 There was not a s i g n i f i c a n t g a i n i n empathic r e s p o n d i n g f o r t h e c o n t r o l group as r a t e d by n a i v e p e e r s (see T a b l e 9 ) . T a b l e 9 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , and t - V a l u e f o r Empathy S c o r e s : S u b j e c t I n t e r v i e w s ( N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s : C o n t r o l Group) V a r i a b l e Mean S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n t -V a l u e E P r e t e s t 2 3.13 . 99 P o s t t e s t 2 3. 69 1 .22 1 .76 .122 H y p o t h e s i s Four: There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s (<=<z = .05) among t h e p o s t t e s t means o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 1, E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 2, and t h e c o n t r o l group based on: 56 a) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f t r a i n e e s t o a g i v e n s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t ; b) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f a u d i o t a p e d r e s p o n s e s o f t r a i n e e s ' i n t e r v i e w s w i t h n a i v e - p e e r c l i e n t s ; c) C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s by an e x p e r t judge a c t i n g as a c l i e n t i n an i n t e r v i e w ; d) r a t i n g s o f t r a i n e e i n t e r v i e w s by n a i v e - p e e r -c l i e n t r a t e r s u s i n g a s e l f - c o n s t r u c t e d C a r k h u f f -l i k e , 5 - p o i n t s c a l e f o r empathy. The term "Honest S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e " (HSD) i s used t o i n d i c a t e t h e s e l e c t e d c r i t i c a l v a l u e when u s i n g t h e Tukey p r o -cedure. W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s p r o c e d u r e t o th e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s , between means (Tables 10, 12 and 15) f o r h y p o t h e s i s 4 a)., b),, [ and c) , t h e f i n d i n g s were as f o l l o w s : 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 t h e means f o r Group 1 and Group 3 (Tables 11, 13 and 16). 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 t h e means f o r Group 2 and Group 3 (Tables 11, 13 and 16). There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e means f o r Group 2 and Group:1 (Tables 11, 13 and 16). Fo r H y p o t h e s i s 4 (d) t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -f e r e n c e s among the group means (Table 14). 5,7 Table 10 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Three Groups, P o s t t e s t 1 Audiotaped Responses to Stimulus Statement (Expert Raters) Source df SS MS Between Groups Wi t h i n Groups 21 21 . 85 2.08 10.92 110.49 .10 000 T o t a l s 23 23.92 Table 11 Tukey Multiple-Comparison, P o s t t e s t 1: Audiotaped Responses to Stimulus Statement (Expert Raters) Group Means: Standard d e v i a t i o n s D i f f e r e n c e s Exp. 1 Exp. 2 C o n t r o l 3. 40 3. 67 1 .52 1 .86* *H S D ( C r i t i c a l value) 39 There were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between Group 1 and the c o n t r o l group and between Group 2 and the c o n t r o l group but not between the two t r a i n e d groups i n t h i s assessment of empathy by expert r a t e r s (see Tables 10 and 11 above). 5 8 T a b l e 12 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r Three Groups, P o s t t e s t 2: A u d i o t a p e d Responses o f I n t e r v i e w s w i t h P e e r s (E x p e r t R a t e r s ) Source df SS MS Between Groups W i t h i n Groups 21 11 .20 1 3.72 5.60 . 65 8.57 .002 T o t a l s 23 24.92 T a b l e 13 Tukey M u l t i p l e - C o m p a r i s o n , P o s t t e s t 2: A u d i o t a p e d Responses o f I n t e r v i e w s w i t h P e e r s (Expert R a t e r s ) Group Means S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s D i f f e r e n c e s Exp. 1 Exp. 2 C o n t r o l 2. 83 2. 90 1 . 42 .78 1.14 .22 07 1 .48* 1 .41 * kH S D ( C r i t i c a l v a l u e ) : 1.01 E x p e r t r a t i n g s o f t h e peer c o u n s e l l i n g i n t e r v i e w s i n d i -c a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between Group 1 and t h e con-t r o l group and between Group 2 and t h e c o n t r o l group b u t n o t between t h e two t r a i n e d groups (see T a b l e s 12 and 13). Table 14 /Analysis of Variance f o r Three Groups' Empathy Scores (Naive-Peer-Client Raters: P o s t t e s t Interview) Source df SS MS E B ™ s 2 .90 .45. .35 " " r o u p s 2 1 2 6 - 8 4 1 ' 2 8 T o t a l s 23 27.74 Ratings by peers t a k i n g the r o l e of c l i e n t s i n a counsel-l i n g i n t e r v i e w d i d not i n d i c a t e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the three groups i n the study (see Table 14, above). Table 15 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Three Groups' Empathy Scores (Expert C l i e n t Rater: P o s t t e s t Interview) Source df SS MS E Between Groups 2 22.15 11.07 16.21 .000 Within Groups 21 14.34 .68 To t a l s 23 36.49 There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among the three groups empathy scores as ra t e d by the expert i n the r o l e of c l i e n t , as i n d i c a t e d i n Table 15, above. 60 T a b l e 16 Tukey M u l t i p l e - C o m p a r i s o n ( E x p e r t - C l i e n t R a t e r : P o s t t e s t I n t e r v i e w Empathy Scores) Group Means S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s D i f f e r e n c e s Exp. 1 Exp. 2 C o n t r o l 3.31 3.50 1 . 38 1 . 93* *H S D ( C r i t i c a l V a l u e ) : 1.04 The e x p e r t judge a c t i n g as c l i e n t i n an i n t e r v i e w n o t e d s i g n i f i c a n t mean d i f f e r e n c e s i n empathy between Group 1 and the c o n t r o l group and between Group 2 and t h e c o n t r o l group but not between the two t r a i n e d groups (see T a b l e 16). I n summary, the t e s t r e s u l t s f o r t r a i n i n g e f f e c t s p r o -duced e v i d e n c e t h a t t r a i n i n g c o n t r i b u t e d t o g r e a t e r empathic r e s p o n d i n g as a s s e s s e d by e x p e r t r a t e r s u s i n g the C a r k h u f f s c a l e . However, t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n em-p a t h y measures i n v o l v i n g r a t i n g by n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t s . The e x p e r i m e n t a l group w h i c h used p o s i t i v e s e l f - v e r b a l i z a t i o n (Group 2) d i d not show s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n empathic r e s p o n d i n g o v e r th e o t h e r t r a i n e d group. H y p o t h e s i s F i v e : H5: There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e -l a t i o n (<; = .05) between the empathy s c o r e s a s s i g n e d by e x p e r t r a t e r s and n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s f o r t h e p r e t e s t i n t e r v i e w i n v o l v i n g each group and measured by the P e a r s o n Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n , r . There were f o u r n a i v e r a t e r s a t p r e t e s t and f o u r a t p o s t -t e s t each o f whom r a t e d s i x s u b j e c t s , two s u b j e c t s from each o f t h e t h r e e groups. T h e r e f o r e , n a i v e r a t i n g s f o r each group a r e a r e s u l t o f r a t i n g s by a l l f o u r n a i v e r a t e r s , whereas each e x p e r t r a t e d a l l s u b j e c t s . Naiv e r a t i n g s s h o u l d be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f r a t i n g s w h i c h would be made by pee r s under s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . As h y p o t h e s i z e d , t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s among s c o r e s a s s i g n e d by e x p e r t r a t e r s and t h o s e by n a i v e r a t e r s were n o n - s i g n i f i -c a n t . R e s u l t s f o r t h e p r e t e s t a re p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 17. Ta b l e 17 C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s : E x p e r t v e r s u s N a i v e R a t e r s ( P r e t e s t I n t e r v i e w ) E x p e r i m e n t a l E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l Group 1 Group 2 Group .00 .28 .23 H y p o t h e s i s S i x : There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n (C^L = .05) between t h e empathy s c o r e s a s s i g n e d by e x p e r t r a t e r s and n a i v e - p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s f o r the p o s t t e s t i n t e r v i e w i n -v o l v i n g e a ch group and measured by t h e Pearson Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n , r . At p o s t t e s t t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s among s c o r e s a s s i g n e d by e x p e r t and by n a i v e r a t e r s were n o n s i g n i f i c a n t and a r e shown 62 i n T a b l e 18. C o r r e l a t i o n f o r E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 2 was nega-t i v e b u t n o n s i g n i f i c a n t . T a b l e 18 C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s : E x p e r t v e r s u s N a i v e R a t e r s ( P o s t t e s t Peer I n v e r v i e w ) E x p e r i m e n t a l E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l Group 1 Group 2 Group .12 -.26 .38 H y p o t h e s i s Seven: There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n (="<^ = .05) between the empathy s c o r e s a s s i g n e d i n a l i v e i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n by an e x p e r t r a t e r and by n a i v e - p e e r -c l i e n t r a t e r s i n v o l v i n g each group and measured by t h e P e a r s o n Product-Moment c o r r e l a t i o n , r . As h y p o t h e s i z e d , s i g n i f i c a n c e was n o t reached f o r r a t -i n g s a s s i g n e d by t h e n a i v e and e x p e r t r a t e r s even though a l l r a t e r s were i n a p o s i t i o n t o a s s e s s n o n v e r b a l as w e l l as v e r b a l a s p e c t s o f empathy. I n g e n e r a l , i t appeared t h a t i n t h i s s t u d y s i x t h - g r a d e g i r l s s i g n i f i e d t h a t t h e y gener-a l l y e x p e r i e n c e d as more c a r i n g and u n d e r s t a n d i n g d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s t h a n t h o s e e x p e r i e n c e d as empathic by the a d u l t r a t e r . Some p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h i s w i l l be e x p l o r e d i n C h apter 5. As n o t e d i n T a b l e 19, however, a l l c o r r e l a -t i o n s were p o s i t i v e . 63 T a b l e 19 C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r Empathy S c o r e s : N a i v e and E x p e r t C l i e n t - R a t e r s ( P o s t t e s t I n t e r v i e w s ) £• £_ E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 1 .42 .30 E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 2 .25 .55 C o n t r o l Group .60 .12 A l l S u b j e c t s .29 .17 I n summary t h e r e seems t o be some e v i d e n c e t h a t s u i t a b l y t r a i n i n g e a r l y a d o l e s c e n t g i r l s produces an i n c r e a s e i n t h e i r e mpathic r e s p o n d i n g as judged by e x p e r t judges based upon C a r k h u f f r a t i n g s o f t h e i r r e s p o n s e s t o a u d i o t a p e d s t a t e m e n t s and i n l i v e i n t e r v i e w s w i t h b o t h p e e r s and an a d u l t . There was n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t e v i d e n c e o f a d d i t i o n a l improve-ment by t h e i n c l u s i o n o f a p o s i t i v e - s e l ' f - v e r b a l i z a t i o n component i n t r a i n i n g . Empathic r e s p o n d i n g as judged by e x p e r t a d u l t r a t e r s d i d n o t show a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o peer r a t i n g s o f empathy nor was t h e r e e v i d e n c e t h a t p e e r s found empathic r e s p o n d i n g t o be more u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c a r i n g from t h e i r p o i n t o f view. However, t h e r e was a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s u b j e c t s ' empathy as judged from two d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s by e x p e r t s , one as a p a r t i c i p a n t c l i e n t and o t h e r s as e x t e r n a l r a t e r s . On t h e 5 - p o i n t C a r k h u f f s c a l e , a l e v e l 3 response i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be m i n i m a l l y f a c i l i t a t i v e f o r t h e c l i e n t . 64 Trained groups i n t h i s study g e n e r a l l y reached L e v e l 3, the type of response which Truax (1964) considered to be neces-sary to e f f e c t p o s i t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y change i n c l i e n t s (see Table 20). Summaries of p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t l e v e l s of em-p a t h i c responding are presented i n Tables 20 and 21. Table 20 Empathy Scores: P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s , t-Values and P r o b a b i l i t i e s : Audiotaped Responses of Subject Interviews Group V a r i a b l e Mean Standard d e v i a t i o n t -Value E Exp. 1 P r e t e s t 2 P o s t t e s t 2 1 . 40 2.83 .15 .78 6.05 .001 Exp. 2 P r e t e s t 2 P o s t t e s t 2 1 .48 2. 90 .17 1.14 3.87 .006 C o n t r o l P r e t e s t 2 P o s t t e s t 2 1 .52 1 .42 .30 .22 -.96 . 370 65 Table 21 Empathy Scores: t-Values and P r o b a b i l i t i e s , P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s : Subject Interviews (Naive-Peer-Client Raters: Three Groups) Group V a r i a b l e Mean Standard d e v i a t i o n t -Value Exp. 1 P r e t e s t 2 3.50 P o s t t e s t 2 3.75 .89 1 .28 .43 .681 Exp. 2 P r e t e s t 2 3.25 P o s t t e s t 2 4.13 1.17 .84 1 . 99 .087 C o n t r o l P r e t e s t 2 3.13 P o s t t e s t 2 3.69 . 99 1 .22 1 . 76 .122 CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS The s t u d y was conducted t o e x p l o r e t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f t e a c h i n g s i x t h grade g i r l s t o respond w i t h empathy and t o a s s e s s whether o r not such r e s p o n d i n g was c o n s i d e r e d more u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c a r i n g by o t h e r g i r l s o f s i m i l a r ages. Another a r e a i n v e s t i g a t e d was the f e a s i b i l i t y and e f f e c t o f i n c l u d i n g p o s i t i v e - s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n i n t o t h e b a s i c t r a i n i n g . T h i s f i n a l c h a p t e r w i l l a d d r ess t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e f i n d i n g s and t h e n , a f t e r d i s c u s s i o n and c o n c l u s i o n s , s u g g e s t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r s t u d y o f young p e o p l e ' s empathy t r a i n i n g w i l l be made. Answers t o t h e f o u r r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s p r e s e n t e d a t the c o n c l u s i o n o f Chapter I I are p r e s e n t e d f i r s t . F i n d i n g s R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n (a) Can 11- t o 1 3 - y e a r - o l d g i r l s a c h i e v e a m i n i m a l l y f a c i l i -t a t i v e l e v e l o f empathic r e s p o n d i n g ? E x p e r t judges w o r k i n g from a u d i o t a p e s found s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e m e n t s i n the empathy d i s p l a y e d by t r a i n e e c o u n s e l l o r s . There were g e n e r a l l y f a c i l i t a t i v e r e s p o n s e s a t p o s t t e s t f o r t r a i n e e s . A l t h o u g h p e e r - c l i e n t r a t e r s n o t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t r i s e i n empathic r e s p o n d i n g , peer r a t i n g s i n d i c a t e d g e n e r a l l y f a c i l i t a t i v e r e s p o n d i n g even b e f o r e t r a i n i n g . A f t e r t r a i n -i n g , t h e g i r l s r a t e d t r a i n e e s ' mean s c o r e s above l e v e l 3, 67 t h e f a c i l i t a t i v e l e v e l , and l e v e l 4 f o r Groups 1 and 2 r e -s p e c t i v e l y (Table 2 1 ) . One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the f a c t t h a t t h e young ado-l e s c e n t g i r l s f a i l e d t o note s i g n i f i c a n t p r e t e s t t o p o s t t e s t i n c r e m e n t s i n empathic r e s p o n d i n g may be t h a t t h e mean s c o r e s f o r a l l t h r e e groups t h e y r a t e d a t p r e t e s t were above l e v e l 3 so t h a t t h e r e was not a g r e a t d e a l o f room f o r improvement. The e x p e r i e n c e o f h a v i n g t i m e away from t h e i r own s c h o o l t o t a l k w i t h p e e r s whose purpose was t o u n d e r s t a n d them and t h e i r problems was e x c i t i n g f o r a l l r a t e r s and may have p r o v i d e d a " h a l o " e f f e c t so t h a t a l l i n t e r a c t i o n s seemed s a t i s f a c t o r y . I t appeared t h a t t h e r a t e r s had not had t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f d i s -c u s s i n g t h e s e problems w i t h t h e i r p e e r s p r i o r t o t h e t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n and, t h e r e f o r e , found the e x p e r i e n c e i t s e l f so p o s i -t i v e t h a t t h e p r e t e s t s c o r e s were h i g h and t h e p r e t e s t t o p o s t -t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s not s i g n i f i c a n t . F i g u r e 2 i l l u s t r a t e s changes i n s c o r e s . Thus, the f i n d i n g s show t h a t t r a i n e e s a p p a r e n t l y l e a r n e d t o r e s pond w i t h empathy, as measured.by the C a r k h u f f s c a l e s , a l t h o u g h empathy s k i l l s were not f a m i l i a r t o them b e f o r e t r a i n -i n g . F u r t h e r m o r e , e x p e r t r a t e r s judged t h a t none o f t h e t r a i n e e s i n t h e s t u d y responded w i t h c l o s e t o f a c i l i t a t i v e empathy b e f o r e t r a i n i n g whereas, a f t e r t r a i n i n g , t h e m a j o r i t y o f them d i d so. The g a i n s i n empathic r e s p o n d i n g were g r e a t e r t h a n t h o s e r e p o r t e d f o r many a d u l t t r a i n i n g programs when judged by e x p e r t r a t e r s . C a r k h u f f (1969), i n a r e v i e w o f r e s u l t s from a number 6 8 of such programs, noted that the average gain was approximately . 5 of a l e v e l and he recommended that tra inees should be se lected who were already funct ioning at a f a i r l y high l e v e l of empathic responding. Truax and L i s t e r ( 1 9 7 0 ) reported a . 8 0 increase i n empathy l e v e l a f te r a 40 -hour t r a i n i n g program. In the present study, the t o t a l t r a i n i ng time for each student was approximately two hours. Therefore, there are impl icat ions for the d e s i r a b i l i t y of t r a i n i ng at the 11 to 1 3 age l e v e l i n l i ne with Schoeppe and Havighurst 's ( 1 9 5 2 ) f i nd ing that change was much more l i k e l y to occur at an e a r l i e r age. The mean gain i n t r a inees ' empathy, as rated by experts, was 1 . 8 4 . Research Question (b) Does the addi t ion of pos i t i ve s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n enhance empathic responding i n young people? The i nc lu s i on of the pos i t i ve s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n (PSI) pro-cedure d id not s i g n i f i c a n t l y add to the success of basic em-pathy t r a i n i n g , as i t d id i n the study by Yager et a l ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Ratings of the PSI empathy group (Group 2 ) made by c l i e n t s , both s ixth-grade c l i e n t s and an expert c l i e n t , showed negative cor re la t ions with rat ings by external judges (p. 1 2 8 ) . Be-cause th i s was not true of the two other student groups further study with nonverbal behaviour as the dependent v a r i -able may be warranted i n case the PSI technique has i t s greatest impact on nonverbal rather than on verba l behaviour. I t i s poss ib le that the use of PSI may be detr imental to performance of some students i n ce r ta in cases. For example, i n a study which used PSI to contro l impu l s iv i ty of young s t u d e n t s (Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971), t h o s e s t u d e n t s who had been l a b e l l e d " r e f l e c t i v e " r a t h e r t h a n " i m p u l s i v e " p e r -formed more p o o r l y as w e l l as almost 25 p e r c e n t more s l o w l y i n t h e p o s t t e s t s i t u a t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t some p e o p l e i n t u i t i v e l y r e s p ond w i t h empathy i n a s e n s i t i v e way w h i c h would be hampered by r e m i n d e r s t o c o n c e n t r a t e on th e o t h e r p e r s o n . I t seems t o f o l l o w t h a t t h o s e who a r e s e l f -c o n s c i o u s would be the p e r s o n s most h e l p e d by l e a r n i n g PSI t e c h n i q u e s i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h empathy t r a i n i n g whereas con-f i d e n t , aware, s e n s i t i v e p e o p l e would p o s s i b l y n ot b e n e f i t a t a l l from i t . These p o s s i b i l i t i e s a r e , as y e t , u n t e s t e d . I t cannot be s t a t e d w i t h any degree o f c e r t a i n t y what th e r e a s o n s a r e f o r the e q u i v o c a l n a t u r e o f the r e s u l t s i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n (c) What i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between empathic r e s p o n d i n g judged by e x p e r t s and empathic r e s p o n d i n g judged by young c o u n s e l l o r s ' p e e r - c l i e n t s ? The f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between th e two forms o f r a t i n g . That i s , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t c o u n s e l l i n g deemed h i g h i n empathy by e x p e r t judges was p e r -c e i v e d as more u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c a r i n g , o r was, i n d e e d , p r e -f e r r e d by s i x t h - g r a d e g i r l s . There are a number o f p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e young a d o l e s c e n t g i r l s f a i l e d t o note s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n empathy among the t h r e e groups. F o r one t h i n g , a l l s u b j e c t s appeared t o be as u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c a r i n g as t h e y c o u l d be under t h e s e 70 circumstances.and o f t e n provided suggestions, the k i n d of help they thought best and, because the r a t e r s appeared to be seek-i n g answers to r e a l problem s i t u a t i o n s , c l i e n t - r a t e r s welcomed suggestions along w i t h empathy. Most peer c l i e n t s commented upon the p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e of good advice whereas expert r a t e r s focussed more d i r e c t l y upon empathy. At t h i s age l e v e l , the common form of h e l p f u l communication among peers appeared to be the g i v i n g of advice so t h a t t h i s was f a m i l i a r to peer r a t e r s and appeared to be g e n e r a l l y welcomed (see Appendix E-1) . Findings such as these could tend to support the conten-t i o n of Jacobson and Margolin (197 9) t h a t a person whose ideas have been r e f l e c t e d may f e e l as i f she i s not being understood i f she i s l o o k i n g f o r concrete h e l p f u l suggestions. The r e -s u l t s a l s o bear on G l a d s t e i n ' s (1979) f i n d i n g t h a t empathy, as measured by Carkhuff-type s c a l e s , appeared to be more r e l e -vant to people w i t h deeper emotional problems than those seek-i n g general c o u n s e l l i n g where the need may be to o b t a i n some u s e f u l advice. A l s o , t h i s study sought answers i n a f i r s t s e s s i o n , time-l i m i t e d i n t e r v i e w , whereas more time may be needed f o r t r u s t to be e s t a b l i s h e d and empathic responding to become more valued. These young c o u n s e l l o r s were strangers to t h e i r c l i e n t s who had brought w i t h them problems which were of r e a l concern. At t h i s developmental stage, g i r l s are t y p i c a l l y eager to l e a r n from t h e i r peers. They want new and d i f f e r e n t ideas because they r e l y l e s s upon d i r e c t i o n from t h e i r parents than they d i d 71 f o r m e r l y . T h e r e f o r e , t h e y may need a p e r i o d o f t i m e i n a c o u n s e l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p t o ask f o r and c o n s i d e r the s u g g ested s o l u t i o n s o f t h e i r p e e r s w h i l e t h e y weigh the p o s s i b l e con-sequences o f a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i o n s . Thus, i t may be o n l y i n t h e l a t t e r p a r t o f a l o n g e r c o u n s e l l i n g s e s s i o n t h a t empathic r e s p o n d i n g i s most v a l u e d by young p e o p l e a t t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e . I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g t o seek r e s u l t s from l o n g e r c o u n s e l l i n g s e s s i o n s i n an o n g o i n g c o u n s e l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p when empathy may be more v a l u e d t h a n i n a s h o r t f i r s t i n t e r -v i e w . N o n v e r b a l a s p e c t s o f empathy o b v i o u s l y cannot be p i c k e d up by r a t e r s u s i n g a u d i o t a p e s , and some o f t h e young c l i e n t . r a t e r s i n d i c a t e d v e r b a l l y t h a t t h e y f e l t peer c o u n s e l l o r s were more u n d e r s t a n d i n g , f o r example, i f t h e y d i d n ' t f i d g e t and i f t h e y l o o k e d f r i e n d l y . C l i e n t - p e r c e i v e d empathy r a t i n g s have gener-a l l y shown l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o e x t e r n a l judgments o f empathy (Gurman, 1977; K u r t z & Grummon, 1972). However, f a c t o r s o t h e r t h a n n o n v e r b a l d i f f e r e n c e s must be i n v o l v e d i n t h e f i n d i n g o f n o n s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s because the a d u l t c l i e n t a l s o d i s a g r e e d w i t h n a i v e c l i e n t r a t i n g s . R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n (d) Do young a d o l e s c e n t c l i e n t s r a t e empathy d i f f e r e n t l y from an a d u l t e x p e r t c l i e n t ? The r a t i n g s o f t h e male a d u l t e x p e r t i n t h e r o l e o f c l i e n t showed no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h r a t i n g s by t h e young c l i e n t s b u t he was a b l e t o judge empathy on t h e b a s i s o f b o t h n o n v e r b a l and v e r b a l c u e s , u n l i k e t h e o t h e r e x p e r t r a t e r s 72 (Appendix E - 2 ) . There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t e x p e r t r a t e r s u s i n g the C a r k h u f f S c a l e have been t r a i n e d t o v a l u e c e r t a i n forms o f r e s p o n s e s w h i c h may not appear as h i g h i n empathy t o u n t r a i n e d r a t e r s o r c l i e n t s i n g e n e r a l . Some c r i t i c s have made such c l a i m s ( B u e t l e r , Johnson & N e v i l l e , 1973; G o l d s t e i n , 1971). I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the a d o l e s c e n t r a t e r s p e r c e i v e d more a c c u r a t e l y t h e deeper f e e l i n g s o f t h e i r p eer c o u n s e l l o r s t h a n d i d t h e e x p e r t r a t e r s . The a d o l e s c e n t s may have been r e s p o n d -i n g more t o t h e c o u n s e l l o r - a s - p e r s o n i n t h e i r r a t i n g s and were g i v i n g r e a l i s t i c v i e w s o f a s p e c t s o f the p r o c e s s not a c c e s -s i b l e t o t h e a d u l t r a t e r s whose r a t i n g s may r e f l e c t a v i e w o f t h e c o u n s e l l o r s as t e c h n i c i a n s . I n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n , i t may be r e l e v a n t t o m ention a s t u d y ( M i t c h e l l , B o z a r t h & K r a u f t , 1977). Empathic r e s p o n d i n g was e l e v a t e d from low l e v e l s ( l e s s t h a n 1.5) t o m i n i m a l l y f a c i l i -t a t i v e l e v e l s (3.0) i n a s y s t e m a t i c a l l y d e s i g n e d t r a i n i n g p r o -gram o f l e s s t h a n 100 hours. W h i l e t h i s was t r u e f o r empathy i t was not t r u e f o r o t h e r f a c i l i t a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s — w a r m t h and g e n u i n e n e s s . Perhaps t h i s was because t r a i n e e s needed t o change o n l y c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d modes o f r e s p o n d i n g i n o r d e r t o improve t h e i r r a t i n g s o f empathy. I t was suggested t h a t em-p a t h i c r e s p o n s e s can be i n c r e a s e d i n a way w h i c h i s s i m i l a r t o how r e a d i n g speed can o f t e n be i n c r e a s e d , by m e r e l y concen-t r a t i n g on r e s ponse p a t t e r n s i n a r a t h e r m e c h a n i s t i c , s t e r e o -t y p e d way. Perhaps warmth and genuineness are b e t t e r i n d i c a t o r s o f deeper f e e l i n g s . I t seems l i k e l y t h a t n o n v e r b a l a s p e c t s , empathy, and good s u g g e s t i o n s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e r a t i n g s o f t h e peer c l i e n t s whereas e x p e r t s were n e g a t i v e l y i n f l u e n c e d by t h e g i v i n g o f a d v i c e (see Appendix E-1 and E - 2 ) . Summary o f F i n d i n g s and C o n c l u s i o n s The s t u d y c o n f i r m s V o g e l s o n g 1 s (1976) c o n t e n t i o n t h a t some young s t u d e n t s can be t r a i n e d t o use empathy i n c o u n s e l l i n g i n t e r v i e w s . U n l i k e h i s s t u d y , however, the i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r -v i ews i n v o l v e d u n t r a i n e d s t r a n g e r s and a l s o a c o u n s e l l i n g i n t e r v i e w w i t h an a d u l t as c l i e n t . T r a i n e e s i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y were not e s p e c i a l l y s e l e c t e d f o r t h e i r r o l e - m o d e l c h a r a c -t e r i s t i c s , as t h e y were i n most s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l s t u d e n t s ( D e l w o r t h , 1974; Gumaer, 1973; K e a t , 1976), b u t were a random sample o f g i r l s . A l l t r a i n e e s , even tho s e w i t h r e p u t a t i o n s f o r a n t i s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r and l a c k o f peer a c c e p t a n c e , were eager t o improve t h e i r empathic s k i l l s . However, an o b s e r v a t i o n was made a t the b e g i n n i n g o f t r a i n i n g w h i c h p o i n t e d t o a need f o r t r a i n i n g i n o r d e r t o e f f e c t i v e l y u t i l i z e t h i s m o t i v a t i o n t o communicate w e l l . P a i r s o f t r a i n e e s w i l l i n g l y r e p o r t e d a f t e r s c h o o l f o r p r a c t i s e s e s s i o n s . However, a l m o s t a l l o f t h e t r a i n e e s asked f o r h e l p i n d e c i d i n g what t o t a l k about and c l a i m e d t h a t t h e y d i d n o t know what t o t a l k about. T h i s d i f f i c u l t y i n communi-c a t i n g w i t h o u t an a s s i g n e d t o p i c p e r s i s t e d f o r v a r y i n g l e n g t h s o f t i m e , but was f i n a l l y overcome. L a t e r , as r e p u t a t i o n s f o r 74 b e i n g good l i s t e n e r s a p p a r e n t l y s p r e a d , two t r a i n e e s r e p o r t e d t h a t even seventh-grade s t u d e n t s were coming t o them t o d i s c u s s problems. The w i l l i n g n e s s and a b i l i t y o f t h e s e 11- t o 13-year-o l d g i r l s t o l e a r n s k i l l s w h i c h were d e s i g n e d t o h e l p them t o be more u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c a r i n g o f o t h e r s l e n d s s u p p o r t t o t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f e n c o u r a g i n g t r a i n i n g f o r t h i s age group. However, the most d e s i r a b l e form and c o n t e n t o f t h e t r a i n -i n g w h i c h would b e s t e q u i p young s t u d e n t s t o h e l p each o t h e r f i n d s o l u t i o n s t o t h e i r problems i s not known. I n d i v i d u a l t r a i n i n g , as used i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , appeared t o be e f f i c i -e n t i n terms o f t h e s t u d e n t s ' t i m e and t h e l e v e l o f empathy a c h i e v e d , but empathic r e s p o n d i n g , a l o n e , seemed i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e needs o f t h e young a d o l e s c e n t s and t h e s u g g e s t i o n i s made t h a t f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s o f t h e components o f empathic peer c o u n s e l l i n g be c a r r i e d out as w e l l as f o l l o w u p s t u d i e s o f t h e e f f e c t s o f t r a i n i n g . The p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e c h n i q u e was w e l l a c c e p t e d by t r a i n e e s but a p p a r e n t l y d i d not add s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o empathy beyond t h a t a c h i e v e d w i t h the b a s i c t r a i n i n g , u n l i k e t h e r e -s u l t s c l a i m e d f o r t h e Yager e t a l (1975) s t u d y . D e s p i t e t h e l a c k o f c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t s t u d e n t s p r e -f e r r e d empathy, as measured by t h e C a r k h u f f S c a l e , i n c o u n s e l -l i n g from t h e i r p e e r s , t h e s t u d y c o n c u r s w i t h t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f M a r t i n and C a r k h u f f (1967) t h a t t r a i n e e s ' empathy s k i l l s c a n be sharpened. I t a l s o u n d e r l i n e s M c N a l l y ' s (1973) c o n t e n -t i o n t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f r e s p o n d i n g w i t h empathy i s c o n t i n g e n t upon th e r e c e i v e r and G l a d s t e i n ' s (1977) c o n c l u s i o n t h a t 75 empathy may be more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o c l i e n t outcome i n t h e r a p y t h a n i n c o u n s e l l i n g . There was not a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e r a t i n g o f empathy by e x p e r t s and by s i x t h - g r a d e c l i e n t s . Peer r a t -i n g s d i d not show a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between th e empathic r e s p o n d i n g o f t r a i n e e s and the c o n t r o l group but peer r a t i n g s f o r a l l s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d g e n e r a l l y f a c i l i t a t i v e empathic r e s p o n d i n g . However, the young c l i e n t s i n d i c a t e d v e r b a l l y t h a t t h e y wanted a peer c o u n s e l l o r t o l i s t e n w e l l and c a r e about them and t h e i r problems and t o h e l p them t o f i n d s o l u t i o n s by g i v i n g good a d v i c e . A c o n c l u s i o n c o u l d be drawn t h a t g i r l s a t t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e may r e q u i r e more t h a n empathy, as g e n e r a l l y r a t e d by e x p e r t s , i n o r d e r t o f e e l t h a t t h e y a r e f u l l y u n d e r s t o o d . A q u e s t i o n remains as t o t h e d i s p a r i t y between t h e f i n d -i n g s o f t h i s s t u d y and t h o s e o f Hundleby (1973), namely, t h a t t r a i n e d s e n i o r s econdary s t u d e n t s were p e r c e i v e d by peer r a t e r s as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n a c o u n s e l l i n g i n t e r v i e w t h a n t h o s e who had not been t r a i n e d . S t u d e n t s i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y were a t a d i f f e r e n t d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e and p o s s i b l y j u s t b e g i n n i n g t o break away from dependence upon p a r e n t a l a d v i c e f o r s o l u t i o n s t o i n t e r p e r s o n a l problems. P o s s i b l y , as a t r a n s i -t i o n from p a r e n t a l a d v i c e , t h a t o f t h e i r p e e r s was sought and t h e y were not y e t r e a d y t o t h i n k t h r o u g h t o s o l u t i o n s on t h e i r own. Hundleby's o l d e r s t u d e n t s no doubt had more e x p e r i e n c e w i t h s o l v i n g problems and were more s e l f - d i r e c t e d , w h i c h would e n a b l e them t o more e a s i l y f i n d s o l u t i o n s t o problems t h r o u g h t h e e x p r e s s e d empathy o f t h e i r p e e r s . The i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s f i n d i n g i s t h a t i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o t r a i n p e e r c o u n s e l l o r s , a t t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e , i n p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s k i l l s as w e l l as i n t h e communication o f empathy. L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h i s s t u d y s h o u l d be a d d r e s s e d . The f a c t t h a t the a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e c o n t r o l group between p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t remained as u n s p e c i f i e d c l a s s r o o m a c t i v i t i e s , may sug-g e s t t h a t i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n , r a t h e r than the t r a i n i n g g i v e n t o t r a i n e e s , may account f o r t r a i n e e s ' p o s t t e s t performance. I t was not p o s s i b l e i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y t o have a t r u e p l a c e b o c o n t r o l group w h i c h would r e c e i v e the same amount o f i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n as t h e t r a i n e e s . C l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n a l t i m e was h i g h l y v a l u e d by p a r e n t s and s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l ; t h u s , t i m e out o f c l a s s was not g e n e r a l l y p e r m i t t e d t o s t u d e n t s u n l e s s l e a r n -i n g a c t i v i t i e s t o o k p l a c e . P a r e n t s gave p e r m i s s i o n f o r empathy t r a i n i n g t o t a k e p l a c e because s p e c i f i c s k i l l s were b e i n g t a u g h t . F u t u r e s t u d i e s might a t t e n d t o the c o n t r o l group problem i f t h e y c o u l d o f f e r p l a c e b o c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s s u i t a b l e i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n w h i c h p a r e n t s , t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s b e l i e v e d t o be p o t e n t i a l l y u s e f u l and which would not l e a d t o f e e l i n g s o f f a i l u r e i n t h e p o s t t e s t s i t u a t i o n , w h i c h p l a c e b o t r e a t m e n t may do i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s (Duncan & L a i r d , 1981). F i n d i n g s o f t h e s t u d y a r e i n f l u e n c e d by t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f empathy by s i x t h - g r a d e g i r l s who used a s i m p l e s c a l e c o n s t r u c t e d f o r the s t u d y . Q u e s t i o n s n a t u r a l l y a r i s e about th e v a l i d i t y o f t h e s c a l e and the a b i l i t y o f t h e r a t e r s t o d i s c r i m i n a t e l e v e l s o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g . However, n a i v e p e r c e p t i o n s were chosen f o r the study because i t was c o n s i d e r e d v a l u a b l e t o use p e r c e p t i o n s unbiased by t r a i n i n g and because t h e r e i s some evidence t h a t even young c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e f a i r l y a c c u r a t e l y the a t t i t u d e s of o t h e r s (Hembling, 1 9 7 8 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , more study should be d i r e c t e d t o the examination of v a r i a b i l i t y of young r a t e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of empathy. In the present study, the o n l y data which o f f e r i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h i s v a r i a b i l i t y come from naive r a t i n g s of the c o n t r o l group because i t i s assumed t h a t v e r y l i t t l e change took p l a c e between p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t i n the i n t e r v i e w behaviour o f members of t h i s group. The c o r r e -l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t between naive r a t i n g s at p r e t e s t and those at p o s t t e s t f o r t h i s eight-member group was . 6 9 , £ = . 0 6 . T h i s seems to be a s a t i s f a c t o r y c o r r e l a t i o n when i t i s con-s i d e r e d t h a t the 1 6 r a t i n g s r e s u l t e d from e i g h t d i f f e r e n t peer r a t e r s . There may be a need to look c r i t i c a l l y a t the C a r k h u f f -type s c a l e s t y p i c a l l y used by experts f o r measuring empathy f o r , as B e r g i n ( 1 9 7 1 ) suggested, the s c a l e s may not be appro-p r i a t e when outcomes are not c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to Rogerian therapy. Perhaps ot h e r s c a l e s should be developed which more c l e a r l y r e -f l e c t empathy to the c l i e n t s f o r which the treatment i s de-signed. As a s t a r t , there may be v a l u e i n examining the cues which i n d i c a t e d empathy to the s i x t h - g r a d e g i r l s i n the p r e -sent study (Appendix E - 1 ) . These, along w i t h the s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a , p o i n t to young a d o l e s c e n t s ' need to o b t a i n sound a l -t e r n a t i v e suggestions as i n d i c a t i o n s of empathy f o r the s o l u t i o n o f t h e i r problems. 78 The close friendships and, possibly, sharing of information among the g i r l s i n the study may have been p a r t l y responsible for the s i g n i f i c a n t Pretest 1 to Posttest 1 difference noted i n the empathy of the control group when responding to a pre-recorded stimulus statement. An additional point to note i s that the variance i n t h e i r scores for t h i s t e s t was very small, .13 and .14. F a m i l i a r i t y with the te s t i n g s i t u a t i o n and the p o s s i b i l i t y that the control group had heard from t h e i r friends about the methods of t r a i n i n g may have been responsible for the .25 l e v e l change i n performance noted by the expert raters (see Table 7). However, no s i g n i f i c a n t change i n communicated empathy was noted when the control group took part i n the longer interview s i t u a t i o n with t h e i r peers; that i s , the s i t u a t i o n to which i t was hoped that the t r a i n i n g would generalize. Test 1 may be useful, however, i n comparing results of t h i s study with others i n which outcome i s not measured i n a l i v e i n t e r -view s i t u a t i o n . Directions for Future Research The r e s u l t s of t h i s study indicate that i n d i v i d u a l i z e d short-term .training i s e f f e c t i v e i n teaching s k i l l s of communicated empathy to early adolescent g i r l s . In addition, i t seems that the study also indicates that the g i r l s at t h i s developmental stage value other behaviours i n addition to communicated empathy. A study could compare the e f f e c t s of t r a i n i n g for empathy, t r a i n i n g i n problem-solving s k i l l s and t r a i n i n g comparing both 79 s k i l l s . However, a major suggestion coming out of t h i s study i s that basic research be undertaken to discover what communica-t i o n adolescents actually value and then to t i e t r a i n i n g for such communication into outcome studies. Results of the present study were not conclusive with re-gard to the effects of combining posi t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n (PSI) with empathy t r a i n i n g and i t may be that the PSI technique i s sel e c t i v e i n i t s e f f e c t s . Perhaps comparative studies of em-pathy t r a i n i n g and PSI could be undertaken with groups of stu-dents perceived to have certain personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n common, such as shy students, who seem to be l i k e l y candidates to p r o f i t from t h i s technique. In such studies i t would be of i n t e r e s t to assess nonverbal effects separately from verbal. The role of cognitive-behaviour-modification methods i n t r a i n -ing for peer counselling i s not clear and needs further research. The present study did not assess nonverbal behaviours as such, even though such behaviours are very important i n communi-cation and i n perceptions of empathy. Student raters i n t h i s study appeared to be aware of and w i l l i n g to verbalize just what i t was that they found h e l p f u l and understanding i n communica-tions from t h e i r peers and nonverbal attending behaviours were frequently mentioned (see Appendix E - 1 ) . Nonverbal e f f e c t s of t r a i n i n g could be assessed through the use of videotape or viewing interviews through one-way glass. In l i n e with the recommendation that basic research be undertaken to determine what s k i l l s are useful i n meeting the communication needs of adolescents at d i f f e r e n t stages of de-velopment, a study could pattern i t s e l f a f t e r the t r a i n i n g 80 model used by Kagan (1967). A d o l e s c e n t dyads c o u l d watch v i d e o -t a p e d p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e i r c o u n s e l l o r - c l i e n t i n t e r a c t i o n s w h i l e a moderator asked each t o r a t e and t o say how she f e l t about each r e s p o n s e . The v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n c o u l d be t r a n s -c r i b e d and t h e r a t i n g would g i v e an a d o l e s c e n t ' s i d e a o f what resp o n s e s were p e r c e i v e d as u n d e r s t a n d i n g o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , as l a c k i n g i n empathy. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e v i d e o t a p e s c o u l d be used f o r t r a i n i n g p u r p o s e s . As mentioned e a r l i e r , t h e p r e -s e n t s t u d y g i v e s d a t a o n l y on t h e f i r s t s e s s i o n o f c o u n s e l l i n g and d a t a such as t h a t j u s t d e s c r i b e d from s e s s i o n s o f ongoing c o u n s e l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , would be v a l u a b l e . As mentioned i n Chapter 2, c o u n s e l l o r s low i n empathy may be d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e h e a l t h o f t h e i r c l i e n t s ( B e r g i n , 1971; Truax & C a r k h u f f , 1967). One r e a s o n f o r t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y was t o d e t e r m i n e i f young c o u n s e l l o r s were c a p a b l e o f a t t a i n i n g a l e v e l o f empathy thought t o be b e n e f i c i a l t o t h e i r p e e r s . I t has been demonstrated t h a t t h e y axe c a p a b l e o f "responding .With t h a t l e v e l o f empathy but t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t empathy judged f a c i l i t a t i v e by e x p e r t s on t h e C a r k h u f f s c a l e p r e d i c t s f a v o u r -a b l e outcome w i t h young c l i e n t s , and t h i s a s p e c t o f empathy r e -mains t o be r e s e a r c h e d . F o l l o w u p s t u d i e s may i n d i c a t e what t y p e s o f t r a i n i n g , t h e .amount o f s u p e r v i s i o n , and t h e k i n d s o f p r a c t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e w h i c h p r o v i d e b e n e f i t t o t r a i n e e s , t h e i r c l i e n t s , and s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l . Long-term s t u d i e s might show t h e degree t o w h i c h t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l t r a i n e e s r e t a i n e d t h e i r s k i l l s , and c o u l d suggest a p p r o p r i a t e r e i n f o r c e m e n t s t o m a i n t a i n t h e s k i l l s w h i c h had been r e l a t e d t o f a v o u r a b l e outcomes f o r 81 t r a i n e e s and o t h e r s . Some c l a s s r o o m l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s p r o v i d e t h e means f o r h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s t o f i n d s o l u t i o n s t o problems. However, a c o n n e c t i o n may need t o be drawn f o r s t u d e n t s between t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s and t h e i r p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n t o p e r s o n a l p r ob-lems. T h i s can be h a n d l e d t h r o u g h group guidance a c t i v i t i e s (Buck, 1980; C l i n e & Wheeler, 1967; G e l a t t , V a r e n h o r s t & Ca r e y , 1972). However, many p e r s o n a l problems w i l l n o t be, and p r o b a b l y s h o u l d not be, s h a r e d among a group o f young s t u d e n t s and t h i s i s one r e a s o n why i n d i v i d u a l t r a i n i n g f o r one-to-one peer c o u n s e l l i n g may be needed and p o s s i b l y more e f f e c t i v e i n e n h a n c i n g empathy t h a n are group a c t i v i t i e s . R e s e a r c h c o u l d be d i r e c t e d toward f i n d i n g t h e b e s t c o m b i n a t i o n o f group and i n d i v i d u a l t r a i n i n g t o maximize b e n e f i t s t o young p a r t i -c i p a n t s . Improvement and i n n o v a t i o n i s needed i n assessment i n -s t r u m e n t s o f a d o l e s c e n t empathy, as w e l l as i n empathy t r a i n -i n g . I n a d d i t i o n , assessments from numerous vantage p o i n t s , such as t h a t o f t e a c h e r s , would be o f i n t e r e s t . A l t h o u g h t h e r e a re f i n e t r a i n i n g models a v a i l a b l e f o r young s t u d e n t c o u n s e l l o r s , and some i n c o r p o r a t e t r a i n i n g i n p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g (Buck, 1979; C a r r & Saunders, 1980), we need assessments o f t h e e f f e c t s o f component p a r t s o f t h e s e t r a i n i n g models i n o r d e r t o improve t r a i n i n g and make any h e l p f u l m o d i f i c a t i o n s f o r s t u d e n t s o f d i f f e r i n g ages, c u l t u r a l backgrounds, and p e r -s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . T r a i n i n g may need t o be t a i l o r e d 82 somewhat f o r p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s . One aim of c o u n s e l l i n g t r a i n i n g c o u l d be to improve e f f o r t s t o teach people s k i l l s which w i l l a i d them i n s o l v i n g some of t h e i r own problems through peer c o u n s e l l i n g , a n d r e s e a r c h would need to focus on e v a l u a t i o n o f such programs. 83;-REFERENCES REFERENCES A l k u s , S. S e l f - r e g u l a t i o n and c h i l d r e n ' s t a s k p e r f o r m a n c e : A c o m p a r i s o n o f s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n , c o p i n g and a t t r i b u t i o n a p p r o a c h e s . U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r -s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1977. A n d e r s o n , R. P e e r f a c i l i t a t i o n : H i s t o r y and i s s u e s . E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l G u idance and C o u n s e l l i n g , 1976, 1_1_/ 16-25. Andrade, B. M. An e x p e r i m e n t a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f t r a i n i n g h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s t o c o n d u c t f a c i l i t a t i v e i n t e r v i e w s w i t h t h e i r p e e r s . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r - n a t i o n a l , 1 973, 3_4, (1-A), 128. Bandura, A. S e l f - e f f i c a c y : Toward a u n i f y i n g t h e o r y o f b e h a v i o r change. P s y c h o l o g i c a l R eview, 1977, 8_4, 191-215. B e r g i n , A. E. The e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e r a p e u t i c outcomes. I n A. E. B e r g i n & S. L. G a r f i e l d ( E d s . ) , Handbook o f P s y c h o t h e r a p y and B e h a v i o r Change. New York: W i l e y & Sons, 1971. B e u t l e r , L. E., J o h n s o n , D. T., & N e v i l l e , C. W. Some s o u r c e s o f v a r i a n c e i n a c c u r a t e empathy r a t i n g s . J o u r n a l o f Con- S u i t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 40(2), 167-169. B i e r m a n , R., C a r k h u f f , R. R., & S a n t i l l i , M. E f f i c a c y o f em p a t h i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n t r a i n i n g groups f o r i n n e r c i t y p r e s c h o o l t e a c h e r s and f a m i l y w o r k e r s . J o u r n a l o f Ap- p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e , 1972, 8(2), 188-202. B r o n f e n b r e n n e r , U. Nobody home: The e r o s i o n o f t h e A m e r i c a n f a m i l y . P s y c h o l o g y Today, May, 1977, pp. 40-42. Brown, T. C o u n s e l l o r r o l e - C a n a d i a n s c e n e . C a n a d i a n C o u n s e l l o r , 1980, 14, 181-185. Buck, M. R. P e e r s : A p e e r c o u n s e l o r t r a i n i n g manual. S t . L o u i s : S c h o o l Board P u b l i c a t i o n , 1979. B u f f i n g t o n , P. W., & S t i l l w e l l , W. E. S e l f - c o n t r o l and a f f e c -t i v e e d u c a t i o n : A case o f o m i s s i o n . E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l Guidance and C o u n s e l i n g , 1980, JJ5(2), 152-156. B u t t e r y , J . , & A l l a n , J . J o u r n a l W r i t i n g as a D e v e l o p m e n t a l Guidance Method. I n p r e s s , C a n a d i a n C o u n s e l l o r . 85. Cabush, D., & Edwards, K. T r a i n i n g c l i e n t s t o h e l p t h e m s e l v e s : Outcome e f f e c t s o f t r a i n i n g c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s ' c l i e n t s i n f a c i l i t a t i v e s e l f - r e s p o n d i n g . J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g Psy- c h o l o g y , 1976, 23, 34-39. Camp, B. V e r b a l m e d i a t i o n i n young a g g r e s s i v e boys. U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y o f C o l o r a d o S c h o o l o f M e d i c i n e , 1975. Cam p b e l l , D., & S t a n l e y , J . E x p e r i m e n t a l and q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n s f o r r e s e a r c h . C h i c a g o : Rand-McNally, 1966. Cannon, J . R., & C a r k h u f f , R. R. E f f e c t s o f r a t e r l e v e l f u n c -t i o n i n g and e x p e r i e n c e upon t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f f a c i l i t a -t i v e c o n d i t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 969, 33 ( 2 ) , 189-1 94. Car a c e n a , P. F., & V i c o r y , J . R. C o r r e l a t e s o f p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l and judged empathy. J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1 969, 1_6, 510-515. C a r k h u f f , R. R. C r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e s i n e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l o r t r a i n i n g . J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, 16, 510-515. C a r k h u f f , R. R. S e l e c t i o n and t r a i n i n g . I n R. R. C a r k h u f f ( E d . ) , H e l p i n g and Human R e l a t i o n s : A p r i m e r f o r l a y and p r o - f e s s i o n a l h e l p e r s ( V o l . 1 ) . New York: H o l t , 1 969. C a r k h u f f , R.. R., K r a t c h o v i l , D., & F r i e l , T. E f f e c t s o f p r o -f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g , communication and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f f a c i l i t a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1 968, 1_5 (1 ) , 68-74. C a r r , R. A. S t u d e n t s h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s : Peer c o u n s e l l i n g . Reed C a r e e r Magazine, 1980, 2, 24-26. C a r r , R. A., & Saunders, G. Peer c o u n s e l l i n g s t a r t e r k i t . V i c t o r i a , B.C., U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a , 1980. C h i n s k y , J . M., & Rappaport, J . B r i e f c r i t i q u e o f t h e meaning and r e l i a b i l i t y o f " a c c u r a t e empathy" r a t i n g s . P s y c h o l o g i - c a l B u l l e t i n , 1970, 73, 379-382. C l i n e , M., & Wheeler, V. S t i m u l u s s t o r i e s . Columbia P u b l i c S c h o o l B o a r d , 1967. Cou£, E. The p r a c t i c e o f a u t o s u g g e s t i o n . New York: Doubleday, 1 922. Decourcy, P., & D u e r f e l d t , P. The impact o f number and t y p e o f models on c l a i m e d s u c c e s s r a t e and mood o f a d u l t a l c o h o l i c s . J o u r n a l o f G e n e t i c P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 122, 63-79. 86, D e l w o r t h , U . P a r a s , p e e r s , and p r o s . Per sonne l , and Guidance J o u r n a l , 1974, 53, 228-231. D e v i n , W . , Sheehan, L . , Feldman, R . , & A l l a n , V . Research on c h i l d r e n t u t o r i n g c h i l d r e n : A c r i t i c a l r e v i e w . Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l Research , 1976, _46, 102-105. Dinkmeyer , D. C. D e v e l o p i n g under s t and ing o f s e l f and o t h e r s . C i r c l e P i n e s , M i n n . : American Guidance S e r v i c e s , 1973. Duncan, J . A . E t h i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n peer group work. E lementary S c h o o l Guidance and C o u n s e l i n g , 1 976, 1 1 ( 1 ) , 59-62. Duncan, J . A . , & L a i r d , J . Warn ing : P lacebos can be dangerous t o your h e a l t h . Psychology Today, June , 1981, pp . 26-29. D y e r , W. W . , V r i e n d , J . , & Murphy, P . A . Peer group c o u n s e l i n g : A t o t a l approach. Momentum, 1975, 6, 8-15. E l l i s , A . Reason and emotion i n p sychotherapy . New Y o r k : L y l e S t u a r t , 1962. E l l i s , A . Teaching e m o t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n i n the c l a s s r o o m . Schoo l H e a l t h Review, 1969, 10-14 (prototype i s s u e ) . E l l i s , A . Are c o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o r therapy and r a t i o n a l therapy synonymous? R a t i o n a l L i v i n g , 1973, 8, 8-11. F i s h , J . M. Empathy and the r e p o r t e d e m o t i o n a l exper i ence s o f b e g i n n i n g p s y c h o t h e r a p i s t s . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1970, 35, 64-69. F i s k e , D. W. M e t h o d o l o g i c a l i s s u e s i n r e s e a r c h on the psycho-t h e r a p i s t . I n A . S. Gurman & A . M. R a z i n ( E d s . ) , E f f e c t i v e P sychotherapy , New Y o r k : Pergamon P r e s s , 1977. F i s k e , D. W . , Hunt , J . F . , L u b o r s k y , L . , & Orne. The p l a n n i n g o f r e s e a r c h on e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f p sychotherapy . A r c h i v e s o f Genera l P s y c h i a t r y , 1970, 22, 22-32. F l a n n e r y , R. B. Use o f c o v e r t c o n d i t i o n i n g i n the b e h a v i o r a l t rea tment o f a drug-dependent c o l l e g e d ropout . J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1972, 1_9(6), 547-550. F r a n k , M, F e r d i n a n d , B . , & B a i l e y , W. Peer group c o u n s e l i n g : A c h a l l e n g e to grow. S c h o o l C o u n s e l o r , 1975, 22 (4 ) , 267-272. F r e u d , A . Ado le scence . P s y c h o a n a l y t i c S t u d i e s , 1958, 1 3, ,225-273. G a r t n e r , A . , & Riessman, F . The p a r a p r o f e s s i o n a l movement i n p e r s p e c t i v e . P e r s o n n e l and Guidance J o u r n a l , 1974, 53, 249-252. 87 G e l a t t , H. B., Varenhorst, B., & Carey, R. Deciding; A leader's guide. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1972. G e r l e r , A. R., & Omizo, M. M. R e l a x a t i o n t r a i n i n g and b i o f e e d -back w i t h hyperactive elementary school c h i l d r e n . Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 1981, 4_, (Vol. 15), 329-332. G l a d s t e i n , G. A. Empathy and counseling outcome: An e m p i r i c a l and conceptual view. Counseling P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1 977, 6>, 70-79. Glass, G. V., & Stanley, J . C. S t a t i s t i c a l methods i n educa- t i o n and psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1970. G o l d f r i e d , M. R., & Merbaum, M. (Eds.), Behavior change through s e l f - c o n t r o l . New York: Holt Rinehart, 1973. G o l d s t e i n , A. P. Psychotherapeutic a t t r a c t i o n . New York: Pergamon Press, 1971. Gumaer, J . P e e r - f a c i l i t a t e d groups. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 1973, 8, 4-11. Gurman, A. S. The p a t i e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the t h e r a p e u t i c r e -l a t i o n s h i p . In A. S. Gurman & A. M. Razin (Eds.), E f f e c t i v e psychotherapy. New York: Pergamon Press, 1977. Gurman, A. S., & Razin, A. M. (Eds.), E f f e c t i v e psychotherapy. New York: Pergamon Press, 1977. Haase, R., & D i m a t t i a , D. A p p l i c a t i o n of the microcounseling paradigms to the t r a i n i n g of support personnel i n counsel-i n g . Counselor Education and S u p e r v i s i o n , 1970, 10, 16-22. Hamburg, B., & Varenhorst, B. Peer counseling i n the secondary schools: A community h e a l t h p r o j e c t f o r youth. American J o u r n a l of Orthopsychiatry, 1 972, 42^ , 566-581 . Hartup, W. W. Peer i n t e r a c t i o n and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of c h i l d psycho- logy (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley, 1970. Havighurst, R. J . Development Tasks and Education. New York: Longmans Green, 1951. Haynes, L. A., & Avery, A. W. T r a i n i n g adolescents i n s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e and empathy s k i l l s . J o u r n a l of Counseling Psychology, 1979, 26, 526-530. -:-88 Hefele, T. J . The e f f e c t s of systematic human r e l a t i o n s t r a i n i n g upon student achievement. Journal of Research and Develop-ment i n Education, 1979, 2_6, 526-530. Hembling, D. W. Depressive re a c t i o n of pre-pubertal elementary school c h i l d r e n : A family t h e r a p i s t response to a common problem. Proceedings of the Ninth International Associa- t i o n f o r C h i l d Psychiatry and A l l i e d Professions, 1978, 8, 623-624. Homme, L. Perspectives i n psychology: Control of coverants, the operants of the mind. Psychological Record, 1965, 6, 501-511. Hundleby, G. D. Communication of empathy. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Alberta, Edmonton, 1973. Ivey, A. Microcounseling. S p r i n g f i e l d : Charles C. Thomas, 1978. Ivey, A., Normington, C., M i l l e r , C., M o r r i l l , W., & Haase, R. Microcounseling and attending behavior: An approach to prepracticum counselor t r a i n i n g . Journal, of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 15 (2) , 1-12 . Jacobson, N. S., & Margolin, G. M a r i t a l therapy. New York: Mazel, 197 9. Kagan, N., & Krathwohl, D. Studies i n human i n t e r a c t i o n : Interpersonal process r e c a l l by videotape. East Lansing, Mich.: ' Education Pu b l i c a t i o n Services, Michigan State University, 1967. Keat, D. Trainin g as a multimodal treatment f o r peers. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 1 976, V\_, 7-13. K e l l y , G. The psychology of personal constructs (Vol. 2), New York: Norton, 1955. Keogy, B., & Margolis, J. Learn to labor and wait: A t t e n t i o n a l problems of chi l d r e n with learning disorders. Unpublished manuscript, University of C a l i f o r n i a , L. A., 1975. Kern, R., & Kirby, J . U t i l i z i n g peer helper influence i n group counseling. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 1971, 6, 70-75. Knaus, W. J . Rational emotive education: A manual for elemen- tary school teachers. New York: I n s t i t u t e f o r Rational L i v i n g , 1974. Krueger, D. D. Operant group therapy with delinquent boys using therapist's versus peer's reinforcement. D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts International , 1971, 31, (11-B), 6877-6878. 8:9 Krumboltz, J . D. Future d i r e c t i o n f o r counseling research. In J . M. Whitely (Ed.), Research i n Counseling. Columbus, Ohio: M e r r i l l , 1967. Kurtz, R. R., & Grummon, D. L. D i f f e r e n t approaches to the measurement of therapist empathy and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to therapy outcomes. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1972, 39, 106-115. Lalonde, M. Hansard House of Commons. Debates, Ottawa, Nov. 24, 1976. Luborsky, L., Auerback, A., Chandler, M., Cohen, J . , & Bach-rach, H. Factors i n f l u e n c i n g the outcome of psychotherapy: A review of quantitative research. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1 971 , 75, No. 3. L u r i a , A. R. The r o l e of speech i n the regulation of normal and abnormal behavior. New York: L i v e r r i g h t , 1961. McCann, B. G. Peer counseling: An approach to psychological education. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 1 975, _4_9, 180-187. McCarthy, B., & Michaud, P. Companions: An adjunct to counsel-ing. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1971, 4_9, 839-841 . McNally, H. A. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of selected counselor and c l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as possible predictors of counseling e f f e c -tiveness. D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts International, 1 973, 33, (12-A) , 6672-6673. Mahoney, M. R e f l e c t i o n on the cog n i t i v e - l e a r n i n g trend i n psycho-therapy. American Psychologist, 1977, 8, 673-677. Martin, J . C., & Carkhuff, R. R. The e f f e c t upon per s o n a l i t y and interpersonal functioning: A summer practicura for guidance counselors. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1968, _1_9, 106-108. Meichenbaum, D. Cognitive modification of tes t anxious college students. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1972, 39, 370-380. Meichenbaum, D. Why does using imagery i n psychotherapy lead to change? In J . Singer and K. Pope (Eds.), The power of human imagination. New York: Plenum Press, 1978. Meichenbaum, D. (Ed.). Cognitive Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n News- l e t t e r , 1 979, 4_, Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo. Meichenbaum, D. H., & Goodman, J . Tr a i n i n g impulsive c h i l d r e n to t a l k to themselves. A means of developing s e l f - c o n t r o l . Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 115-126. 90 Merchant, D., & Z i n g l e , H. Elementary school guidance i n Canadian Urban Areas: A study of present c o u n s e l l o r f u n c t i o n s . Canadian C o u n s e l l o r , 1977, Vj_, (4), 201-209. M i t c h e l l , J . M. The adolescent predicament. Toronto: H o l t , Rinehart & Winston, 1975. M i t c h e l l , K. M., Bozarth, J . D., & K r a u f t , C. C. A r e a p p r a i s a l of the t h e r a p e u t i c e f f e c t i v e n e s s of accurate empathy, non-possessive warmth and genuineness. In A. S. Gurman & A. M. Razin (Eds.), E f f e c t i v e psychotherapy. New York: Pergamon Press, 1977. Mondale, W. The f a m i l y i n t r o u b l e . Psychology Today, May, 1977, 39-40. Montes, D., & Ortega, L. Retention of the n o n t r a d i t i o n a l student through peer modeling. Paper presented at the Annual Con- vent i o n of the American Personnel and Guidance A s s o c i a t i o n : Chicago, A p r i l 11-1 4, 1 976, (ED 13021 4). M o r r i s , G. B. The Middle School and the C h i l d . A paper prepared f o r the Saskatchewan J o i n t Committee on the Middle School Years. Saskatoon: U n i v e r s i t y of Saskatchewan Press, 1978. Muus, R. E. Theories of adolescence. New York: Random House, 1 968. P e r l s , F. S. Ego, hunger and aggression. New York: Vintage Books, 1969. Rachman, S. J . The e f f e c t s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l treatment. In H. J . Eysenck (Ed.), Handbook of abnormal psychology. New York: B a s i c Books, 1973. Rappaport, J . , & Chinsky, J . M. Accurate empathy: Confusion of a c o n s t r u c t . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1972, 77(6), 400-404. Ri c e , B. The new gangs of Chinatown. Psychology Today, May, 1977, V o l . 10, 60-65. Rogers, C. R. C l i e n t - c e n t e r e d therapy. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1951. Rogers, C. R. A t e n t a t i v e s c a l e f o r measurement of process i n psychotherapy. In E. A. Rubenstein & M. B. P a r l o f f (Eds.), Research i n psychotherapy , (Vol. 1). Washington, D.C: American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1959. Rogers, C. R. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s : U.S.A. 2000. Jo u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l Science, 1 968, _4, 265-280. 91 Rogers, C. R., & Dyamond, R. F. Psychotherapy and p e r s o n a l i t y change. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1954. Rogers, C. R., Gendlin, G. T., K i e s l e r , D. V., & Truax, C. B. The t h e r a p e u t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p and i t s impact: A study of psychotherapy w i t h s c h i z o p h r e n i c s . Madison: U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, 1967. Samuels, D., & Samuels, M. The complete handbook of peer coun- s e l i n g . Miami: F i e s t a , 1975. Schoeppe, A., & Havighurst, R. J . A v a l i d a t i o n of the develop-ment and adjustment hypotheses of adolescence. J o u r n a l of Ed u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1 952, 4J3, 339-353. Shapiro, J . G. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between expert and neophyte r a t i n g s of t h e r a p e u t i c c o n d i t i o n s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 968, 32^ , 87-89. Sloane, R. B., S t a p l e s , F. R., C r i s t o l , A. H., Yorkston, N. J . , & Whipple, K. Psychotherapy versus behavior therapy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1972. Sobey, F. The nonprofessional r e v o l u t i o n i n mental h e a l t h . New York: B a l l a n t i n e , 1971. S r o l e , L. , Lagner, T. S., M i c h a e l , S. T. , Opler, M...K., & Rennie, T. A. Mental h e a l t h i n the m e t r o p o l i s : The mid- town Manhattan study. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Stevens, N., & Davidson, A. R. Peer counselor t r a i n i n g . The Guidance C l i n i c , 1979, 1-4. Thoresen, C. E. Relevance and research i n counseling. Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1 969, .39, 263-281 . Truax, C. B. A s c a l e f o r the measurement of accurate empathy. P s y c h i a t r i c I n s t i t u t e B u l l e t i n , W i s c o n s i n . P s y c h i a t r i c I n s t i t u t e , U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, Vi. 12, 1961. Truax, C. B., & Carkhuff, R. R. For b e t t e r or f o r worse: The process of psychotherapeutic p e r s o n a l i t y change. In Recent advances i n behavior change. Montreal, Canada: M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964, 118-163. Truax, C. B., & Carkhuff, R. R. Toward e f f e c t i v e counseling and psychotherapy: T r a i n i n g and p r a c t i c e . Chicago: A l d i n e , 1967. Truax, C. B., & L i s t e r , J . L. E f f e c t i v e n e s s of counselors and counselor aides. J o u r n a l of Counseling Psychology, 1970, 17 f 331-334. 92 Truax, C. B., & M i t c h e l l , K. M. Research on c e r t a i n t h e r a p i s t i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s i n r e l a t i o n to process and outcome. In A. E. B e r g i n & S. L. G a r f i e l d (Eds.), Handbook o f psycho- therapy and behavior change. New York: Wiley, 1971. Varenhorst, B. T r a i n i n g a d o l e s c e n t s as peer c o u n s e l o r s . Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , 1 974, 5J3, 272-275. Vogelsong, E. L. R e l a t i o n s h i p enhancement t r a i n i n g f o r c h i l d r e n . Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, A p r i l , 1978, 273-279. Wolpe, J . , & Lazarus, A. Behavior therapy techniques. New York: Pergamon Pr e s s , 1966. Wrenn, R. L., & Menchke, R. Students who couns e l students. Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , 1972, 5_2, 687-689. Yager, G. G., O c h i l t r e e , J . K., & Brekke, D. M. The e f f e c t of i n c l u d i n g c o g n i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l m o d e l l i n g i n the Carkhuff approach t o empathy t r a i n i n g . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of North Dakota, Grand Forks, 1975. 93 APPENDICES Page A. R a t i n g S c a l e s 94 A1 C a r k h u f f S c a l e o f Empathy 95 A2 N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t i n g S c a l e : S c a l e o f U n d e r s t a n d i n g . 96 B. L e t t e r s and Consent Forms 9 8 B1 L e t t e r t o S t u d e n t T r a i n e e s 9 8 B2 L e t t e r t o P a r e n t s o f V o l u n t e e r T r a i n e e s 100 B3 L e t t e r t o P a r e n t s o f C o n t r o l Group 102 B4 L e t t e r and P e r m i s s i o n Form f o r P a r e n t s o f N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s 104 B5 Consent Form f o r N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s . . . 106 C. P r o c e d u r e s 110 C1 S e l e c t i o n o f and T e s t i n g by N a i v e - P e e r -C l i e n t R a t e r s 110 C2 .; P r e p a r a t i o n f o r R a t i n g by N a i v e - P e e r -C l i e n t R a t e r s 112 C3 P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t 1 113 C4 P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t 2 114 C5 P o s t t e s t 3 115 C6 Treatment C o n d i t i o n s and P r o c e d u r e s 116 C7 E x p l a n a t i o n and S c a l e f o r R a t i n g o f T r a i n e r by T r a i n e e s 120 D. S t i m u l u s Items 122 D1 T o p i c s f o r N a i v e R a t e r s ' I n t e r v i e w s 122 D2 S t i m u l u s Statements f o r P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t 1 12 3 E. Assessment Cues Used by R a t e r s 125 E1 N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s 12 5 E2 E x p e r t - C l i e n t R a t e r 12 7 F. Average I.Q., Age, Grade P o i n t Average o f S u b j e c t s ; Order f o r T e s t i n g 130 G. C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r R a t e r s 13T H. P o s t t r a i n i n g Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . . . . 133 APPENDIX A-1 EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES: A SCALE FOR MEASUREMENT L e v e l 1 The v e r b a l and b e h a v i o r a l e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e f i r s t p e r s o n e i t h e r do n o t a t t e n d t o o r d e t r a c t s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e v e r b a l and b e h a v i o r a l e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e second p e r s o n ( s ) i n t h a t t h e y communicate s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s o f t h e second p e r s o n ' s f e e l i n g s t h a n t h e second p e r s o n has communicated h i m s e l f . EXAMPLE: The f i r s t p e r s o n communicates no awareness o f even t h e most o b v i o u s , e x p r e s s e d s u r f a c e f e e l i n g s o f t h e second p e r s o n . The f i r s t p e r s o n may be b o r e d o r u n i n t e r e s t e d o r s i m p l y o p e r a t i n g f rom a p r e c o n c e i v e d frame o f r e f e r e n c e w h i c h t o t a l l y e x c l u d e s t h a t o f t h e o t h e r personCs). I n summary, t h e f i r s t p e r s o n does e v e r y t h i n g b u t e x p r e s s t h a t he i s l i s t e n i n g , u n d e r s t a n d i n g , o r b e i n g s e n s i t i v e t o even t h e f e e l i n g s o f t h e o t h e r p e r s o n i n such a way as t o d e t r a c t s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e communications o f t h e second p e r s o n . L e v e l 2 W h i l e t h e f i r s t p e r s o n r e s p o n d s t o t h e e x p r e s s e d f e e l i n g s o f t h e second p e r s o n C s ) , he does so i n a way t h a t he s u b t r a c t s n o t i c e a b l e a f f e c t from t h e communi-c a t i o n s o f t h e second p e r s o n . EXAMPLE: The f i r s t p e r s o n may communicate some awareness o f o b v i o u s s u r f a c e f e e l i n g s o f t h e second p e r s o n , b u t h i s communications d r a i n o f f a l e v e l . o f t h e a f f e c t and d i s t o r t t h e l e v e l o f meaning. The f i r s t p e r s o n may communicate h i s own i d e a s o f what may be g o i n g o n , b u t t h e s e a r e n o t c o n g r u e n t w i t h t h e e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e second p e r s o n . I n summary, t h e f i r s t p e r s o n t e n d s t o r e s p o n d t o o t h e r t h a n what t h e second p e r s o n i s e x p r e s s i n g o r i n d i c a t i n g . L e v e l 3 The e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e f i r s t p e r s o n i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e e x p r e s s e d f e e l i n g s o f t h e second p e r s o n ( s ) a r e e s s e n t i a l l y i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e w i t h t h o s e o f t h e second p e r s o n i n t h a t t h e y e x p r e s s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same a f f e c t and meaning. 95 EXAMPLE: The f i r s t p e r s o n responds w i t h a c c u r a t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e s u r f a c e f e e l i n g s o f t h e second p e r s o n b u t may n o t respond t o o r may m i s i n t e r p r e t t h e deeper f e e l i n g s . I n summary, t h e f i r s t p e r s o n i s r e s p o n d i n g so as t o n e i t h e r s u b t r a c t from nor add t o t h e e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e second p e r s o n ; b u t he does n o t respond a c c u r a t e l y t o how t h a t p e r s o n r e a l l y f e e l s beneath t h e s u r f a c e f e e l i n g s . L e v e l 3 c o n s t i t u t e s t h e m i n i m a l l e v e l o f f a c i l i t a t i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l f u n c t i o n i n g . L e v e l 4 The r e s p o n s e s o f t h e f i r s t p e r s o n add n o t i c e a b l y t o t h e e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e second p e r s o n ( s ) i n such a way as t o e x p r e s s f e e l i n g s a l e v e l deeper t h a n t h e second p e r s o n was a b l e t o e x p r e s s h i m s e l f . EXAMPLE: The f a c i l i t a t o r communicates h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e second p e r s o n a t a l e v e l deeper t h a n t h e y were e x p r e s s e d , and thus e n a b l e s t h e second p e r s o n t o e x p e r i e n c e and/or e x p r e s s f e e l i n g s he was u n a b l e t o e x p r e s s p r e v i o u s l y . I n summary, t h e f a c i l i t a t o r ' s r e s p o n s e s add deeper f e e l -i n g and meaning t o t h e e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e second p e r s o n . L e v e l 5 The f i r s t p e r son's r e s p o n s e s add s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o the f e e l i n g and meaning o f t h e e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e second p e r s o n ( s ) i n such a way as t o CLJ a c c u r a t e l y e x p r e s s f e e l i n g s l e v e l s below what t h e p e r s o n h i m s e l f was a b l e t o e x p r e s s , o r (2) i n t h e event o f ongoing deep s e l f -e x p l o r a t i o n on t h e second p e r s o n ' s p a r t t o be f u l l y w i t h him i n h i s de e p e s t moments. EXAMPLE: The f a c i l i t a t o r responds w i t h a c c u r a c y t o a l l o f t h e p e r s o n ' s deeper as w e l l as s u r f a c e f e e l i n g s . He i s " t o g e t h e r " w i t h t h e second p e r s o n o r "tuned i n " on h i s wave l e n g t h . The f a c i l i t a t o r and t h e o t h e r p e r s o n might proceed t o g e t h e r t o e x p l o r e p r e v i o u s l y u n e x p l o r e d a r e a s of human e x i s t e n c e . I n summary, t h e f a c i l i t a t o r i s r e s p o n d i n g w i t h a f u l l awareness o f who t h e o t h e r p e r s o n i s and a comprehensive and a c c u r a t e empathic u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h i s de e p e s t f e e l -i n g s . A-2 96 Rating Scale for Naive-Peer-Client Raters Rating by Peer Client-Raters Directions to supervisor. Please f i l l out the names of the rater and of the g i r l rated on the back of each of the "A" sheets as soon as the r a t i n g has taken place. Give out the "B" comparative r a t i n g s l i p a f t e r the r a t e r has fi n i s h e d the r a t i n g of a l l three g i r l s she talked to. Sheet "A" Directions to grade six student-rater: Please check the description which i s c l o s e s t to what you think about the interview you have j u s t completed: 1) "I think that the g i r l I j u s t talked to understood what I was saying and how I f e l t and also cared about me and my problem." 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Not at a l i t t l e f a i r l y very well extremely a l l well well "B" R a t i n g by N a i v e - P e e r C l i e n t R a t e r s 97 A f t e r you have f i n i s h e d t a l k i n g t o t h r e e d i f f e r e n t g i r l s and r a t i n g each one, w i l l you p l e a s e d e c i d e who you found most u n d e r s t a n d i n g and l i k e d t a l k i n g t o t h e b e s t ? The g i r l I l i k e d t o t a l k t o t h e most was The g i r l I l i k e d t o t a l k t o t h e second b e s t was I n your own words w i l l you p l e a s e say why you t h i n k you l i k e d t o t a l k t o one g i r l more th a n you l i k e d t o t a l k t o a n o t h e r ? I f you do n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h i s q u e s t i o n , w i l l you p l e a s e a s k me t o e x p l a i n i t t o you? APPENDIX B -1 L e t t e r t o S t u d e n t T r a i n e e s Dear s t u d e n t , W i l l you p l e a s e go o v e r t h i s o u t l i n e w i t h your p a r e n t s ? The p u r p o s e o f t h i s t r a i n i n g p r o j e c t i s t o i mprove y o u r a b i l i t y t o h e l p a n o t h e r p e r s o n t h r o u g h y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f what t h e y s a y and f e e l . O t h e r p e o p l e s h o u l d f i n d d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h you more h e l p f u l a f t e r you have been t r a i n e d and you s h o u l d f i n d i t much e a s i e r t o t a l k t o some o f y o u r f r i e n d s and a l s o t o new a c q u a i n t a n c e s . B e f o r e t r a i n i n g b e g i n s and a g a i n r i g h t a f t e r t r a i n i n g you w i l l be a s k e d t o t a l k f o r f i v e m i n u t e s t o a g i r l f r o m a n o t h e r g rade s i x c l a s s i n a d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l and t o be a s u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n y o u r t a l k a s you c a n be. Nobody e l s e w i l l l i s t e n w h i l e you t a l k t o h e r b u t we want t o have a t a p e r e c o r d i n g o f t h e d i s c u s s i o n so t h a t we c a n g e t an i d e a o f how much you l e a r n d u r i n g t r a i n i n g . The t o t a l number o f g i r l s t o be t r a i n e d w i l l be 16. I n o r d e r t o g i v e you an i d e a a b o u t how you c a n be t r a i n e d t o h e l p y o u r s e l f and o t h e r s i n t h i s way, a l l 16 o f you i n a group w i l l see a v i d e o t a p e p r e s e n t -a t i o n o f what t r a i n i n g w i l l be l i k e and t h e way i n w h i c h you m i g h t r e s p o n d a f t e r t r a i n i n g . T h e r e w i l l t h e n be f i v e s e s s i o n s f o r t r a i n i n g , e a c h one a s c h o o l p e r i o d i n l e n g t h . The c o u n s e l o r who i s d o i n g t h e t r a i n i n g w i l l see you by y o u r s e l f and you w i l l p r a c t i c e w i t h h e r , g i v i n g her h e l p f u l k i n d s o f r e s p o n s e s . You w i l l a l s o be expected t o p r a c t i c e a f t e r s c h o o l i n between t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s . The c o u n s e l o r w i l l a r r a n g e f o r some o f you t o p r a c t i c e t o g e t h e r . The t o t a l amount o f time needed t o t r a i n you w i l l be: B e f o r e t r a i n i n g , t o see v i d e o t a p e and answer q u e s t i o n s one noon hour - 55 minutes T r a i n i n g 24 5 minutes T o t a l I n - s c h o o l t r a i n i n g t i m e 5 hours In a d d i t i o n , some a f t e r - s c h o o l p r a c t i c e w i l l be ex p e c t e d o f t r a i n e e s , and t h e r e w i l l be about 15 minutes r e q u i r e d f o r t a l k i n g t o a grade s i x g i r l from a n o t h e r s c h o o l on two o c c a s i o n s . W i l l you p l e a s e make s u r e t h a t you go o v e r t h i s o u t l i n e w i t h your p a r e n t s ? S t u d e n t p e r m i s s i o n . I w i s h t o t a k e p a r t i n t h e t r a i n i n g as d e s c r i b e d . I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t I may wit h d r a w from t r a i n i n g a t any ti m e i f I w i s h t o do so. Sign e d B-2 100 Let t e r to Parents of Volunteer Trainees Dear parent, We are o f f e r i n g an opportunity to 16 g i r l s who wish to increase t h e i r a b i l i t y to l i s t e n , understand and to be the kind of person whom others l i k e to t a l k to. Increas-ing the g i r l s ' a b i l i t y to understand from someone else's point of view, whether that person i s peer, adult or a c h i l d , i s the o v e r a l l o b j e c t i v e . Individual i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l be given once or twice a week during c l a s s time. Short p r a c t i c e sessions w i l l also be a v a i l a b l e between tr a i n i n g sessions, d i r e c t l y a f t e r school. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of t r a i n i n g i t w i l l be necessary to have some g i r l s who do not take part i n the t r a i n i n g but p a r t i c i p a t e only i n two short (f i v e minutes or less) i n d i v i d u a l interviews with an-other grade s i x g i r l from a d i f f e r e n t school. Those who p a r t i c i p a t e i n t r a i n i n g w i l l be decided by random sele c t i o n from among volunteers. Thus, your daughter may or may not p a r t i c i p a t e i n t r a i n i n g but w i l l part-i c i p a t e i n the interviews i f you agree to have her volunteer f o r t h i s program. This i s a voluntary pro-gram and students w i l l be expected to keep t h e i r school work up to date. Although i t i s sincerely hoped that your daughter w i l l wish to complete the t r a i n i n g she i s free to withdraw from the t r a i n i n g at any time she wishes. Training w i l l be given by a teacher-counselor with 17 years of experience i n the schools and with extensive t r a i n i n g i n the counselling f i e l d . Tape-recordings w i l l be used during p r a c t i c e sessions so th a t the g i r l who i s being t r a i n e d can go over p a r t of i t w i t h me i n her t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n so we can see her progress and p o s s i b l y p r a c t i c e new responses. Short tape-recordings w i l l be made at the beginning and again a t the end of t r a i n i n g to assess what has been learned. A few grade s i x g i r l s , students from another school, w i l l t a l k to and l a t e r evaluate the degree of understanding and c a r i n g which they experienced from the g i r l s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s program. Tape recordings of t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l a l s o be assessed by graduate c o u n s e l l i n g students. Tape recordings w i l l be erased as soon as assessments have been made. A que s t i o n n a i r e w i l l be given to the g i r l s to f i n d out what they t h i n k about the t r a i n i n g . I f e e l c o n f i d e n t t h a t the g i r l s w i l l value the s k i l l s they have been taught but I want to get t h e i r opinions about d i f f e r e n t aspects of the t r a i n i n g program. An explanation of the program i s included so t h a t you and your daughter can examine i t . I f you have any questions a t a l l I w i l l welcome them and w i l l be happy to e x p l a i n more f u l l y . Please phone me at home, 681-1846, or phone the school s e c r e t a r y a t 4 35-3838 and you w i l l be contacted. Please f e e l f r e e to phone at any time during the t r a i n i n g i f you have any questions or concerns. Yours very t r u l y , B-3 L e t t e r t o P a r e n t s o f t h e C o n t r o l Group Date: Dear p a r e n t , A few g i r l s w i l l be g i v e n t r a i n i n g w h i c h i s d e s i g n e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r a b i l i t y t o l i s t e n and u n d e r s t a n d from a n o t h e r p e r s o n ' s p o i n t o f v i e w . The t r a i n i n g group was chosen a t random from among v o l u n t e e r s . A l t h o u g h your d a u g h t e r ' s name was n o t chosen f o r t h e p r o s p e c t i v e t r a i n -i n g group I would v e r y much l i k e t o have h e r t a k e p a r t i n two s h o r t ( f i v e m i n u t e s o r l e s s ) i n t e r v i e w s w i t h a n o t h e r grade s i x g i r l d u r i n g w h i c h your d a u g h t e r would t r y t o l i s t e n as c a r e f u l l y and t o be as u n d e r s t a n d i n g as she c o u l d be. T h i s o t h e r g i r l w i l l be from a n o t h e r s c h o o l and w i l l be u n a c q u a i n t e d w i t h y o ur d a u g h t e r b u t w i l l a s s e s s t h e degree o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g she f e e l s your d a u g h t e r has e x h i b i t e d i n l i s t e n i n g t o and t a l k i n g t o h e r f o r t h i s b r i e f p e r i o d . I n t e r v i e w s w i l l be t a p e - r e c o r d e d so t h a t t h e y c a n be l i s t e n e d t o by t h r e e g r a d u a t e c o u n s e l l i n g s t u d e n t s from U.B.C. The t a p e s w i l l t h e n be e r a s e d . Your d a u g h t e r ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y i n o r d e r t o judge how h e l p f u l t h e t r a i n i n g program i s . I s i n c e r e -l y hope t h a t you w i l l g i v e h e r p e r m i s s i o n t o t a k e p a r t i n t h i s . There w i l l o n l y be a t o t a l o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 12 minutes o f her t i m e i n v o l v e d and i t s h o u l d prove t o be and i n t e r e s t i n g e x p e r i e n c e . I f you have any q u e s t i o n s a t a l l p l e a s e phone me a t home, 681-1846, o r l e a v e a message w i t h t h e s c h o o l s e c r e t a r y a t 435-3838 and you w i l l be c o n t a c t e d . I welcome your i n t e r e s t i n t h i s p r o j e c t . Yours v e r y t r u l y , P l e a s e r e t u r n t h i s as soon as p o s s i b l e t o your d a u g h t e r ' s home-room t e a c h e r . I g i v e p e r m i s s i o n f o r my dau g h t e r to t a k e p a r t i n t h e a c t i v i t y as d e s c r i b e d above. I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t my d a u g h t e r i s f r e e t o w i t h d r a w i f she o r I s h o u l d d e c i d e she s h o u l d do so. S i g n e d o r I do n o t w i s h my d a u g h t e r t o t a k e p a r t i n t h i s a c t i v i t y . B-4 104 L e t t e r and P e r m i s s i o n S l i p f o r Parents o f N a i v e - P e e r -C l i e n t Rater s Dear pa rent , A t r a i n i n g program i s be ing conducted a t a Burnaby elementary s choo l but not the s c h o o l at tended by your daughter . However, i n order to determine how e f f e c t i v e the t r a i n i n g program w i t h the g i r l s has been i t i s necessary to have a few g i r l s from the same grade l e v e l , grade s i x , take p a r t i n t h r e e i n t e r v i e w s o f f i v e minutes o r l e s s w i t h the g i r l s i n the t r a i n i n g p r o j e c t i n order to g i v e us t h e i r ideas of how e f f e c t i v e and h e l p f u l they t h i n k the g i r l s have been i n the i n t e r v i e w . I would v e r y much l i k e your daughter to take p a r t i n t h i s e s s e n t i a l i n t e r v i e w i n g and judg ing process i f you w i l l g i v e your consent . About two per iods of s choo l t ime w i l l be i n v o l v e d i n c l u d i n g the t ime r e q u i r e d f o r me to d r i v e your daughter and the o t h e r g i r l s to and from the s c h o o l i n which the t r a i n i n g i s t a k i n g p l a c e . The g i r l s w i l l be asked to b r i n g a long some school-work so t h a t they may work i n the l i b r a r y w h i l e they are w a i t i n g f o r a l l i n t e r v i e w s to be completed . Your daughter w i l l be n o t -i f i e d i n advance as to which day the t e s t i n g w i l l take p l a c e . I hope t h a t t h i s i n t e r v i e w i n g and judg ing process w i l l p r o v i d e an i n t e r e s t i n g exper ience f o r the g i r l s . The a s s i s t a n c e o f s tudents i n your daughter ' s age group i s e s s e n t i a l i n measuring the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a t r a i n -i n g program i n t each ing g i r l s to develop t h e i r s k i l l s 105 i n being the kind of person whom others l i k e to talk to and i n understanding things from someone else's point of view. Expert judges w i l l also evaluate the training program by l i s t e n i n g to audiotapes of the interviews with the g i r l s who have been trained but the opinion of people t h e i r own age may be more important to the trained g i r l s . Audiotapes w i l l be erased aft e r the judging i s fi n i s h e d . I w i l l be contacting you by phone shortly to discuss t h i s more f u l l y or ask that you phone me at home at 681-1846 or at school at 435-3838 i f you prefer. I would appreciate i t very much i f you w i l l please sign the following s l i p and have i t returned to your daughter's home-room teacher as soon as possible. Yours very t r u l y , I give permission for my daughter, to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the interviewing and judging process as described above and to be driven by Mrs. Pachal to and from Chaffey-Burke school for t h i s purpose. I understand that I am free to withdraw my permission by telephoning the school secretary at 435-3838 or at 434-5054 or by phoning Mrs. Pachal at 681-1846. S igned: or; I do not give permission for my daughter to take part. S igned: B-5 106 Consent Form for Naive-Peer-Client Raters Date: Dear student r a t e r , In order to judge the success of a t r a i n i n g project i n another school eight g i r l s w i l l be needed to help and I would l i k e you to understand what i s involved i n doing the judging before you decide whether or not you would l i k e to volunteer. The names of a l l who want to take part w i l l be l i s t e d and then eight names chosen at random. The g i r l s i n the other school are being trained to be more understanding and h e l p f u l l i s t e n e r s . The purpose of your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s project i s so that we can learn whether or not you enjoy t a l k i n g more to the g i r l s who have been trained or the g i r l s who have not been trained. You w i l l t a l k to s i x d i f f e r e n t g i r l s , one at a time, f o r up to f i v e minutes each. You won't be t o l d who has been trained and who has not. We want you to say what you honestly think. With these g i r l s you w i l l be asked to discuss a s i t u a t i o n possibly l i k e the suggestions on a l i s t I gave you. These are some of the things that have bothered other people about your age. W i l l you please think of something on the l i s t or some-thing that seems more important to you and ask i f that i s the kind of s i t u a t i o n which could be talked about? You are asked not to t a l k about anything concerning your home, however. Please ask i f you wonder what you should t a l k about. I f you are chosen, your parent must s i g n a per-m i s s i o n s l i p before you can take p a r t . Four of you w i l l do the i n t e r v i e w i n g and judging soon, before the g i r l s i n the other school are t r a i n e d , and four others w i l l judge a f t e r the t r a i n i n g i s f i n i s h e d i n June. You w i l l be t o l d i n advance when you w i l l be going. I w i l l d r i v e you to the other school. You w i l l miss one afternoon of school but should take along some homework fo r when you are w a i t i n g . At the other school someone w i l l show you where to go and w i l l introduce you, by f i r s t name only, to a g i r l you are going to t a l k to f i r s t . You w i l l help t h a t g i r l by being ready to t a l k about the s i t u a t i o n you have de-c i d e d t o t a l k about already. She w i l l t a l k w i t h you and t r y to be as understanding as she can. I want to tape-record the d i s c u s s i o n so t h a t some u n i v e r s i t y graduate students can l a t e r l i s t e n and judge how understanding and how h e l p f u l the g i r l who spoke to you seemed to be. The tapes w i l l be erased r i g h t a f t e r the judges have f i n i s h e d , When your i n t e r v i e w i s over, someone w i l l knock on the door to i n d i c a t e t h a t time i s up but she w i l l w ait about h a l f a minute so t h a t you can f i n i s h whatever you were saying. Some g i r l s may leave e a r l y . The g i r l you were t a l k i n g to w i l l leave but you w i l l stay and be asked to judge t h a t g i r l f o r how understanding she was to you and how much you enjoyed t a l k i n g to her. I have the papers here l i k e the ones you w i l l use and we can look a t them i n a few minutes. You w i l l t a l k to s i x g i r l s and the procedure w i l l be the same f o r each one. When you have f i n i s h e d t a l k i n g to a l l s i x of them you w i l l be asked to decide which you enjoyed t a l k i n g to the most and so on. You can giv e any comments about what i t was l i k e to t a l k to each of them and t h a t w i l l be help-f u l . The g i r l s w i l l not be t o l d how anybody r a t e d them. When you have interviewed and judged three g i r l s someone w i l l show you the way to the room where the other g i r l s w i l l be w a i t i n g . You can have a r e s t before coming back to t a l k to three more g i r l s , one a t a time, and r a t e them as you d i d before. I w i l l d r i v e you back to your own school when a l l are f i n i s h e d . I t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t we have your help i n order to know how w e l l the t r a i n i n g i s working and I do hope th a t some of you w i l l be w i l l i n g to volu n t e e r . In order to be f a i r about who i s chosen I need to have the names of volunteers who t h i n k t h e i r parents w i l l l e t them take p a r t i n t h i s p r o j e c t . I f you wish to volunteer to be a student r a t e r I would l i k e you to s i g n your name on the numbered sheet I w i l l pass around. Then you can watch wh i l e I use a t a b l e of random numbers to decide which g i r l s to choose. I would l i k e those g i r l s who are chosen to take home an explanation and a per-m i s s i o n s l i p to t h e i r parents and b r i n g i t back, signed, w i t h i n a day or two and g i v e i t to your teacher. P l e a s e s i g n below i f you have been chosen as a s t u d e n t -r a t e r . I have r e a d t h e e x p l a n a t i o n above and asked any q u e s t i o n s I wanted t o ask about t h e p r o j e c t . I w i s h t o v o l u n t e e r t o t a k e p a r t i n i t as d e s c r i b e d above. Date: Si g n e d APPENDIX C-1 P r o c e d u r e f o r S e l e c t i o n o f and T e s t i n g by P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s A c l i e n t r a t e r was a s t u d e n t who had no e x p e r i e n c e w i t h e m p a t h i c r e s p o n d i n g - s k i l l s t r a i n i n g and d i d n o t know p e r s o n a l l y t h e s u b j e c t s i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t . T h i s r a t e r communicated w i t h a s u b j e c t i n an i n t e r a c t i o n o f up t o f i v e m i n u t e s d u r a t i o n s u b s e q u e n t l y r a t e d t h e s u b j e c t as t o t h e deg r e e o f empathy she f e l t was communicated t o h e r . T h i s c l i e n t e x p e r i e n c e d assessment was o f v a l u e t o a s c e r t a i n i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e r a t i n g s o f e x p e r t j u d g e s a s t o t h e d e g r e e o f empathy communicated. Grade s i x g i r l s i n a s c h o o l o t h e r t h a n t h e one i n w h i c h t r a i n i n g t o o k p l a c e were a s k e d i f t h e y were w i l l i n g t o v o l u n t e e r . C l i e n t r a t e r s were c h o s e n r a n d o m l y f r o m among t h e v o l u n t e e r s , w i t h s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e p r o c e s s o f random s e l e c t i o n . E i g h t s t u d e n t s i n a l l p a r t i c i p a t e d , f o u r f o r t h e p r e t e s t and f o u r f o r t h e p o s t -t e s t . P a r e n t a l p e r m i s s i o n s l i p s were d i s t i b u t e d and t e a c h e r s a s k e d t o a c c e p t them when r e t u r n e d . To p r e p a r e f o r r a t i n g , c l i e n t r a t e r s met i n a g r o u p o f f o u r p r i o r t o t h e t i m e o f t e s t i n g . They were p r e s e n t e d w i t h s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t s , a mimeographed l i s t o f problems e n c o u n t e r e d b y some e a r l y a d o l e s c e n t s (Appendix D-1). - These i l l u s t r a t e d t y p e s o f c o n c e r n s t h e y were w i l l i n g t o d i s c u s s b u t c l i e n t r a t e r s were i n v i t e d t o s u g g e s t c o n c e r n s o f p o s s i b l y g r e a t e r r e l e v a n c e t o t h e m s e l v e s e i t h e r d u r i n g t h e g r o u p m e e t i n g o r a f t e r w a r d s when t h e y i n d i v i d u a l l y asked questions about the s u i t a b i l i t y of concerns for dis c u s s i o n . C l i e n t r aters were reminded that t h i s concern was to be one they were w i l l i n g to t a l k over with a person of about t h e i r own age whom they do not know and who attended another school and that t h i s concern they discussed must not be about t h e i r parents. C l i e n t r a t e r s were t o l d they would t a l k f o r up to f i v e minutes each to s i x d i f f e r e n t subjects and would be asked to rate each as soon as t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n had ended. The same problem was to be discussed with each subject. A date was set f o r the t e s t i n g to take place and arrangements made for transportation of c l i e n t r a t ers to the school where t e s t i n g took place. Parental permission to take part i n the pr o j e c t was obtained. C-2 P r e p a r a t i o n f o r R a t i n g by N a i v e - P e e r - C l i e n t R a t e r s 1.12 A f t e r a b r i e f e x p l a n a t i o n by t h e t r a i n e r - e x p e r i m e n t e r about t h e n a t u r e o f t h e t a s k , grade s i x g i r l s i n a d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l from t h e one i n w h i c h t h e t r a i n i n g t o o k p l a c e were asked i f t h e y were w i l l i n g t o v o l u n t e e r . C l i e n t - r a t e r s were chosen randomly from t h e v o l u n t e e r s . E i g h t s t u d e n t s were chosen, f o u r f o r t h e p r e t e s t and f o u r f o r t h e p o s t t e s t . D e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n s and p a r e n t - p e r m i s s i o n s l i p s were d i s t r i b u t e d . The t r a i n e r phoned t h e p a r e n t o f each c l i e n t -r a t e r t o f u r t h e r e x p l a i n and answer q u e s t i o n s . The p r i n c i p a l o f t h e s c h o o l a l s o phoned t h e p a r e n t s t o l e n d h i s s u p p o r t . To p r e p a r e f o r r a t i n g , c l i e n t - r a t e r s met i n a group o f f o u r p r i o r t o t h e t i m e o f t e s t i n g . They were p r e s e n t e d w i t h s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t s ; t h a t i s , a mimeographed l i s t o f problems e n c o u n t e r e d by many e a r l y a d o l e s c e n t s (Appendix D-1). These i l l u s t r a t e d t h e t y p e s o f problems c o n s i d e r e d r e l e v a n t and s u i t a b l e f o r d i s c u s s i o n . C l i e n t r a t e r s were a l s o i n v i t e d t o s u g g e s t c o n c e r n s o f p o s s i b l y g r e a t e r r e l e v a n c e t o t h e m s e l v e s . The t r a i n e r asked them t o remain i f t h e y w i s h e d , i n d i v i d u a l l y , t o ask any q u e s t i o n s about t h e s u i t -a b i l i t y o f a c o n c e r n f o r d i s c u s s i o n . C l i e n t - r a t e r s were reminded t h a t t h i s c o n c e r n was t o be one t h e y would be w i l l i n g t o t a l k o v e r i n d i v i d u a l l y w i t h s i x g i r l s whom t h e y d i d n o t know and who a t t e n d e d t h e s i x t h grade i n a n o t h e r s c h o o l and t h a t t h i s c o n c e r n must n o t be about t h e i r p a r e n t s . A l l c l i e n t r a t e r s found, among t h e s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t s , s i t u a t i o n s o f genuine c o n c e r n t o them s e l v e s w h i c h were s u i t a b l e f o r d i s c u s s i o n . P r o c e d u r e s f o r P r e t e s t and P o s t t e s t One I n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s were c a l l e d i n random o r d e r from t h e i r c l a s s r o o m s t o an o f f i c e . Each s u b j e c t was asked t o r e s p o n d t o an a u d i o t a p e d s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t (see Appendix D-2). The s u b j e c t was t o l d t o i m a g i n e t h a t a f r i e n d o r a c q u a i n t a n c e had spoken t o h e r i n t h a t way and t h a t t h e s u b j e c t was t o r e p l y i n a manner t h a t i n d i c a t e d c a r i n g and u n d e r s t a n d i n g . The r e a s o n f o r t h e t a p e - r e c o r d e d p r e s e n t a t i o n was g i v e n ; namely, t h a t i t gave an o p p o r t u n i t y t o become accustomed t o t h e t a p e r e c o r d e r b e f o r e t h e n e x t p r e t e s t s e s s i o n and i t s t a n d a r d i z e d t h e p r e -s e n t a t i o n . The s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t was p l a y e d one t i m e so t h a t t h e s u b j e c t c o u l d hear and u n d e r s t a n d what was s a i d . A f t e r t h e second p l a y i n g o f t h e s t a t e m e n t t h e s u b j e c t responded and t h i s r e s p o n s e was a u d i o t a p e d f o r l a t e r s c o r i n g by e x p e r t r a t e r s us-i n g t h e C a r k h u f f empathy s c a l e (Appendix A - 1 ) . The e x p e r i -menter t h e n r e t u r n e d w i t h t h e g i r l t o h e r c l a s s r o o m and c a l l e d t h e n e x t s u b j e c t , p r o c e e d i n g i n t h e same manner u n t i l e a c h sub-j e a t had p a r t i c i p a t e d . Testing Procedures;Pretest and Posttest Two Two female adult volunteers, not known by the students and unaware of which subjects were trained, assisted with the tr a i n i n g procedures. The experimenter introduced the f i r s t naive-peer-client rater to the adult volunteer, and started the tape recorder. The volunteer then took r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f or the tape recorder, l a t e r changing the tape when necessary at a time which would not i n t e r f e r e with an interview. The adult introduced the two g i r l s and t o l d them she was leaving but would knock on the door a f t e r f i v e minutes i f they were s t i l l t a l k i n g , i n order to indicate i t was time to end the interview. Subjects had been t o l d by the experimenter that they could leave before that time i f they f e l t they wanted to. After the interview, when the subject had l e f t the room, the volunteer asked the naive-peer-client ra t e r to check the rating sheet. Names of both g i r l s p a r t i c i p a t i n g were then noted on the rat i n g sheet. After three interviews had been completed the adult volunteer asked the peer-client r a t e r to think of the past three interviews and decide which of the g i r l s she had found to be most understanding of her and with whom she most l i k e d to t a l k about her problem. This gave the c l i e n t rater an opportunity to compare and sometimes re-evaluate a score given e a r l i e r . The c l i e n t rater then l e f t u n t i l the next three interviews were over. A d i f f e r e n t naive-peer-c l i e n t rater then took part i n the next three interviews as indicated i n the chart ( F ). At the completion of the interviews and r a t i n g , a l l c l i e n t raters were returned to t h e i r own school. C-5 115 Testing Procedures; P o s t t e s t Three An expert judge, well t r a i n e d i n the use and r a t i n g of empathy, acted as c l i e n t and a l s o as r a t e r of the interview he had j u s t completed with each subject. He presented a problem s i t u a t i o n , the same one f o r each of the 24 randomly selected subjects, and rated the l e v e l of apparent empathy of the subject. An adult male r a t e r was employed i n order to give a dimension of empathy which included non-verbal as well as verbal cues. In t h i s way h i s r a t i n g would incorporate s i m i l a r cues to those the naive-peer-client r a t e r s might use. His r a t i n g of empathy, however, i s that of an a d u l t trained i n the use of the Carkhuff Scale. APPENDIX C-.6 Procedures a) Treatment Conditions and Procedures (i) Session One of t r a i n i n g (Group 1 and Group 2): Both experimental groups viewed exerpts from a counselling s k i l l s videotape and also from a videotape i l l u s t r a t i n g empathic responding by grade-nine students. After an explanation, trainees then practiced restatements, with mimeographed statements. Homework was further explained and each trainee asked to be responsible for e n l i s t i n g the support of another trainee who was w i l l i n g to express topics of personal i n t e r e s t or concern i n order to provide practice i n empathic responding. Trainees were t o l d they were expected to report a f t e r school one day a week during t r a i n i n g along with a peer i n order to practice responding empathically to that trainee and to audiotape the practice session for l a t e r reviewing with the t r a i n e r . The t r a i n e r assured trainees that she would be avail a b l e to handle problems of equipment and space. Sample problems were d i s t r i b u t e d to trainees as examples of types of problems they might wish to discuss. ( i i ) Session Two and subsequent sessions (Experimental Group 1); (a) In these i n d i v i d u a l t r a i n i n g sessions there was a five-minute i n t e r a c t i o n of t r a i n e r and trainee to allow for the expression of trainee's concerns, sometimes about t r a i n -ing, loss of school time or other d i f f i c u l t i e s . The i n t e r -action was audiotaped for ra t i n g by the trainee of the t r a i n e r ' s empathy. The purpose of t h i s r a t i n g by the trainee was l a r g e l y so that by examining and remembering her own recent statements and feelings and by r e c o g n i z i n g whether or not the t r a i n e r adequately understood her thoughts and feelings the trainee could be learning to better i d e n t i f y what was meant by empathic or understanding responses. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t r a i n e r and trainee may also have been enhanced by the t r a i n e r ' s apparent desire to be t r u l y understanding. (b) There was a five-minute period during which the trainee l i s t e n e d to segments of the preceding i n t e r a c t i o n and f i l l e d out ratings of interactions with the t r a i n e r as to the l e v e l of empathy experienced. A f i v e - p o i n t scale was used (Appendix .A-2 ). The trainee rated t r a i n e r communications. The tape recorder was rewound to a point approximately half way through the previous i n t e r a c t i o n and then was played back while both participants l i s t e n e d . A f t e r the next t r a i n e r response to a trainee's statement, a r a t i n g was given by the student to the t r a i n e r ' s response. (c) A ten minute period during which the trainee practiced restatement, r e f l e c t i o n of f e e l i n g or understanding responses followed. The t r a i n e r at t h i s time adopted the r o l e of c l i e n t s t a r t i n g with simple one-sentence statements and worked up to longer expressions. This i n t e r a c t i o n was audiotaped and segments played back so that the t r a i n e r could encourage the adequate responses of the trainee. (d) F i v e minutes were a l l o w e d f o r l i s t e n i n g t o segments o f t h e t r a i n e e *s homework a u d i o t a p e . The t r a i n e r gave p o s i t i v e feedback whenever m e r i t e d r e g a r d i n g t h e t r a i n e e ' s l e v e l o f empathic s k i l l as d e m o n s t r a t e d on t h e t a p e . (e) The r e m a i n i n g p e r i o d o f t h i s 35-minute t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n was used f o r t h e t r a i n e r t o e x p r e s s p e r s o n a l c o n c e r n s , p a s t o r p r e s e n t , and f o r t h e t r a i n e e t o r e s p o n d w i t h a degree o f empathy w h i l e t h e i n t e r a c t i o n was b e i n g a u d i o t a p e d f o r p l a y b a c k d u r i n g t h i s same t i m e p e r i o d . The t r a i n e r p o i n t e d o u t t h e most empathic o f t h e r e s p o n s e s . ( i i i ) S e s s i o n Two and subsequent s e s s i o n s ( E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 2 ) ; These were i d e n t i c a l t o s e s s i o n s f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l group one e x c e p t f o r t h e 10-minute p e r i o d i n d i c a t e d i n (c) above o f each 35-minute t r a i n i n g p e r i o d . Group 2 p r a c t i c e d p o s i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n and p o s i t i v e s e l f - e n c o u r a g e m e n t f o r t h e t a s k b e f o r e r e s p o n d i n g e m p a t h i c a l l y . V e r b a l i z a t i o n s w h i c h had been adapted from a c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e , such as t h a t used by Meichenbaum (1971), were modeled, r e h e a r s e d by t h e t r a i n e e o v e r t l y , t h e n w h i s p e r e d . I n s t r u c t i o n s were f o r t h e t r a i n e e t o t h e n r e h e a r s e s i l e n t l y t h e f o l l o w i n g v e r b a l i z a t i o n s (one t o s i x i n c l u s i v e ) b e f o r e r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e t r a i n e r ' s s t i m u l u s s t a t e m e n t s and t o t h i n k s i l e n t l y number seven a f t e r r e s p o n d i n g . The t r a i n e e was i n s t r u c t e d t o t h i n k i n t h i s manner when r e s p o n d i n g t o p e r s o n s t o whom t h e y w i s h e d t o r e s p o n d e m p a t h i c a l l y . 1.19 C o g n i t i v e S e l f - I n s t r u c t i o n 1) " I may be nervous b u t 1*11 c o n c e n t r a t e on h e r , n o t me." 2) " I can r e a l l y l e t t h i s p e r s o n know t h a t I u n d e r s t a n d . " 3) "What has she s a i d ? " 4) "How might I f e e l i f I s a i d t h a t ? " 5) " I t h i n k I know how she f e e l s . " 6) " I ' l l l e t h e r know what I u n d e r s t a n d o f h e r t h o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s . " Then, a f t e r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e p e r s o n , 7) " I have h e l p e d h e r . I'm a r e a l l y good l i s t e n e r . " Each group, one and two, spe n t t h e same amount o f t i m e i n t r a i n i n g . The c o n t r o l group r e c e i v e d o n l y p r e and p o s t t e s t i n g . C-7 1 2 0 Verbal Explanation to Trainees for Use of the Relationship-with-Trainer Rating Scale "The questions about how well I l i s t e n to you w i l l give me an idea of when I should pay closer attention to your thoughts and feelings which w i l l help me to be a better t r a i n e r with you and also w i l l help you to notice what i t i s l i k e to be l i s t e n e d to better at some times than at others. This should help you to notice how you are l i s t e n i n g to other people and know that you can im-prove your l i s t e n i n g i f and when you decide to." Procedure for Use of the Relationship-with-Trainer Rating Scale During each t r a i n i n g session one of these " r e l a t i o n -ship" sheets was completed by the trainee. Each tr a i n e r response i n a randomly selected segment of an audiotape made during the current t r a i n i n g session was rated. The audiotape included those times i n the current session when the tra i n e r was responding to the trainee. The purpose of t h i s questionnaire was: 1. to give the student-trainee a growing experience with the nature and possible degrees of empathy. 2. to give feedback to the tra i n e r i n order to im-prove the tra i n e r - t r a i n e e r e l a t i o n s h i p which i s considered v i t a l to t r a i n i n g success. 3. to explore a vehicle for assessing c l i e n t -perceived empathy. Relationship-with-Trainer Rating Scale Directions: Check ONE of these l e v e l s for each response, please. Level 1. "I don't think you understood what I said and "E" I don't think you even cared about my ideas." Level 2 . "D" Level 3. "I think you may have t r i e d to understand but you didn't r e a l l y understand me." "I think you understood what I said and f e l t . " Level 4 . "I think you understood me very w e l l . " 'B' Level 5. "I think you understood extremely well and I "A" f e l t very good about t h i s part of t r a i n i n g . " E D C B A Response number 1 2 3 4 5 Your name Date APPENDIX D-1 Suggestions of Topics f o r Interviews By Naive-Peer-Client Raters Peers of the subjects were asked to discuss any concerns they might happen to have with the subjects during an interview of up to f i v e minutes i n length and to rate the subjects' empathic responding a f t e r the interview. The terms "understanding and caring" were used rather than the term "empathy". Samples of t y p i c a l concerns of young people were shared with these peer raters to give them some idea of what might constitute some topics for discussion. Thus, following are indications of the kinds of subjects discussed during the pre and posttest interviews: Stimulus Statements 1. "Sometimes kids at school seem to hate or r e j e c t you for no reason. One day they're coming over to your place and the next they act as i f they a l l hate you." 2. "I can't seem to do anything r i g h t i n t h i s one c l a s s . No matter what I do i t never seems to be the r i g h t thing." 3. "I know a r e a l l y noisy g i r l . She*s a f r i e n d of mine, but when I t e l l her that I*m embarrassed at everybody looking a t us because of her laugh, she just ignores me." 4. "I have so much fun with my friends that I want to be with them a l l the time and I never want to go home and work." confused! I don't know i f he r e a l l y hates me or i f he j u s t a c t s t h a t way and I wonder what I should do." 12. " I wonder i f I'm ever going to be popular." 13. "I've always been able to beat up the other k i d s -even the boys. I'm strong and I know how to f i g h t . I f e e l so angry sometimes t h a t I f e e l l i k e p i c k i n g a f i g h t . I can always make people do what I want them to do. But I wonder i f anybody r e a l l y l i k e s me. 14. "On the way home from school some b i g k i d s sometimes chase me and once they even caught me and beat me up and t o l d me I had b e t t e r not t e l l or they'd hurt me worse next time. I d i d n ' t t e l l because I was scared but I got i n t r o u b l e a t home f o r being l a t e and having my c l o t h e s d i r t y . I t r y to go home the long way around so they won't see me." 15. '"All the other g i r l s seem b e t t e r developed than I am. The nurse says never mind, but t h a t ' s easy f o r her to say. I t bothers me." Stimulus Statements P r e t e s t One 1. "Those people! Who do they t h i n k they are? I j u s t can't stand them anymore. J u s t a bunch of phonies -and they're so mean! They make me f u r i o u s when they keep p u t t i n g me down. Then I get angry a t myself. I don't even want to be bothered w i t h them anymore. I wish I could j u s t t e l l them a l l where to go. But I j u s t ^ I j u s t can't do/that!" Posttest One 2. "I'm r e a l l y unhappy because my Dad makes me do hours of work even i f I don't have any more homework. I never do well enough to s u i t him. He gets mad at me i f I even think of arguing. Yet he seems to think my s i s t e r i s so wonderful j u s t because she's so phoney. She i s nice when she wants something but she does a l l sorts of things behind h i s back. I get nothing but lectures and bawling out yet I r e a l l y t r y so hard to please my Dad & I r e a l l y love him." APPENDIX E-1 Reasons Given by Naive-Peer Raters for Ratings " was easiest to t a l k to because she seemed to l i s t e n better and to have the same problem and understand and wasn't so fidgety". " • didn't seem to l i s t e n to me. She turned her head around to look at things, fidgeted, put her head down and didn't look at me. She didn't seem to understand me". " . gave me a few t i p s about what to do but j u s t said to do what I've already done. Her advice wasn't as good as the other two". " didn't stay very long. I waited for her but she didn't say anything. She'd just s i t and not t a l k at a l l " " didn' t look around the room or anything. She j u s t looked s t r a i g h t at me and t r i e d to solve my problem. She took me s e r i o u s l y . " " explained things and talked about the problem and gave me advice about what I should do - and r e a l l y good advice". " and , they talked more and r e a l l y explained to me and the problems they had too and what I thought about i t . They talked about t h e i r problems too and gave me advice about what I should do - and r e a l l y good." " was O.K. but she didn't r e a l l y have much to say - l i k e didn't r e a l l y have any_explanation for anything. Reasons Given by Naive Peers for Ratings 1'2 6 " kept looking around the room but she gave me some pretty good advice about how to stop the bugging. She didn't seem to r e a l l y care about my problem, though, and she seemed more interested i n the room than i n me". " looked at the f l o o r and she didn't say very much of anything and she didn't even t e l l me very good advice or anything. She just said what anybody would say only she didn't r e a l l y care about my problem." " understood my problem. She r e a l l y understood. She gave me good advice. She t o l d me to go and . She didn't look around the room or anything and she r e a l l y understood i t . " " gave me a few good points about what to do." " gave me a few t i p s about what to do and I found i t easy to speak to her." " j u s t said to go up to the o f f i c e and t e l l the p r i n c i p a l and I've already done that. She didn't stay very long and she didn't want to t a l k . She just said the same things that everybody else i s going to say." " was nice and understood. I l i k e d her and she understood me more than the other two. I l i k e d her just when I f i r s t saw her." E-2 127 Comments by E x p e r t Judge as t o Cues used i n A s s e s s i n g Empathy Judge A c t i n g as C l i e n t and A l s o as R a t e r o f Same I n t e r v i e w R a t i n g g i v e n ; Comments Group One 3.5 -caught t h e i d e a s , warm, good eye c o n t a c t . 3.0 -caught emotions and i d e a s b u t a l i t t l e by r o t e . U n d e r s t o o d and had good eye c o n t a c t . 4.5 - e x c e l l e n t a t c a t c h i n g emotions and i d e a s . Warm and r e c e p t i v e , f o l l o w e d t h r o u g h , was c o n t i n u a l l y aware o f t h e e m o t i o n s , k e p t c o n t i n u a l empathy t h r o u g h o u t . D i d n o t m i s s any o f t h e i d e a s o r t h o u g h t s . 5.0 - e x c e l l e n t - caught emotions and i d e a s - was i n v o l v e d f a c i a l l y and b o d i l y - good c o n c e n t r a t i o n and eye c o n t a c t . 3.0 - g e n e r a l l y eye c o n t a c t v e r y good. She was n o t d i s t r a c t e d . S t u c k t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g , b u t m o s t l y c a u g h t i d e a s and emotions on an i d e a l e v e l . B u t I f e l t u n d e r s t o o d g e n e r a l l y and she knew what I was s a y i n g . 2.5 -caught i d e a s and emotions b u t i t seemed a b i t by r o t e . Her eyes wandered a b i t . 2.5 - v e r y good a t g e t t i n g t h e i d e a b u t m i s s e d t h e emotions a b i t . Not as warm as some. 2.5 - v e r y good a t g e t t i n g t h e i d e a . Warm b u t m i s s e d t h e e m o t i o n a l a s p e c t s somewhat. V e r y good a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g i d e a s n e v e r t h e l e s s . T o t a l 26.5 Comments by Expert C l i e n t - R a t e r regarding cues Rating given: Comments Group Two 4.0 E x c e l l e n t at the beginning at g e t t i n g ideas and the emotions. A s l i g h t tendency to give advice. Good eye contact. 4.0 Showed empathy. Caught emotions and ideas. Worked hard at understanding.,Stayed w i t h me. 2.5 Good at the very beginning and got the ideas. At the end was a b i t d i s t r a c t e d . ' 2.0 Caught emotions at times but a d v i c e - g i v i n g , " I f I were you..." Eye contact good. Not c o n s i s t e n t -sometimes understanding and sometimes 'Anne Landers'. 3.0 Warmth. Good at. catching emotions and ideas. Good understanding. Some questions and tendency to advise 5.0 E x c e l l e n t at catching emotions, f e e l i n g s and ideas. Showed genuine empathy and concern. Good f a c i a l i involvement. Did very, very w e l l . Stuck w i t h i t and gave some very good, quick responses. 3.0 Understood ideas and emotions only sometimes. Stuck mainly to .an understanding l e v e l . 4.5 Very good. Caught both emotions and ideas. Stuck i s t r i c t l y t o my problem and d i d n ' t g e t , i n t o advice-g i v i n g even though I r e a l l y t e s t e d her to see i f she would. 28.0 T o t a l 12 9-Rating given Judge Acting as Client and also as Rater of Same Interview Comments Control Group 1 No empathy. No understanding. She f i n i s h e d quite early and l e f t ; that i s , she got stuck. 1.5 Gave advice c o n t i n u a l l y . 1.5 Made suggestions based on her ideas, not those communicated. 1.5 Gave advice continually and then didn't"know what to do. 1.5 Understood a b i t . S t i l l , a l o t of advice. 1.5 Lots of advice. 1 No empathy shown. Eyes wandered. T e l l s of her own experience. 1.5 Only asked questions and gave advice. Was not aware of imparting empathy. Total 11.0 APPENDIX F Subject Order for Testing: Naive-Peer Client Raters location X Location Y Subject Subject number Group number 20 3 13 2 07 1 22 3 12 2 05 1 Rater A Rater B 01 15 18 Rater C 1 191 2 03 3 09 3 1 2 Rater D 14 23 04 Rater B 2 08 3 11 1 21 1 2 3 Rater A 17 02 10 Rater D 3 16 1 24 2 06 2 3 1 Rater C Average Age, IQ, and Grade Point Average of Subjects Age, i n Months Average Otis Recent 3-year Grade Point Average Group 1 139.38 109.75 4.14 Group 2 142.25 116.87 4.37 Control 143.38 117.25 4.63 130 . Group *A = 7, B = 6, Cplus =5, C = 4, Cminus =3, D=2, E = l . G.P.A. APPENDIX G Interrater R e l i a b i l i t y : Pearson Product-Moment Correlations: 24 Subjects Posttest 1 Posttest 2 r P r P Raters 1 and 2 .94 .000 .89 .000 Raters 2 and 3 . 93 .000 .96 .000 Raters 1 and 3 .95 .000 .92 .000 Interrater R e l i a b i l i t y Pearson Product^Moment Correlations: By Group: Posttest 2 r E r Raters 1 E and 2 r P .78 .023 .93 .000 .11 .112 Raters 2 and 3 .89 .003 .95 .002 .83 .010 Raters 1 and 3 .92 .001 .92 .001 .08 .95 Experimental Experimental Control: Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 APPENDIX G 132 Co r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s : Experts Versus Naive Raters (Posttest Peer Interview) Naive Raters Expert Rater Group 1 Control Group 2 Group To t a l Subjects 1 -.05 -.33 .56 .02 2 .29 -.24 .13 .13 3 .12 -.16 .00 .07 Combined .12 -.26 .38 Correlations Between Expert Expert Rater i n : Raters of Peer Interview Live Interview and (By Group) Expert Client-Rater Non-Participant Expert Raters Group 1 Group 2 Control Group 1 .50 -.20 .10 2 . 47 -.14 .84* 3 .53 -.03 .58 Combined .53 -.13 .71* * P .05 APPENDIX H Q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o be Completed A f t e r P o s t t e s t i n g Completed Group One Your name - Dear s t u d e n t , Your o p i n i o n and y o u r f e e l i n g s about t h e t r a i n i n g we have j u s t completed a r e v e r y i m p o r t a n t . We d i d some d i f f i c u l t t h i n g s and you p r o b a b l y d i d n o t f e e l t h e same about a l l o f them. W i l l you p l e a s e t e l l me as h o n e s t l y as you c a n your t h o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s about t h e f o l l o w -i n g p a r t s o f t h e t r a i n i n g ? You do n o t have t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n s b u t I hope t h a t you w i l l . I f you do answer them i t w i l l be assumed t h a t you have agreed t o do s o . 1. A t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f each s e s s i o n I a s k e d you t o t e l l me how you t h o u g h t t r a i n i n g was g o i n g f o r you and i f t h e r e were any t h i n g s you were n o t l i k i n g about i t o r t h i n g s t h a t were d i f f i c u l t f o r you. What d i d you t h i n k o f t h i s p a r t o f t r a i n i n g ? 2. You and I l i s t e n e d t o a t a p e - r e c o r d i n g o f p a r t o f your "homework"; t h a t i s , when you p r a c t i c e d w i t h a f r i e n d . Sometimes we would t h i n k o f d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s you c o u l d have t r i e d . s a y i n g t o your f r i e n d . What d i d you t h i n k o f t h i s p a r t o f t r a i n i n g ? 3. I asked you t o p r a c t i c e s a y i n g back t o me a summary o f what I had j u s t s a i d and t o t r y and t e l l me how you thought I f e l t . What did you think of t h i s part of training? I asked you to l i s t e n to a b i t of a tape-recording of how I ju s t f i n i s h e d t a l k i n g to you and you gave me a "mark" from an "E" to an "A" depending upon what you f e l t about what I had just said to you. What did you think about t h i s part of the training? I asked you to practice a f t e r school with a f r i e n d . What d i d you think of t h i s part of the training? How d i d you f e e l about t a l k i n g to a g i r l from an-other school for a few minutes while you t r i e d to be interested i n and understanding of her? What was there about the t r a i n i n g that you l i k e d the best? Why? What was there about the t r a i n i n g that you l i k e d the least? Why? Q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o be Completed A f t e r P o s t t e s t i n g Completed Group Two Your name Dear s t u d e n t , Your o p i n i o n and your f e e l i n g s about t h e t r a i n i n g we have j u s t c o mpleted a r e v e r y i m p o r t a n t . We d i d some d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s and you p r o b a b l y d i d n o t f e e l t h e same about a l l o f them. W i l l you p l e a s e t e l l me as h o n e s t l y as you c a n your t h o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s about t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r t s o f t h e t r a i n i n g ? You do n o t have t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n s , b u t I hope t h a t you w i l l and i f you do i t w i l l be assumed t h a t you have agreed t o answer them. 1. A t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f each s e s s i o n I asked you t o t e l l me how you tho u g h t t r a i n i n g was g o i n g f o r you and i f t h e r e were any t h i n g s you were n o t l i k i n g about i t o r t h i n g s t h a t were d i f f i c u l t f o r you. What d i d you t h i n k o f t h i s p a r t o f t h e t r a i n i n g ? 2. You and I l i s t e n e d t o a t a p e - r e c o r d i n g o f p a r t o f your "homework"; t h a t i s , when you had p r a c t i c e d w i t h a f r i e n d . Sometimes we would t h i n k o f d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s you c o u l d have t r i e d s a y i n g t o your f r i e n d . What d i d you t h i n k o f t h i s p a r t o f t h e t r a i n i n g ? 3. I asked you t o "say o u t l o u d " t h e k i n d s o f t h i n g s t h a t many p e o p l e t h i n k when t h e y a r e t r y i n g t o be h e l p f u l , understanding and interested i n another person. I would t e l l you what words to say. What did you think of t h i s part of the training? 4. I asked you to l i s t e n to a b i t of a tape-recording of how I j u s t f i n i s h e d t a l k i n g to you and you would give me a "mark" from "A" to "E" depending upon how you f e l t about what I had j u s t said to you. What di d you think about t h i s part of the train i n g ? 5. I asked you to practice a f t e r school with a f r i e n d . What d i d you think of t h i s part of tr a i n i n g ? 6. How d i d you f e e l about t a l k i n g to a g i r l from an-other school f o r a few minutes while you t r i e d to be i n t e r e s t e d i n and understanding of her? 7. What was there about the t r a i n i n g that you l i k e d the best? Why? 8. What was there about the t r a i n i n g that you l i k e d the l e a s t ? Why?
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Counselling Psychology
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
Empathy training for adolescent peer counselling
Text