Coping and Marathon Sensitivity Training

Abstract

Marathon sensitivity training was examined in terms of changes in coping. Ss were 28 college students, and a control activity group was utilized. Pre- and posttest scores were obtained on a Sentence Completion Test. Results indicated a significant increase in coping scores after the marathon experience; no change was observed in control Ss. Sex of Ss was not related to change. An explanation in terms of a tension-increment model of personality is offered. Suggestions for future research are made.

Controlled studies of the outcome of sensitivity training.

“…No change is reported on anomie (Rubin, 1967a, ego strength (Adams, 1970), Bendig's scales of overt and covert hostility (Uhes, 1971), the constructive personality change index (Solomon et al, 1968), the choice dilemma questionnaire of Kogan and Wallach (Poe, 1972), the Eysenck Personality Inventory (Insel & Moos, 1972); Thematic Apperception Test, Machiavellianism, and the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (Kernan, 1964). Pollack and Stanley (1971) predicted increases in ability to confront aggressive or sexual stimuli. They used equivalent forms of a 30-item sentence completion test.…”

Some ethical dilemmas in sensitivity training, encounter groups and related activities

“…Cooper (1975) reviewed the evidence relevant to the question of how psychologically dangerous are T-groups and encounter groups (see also Smith, 1975). Cooper found two studies (Reddy, 1970;Yalom & Leiberman, 1971) which seemed to indicate "psychological disturbance following the group experience", but he found ten studies (Cooper 1 9 7 2~; Cooper, 19726;Cooper, 1974;Lubin & Lubin, 1971; Lubin & Zuckerman, 1967;Lubin & Zuckerman, 1969;Pollack, 1966;Pollack & Stanley, 1971; Posthuma & Posthuma, 1973;Ross, Kligfeld & Whitman, 1971) which indicated "the absence of psychological disturbance following sensitivity training and encounter groups". Cooper concludes: "At the moment, the cries that T-groups and Encounter Groups are psychologically dangerous and in Gottschalk's (1966) opinion 'psychiatrically dangerous to almost half the delegates in a group' has not been proved.…”