Effects of facilitative interpersonal functioning in a conditioning paradigm.

Abstract

Using a fixed-choice procedure 28 subjects were conditioned to emit personal reference statements by two experimenters functioning high on the dimensions of empathy, positive regard, and genuineness and two low-functioning experimenters. Comparison of learning slopes of conditioned subjects with a control group supported the efficacy of the facilitative dimensions for the conditioning paradigm.Research in psychotherapy has underscored the efficacy of therapist empathy, positive regard, and genuineness in determining client outcome (Carkhuff & Berenson, 1967;Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). Although the facilitative dimensions appear as significant variables in traditional psychotherapy, to date their relevance for the conditioning process has not been investigated. Indirect support for their importance is offered by studies of experimenter variables in the verbal conditioning paradigm which have shown such factors as the experimenter's attitude toward the subject (Binder, McConnell, & Sjoholm, 1957;Ferguson & Buss, 1960;Reece & Whitman, 1962; Weiss, Krasner, & Ullman, 1960), his personality characteristics (Lublin, 1965), and his interpersonal compatibility with the subject (Sapolksy, 1960) to effect significantly the subject's response acquisition.The present study investigates what.W the facilitative dimensions influence the .conditioning prnpfiaa. Spfloifip,fl,11y, f.Vift at.iidy explores to what extent the efficacy of systematic conditioning and extinction procedures, analogous to those used in behavior therapies, is dependent upon the Conditioner's interpersonal skills. The yerbal conditioning paradigm was selected .as the simplest example of interpersonal ^conditioning in which the systematic re-1 Requests for reprints should be sent to Raphael

Magnitudes of Experimental Effects in Social Science Research

“…Brady et al state that &dquo;the only known deviation from Vitalo's (1970) study is that the number of subjects was increased from 28 to 32.&dquo;5 A critical difference in the results of the two studies was that Vitalo reported an F of 13.10 (p < .005) for an experimenters x conditions interaction, while Brady et al obtained an F of only 1.54 (n.s.). The problem becomes clear when the SS for error is examined, for it is 2.40 in the first study and 19.88 in the second.…”

“…Since effect sizes are typically of small absolute magnitude, the undesirable feature of accounting for more than 100% variance would not likely be discovered by researchers. Table 1 (taken from Vitalo, 1970) allow comparisons in the one-way ANOVA as well as this two-way case. Here, the proportion of variance accounted for by sources is smaller than proportions in the Byrne and Rhamey study.…”

“…An interesting instance is provided by two experiments (Brady et al, 1976;Vitalo, 1970) involving the same experimental treatment and a generally serious attempt at replication. Brady et al state that &dquo;the only known deviation from Vitalo's (1970) study is that the number of subjects was increased from 28 to 32.&dquo;5 A critical difference in the results of the two studies was that Vitalo reported an F of 13.10 (p < .005) for an experimenters x conditions interaction, while Brady et al obtained an F of only 1.54 (n.s.).…”

Guidelines for the functioning of a helping service

“…To fulfill this responsibility we must live with courage and vigor, extending ourselves across the physical, emotional, and intellectual spheres of living. We must "relate with those qualities that research has defined as critical to effectiveness including the responsive dimensions of empathy, respect, and concreteness and the initiative dimensions of genuineness, confrontation, and immediacy Anderson, Douds, & Carkhuff, 1967;Aspy, 1969;Aspy & Haddock, 1967;Berenson, Mitchell, & Moravic, 1968;Bergin, 1966;Carkhuff, 1969;Carkhuff & Griffin, 1972;Carkhuff, Pierce, & Berenson, 1967;Christensen, 1960;Dickenson & Truax, 1966;Dixon & Morse, 1961;Hefele, 1971;Hountras & Anderson, 1969;Johnson, 1971;Mickelson & Stevic, 1971;Mullen & Abeles, 1971;Piaget, Berenson, & Carkhuff, 1967;Rogers, Gendlin, & Truax, 1967;Shapiro & Voog, 1969;Truax, 1963;Truax & Carkhuff, 1964, 1967Truax, Carkhuff, & Kodman, 1965;Truax & Tatum, 1966;Truax, Wargo, & Wilber, 1966;Van de Veen, 1967;Vitalo, 1970). Further, we must relate with those qualities within the context of our own lives as well as within the context of helping.…”

“…Effective people require systematic programs in order to deliver to those whom they serve (Carkhuff, 1971;Mickelson & Stevic, 1971;Vitalo, 1970). Programs cannot stand alone and effective people cannot make efficient impact through vague and unsystematic means.…”