Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1577, Vol. 45, No. 2, 228-236
Value Attribution in Group Psychotherapy Lois Shawver
John Lubach
California Medical Facility Vacaville, California
Mental Health Services, Inc., of Snohomish County, Everett, Washington
This is a descriptive study of the attribution of value (e.g., disparagement and praise) in the verbalizations of participants in eight group therapy sessions. The sessions consisted largely of a series of controversies over whether target persons (participants whose problems were being discussed) or people outside the group, whom target persons complained about, should be disparaged. Target persons generally described themselves as not deserving disparagement, but they argued, in a biased way, that others involved in their problems were deserving of blame. People who were not a part of the problem under discussion were not biased in this way. That is, they were not significantly more likely to attribute negative value to either the target person in the group or to the person they complained about. They usually attributed negative value to both kinds of subjects, but they often argued that people were not deserving of blame.
When people talk about others, the words they use often do much more than communicate to the listener certain facts that have been observed or imagined about the people they describe. The particular words chosen often serve to cast these facts into value perspective, since English does not provide many value-free words for describing people (Allport & Odbert, 1936; Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957; Peabocly, 1967; Shawver, 1977). In group therapy sessions, this means that the word portraits that various patients paint of themselves and others are generally riddled with the colorful imprints of the speaker's personal values—values that color the speaker's view of the people he sees and describes. So, as the patient explains his problems, he attributes a positive or negative quality to the This article is based on portions of the first author's doctoral dissertation done under the direction of the second author at the University of Houston in 1973. The helpful suggestions of the other dissertation committee members, Richard Rozelle, James Campion, and M. G. Yoes are gratefully acknowledged. Rhona Wcinstein, Hubert Dreyfus, and Bruce Sanders are appreciated for providing critical readings of earlier drafts and notes on which this final article was based. Requests for reprints should be sent to Lois Shawver, Psychological Services, California Medical Facility, Vacaville, California 95688.
individual he describes. The evidence suggests that this positive or negative quality of language is a feature that listeners can recognize and agree about (Peabody, 1967; Shawver, 1974), and hence the evaluative quality of language is a researchable dimension of verbal interaction. Imagine a therapy patient, a woman in a group therapy session, describing her husband as a "real busybody who just can't seem to keep his nose out of other people's business." People will recognize such a description as negative. A perceptive therapist might also realize that a man who is described in these negative words might also be described by a more sympathetic speaker as a "man who genuinely cares about his friends and relatives —a man willing to get involved." It makes a difference, of course, which way the man is, in fact, described. Words have connotative riders that nurture or sting the human ego and then echo with interpersonal repercussions. The purpose of this study was to examine patterns in these value-laden dimensions of group process. Others have studied what they call positive and negative dimensions of speech (cf. Bugental, 1952; Mills, 1964; Raimy, 1948; Seeman, 1949; Stock, 1949), but they did not conceptualize these dimensions as they are conceptualized in the present study. 228
VALUE ATTRIBUTION
In Milk's (1964) system, for example, a "positive" statement portrays a love relationship, and a "negative" statement portrays an act of destruction regardless of whether the speaker expresses approval or disapproval of the love relationship or act of destruction. This contrasts with the positive and negative dimension investigated in the present study. Here it is the expressed approval and disapproval that is being noted—the value attributed to the subject. In the present study, if a group participant said "He's a helluva fighter, a real warrior; he has always had guts enough to mow down any fool who gave him a hard time," it would count as a "positive valuation" regardless of the acts of destruction referred to. Furthermore, the concept of "neutralization" was used in the present study but was not used in the previously cited studies. This concept is needed because there are two ways to make a favorable statement about someone and two ways to make an unfavorable statement. A favorable statement can be made by praising someone directly or by excusing him for negative qualities. For example, a group member might say, "I don't see that what he did was so terrible. Any one of us would have done the same thing in his place." The person who argues this way would be "neutralizing a negative valuation" without advancing a positive one. Sykes and Matza (1957) have also argued that there is a need for a concept of "neutralization." Earlier theorists stated that delinquents have different value systems than nondelinquents, so a feeling of pride might follow breaking some law. Matza and Sykes argued that delinquents often embrace the value system of the middle-class culture, but delinquents have ways of "neutralizing" their failures within it. The juvenile thief is not proud of stealing, but he neutralizes his blameworthiness by advancing an argument such as "under the circumstances, that was the only thing I could do." Only if an analysis distinguishes such neutralization of negative valuations from positive valuations can conclusions be drawn as to whether the speakers were voicing their pride or merely defending themselves against the shame of acting in a blameworthy fashion.
229
In the present study, a parallel distinction is made between a negative valuation and a neutralization of positive valuation. Overview There are four kinds of value attribution that were distinguished: positive valuation, neutralization of negative valuation, negative valuation, and neutralization of positive valuation. The total number of value-laden comments a speaker made in reference to a certain kind of person (e.g., himself) was tallied and analyzed into the percentage falling into each of these four value-attribution categories. These percentage analyses reflect how a speaker spoke of a given kind of person, that is, whether or not the speaker tended to be positive or negative or whether he tended to neutralize negative or positive valuations. Pilot studies have indicated that group therapy often consists of patients taking turns in assuming a target person role, during which time they present a personal problem that usually involves one or more other people (relevant others). The therapist(s) and the other group members listen, ask questions, and offer their opinions on both the target person himself and his relevant other. The central purpose of this study was to investigate whether these three speaker types (i.e., therapist, target person, group member) spoke with predictable patterns of value connotations as they referred to either the target person himself or his relevant other and whether the patterns of value attribution varied as a function of the role of the speaker. In addition, an attempt was made to throw empirical light on how good therapy groups differ from poor ones and how outpatient groups differ from inpatient groups. Method Sample Eight group therapy transcripts were obtained specifically for this study. Four of these were from inpatient settings, and four were from outpatient settings. The transcripts were contributed by the senior therapist in the sessions. Each contributing therapist provided tapes of two sessions and designated one as being a "good" session "in regard to
LOIS SHAWVER AND JOHN LUBACH
230
the amount of therapeutic work performed" and the other as being based on a session "in which the communications seem rather unimportant as far as therapeutic process of the group members is concerned." There was, therefore, a counterbalanced sample with two "good inpatient," two "good outpatient," two "bad inpatienl," and two "bad outpatient" sessions. The group participants in the inpatient sample were residents in a state hospital. Two of these transcripts were made on patients who had been hospitalized in locked wards after committing a legal offense. Two transcripts were made on patients living in a locked ward for young adults who had not committed such offenses. Two transcripts in the outpatient sample were made in a state-supported crisis intervention center on a group of people who had called the center asking for help and whose problems seemed sufficiently minor to be handled with brief participation in a group. The other two outpatient transcripts were made from sessions in an adolescent drug abuse clinic. Each group had between four and eight group members and between one and three therapists. There were both male and female therapists included in the sample, and they included social workers, clinical psychologists, and psychiatrists. The speech of all participants was analyzed.
Measure The measure was a system of categories and a procedure for sorting transcribed remarks into one or several categories (cf. Shawver, Note 1). According to this procedure, a passage was defined as everything one person said before he gave the floor to someone else. Each passage was coded to reflect which speaker type (therapist, target person, or other group member) had uttered it and which referrent type (target person or relevant other) the comment was about. In addition, each passage was coded to reflect whether the problem being talked about involved a relevant other and, if it did, whether the relevant other was present or absent and whether the relevant other was the therapist. The content of each of the passages was analyzed not only to see if it contained a value perspective (and which of the four kinds of value perspectives was expressed) but also whether it involved a request for someone else to advance a value perspective, whether it involved factual statements about the problem, and whether it involved requests for such factual information. Any passage was capable of being coded in any combination of these categories. The data reported in this article were all coded by the first author. In evaluating the interrater reliability of her ratings, 16 undergraduate students analyzed 164 passages of a sample transcript by following an instruction manual (Shawver, Note 1). k statistics were calculated comparing each student rater with the first author. The k statistic (Cohen, 1960) is:
where fo and fe represent observed and expected frequencies calculated in the same way that they arc calculated for a chi-square test of independence. The k statistic is the percentage of agreement among 2 raters when chance agreement is subtracted out. After collecting data on these 16 raters, a search was made to find a person whose ratings seemed rather typical and who would rate a larger sample of data for a fee. When the raters were ranked according to their agreement with the first author, the paid rater was immediately beneath the median. The paid rater identified target persons in a subsample of the data selected so that early and later parts of the transcripts were equally represented. She identified the same target person that the first author had identified in 92.5% of these passages. The rater analyzed approximately one quarter of the data sample to identify the value perspective expressed, whether value perspectives were asked for, and whether information was asked for or given. k statistics comparing the rater's analysis with the first author's categorizations ranged from 29 to 80, which compares favorably to a range of 14 to 61 reported on the well-known Bales categories (Waxier & Mishlcr, 1966). The first author knew which transcripts were classified as "good" and which were "inpatient" transcripts, but this information was not available to the other raters. More complete interrater reliability data are reported elsewhere (Shawver, 1974).
Table 1 Frequency of Scorable Passages Uttered in Each Transcript Speaker Group
N - fe'
Target person
Group member
Good sessions Outpatient Session 1 Session 2 Inpatient Session 1 Session 2
147 129
199 120
169 99
103 186
86
199
56 20
Bad sessions Outpatient Session 1 Session 2 Inpatient Session 1 Session 2 % of total
-
Therapist
256 108 85 73 37. 84
196 164
89 30
162 83
83 31
42.08
20.08
VALUE ATTRIBUTION
Table 2 Percentage of Conversation (Scorable Passages) Concerned with Four Different Kinds of Problems Relevant other Not Group
None
present Present Therapist
231
Without exception, the people in these sessions talked mostly about problems that involved the target persons' relationships to relevant others who were not present in the group. Patterns of Speech Associated with the Role of the Speaker
Good sessions Outpatient Session 1 Session 2
13 30
84 SI
4 17
0 3
Inpatient Session 1 Session 2
41 33
51 39
8 2
0 26
Bad sessions Outpatient Session 1 Session 2
0 18
87 82
13 0
0 0
Inpatient Session 1 Session 2
5 0
57 75
38 25
0 0
Results Speaker-Type Participation The information in Table 1 indicates how much each of these three speaker types talked in these sessions relative to each other. As can be seen, target persons and therapists contributed roughly equal quantities of the counting units (passages), whereas group members contributed only about half as much. Therefore, there was clearly a tendency for the sessions to be dominated by the therapist and the target person. People Involved in the Problems Discussed The information in Table 2 indicates how much of the conversation was concerned with problems involving the target person but no relevant other, how much of the conversation was concerned with a problem involving a relevant other who was not present, how much was concerned with a problem involving a relevant other who was present, and how much was concerned with a problem involving the therapist as the relevant other.
All three speaker types were about equally likely to color their comments with value connotations, but they differed as to the kind of value connotation expressed. These differences are portrayed in the valuation profiles contained in Figure 1. An example illustrates the way each profile should be read. Note that the first row of profiles is labeled "Th 1" through "Th 5." The numbers do not identify different therapists. The first profile (labeled "Th 1") represents the way the combined sample of therapists talked about a target person when the target person's problem involved a relevant other who was not present in the group during the discussion. The comments of the therapists in all eight transcripts have been added together. Slightly more than 10% of the therapist's value-laden passages in such contexts involved a positive attribution to the referrent (the target person). Slightly more than 20% of the therapist's value-laden passages were neutralizations of positive, and the majority of the passages (over 60%) had a negative connotation. Therefore, therapists tended to be negative in their description of their patients in this context. The profiles in Figure 1 were based on a combination of the data of all eight transcripts. Consistency among the transcripts was assessed by the Kendall coefficient of concordance (W; Siegel, 19S6). These values are reported in Table 2. (In calculating these Ws, the first and second profiles, e.g., Th 1 and Th 2, were treated as a unit as were the third and fourth profiles.) As can be seen, significantly patterned valuations were demonstrated for all profiles studied except Profile 5 for therapists and Profile 5 for group members. These results were taken to indicate that summing across transcripts was a legitimate procedure except,
232
LOIS SHAWVER AND JOHN LUBACH
KIND OF PROBLEM SPEAKER TYPE
PROBLEM INVOLVES RELEVANT OTHER NOT PRESENT
PROBLEM INVOLVES NO RELEVANT OTHER
PROBLEM INVOLVES RELEVANT OTHER PRESENT IN GROUP
100—
100-
100-
THERAPISTS
80-
80-
60-
60-
40-
40-
\il Th. 1
Th.2
20-
20-
0-
0-
+ (-) W Th. 4
Th.3
Th. 5
100-
TAHQET PERSONS
0_
+ H (*rT.P.3
T.P.2
100-
100-
10080-
80-
60-
GROUP MEMBERS
40-
J + H (+) -
G.M.1
Q.M.2
\/A
I
H (+) Q.M.3
604020-
4 (-)M Q.M.S
0-
Valuations of Target Persons
^ Valuations of Relevant Others Figure 1. Valuation profiles. (The first profile—Th 1—represents the way the combined sample of therapists talked about a target person when the target person's problem involved a relevant other who was not present in the group during the session. The profiles were based on a combination of the data of all eight transcripts.)
perhaps, in the cases of the therapists and file 5 for group members were dropped from group member valuations of target persons further study. when no relevant other was involved in the To determine the distinctiveness of the valproblem. Because these last profiles were uation profiles, each profile was compared questionable, Profile S for therapists and Pro- with each other profile in all cases in which
VALUE ATTRIBUTION
Table 3 Coefficients of Concordance Indicating the Consistency of the Valuation Profiles Among the Right Transcripts
233
files portrayed in Figure 1. Note that the 26 comparisons listed in Table 3 are organized into three sets. These three sets of comparisons reflect three different kinds of questions or research concerns.
Th 1 & Th 2 Th 3 & Th 4 Th 5
.60 .50 .29
29.4*** 28.0*** 5.22
7 7 3
Table 4 Three Sets of Valuation Profile Comparisons
T.P. 1 & T.P. 2 T.P. 3 & T.P. 4 T.P. 5
.61 .67 .60
29.9*** 37.52*** 12.42**
7 7 3
Comparison set
G.M. 1 & G.M. 2 G.M. 3 & G.M. 4 G.M. 5
.29 .50 .09
14.2* 28.0*** 1.62
7 7 3
1
Th 1 X T.P. 1 2 Th 1 X G.M. 1 3 T.P. 1 X G.M. 1 2 Th 2 X T.P. 2 2 Th 2 X G.M. 2 1 T.P. 2 X G.M. 2 3 Th 3 X T.P. 3 1 Th 3 X G.M. 3 1 T.P. 3 X G.M. 3 1 Th 4 X T.P. 4 1 Th 4 X G.M. 4 1 T.P. 4 X G.M. 4 1
162.19 .001 1.45 91.38 .001 19.72 .001 .93 29.25 .001 1.32 3.88 .05 .018 .012 .03 .008006
2
Th 1 X Th 3 T.P. 1 X T.P. 3 G.M. 1 X G.M. 3 Th 2 X Th 4 T.P. 2 X T.P. 4 G.M. 2 X G.M. 4 T.P. 1 X T.P. 5 T.P. 3 X flTJ
2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
4.67 2.73 2.90 1.51 1.10 10.44 15.39 9.22
Th 1 X Th 2 Th 3 X Th 4 T.P. 1 X T.P. 2 T.P. 3 X T.P. 4 G.M. 1 X G.M. 2 G.M. 3 X G.M. 4
1 1 2 I 3 1
2.77 .02 173.89
Note. Each valuation profile is designated by the speaker type, the subject described, and the context of the valuation. Letters refer to the speaker type (Th = therapist; T.P. = target person; G.M. = group member). Numbers refer to the subject of the valuation and the context (1 = target person in context with relevant other absent from group; 2 = relevant other who is absent from the group; 3 — target person in context with relevant other in group; 4 = relevant other who is present in group; 5 = target person in context which has no relevant other). These profiles are based on a combination of the data of all eight transcripts. *p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
this comparison seemed meaningful. These comparisons were made with chi-square tests of independence or, when required, with Fisher exact tests. As can be seen from Figure 1, the least popular category of value attribution for all speaker types was the neutralization of positive valuation category. When the small expected frequencies in this category required it, they were combined with the negative valuation category, both of which may be referred to as unfavorable valuations. Very occasionally, the valuations in the category of positive valuation needed to be combined with those in the neutralization of negative valuation category, which together may be referred to as favorable valuation categories. The analysis of differences in valuation profiles is best understood in reference to Figure 1 and Table 4. Whereas Figure 1 contains the graphic portrayal of the profiles that was described earlier, Table 4 contains information on the statistical comparison of selected pro-
3
Profile
(If
x1
P
.01 .001 .01
.001 .00056
5.49 .00002
Note. All profiles that are significantly more favorable than their comparison have been underlined. Profiles with no chi-square values were examined using Fisher's exact test. Each valuation profile is designated by speaker type, the subject described, and the context of the valuation. Letters refer to the speaker type (Th = therapist; T.P. = target person; G.M. = group member). Numbers refer to the subject of the valuation and the context (1 = target person in context with relevant other absent from group; 2 = relevant other who is absent from the group; 3 = target person in context with relevant other in group; 4 = relevant other who is present in group; 5 = target person in context which has no relevant other). These profiles are based on a combination of the data of all eight transcripts.
234
LOIS SHAWVER AND JOHN LUBACH
The first set of comparisons (Comparisons 1-12) was made to help discover if the valuation profiles changed as a function of speaker type. Operationally, this involved comparing the therapist's Profile 1 with the group member's Profile 1, and then each of these was compared with the target person's first profile. Similar comparisons were made for Profiles 2, 3, and 4. Figure 1 also shows that Th. 1 differs significantly from T.P. 1 but not from G.M. 1. (Indeed, Th. 1 and G.M. 1 are nearly identical.) The only profiles that do not differ significantly in this vertical comparison are Th. 1 X G.M. 1, Th. 2 x G.M. 2, and Th. 3 X T.P. 3. The second set of comparisons (13-20) was meant to help discover whether any of the three speaker types became either more or less favorable toward either the target person or the relevant other depending on the presence of the relevant other. In the single case of the target person speaker type, it was also asked whether he referred to himself more or less favorably when there was no relevant other involved in the problem under discussion. This is a horizontal comparison of crosshatched profile with cross-hatched profile and black profile with black profile. The group members were significantly more favorable in their descriptions of the relevant other when the relevant other was present in the group than when he was not. (Remember that the relevant other was among the ranks of the group members in the cases in which the relevant other was present.) Although the group members were more favorable toward the relevant other when he was present, they were less favorable of target persons in these contexts. Also, target persons spoke more favorably about themselves when a relevant other was not involved in their problems than they did when a relevant other who was either present or absent was involved. The third set of comparisons (21-26) was meant to assess bias, which was defined as a significant tendency to use the favorable categories more often with the target person (which would be biased in favor of the target person) or more often with the relevant other.
Target persons were biased in favor of themselves regardless of the presence or absence of their relevant other. Therapists did not demonstrate bias. Group members did not demonstrate bias when the relevant other was not present, but they did demonstrate bias when he was present. Group members were biased in favor of the relevant other who was present. Good Groups Versus Bad Groups Several differences appeared to be related to the good/bad dimension: The greatest contrast occurred in the way therapists spoke of target persons in the groups. In bad groups, therapists were almost entirely negative, whereas in good groups a substantial majority of their valuations of target persons were in one of the favorable categories, x 2 (2) = 54.30, p < .001. Group members demonstrated a similar but less pronounced tendency to describe target persons more favorably in good groups, x"(2) = 11.45, p < .01. Target persons, on the other hand, tended to speak less favorably of themselves in good groups, x 2 ( 2 ) = 6.77, p < .05, and to focus more on themselves rather than their relevant others in the good groups, x 2 ( l ) — 15.23, p < .001. Inpatients Versus Outpatients Target persons were more likely to try to elicit value perspectives of their problems from others in inpatient groups than in outpatient groups (Mann-Whitney U = 0, p = .014). And although target persons asked for more opinions in these settings, group members actually gave less opinions in these settings (Mann-Whitney U = 0, p = .014). Target persons in all outpatient settings spoke more favorably of relevant others than did their target person counterparts in the inpatient settings, x 2 (3) = 12.04, p< .01. Conclusion The central purpose of this study was to uncover any patterns in the value attribution of therapists, target persons, and group members as they described both target persons
VALUE ATTRIBUTION
and relevant others. Three valuation patterns have emerged rather distinctly, and there is a hint of a fourth. It is convenient to refer to these patterns as postures or stances. They are idealized abstractions (model valuation profiles) suggested by the data. The actual valuation profiles (cf. Figure 1) reflect data counts and do not conform exactly to the abstracted models —but the fit is remarkably close.
235
This offensive posture was also assumed by group members when group members described the target person in contexts in which the relevant other was present. Because the relevant other was a group member in this context, this finding supports the more general proposition that people in therapy tend to assume an offensive stance toward people with whom they are problematically related. The Critical Posture
The Defensive Posture This stance is illustrated by Valuation Profiles T.P. 1 and T.P. 3 in Figure 1. Target persons assumed a generally defensive posture toward themselves. This means they described themselves primarily in terms meant to neutralize negative perspectives of themselves. They said things about themselves like, "I'm not really inconsiderate, I'm just tired of being the only one to put out an effort. Anyone would be tired of it after all I've gone through." Although such self-descriptions are favorable, in a sense, they are certainly not positive. Such comments usually make use of negative words modified by a negation (e.g., "not inconsiderate"). Although the target person's self-descriptions have been used here to illustrate the defensive posture, this same posture seems to have been adopted by group members when the relevant other was present in the group (cf. Valuation Profile G.M. 4). And this finding tends to validate the generalization that people in therapy generally assume a defensive posture toward their own part in an interpersonal problem. (Note, when a group member talked about a relevant other who was present in the group, he was very often talking about himself.) The Offensive Posture This posture is illustrated by profiles T.P. 2 and T.P. 4. When target persons described other people who were also involved in their problems (i.e., relevant others), they spoke almost exclusively in negative terms. They disparaged and attacked the relevant other, or, in other words, they assumed an offensive posture toward him.
This posture is illustrated by Valuation Profiles Th 1, Th 3, G.M. 1, and G.M. 2. The critical posture is midway between the defensive and offensive postures. It is mostly negative, but it includes a larger proportion of statements neutralizing negative valuations than does the offensive posture. The critical posture seems to be characteristic of people talking about other people's problems when they are not an intimate part of the problems (i.e., not a relevant other). The critical posture was the stance that both therapists and group members assumed when it was clear that they were not involved in the problem under discussion (because the relevant other was not present), and this was true regardless of whether they were talking about the patient (target person) or his relevant other. Therapists also assumed a clearly critical posture toward target persons when another group member was involved in the problem (cf. Th 3); however, the stance that therapists assumed toward the relevant other who was present does not fit as nicely into the critical posture models as do these other profiles. In summary, clear and consistent patterns of value attribution were contained in these group therapy sessions. The different postures described above reflect frequent disagreements and controversy over who should be blamed for their actions. People tended to defend themselves against blame and to attribute blame to others involved in their problems. Group participants who were not personally involved in the problems tended to weigh the evidence in a critical but nonbiased kind of way. Only when the problem being discussed was not an interpersonal one
236
LOIS SHAWVER AND JOHN LUBACH
did the speakers tend to talk in positive terms. In addition, in those sessions in which much therapeutic work was judged to be accomplished, the patients were found to talk more about their own blameworthy role in their problems and they tended to spend less time disparaging their relevant others. Also, patients who did not require hospitalization were more likely to offer their opinions of other people's problems (and were less likely to ask others for opinions) than were the hospitalized patients. Reference Note 1. Shawvcr, L. Valuation analysis manual. Copyright, 1973. (Available from Lois Shawvcr, Psychological Services, California Medical Facility, Vacaville, California 9S688.)
References Allport, G., & Oclbert, H. S. Trait-names: A psycholexical study. Psychological Monographs, 1936, 47 (1, Whole No. 211). Bugenlal, J. F. A method for assessing self- and nonself-altitudes during the therapeutic series. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1952, 16, 435-439. Cohen, J . A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1960, 20. 37-46. Mills, T. Group transformation: An analysis of a
learning group. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1964. Osgood, C. K, Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1957. Peabody, D. Trait inferences: Evaluative and descriptive aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7(4, PI. 2). Raimy, V. Self-reference in counseling interviews. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1948, 12, 153163. Seeman, J. The process of non-directive therapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1949, 13, 1.57168. Shawver, L. The expression of values in group psychotherapy. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, 1973.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 34, 5663B. (University Microfilms No. 74-11, 823) Shawver, L. Research variables in psychology and the logic of their creation. Psychiatry, 1977, 40, 1-16. Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Stock, D. The self-concept and feelings toward others. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1949, 13, 176-180. Sykes, G. M., & Malza, D. Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 664-670. Waxier, N., & Mishlcr, E. Scoring and reliability problems in interaction process analysis: A methodological note. Sociometry, 1966, 29, 28-40.
Received March 8, 1976 •
Value Attribution in Group Psychotherapy Lois Shawver
John Lubach
California Medical Facility Vacaville, California
Mental Health Services, Inc., of Snohomish County, Everett, Washington
This is a descriptive study of the attribution of value (e.g., disparagement and praise) in the verbalizations of participants in eight group therapy sessions. The sessions consisted largely of a series of controversies over whether target persons (participants whose problems were being discussed) or people outside the group, whom target persons complained about, should be disparaged. Target persons generally described themselves as not deserving disparagement, but they argued, in a biased way, that others involved in their problems were deserving of blame. People who were not a part of the problem under discussion were not biased in this way. That is, they were not significantly more likely to attribute negative value to either the target person in the group or to the person they complained about. They usually attributed negative value to both kinds of subjects, but they often argued that people were not deserving of blame.
When people talk about others, the words they use often do much more than communicate to the listener certain facts that have been observed or imagined about the people they describe. The particular words chosen often serve to cast these facts into value perspective, since English does not provide many value-free words for describing people (Allport & Odbert, 1936; Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957; Peabocly, 1967; Shawver, 1977). In group therapy sessions, this means that the word portraits that various patients paint of themselves and others are generally riddled with the colorful imprints of the speaker's personal values—values that color the speaker's view of the people he sees and describes. So, as the patient explains his problems, he attributes a positive or negative quality to the This article is based on portions of the first author's doctoral dissertation done under the direction of the second author at the University of Houston in 1973. The helpful suggestions of the other dissertation committee members, Richard Rozelle, James Campion, and M. G. Yoes are gratefully acknowledged. Rhona Wcinstein, Hubert Dreyfus, and Bruce Sanders are appreciated for providing critical readings of earlier drafts and notes on which this final article was based. Requests for reprints should be sent to Lois Shawver, Psychological Services, California Medical Facility, Vacaville, California 95688.
individual he describes. The evidence suggests that this positive or negative quality of language is a feature that listeners can recognize and agree about (Peabody, 1967; Shawver, 1974), and hence the evaluative quality of language is a researchable dimension of verbal interaction. Imagine a therapy patient, a woman in a group therapy session, describing her husband as a "real busybody who just can't seem to keep his nose out of other people's business." People will recognize such a description as negative. A perceptive therapist might also realize that a man who is described in these negative words might also be described by a more sympathetic speaker as a "man who genuinely cares about his friends and relatives —a man willing to get involved." It makes a difference, of course, which way the man is, in fact, described. Words have connotative riders that nurture or sting the human ego and then echo with interpersonal repercussions. The purpose of this study was to examine patterns in these value-laden dimensions of group process. Others have studied what they call positive and negative dimensions of speech (cf. Bugental, 1952; Mills, 1964; Raimy, 1948; Seeman, 1949; Stock, 1949), but they did not conceptualize these dimensions as they are conceptualized in the present study. 228
VALUE ATTRIBUTION
In Milk's (1964) system, for example, a "positive" statement portrays a love relationship, and a "negative" statement portrays an act of destruction regardless of whether the speaker expresses approval or disapproval of the love relationship or act of destruction. This contrasts with the positive and negative dimension investigated in the present study. Here it is the expressed approval and disapproval that is being noted—the value attributed to the subject. In the present study, if a group participant said "He's a helluva fighter, a real warrior; he has always had guts enough to mow down any fool who gave him a hard time," it would count as a "positive valuation" regardless of the acts of destruction referred to. Furthermore, the concept of "neutralization" was used in the present study but was not used in the previously cited studies. This concept is needed because there are two ways to make a favorable statement about someone and two ways to make an unfavorable statement. A favorable statement can be made by praising someone directly or by excusing him for negative qualities. For example, a group member might say, "I don't see that what he did was so terrible. Any one of us would have done the same thing in his place." The person who argues this way would be "neutralizing a negative valuation" without advancing a positive one. Sykes and Matza (1957) have also argued that there is a need for a concept of "neutralization." Earlier theorists stated that delinquents have different value systems than nondelinquents, so a feeling of pride might follow breaking some law. Matza and Sykes argued that delinquents often embrace the value system of the middle-class culture, but delinquents have ways of "neutralizing" their failures within it. The juvenile thief is not proud of stealing, but he neutralizes his blameworthiness by advancing an argument such as "under the circumstances, that was the only thing I could do." Only if an analysis distinguishes such neutralization of negative valuations from positive valuations can conclusions be drawn as to whether the speakers were voicing their pride or merely defending themselves against the shame of acting in a blameworthy fashion.
229
In the present study, a parallel distinction is made between a negative valuation and a neutralization of positive valuation. Overview There are four kinds of value attribution that were distinguished: positive valuation, neutralization of negative valuation, negative valuation, and neutralization of positive valuation. The total number of value-laden comments a speaker made in reference to a certain kind of person (e.g., himself) was tallied and analyzed into the percentage falling into each of these four value-attribution categories. These percentage analyses reflect how a speaker spoke of a given kind of person, that is, whether or not the speaker tended to be positive or negative or whether he tended to neutralize negative or positive valuations. Pilot studies have indicated that group therapy often consists of patients taking turns in assuming a target person role, during which time they present a personal problem that usually involves one or more other people (relevant others). The therapist(s) and the other group members listen, ask questions, and offer their opinions on both the target person himself and his relevant other. The central purpose of this study was to investigate whether these three speaker types (i.e., therapist, target person, group member) spoke with predictable patterns of value connotations as they referred to either the target person himself or his relevant other and whether the patterns of value attribution varied as a function of the role of the speaker. In addition, an attempt was made to throw empirical light on how good therapy groups differ from poor ones and how outpatient groups differ from inpatient groups. Method Sample Eight group therapy transcripts were obtained specifically for this study. Four of these were from inpatient settings, and four were from outpatient settings. The transcripts were contributed by the senior therapist in the sessions. Each contributing therapist provided tapes of two sessions and designated one as being a "good" session "in regard to
LOIS SHAWVER AND JOHN LUBACH
230
the amount of therapeutic work performed" and the other as being based on a session "in which the communications seem rather unimportant as far as therapeutic process of the group members is concerned." There was, therefore, a counterbalanced sample with two "good inpatient," two "good outpatient," two "bad inpatienl," and two "bad outpatient" sessions. The group participants in the inpatient sample were residents in a state hospital. Two of these transcripts were made on patients who had been hospitalized in locked wards after committing a legal offense. Two transcripts were made on patients living in a locked ward for young adults who had not committed such offenses. Two transcripts in the outpatient sample were made in a state-supported crisis intervention center on a group of people who had called the center asking for help and whose problems seemed sufficiently minor to be handled with brief participation in a group. The other two outpatient transcripts were made from sessions in an adolescent drug abuse clinic. Each group had between four and eight group members and between one and three therapists. There were both male and female therapists included in the sample, and they included social workers, clinical psychologists, and psychiatrists. The speech of all participants was analyzed.
Measure The measure was a system of categories and a procedure for sorting transcribed remarks into one or several categories (cf. Shawver, Note 1). According to this procedure, a passage was defined as everything one person said before he gave the floor to someone else. Each passage was coded to reflect which speaker type (therapist, target person, or other group member) had uttered it and which referrent type (target person or relevant other) the comment was about. In addition, each passage was coded to reflect whether the problem being talked about involved a relevant other and, if it did, whether the relevant other was present or absent and whether the relevant other was the therapist. The content of each of the passages was analyzed not only to see if it contained a value perspective (and which of the four kinds of value perspectives was expressed) but also whether it involved a request for someone else to advance a value perspective, whether it involved factual statements about the problem, and whether it involved requests for such factual information. Any passage was capable of being coded in any combination of these categories. The data reported in this article were all coded by the first author. In evaluating the interrater reliability of her ratings, 16 undergraduate students analyzed 164 passages of a sample transcript by following an instruction manual (Shawver, Note 1). k statistics were calculated comparing each student rater with the first author. The k statistic (Cohen, 1960) is:
where fo and fe represent observed and expected frequencies calculated in the same way that they arc calculated for a chi-square test of independence. The k statistic is the percentage of agreement among 2 raters when chance agreement is subtracted out. After collecting data on these 16 raters, a search was made to find a person whose ratings seemed rather typical and who would rate a larger sample of data for a fee. When the raters were ranked according to their agreement with the first author, the paid rater was immediately beneath the median. The paid rater identified target persons in a subsample of the data selected so that early and later parts of the transcripts were equally represented. She identified the same target person that the first author had identified in 92.5% of these passages. The rater analyzed approximately one quarter of the data sample to identify the value perspective expressed, whether value perspectives were asked for, and whether information was asked for or given. k statistics comparing the rater's analysis with the first author's categorizations ranged from 29 to 80, which compares favorably to a range of 14 to 61 reported on the well-known Bales categories (Waxier & Mishlcr, 1966). The first author knew which transcripts were classified as "good" and which were "inpatient" transcripts, but this information was not available to the other raters. More complete interrater reliability data are reported elsewhere (Shawver, 1974).
Table 1 Frequency of Scorable Passages Uttered in Each Transcript Speaker Group
N - fe'
Target person
Group member
Good sessions Outpatient Session 1 Session 2 Inpatient Session 1 Session 2
147 129
199 120
169 99
103 186
86
199
56 20
Bad sessions Outpatient Session 1 Session 2 Inpatient Session 1 Session 2 % of total
-
Therapist
256 108 85 73 37. 84
196 164
89 30
162 83
83 31
42.08
20.08
VALUE ATTRIBUTION
Table 2 Percentage of Conversation (Scorable Passages) Concerned with Four Different Kinds of Problems Relevant other Not Group
None
present Present Therapist
231
Without exception, the people in these sessions talked mostly about problems that involved the target persons' relationships to relevant others who were not present in the group. Patterns of Speech Associated with the Role of the Speaker
Good sessions Outpatient Session 1 Session 2
13 30
84 SI
4 17
0 3
Inpatient Session 1 Session 2
41 33
51 39
8 2
0 26
Bad sessions Outpatient Session 1 Session 2
0 18
87 82
13 0
0 0
Inpatient Session 1 Session 2
5 0
57 75
38 25
0 0
Results Speaker-Type Participation The information in Table 1 indicates how much each of these three speaker types talked in these sessions relative to each other. As can be seen, target persons and therapists contributed roughly equal quantities of the counting units (passages), whereas group members contributed only about half as much. Therefore, there was clearly a tendency for the sessions to be dominated by the therapist and the target person. People Involved in the Problems Discussed The information in Table 2 indicates how much of the conversation was concerned with problems involving the target person but no relevant other, how much of the conversation was concerned with a problem involving a relevant other who was not present, how much was concerned with a problem involving a relevant other who was present, and how much was concerned with a problem involving the therapist as the relevant other.
All three speaker types were about equally likely to color their comments with value connotations, but they differed as to the kind of value connotation expressed. These differences are portrayed in the valuation profiles contained in Figure 1. An example illustrates the way each profile should be read. Note that the first row of profiles is labeled "Th 1" through "Th 5." The numbers do not identify different therapists. The first profile (labeled "Th 1") represents the way the combined sample of therapists talked about a target person when the target person's problem involved a relevant other who was not present in the group during the discussion. The comments of the therapists in all eight transcripts have been added together. Slightly more than 10% of the therapist's value-laden passages in such contexts involved a positive attribution to the referrent (the target person). Slightly more than 20% of the therapist's value-laden passages were neutralizations of positive, and the majority of the passages (over 60%) had a negative connotation. Therefore, therapists tended to be negative in their description of their patients in this context. The profiles in Figure 1 were based on a combination of the data of all eight transcripts. Consistency among the transcripts was assessed by the Kendall coefficient of concordance (W; Siegel, 19S6). These values are reported in Table 2. (In calculating these Ws, the first and second profiles, e.g., Th 1 and Th 2, were treated as a unit as were the third and fourth profiles.) As can be seen, significantly patterned valuations were demonstrated for all profiles studied except Profile 5 for therapists and Profile 5 for group members. These results were taken to indicate that summing across transcripts was a legitimate procedure except,
232
LOIS SHAWVER AND JOHN LUBACH
KIND OF PROBLEM SPEAKER TYPE
PROBLEM INVOLVES RELEVANT OTHER NOT PRESENT
PROBLEM INVOLVES NO RELEVANT OTHER
PROBLEM INVOLVES RELEVANT OTHER PRESENT IN GROUP
100—
100-
100-
THERAPISTS
80-
80-
60-
60-
40-
40-
\il Th. 1
Th.2
20-
20-
0-
0-
+ (-) W Th. 4
Th.3
Th. 5
100-
TAHQET PERSONS
0_
+ H (*rT.P.3
T.P.2
100-
100-
10080-
80-
60-
GROUP MEMBERS
40-
J + H (+) -
G.M.1
Q.M.2
\/A
I
H (+) Q.M.3
604020-
4 (-)M Q.M.S
0-
Valuations of Target Persons
^ Valuations of Relevant Others Figure 1. Valuation profiles. (The first profile—Th 1—represents the way the combined sample of therapists talked about a target person when the target person's problem involved a relevant other who was not present in the group during the session. The profiles were based on a combination of the data of all eight transcripts.)
perhaps, in the cases of the therapists and file 5 for group members were dropped from group member valuations of target persons further study. when no relevant other was involved in the To determine the distinctiveness of the valproblem. Because these last profiles were uation profiles, each profile was compared questionable, Profile S for therapists and Pro- with each other profile in all cases in which
VALUE ATTRIBUTION
Table 3 Coefficients of Concordance Indicating the Consistency of the Valuation Profiles Among the Right Transcripts
233
files portrayed in Figure 1. Note that the 26 comparisons listed in Table 3 are organized into three sets. These three sets of comparisons reflect three different kinds of questions or research concerns.
Th 1 & Th 2 Th 3 & Th 4 Th 5
.60 .50 .29
29.4*** 28.0*** 5.22
7 7 3
Table 4 Three Sets of Valuation Profile Comparisons
T.P. 1 & T.P. 2 T.P. 3 & T.P. 4 T.P. 5
.61 .67 .60
29.9*** 37.52*** 12.42**
7 7 3
Comparison set
G.M. 1 & G.M. 2 G.M. 3 & G.M. 4 G.M. 5
.29 .50 .09
14.2* 28.0*** 1.62
7 7 3
1
Th 1 X T.P. 1 2 Th 1 X G.M. 1 3 T.P. 1 X G.M. 1 2 Th 2 X T.P. 2 2 Th 2 X G.M. 2 1 T.P. 2 X G.M. 2 3 Th 3 X T.P. 3 1 Th 3 X G.M. 3 1 T.P. 3 X G.M. 3 1 Th 4 X T.P. 4 1 Th 4 X G.M. 4 1 T.P. 4 X G.M. 4 1
162.19 .001 1.45 91.38 .001 19.72 .001 .93 29.25 .001 1.32 3.88 .05 .018 .012 .03 .008006
2
Th 1 X Th 3 T.P. 1 X T.P. 3 G.M. 1 X G.M. 3 Th 2 X Th 4 T.P. 2 X T.P. 4 G.M. 2 X G.M. 4 T.P. 1 X T.P. 5 T.P. 3 X flTJ
2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
4.67 2.73 2.90 1.51 1.10 10.44 15.39 9.22
Th 1 X Th 2 Th 3 X Th 4 T.P. 1 X T.P. 2 T.P. 3 X T.P. 4 G.M. 1 X G.M. 2 G.M. 3 X G.M. 4
1 1 2 I 3 1
2.77 .02 173.89
Note. Each valuation profile is designated by the speaker type, the subject described, and the context of the valuation. Letters refer to the speaker type (Th = therapist; T.P. = target person; G.M. = group member). Numbers refer to the subject of the valuation and the context (1 = target person in context with relevant other absent from group; 2 = relevant other who is absent from the group; 3 — target person in context with relevant other in group; 4 = relevant other who is present in group; 5 = target person in context which has no relevant other). These profiles are based on a combination of the data of all eight transcripts. *p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
this comparison seemed meaningful. These comparisons were made with chi-square tests of independence or, when required, with Fisher exact tests. As can be seen from Figure 1, the least popular category of value attribution for all speaker types was the neutralization of positive valuation category. When the small expected frequencies in this category required it, they were combined with the negative valuation category, both of which may be referred to as unfavorable valuations. Very occasionally, the valuations in the category of positive valuation needed to be combined with those in the neutralization of negative valuation category, which together may be referred to as favorable valuation categories. The analysis of differences in valuation profiles is best understood in reference to Figure 1 and Table 4. Whereas Figure 1 contains the graphic portrayal of the profiles that was described earlier, Table 4 contains information on the statistical comparison of selected pro-
3
Profile
(If
x1
P
.01 .001 .01
.001 .00056
5.49 .00002
Note. All profiles that are significantly more favorable than their comparison have been underlined. Profiles with no chi-square values were examined using Fisher's exact test. Each valuation profile is designated by speaker type, the subject described, and the context of the valuation. Letters refer to the speaker type (Th = therapist; T.P. = target person; G.M. = group member). Numbers refer to the subject of the valuation and the context (1 = target person in context with relevant other absent from group; 2 = relevant other who is absent from the group; 3 = target person in context with relevant other in group; 4 = relevant other who is present in group; 5 = target person in context which has no relevant other). These profiles are based on a combination of the data of all eight transcripts.
234
LOIS SHAWVER AND JOHN LUBACH
The first set of comparisons (Comparisons 1-12) was made to help discover if the valuation profiles changed as a function of speaker type. Operationally, this involved comparing the therapist's Profile 1 with the group member's Profile 1, and then each of these was compared with the target person's first profile. Similar comparisons were made for Profiles 2, 3, and 4. Figure 1 also shows that Th. 1 differs significantly from T.P. 1 but not from G.M. 1. (Indeed, Th. 1 and G.M. 1 are nearly identical.) The only profiles that do not differ significantly in this vertical comparison are Th. 1 X G.M. 1, Th. 2 x G.M. 2, and Th. 3 X T.P. 3. The second set of comparisons (13-20) was meant to help discover whether any of the three speaker types became either more or less favorable toward either the target person or the relevant other depending on the presence of the relevant other. In the single case of the target person speaker type, it was also asked whether he referred to himself more or less favorably when there was no relevant other involved in the problem under discussion. This is a horizontal comparison of crosshatched profile with cross-hatched profile and black profile with black profile. The group members were significantly more favorable in their descriptions of the relevant other when the relevant other was present in the group than when he was not. (Remember that the relevant other was among the ranks of the group members in the cases in which the relevant other was present.) Although the group members were more favorable toward the relevant other when he was present, they were less favorable of target persons in these contexts. Also, target persons spoke more favorably about themselves when a relevant other was not involved in their problems than they did when a relevant other who was either present or absent was involved. The third set of comparisons (21-26) was meant to assess bias, which was defined as a significant tendency to use the favorable categories more often with the target person (which would be biased in favor of the target person) or more often with the relevant other.
Target persons were biased in favor of themselves regardless of the presence or absence of their relevant other. Therapists did not demonstrate bias. Group members did not demonstrate bias when the relevant other was not present, but they did demonstrate bias when he was present. Group members were biased in favor of the relevant other who was present. Good Groups Versus Bad Groups Several differences appeared to be related to the good/bad dimension: The greatest contrast occurred in the way therapists spoke of target persons in the groups. In bad groups, therapists were almost entirely negative, whereas in good groups a substantial majority of their valuations of target persons were in one of the favorable categories, x 2 (2) = 54.30, p < .001. Group members demonstrated a similar but less pronounced tendency to describe target persons more favorably in good groups, x"(2) = 11.45, p < .01. Target persons, on the other hand, tended to speak less favorably of themselves in good groups, x 2 ( 2 ) = 6.77, p < .05, and to focus more on themselves rather than their relevant others in the good groups, x 2 ( l ) — 15.23, p < .001. Inpatients Versus Outpatients Target persons were more likely to try to elicit value perspectives of their problems from others in inpatient groups than in outpatient groups (Mann-Whitney U = 0, p = .014). And although target persons asked for more opinions in these settings, group members actually gave less opinions in these settings (Mann-Whitney U = 0, p = .014). Target persons in all outpatient settings spoke more favorably of relevant others than did their target person counterparts in the inpatient settings, x 2 (3) = 12.04, p< .01. Conclusion The central purpose of this study was to uncover any patterns in the value attribution of therapists, target persons, and group members as they described both target persons
VALUE ATTRIBUTION
and relevant others. Three valuation patterns have emerged rather distinctly, and there is a hint of a fourth. It is convenient to refer to these patterns as postures or stances. They are idealized abstractions (model valuation profiles) suggested by the data. The actual valuation profiles (cf. Figure 1) reflect data counts and do not conform exactly to the abstracted models —but the fit is remarkably close.
235
This offensive posture was also assumed by group members when group members described the target person in contexts in which the relevant other was present. Because the relevant other was a group member in this context, this finding supports the more general proposition that people in therapy tend to assume an offensive stance toward people with whom they are problematically related. The Critical Posture
The Defensive Posture This stance is illustrated by Valuation Profiles T.P. 1 and T.P. 3 in Figure 1. Target persons assumed a generally defensive posture toward themselves. This means they described themselves primarily in terms meant to neutralize negative perspectives of themselves. They said things about themselves like, "I'm not really inconsiderate, I'm just tired of being the only one to put out an effort. Anyone would be tired of it after all I've gone through." Although such self-descriptions are favorable, in a sense, they are certainly not positive. Such comments usually make use of negative words modified by a negation (e.g., "not inconsiderate"). Although the target person's self-descriptions have been used here to illustrate the defensive posture, this same posture seems to have been adopted by group members when the relevant other was present in the group (cf. Valuation Profile G.M. 4). And this finding tends to validate the generalization that people in therapy generally assume a defensive posture toward their own part in an interpersonal problem. (Note, when a group member talked about a relevant other who was present in the group, he was very often talking about himself.) The Offensive Posture This posture is illustrated by profiles T.P. 2 and T.P. 4. When target persons described other people who were also involved in their problems (i.e., relevant others), they spoke almost exclusively in negative terms. They disparaged and attacked the relevant other, or, in other words, they assumed an offensive posture toward him.
This posture is illustrated by Valuation Profiles Th 1, Th 3, G.M. 1, and G.M. 2. The critical posture is midway between the defensive and offensive postures. It is mostly negative, but it includes a larger proportion of statements neutralizing negative valuations than does the offensive posture. The critical posture seems to be characteristic of people talking about other people's problems when they are not an intimate part of the problems (i.e., not a relevant other). The critical posture was the stance that both therapists and group members assumed when it was clear that they were not involved in the problem under discussion (because the relevant other was not present), and this was true regardless of whether they were talking about the patient (target person) or his relevant other. Therapists also assumed a clearly critical posture toward target persons when another group member was involved in the problem (cf. Th 3); however, the stance that therapists assumed toward the relevant other who was present does not fit as nicely into the critical posture models as do these other profiles. In summary, clear and consistent patterns of value attribution were contained in these group therapy sessions. The different postures described above reflect frequent disagreements and controversy over who should be blamed for their actions. People tended to defend themselves against blame and to attribute blame to others involved in their problems. Group participants who were not personally involved in the problems tended to weigh the evidence in a critical but nonbiased kind of way. Only when the problem being discussed was not an interpersonal one
236
LOIS SHAWVER AND JOHN LUBACH
did the speakers tend to talk in positive terms. In addition, in those sessions in which much therapeutic work was judged to be accomplished, the patients were found to talk more about their own blameworthy role in their problems and they tended to spend less time disparaging their relevant others. Also, patients who did not require hospitalization were more likely to offer their opinions of other people's problems (and were less likely to ask others for opinions) than were the hospitalized patients. Reference Note 1. Shawvcr, L. Valuation analysis manual. Copyright, 1973. (Available from Lois Shawvcr, Psychological Services, California Medical Facility, Vacaville, California 9S688.)
References Allport, G., & Oclbert, H. S. Trait-names: A psycholexical study. Psychological Monographs, 1936, 47 (1, Whole No. 211). Bugenlal, J. F. A method for assessing self- and nonself-altitudes during the therapeutic series. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1952, 16, 435-439. Cohen, J . A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1960, 20. 37-46. Mills, T. Group transformation: An analysis of a
learning group. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1964. Osgood, C. K, Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1957. Peabody, D. Trait inferences: Evaluative and descriptive aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7(4, PI. 2). Raimy, V. Self-reference in counseling interviews. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1948, 12, 153163. Seeman, J. The process of non-directive therapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1949, 13, 1.57168. Shawver, L. The expression of values in group psychotherapy. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, 1973.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 34, 5663B. (University Microfilms No. 74-11, 823) Shawver, L. Research variables in psychology and the logic of their creation. Psychiatry, 1977, 40, 1-16. Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Stock, D. The self-concept and feelings toward others. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1949, 13, 176-180. Sykes, G. M., & Malza, D. Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 664-670. Waxier, N., & Mishlcr, E. Scoring and reliability problems in interaction process analysis: A methodological note. Sociometry, 1966, 29, 28-40.
Received March 8, 1976 •
