Citation
Conceptual systems and self-exploration

Material Information

Title:
Conceptual systems and self-exploration
Creator:
Penry, Irene Frees, 1939-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 57 leaves. : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Correlation coefficients ( jstor )
Friendship ( jstor )
Psychological counseling ( jstor )
Psychometrics ( jstor )
Psychotherapy ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Religion ( jstor )
Spiritual love ( jstor )
Suicide ( jstor )
Systems theory ( jstor )
Concepts ( lcsh )
Counselor Education thesis Ed. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF
Personality ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ed. D.)--University of Florida, 1971.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 51-55.
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
029485402 ( ALEPH )
14373093 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
CONCEPTUAL SYSTEMS AND SELF-EXPLORATION
By
Irene Frees Penry
A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of Education
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1971




ACKNOWLEDGEME NTS
It is with pleasure that the writer wishes to express her sincere thanks and deepest appreciation to her Chairman, Dr. James L. Lister, for his creative teaching of scholarship, and to the members of her supervisory committee, Dr. Harry A. Grater, Jr., and Dr. E. L. Tolbert, for their patience, understanding, friendship and encouragement, extending over many years.
She is grateful to Marilyn Lister for her warm friendship, hospitality and many kindnesses.
She also wishes to thank all those persons who participated in the study as subjects and judges.
Her special thanks go to Dr. Bradley Fisher, for creatively initiating her into the mysteries, joys and delights of writing a dissertation, and to Dr. Alan Martin Dahms, for his sustaining friendship, technical assistance and practical advice throughout the project.
She also wishes to express her appreciation to the women in her life who have loved and inspired her, Dr. Eleanor Camp Criswell, Dr. Mary H. McCaulley, Irene Carneal Penry,
ii




Patricia Penry Dashiell, and Margie Trinko Penry, and to the next generation of women, Mary Irene and Patricia Michele Dashiell.
And finally, she wishes to thank the men in her family, Jack Michael Penry and James Norris Dashiell, for their love and professional encouragement.
iii




TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................. ii
LIST OF TABLES ..................................... vi
ABSTRACT. ...................................... vii
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION ..........................
Conceptu l Systems Theory ......... 3 Self-Exploration Process ........... 9
Statement of Problem and
Hypotheses ....................... 13
II PROCEDURES ........................... 15
Instrumentation and Data Collection .. 15 Subj e ct s............................... 16
Evaluating the Responses ........... 16
"This I Believe" (TIB) Test ........... 18
Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale ..... 25 Analysis of the Data .................. 29
III RESULTS ............................... 31
Conceptual Systems and SelfExploration ...................... 31
Conceptual Systems and Age
of Subjects ....................... 32
Self-Exploration and Age of
Subjects ......................... 33
Conceptual Systems and Sex
of Subjects ..................... 34
Self-Exploration and Sex of
Subjects ..... .................... 35
iv




CHAPTER Page
IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,
IMPLICATIONS ..................... 36
Summary ............................. 36
Conclusions ...... ................... 38
Implications .......................... 41
APPENDICES ......................................... 44
A SUBJECT QUESTIONNAIRE ................ 45
B CARKHUFF SELF-EXPLORATION
SCALE .............................. 48
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................. 51
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................ 56
v




LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
I PEARSON INTERJUDGE RELIABILITY
COEFFICIENTS FOR TWO SETS OF
RATERS ON 10 RELIABILITY
SAMPLES -------------------------------- 17
2 INTERJUDGE PERCENTAGE OF
AGREEMENT FOR TWO SETS OF
RATERS ON 10 RELIABILITY
SAMPLES -------------------------------- 18
3 PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
COMPUTED FOR CONCEPTUAL SYST M ORIENTATION SCORES
ON THE TIB AND SUMMED
CARKHUFF SELF- EXPLORATION
RATINGS -------------------------------- 32
4 PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
COMPUTED FOR AGE OF SUBJECTS
IN RELATION TO CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM ORIENTATION SCORES AND SUMMED LEVEL OF SELFEXPLORATION RATINGS ------------------33
5 POINT-BISERIAL CORRELATION
COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM ORIENTATION
SCORES AND SUMMED SELFEXPLORATION RATINGS WITH
SEX OF SUBJECTS ------------------------34
-vi




Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of Education
CONCEPTUAL SYSTEMS AND SELF-EXPLORATION By
Irene Frees Penry
August, 1971
Chairman: Dr. James L. Lister Major Department: Counselor Education
This study was designed to investigate the relationship between conceptual system orientation as developmental stages in personality development and level of self-exploration process in person-, ality functioning.
A two-part instrument was administered by the researcher to 114 undergraduate college students at Santa Fe Junior College and the University of Florida. Part I, Harvey's "This I Believe" (TIB) Test, was used to measure conceptual system orientation. Part II, the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire, was designed to elicit a written narrative of an intense personal experience relative to one of the topics in Part I (TIB) from which level of self-exploration could be inferred by judges using the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale.
Conceptual systems are based on the theoretical constructs
advanced by Harvey, Hunt and Schroder. Four modal conceptual
vii




systems or "ways of relating to the world" were described, which people consistently demonstrate in most of their interactions with the world and which are somewhat independent of actual situational factors. System I is the most concrete mode of construing and responding to the world; it is characterized by low level of abstraction and a positive orientation toward extrapersonal referents. System II functioning is slightly more abstract than System I and is oriented toward opposing the same extrapersonal referents. System III functioning is more abstract than System II and is oriented toward establishing and maintaining intragroup consensus as a step toward dependence and manipulative control of other people. System IV is the most abstract mode of functioning. It represents a highly differentiated and integrated cognitive structure manifested in multiple alternative ways of relating to the world based on personal standards founded on objective evidence.
The Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale attempts to define concrete
operations by which self-exploration can be inferred. Self-exploration is the process in which the person is actively and spontaneously engaging in an inward probing to newly discovered feelings about himself and his world. He is fully and actively focusing upon himself, searching to discover new feelings concerning himself, even though he may be doing so perhaps fearfully and tentatively. The Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale measures an essential process
viii




in personality change. The scale is scored from low (1) to high (5) levels of self-exploration. Predictable relationships exist between self-exploration and numerous traditional indices of therapeutic change.
Written responses to the TIB and the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire were evaluated independently by trained judges, and examined for: (a) extent of correlation between conceptual system orientation scores and summed level of self-exploration ratings;
(b) correlations between conceptual system orientation scores and summed level of self-exploration ratings with subject age and sex.
The results indicate that conceptual system orientation, as measured by the TIB, is not related to level of self-exploration process, as measured by the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale. The results also indicate that both conceptual system orientation and level of self-exploration process are not systematically related to the age of the subject. These data suggest that conceptual system orientation is unrelated to the sex of the subjects, but that self-exploration and sex of the subjects are significantly related (p <. 001, two-tailed test), with females showing the higher level of self-exploration.
ix




CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
From the beginning of time a principal problem of human existence has been to experience, understand, and make judgments about human experience itself (Fisher, 1968; Harding, 1955, 1965; Scates, 1967). In every epoch of history man has been trying to search out creative ways of coping with the myriad pressing problems of daily living through his ways of relating to the world and to further, wherever possible, the psychic development of his inner experience and personality.
The current thinking of many concerned psychologists and others in the helping professions in our day may be generally summed up: (1) that the psychological advancement of mankind and the progress of civilization can be achieved only by an increase in consciousness (awareness) and in individual responsibility (Branden, 1969; Harding, 1965; McGlashan, 1967; Maslow, 1968a, 1968b; Rogers, 1963); (2) that "we should never forget that the world is made up of individuals, and that the one thing within our reach is our own development: it should not be neglected however much it may cost" (Harding, 1965, p. 217); and also, (3) that the process of growth and the experience itself
I




2
of expanding human awareness and the fulfillment of one's potential is often one of pure joy (Landsman, 1968; Maslow, 1968a, 1968b, 1970; Rogers, 1959, 1961a, 1961b; Rogers & Stevens, 1967; Schutz, 1967, 1971).
As recently as 1963 Carl Rogers stressed the "ocean of
confusion" regarding the state of psychotherapy and the helping relationship as "teaming with life, spawning vital new ideas, approaches, procedures and theories at an incredibly rapid rate" (Rogers, 1963, p. 11). He concluded that the present period is one in which the most diverse methods are used and in which the most divergent explanations are given for a single event--which makes possible and ineevitable the development of a new fact-finding attitude--a more objective appraisal of different types of change in personality and behavior, and a more empirical understanding of the subtle conditions which lead to these changes. As Rogers views the situation, only out of such a fact-finding attitude can a reasonable order emerge in this crucially significant area, and thus bring us to some clarity in our understanding of ways by which constructive personality change may be facilitated (Rogers, 1963).
This study examined two different conceptualizations of positive human functioning which have been proceeding along independent lines of investigation, each supported by extensive research findings over the past several years. They are conceptual systems




3
theory (Harvey, Hunt & Schroder, 1961) and self-exploration process (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). These two conceptualizations have not been reconciled--either conceptually or empirically. In fact, a review of the literature published to date did not disclose any reports of conceptual systems theory and self-exploration process ever having been considered together, thus indicating a need for examining the findings, implications, contributions, correlation and interrelationship of each of these approaches. Research findings also have indicated each approach to be a very promising avenue for further extending our knowledge of constructive personality development.
Conceptual Systems Theory
Conceptual systems theory is based on the theoretical constructs advanced by Harvey, Hunt and Schroder in their book, Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization, in 1961. These researchers have derived a theoretical structure dealing with characteristic ways in which individuals organize, construe, and relate to their world. They have found and described four principal conceptual systems or modal ways of relating which are somewhat independent of actual situational factors and which are consistently demonstrated by peopie in most of their interactions. Development of more abstract conceptual structures follows a given course, and people pass through these systems as developmental stages. Childhood training conditions




4
and developmental histories affect functioning within each system. As a result, the systems vary structurally both in concretenessabstractness (the major underlying dimension) and in the conceptual referents or guidelines around which they are organized.
The four modal conceptual systems can be summarized as
follows (Dahms, 1969; Harvey et al., 1961; Harvey, 1966, 1967):
System I functioning is the most concrete mode of construing and responding to the world. It is characterized by: (1) the low level of abstraction, (2) sensitization to external control, (3) a positive orientation toward extrapersonal referents (such as God and institutional authority), (4) acceptance of externally derived concepts or models riot based on personal experience, (5) high absolutism, (6) closedness of beliefs, (7) high evaluativeness,
(8) things endowed with power (as in magical thought), (9) high identification with social roles and status positions, and (10) high conventionality. System I individuals comfortably relate to authority figures. System I functioning is often illustrated by the phrase, "Tell me what to do. In a new or relatively unstructured situation, the System I person characteristically does not clearly differentiate between his own experience and outside authority and prefers to seek external criteria for evaluating his behavior.
System II functioning is more abstract than in System I. System II persons reject and oppose authority; they do not comfortably relate to authority figures. System II persons are rebels characterized by




5
hostile reactions, negativism, and the emergence of "self will. Persons functioning within this system, as compared with the other three, seem to be anti-authority, guided more by rebellion against social prescriptions and perceived social pressures than by positive adherence to personally derived standards of their own. It is important to note that authority figures, although rejected, are still extremely important and that behavior is almost as concrete and "predictable" as in System I functioning. This conceptual system has often been referred to as "freedom from" authoritarian control as contrasted with positive freedom, independence or "freedom to" (Fromm, 1941) characteristic of System IV. The childhood "terrible two" functioning and the phrases, "Don't tell me what to do" and "I'll do it myself!" are illustrative of System II.
System III is characterized by:(l) evaluations and judgments based largely on social consensus and reference group authority, (2) more autonomous internal standards than System I, (3) more positive ties to the prevailing social norms that System II, (4) obtaining satisfaction from pleasing others, (5) dependence upon external conditions or upon observations of the effects of one's reactions (behavior) on others and
(6) experience and skill in manipulating people through dependency on them. Functioning in System III is primarily oriented toward establishing dependencies on other people. Persons functioning in this system are concerned with establishing and maintaining mutual friendships, relationships, intragroup consensus and manipulative dependency




6
relationships in order to avoid the feelings of helplessness and social isolation that would result from being on their own and having to be responsible for themselves.
System IV is the highest level of conceptual development. System IV functioning is characterized by autonomous internal standards and self-direction, rather than dependence upon outside authorities or peer reference groups. This means that an increased number of ways of looking at the world are available. System IV functioning is logically related to the "freedom to" concept (Fromm, 1941). The System IV person manifests:(1) high perceived selfworth (despite moomentary frustrations), (2) a highly differentiated and integrated cognitive structure, (3) the ability to generate new alternatives operationally, (4) a marked tendency to assimilate diversity, and consequently, (5) to become more flexible, more creative, and more relative in thought and action. In every case his own internal standards control his behavior, in some cases coinciding with social definitions, and in others, not. He holds strong beliefs but tends to be unprejudiced because these beliefs are based on objective evidence. System IV functioning is most likely to exhibit exploratory behavior and to interpret criticism constructively in the sense that it is reality-oriented and selfactualizing (Harvey et al., 1961).
The construct validity of conceptual systems theory has been well established by Harvey and his associates (Harvey, 1966).




7
System IV subjects were found to be the most cognitively complex, using Campbell's (1960) modification of Kelley's Role Repertoire Test, followed in order by Systems III, II, and I. System IV subjects were found to be the most cognitively complex, followed by Systems III, II, and I, in that order. System I subjects scored the highest on Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1960), followed in order by Systems II, III, and IV. Harvey's data also indicate that System I subjects were the most rigid, using the Gough and Sanford (1952) Rigidity Scale, followed by Systems II, III, and IV. System IV subjects were highest in self-causality, as measured by the Srole Scale of Anomie, followed by Systems III, I, and II re spe ctively.
On five subscales of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Harvey reports (1966) the following results. On Deference, System I subjects scored significantly higher than Systems II and IV. On Autonomy, System II and IV subjects had almost identical scores and scored higher than both Systems I and III; System II significantly higher than System I. On Affiliation, System II subjects scored significantly lower than any system. On Change, significant differences were found between Systems I and IV; Systems II and IV scored higher (with highly similar scores) than Systems I and III (also highly similar). On Aggressiveness, System II subjects scored the highest. These results strongly indicate a developmental trend.




8
The study of influencibility data (Harvey, 1964) shows that System IV subjects do not relate to authority, as expected; Systems I, II, and III do relate to authority, as expected.
Other findings also tend to confirm the developmental trend
of conceptual systems theory. Harvey, White, Prather, Alter and Hoffmeister (1966) studied the effects of preschool teachers' belief systems upon the classroom atmospheres they created for their Head Start students. System III and IV teachers (more abstract) differed from System I teachers (concrete) in a more educationally favorable direction on 26 dimensions. Effective college teachers have also been reported (Hanke, Houston & Usher, 1971) to be abstract-oriented, more open to change, and to have positive self-concepts.
In summary, development of conceptual structures follows a given course, moving from concreteness to abstractness and from other-direction to self-direction as the locus of final authority for evaluating perceptions, beliefs, and actions.
System I is the most concrete mode of construing the world
and is characterized by the lowest level of abstraction and a positive orientation toward extrapersonal referents. System II is slightly more abstract and typically opposed to the same extrapersonal referents. System III functioning is still more abstract, and primarily oriented toward establishing and maintaining intragroup




9
consensus as a step toward dependence and manipulative control of others. System IV is the highest level of conceptual development and represents a highly differentiated and integrated cognitive structure manifested in multiple alternative ways of relating to the world based on personal standards founded on objective evidence.
The progression is from other-direction based on outside
authority (System I) through resistance and opposition to outside authority (System II) to movement away from authority and toward other-direction based on peer reference groups (System III) to self-direction based on reality-oriented self-chosen values (System IV).
Self-ESpl oration Process
Self-exploration is the process in which the person is actively
and spontaneously engaging in an inward probing to newly discovered feelings about himself and his world. He is fully and actively focusing upon himself, searching to discover new feelings concerning himself, even though he may be doing so perhaps fearfully and tentatively (Carkhuff, 1969b; Rogers, 1959). Fisher (1968) defines selfexploration in terms of the person's openness to his experience with self, and to all his immediate relationships, stressing that it is in relation to other persons and the external world that the person undergoes this process. If the person is closed to his experience with self, he becomes rigid and inflexible and this prevents selfexploration. In successful psychotherapy, the client spends much




10
of his time exploring himself. And Truax and Carkhuff (1967) emphasize that this central role of the client's self-exploration is seen in virtually all forms of psychotherapy, including behavior therapy.
Research evidence converges (Carkhuff, 1969a; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967) in support of the hypothesis that high levels of self-exploration facilitate constructive personality change. Taking the frequency of self-reference as an indication of self-exploration, we can interpret Braaton's (1958) findings as part of this evidence. Braaton studied the amount of change in self-reference for successful and unsuccessful cases in client-centered psychotherapy. Ile found a greater increase in the amounL of self-:references in therapy for the more successful cases of the emotionally disturbed part of his sample, than for the unsuccessful cases. Rogers, Walker and Rablen (1960) developed a Process Scale for rating process changes in personality of clients during successful psychotherapy. This scale, which essentially measures the degree of self-exploration, the rigidity of concepts, and the degree of immediate experiencing, was used by Tomlinson and Hart (1962) for comparing successful and unsuccessful counseling cases. Successful cases were found
(1) to be rated higher on the Process Scale, (2) to evidence more movement (client process change) during the period of therapy, and
(3) to begin, as well as end, therapy at a significantly higher level of client process, than unsuccessful cases.




In their research on individual psychotherapy with schizophrenics, Truax & Carkhuff (1964, 1967) used the Depth of Intrapersonal Exploration Scale for rating tape-recorded interviews. This scale, as adapted by Carkhuff (1969a), is the self-exploration scale used in this study. They found that patients who were high self-explorers showed significantly greater personality change with the final outcome criterion which was based on a number of psychological tests including a blind analysis of the Rorschach. Truax and Carkhuff emphasize in their interpretation of this data that patients who were high self-explorers showed an average improvement one standard deviation beyond that of patients who were low self-explorers.
It has also been reported (Rogers & Truax, 196Z; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967) that successful psychotherapy cases, as a group, were found to show significantly more self-exploration as early as the second interview. In addition, when comparisons were made using a control group, patients who explored themselves at high levels were reported as showing improvement significantly greater than the control patients. But patients exploring themselves at low levels showed less improvement, or even deterioration than their controls.
The degree to which the person can explore himself within the helping process, and the degree to which the person focuses upon his immediate experiences have been directly related to the degree he changes constructively (Berenson & Mitchell, 1968; Carkhuff &




Berenson, 1967; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). Moreover, while the therapist may facilitate and influence the patient's self-exploration by offering certain levels of therapeutic conditions, it is the patient himself who primarily controls his own level of self-exploration (Rogers et al., 1967; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). One can infer that clients functioning at high levels of self-exploration continue to function independently of the levels of conditions offered by the counselor (Holder, Carkhuff & Berenson, 1967). There is also some evidence that high self-explorers are more often females of age 21 or over (Fisher, 1968).
To summarize, in self-exploration, the person is open to his experience with self and is attempting to define his own beliefs, values, motives and actions in terms of his here-and-now experiences. The high self-explorer characteristically utilizes opportunities to reorganize and reassess previously distorted perceptions of himself, other persons and his external world. The research cited above has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that high level self-exploration process is related to positive therapeutic outcome in psychotherapy and correlates highly with diverse indices of constructive personality change. The importance of this kind of self-exploration experience as fundamental to the process of personality growth and development is continually stressed by Rogers (1961a, 1961b, 1967, 1970).




13
Statement of Problem and Hvotheses
Both the self-exploration process and conceptual systems theory approaches examined in this study were purported to measure constructive personality development. Thus the ground was laid for comparing the developmental validity of conceptual systems theory by relating conceptual system and level of selfexploration process. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the relationship between conceptual systems theory and self-exploration process, primarily to test the developmental validity of conceptual systems theory in terms of constructive personality change. More specifically, the purpose of this study was to support or disprove the hypothesis thaL there is a significant Pearson product-moment correlation between conceptual system orientation of subjects (classified using the "This I Believe" test) and level of self-exploration process (using the Carkhuff SelfExploration Scale).
The following null hypotheses were tested:
I. There will be no significant relationship between
conceptual system orientation as measured by the
"This I Believe" (TIB) test and level of self-exploration
process as measured by the Carkhuff Self-Exploration
Scale.
2. There will be no significant relationship between conceptual
system orientation and chronological age.




14
3. There will be no significant relationship between
level of self-exploration process and chronological
age.
4. Subject sex will not be significantly related to
conceptual system orientation.
5. Subject sex will not be significantly related to level
of self-exploration process.




CHAPTER II
PROCEDURES
This study was designed to investigate the relationship between subjects' conceptual system orientation and level of self-exploration process. The procedure followed in this study was to administer a two-party instrument, the "This I Believe" (TIB) Test and the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire, to the subjects. These written responses were then evaluated by trained judges and classified by conceitual systenn and level of self-exploration. The relationship between conceptual system orientation and self-exploration process was examined. Both variables were also examined independently in relation to the subjects' age and sex.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
A two-part instrument was used in this study (Appendix A). Part I, the "This I Believe" (TIB) test (Harvey, 1966, 1967; White & Harvey, 1965), was used to measure conceptual system orientation. Part II, the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire, was used to obtain responses for rating level of self-exploration process with the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale (Appendix B).
15




16
The Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire was designed to elicit a written narrative of an intense personal experience relative to one of the topics in Part I (TIB) from which level of self-exploration could be inferred. Such written questionnaires have proved successful in studies of this nature (Fisher, 1968; Lynch, 1968; Merrill, 1968). The researcher administered the instrument during a regularly scheduled class period. Part i was administered first followed immediately by Part II. In order to encourage maximum freedom of response, subjects were not identified by name or student number.
Subjects
Subjects for this study were 114 undergraduate students enrolled at Santa Fe Junior College and the University of Florida. The sample included 53 males and 61 females. Ages of the subjects ranged from 16 to 58 years, with a mean age of 21. 07 years, a mode of 19 years, and a median age of 20. 5 years. Ninety-three percent of the subjects were between the ages of 18 and 25 years.
Evaluating the Responses
Written responses to the TIB and the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire were rated independently by two teams of trained judges whose interjudge reliability was established prior to the rating of the responses used in this study.




17
The TIB responses were scored by a. team of two judges who
had had sufficient training to achieve a 90 percent interjudge agreement in classifying responses into conceptual system I, II, III, or IV (See Table 1). The TIB judges were trained by, one of the Harvey research associates who was experienced in the use of the TIB.
TABLE 1
PEARSON INTERJUDGE RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR TWO SETS OF RATERS ON
10 RELIABILITY SAMPLES
Judges Judges Judges Scale 12 13 23 Self- exploration
Scale 783- 896 6 .8944*
*p<. 01, two-tailed
**p< o001, two-tailed
Subject responses to the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire were rated by a team of three judges for level of self-exploration, using the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale. Training in the use of the Carkhuff scale was conducted by the researcher. Interjudge reliability coefficients ranged from .783 to 896 with an average interjudge reliability coefficient (Pearson r with Fisher's Z Conversion) of 86. (See Table 2).




18
TABLE 2
INTERJUDGE PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENT
FOR TWO SETS OF RATERS ON
10 RELIABILITY SAMPLES*
Category judged Judges 12
TIB (Conceptual system) 90
* Satisfactory reliability set at 66 2/3 percent agreement
"This I Believe" (TIB) Test
The "This I Believe" (TIB) Test was developed by Harvey and his associates to measure conceptual system orientation of subjects (classify subjects by conceptual system). The test is a relatively short sentence completion test which is easy to administer. It has been used extensively in a variety of studies, reviewed by Harvey (1966), and has demonstrated high predictive and constructive validity.
The TIB requires the subject to indicate his beliefs in writing
about a number of socially and personally relevant concept referents to be chosen by the researcher. The subject completes in two or three sentences the phrase: "This I believe about..., the blank, for this study, being replaced successively by one of the following referents:




19
drugs
love
religion
birth control
friendship
sex
student dissent
education
suicide
cheating
Responses to all the TIB referents are considered in totality, and one overall score is assigned, classifying an individual according to unpublished scoring criteria made available by 0. J. Harvey through one of his research associates, defining the characterizations of the different systems. Harvey (1966) reports interjudge reliability in classifying subjects into one of the main systems has been 90 percent for 12 different samples. Mixtures of in-between systems have constituted a problem. In his 1966 review Harvey states that of more than 1400 individuals whose TIB completions had been scored, about a third were eliminated as admixtures of two or more systems. In most of their studies Harvey and his associates report using only those subjects who were unanimously classified into one of the four principal systems. This study forced each subject into a single system. No admixtures were used and no subjects were eliminated.
The following are TIB completions (verbatim) from this study, classified by system:




20
System I (female, age 20).
This I believe about usingdrugs:
I will never personally use drugs. I feel that people using them are accepting a poor substitute for trying
to find meaning to their life. I would never favor legal
drugs.
This I believe about love:
Love is the whole basis for my being. Jesus first
loved me & now I must love others. Love is a
genuine concern. I can love someone but not necessarily
like them.
This I believe about religion:
I could write a book. I believe the Bible to be the
inspired word of God. Only thru a personal relationship to Jesus Christ, & a dependence upon his Holy
Spirit, have I found life. There is only one true
religion- -that is accepting Christ as your personal
savior.
This I believe about birth control:
I am not concerned about over population. I think
b. c. should be to protect unborn children from would be abusive parents. I personally do not use b. c. but
do think some should.
This I believe about friendship:
Friendship is loving & caring for someone as you
do for yourself. To accept them for what they are.
This I believe about sex:
Sex was God's gift to man to use for his pleasure &
to produce offspring within the bonds of marriage.
Any other way it is wrong! Sex is only beautiful when we enjoy it the way God ordained it. Sex is
sacred.
This I believe about student dissent:
If the protestors would put as much energy into
worthwhile projects, something might get done. To me, they're just a bunch of immature kids who have
gotten what they wanted just by pitching a little tantrum.
They feel infringed upon? They're infringing on our
rights by protesting.




21
This I believe about education:
It is not necessary for one to have a book learned
education. I feel there is too much emphasis on
getting a degree. I doubt we'll ever find a computer
or whiz kid who can build a house or fix a toilet.
This I believe about suicide:
I don't know. People know where they can get help.
Seems to be the cowards way out.
This I believe about cheating:
It's wrong in any way, shape or form!
System II (male, age 26).
This I believe about using drugs:
I think grass is all right. If the person wants to
turn on let him. Grass is better than rotten your
guts out with booz.
This I believe about love:
I am not married so I gess I don't know about love.
I like to make love to women and it doesn't matter you who they are or what they are as long as I can
get turned on.
This I believe about religion:
I don't believe in God. The churches do have a good
racket going and I wish I had my hand in the till.
This I believe about birth control:
I do believe in birth control. There are too many people on this earth now so we should stop having children now. You can't make any money out of a
screaming kid.
This I believe about friendship:
I will be friends with about anyone or try to help a person out. If he doesn't appreciate it or screws
me up, I will do anything or pay money to screw his
mind up to get back at him.
This I believe about sex:
I believe for a person to get all the sex he can. I don't care if the girl is married or what she does.
I think they should legalize prostitution.




22
This I believe about student dissent:
I don't have anything to say. I don't know what is
going on myself.
This I believe about education:
I think a person should get all the education he
can get. If you doesn't have much education life
isn't very easy or sweet. Money is where it is
at and more education means more money.
This I believe about suicide:
I would like to try suicide to see where it is at.
Maybe I will someday when I am down and out.
This I believe about cheating:
When you cheat you only hurt yourself as that is what they say. But if it means more power and
better grade and grades mean more money than why
not.
System III (female, age 22).
This I believe about using drugs:
That if a person wants to use drugs which are medically approved he should be allowed to or
have the right to do so-like marij: it should be
legalized-
This I believe about love:
Love is the thing which gives man's life meaning.
I feel it is the strongest force in life to be loved-and without love man dies. What purpose is there
without love?
This I believe about religion:
I feel that religion is a very personal thing--anyone
should have his own belief. Personally I do not-cannot accept Christianity or any organized religion-my religion is faith in mankind-This I believe about birth control:
Birth control should be available to every one. Sex
education should emphasize family planning and
everyone should use contraceptives & only people who
want to have children--will-- If everyone used birth control there wouldn't be a need for most abortions.




23
This I believe about friendship:
Love & friendship are the same--Friendship is loving another person or people--Friendship is
sharing--Man needs friends-This I believe about sex:
(Sexual intercourse)
Sex when you love someone is sharing one of the
most beautiful things in life--When you love someone
sex is natural. Sex is healthy.
This I believe about student dissent:
Students are getting involved about issues which
are relevant. They stand up for their beliefs which
is honorable--But I'm for Peaceful dissent--No
violence! Love-This I believe about education:
Education should be geared to help the student know himself. Education should be relevant to the society we live in--more emphasis should
be on learning which stimulates thinking instead
of fact memorized.
This I believe about suicide:
If a person is happy he loves life--People who commit suicide are sick &need help. It's sad
and society's fault for making people so frustrated
and sick-This I believe about cheating:
Why cheat? School shouldn't pressure students to think he needs to cheat. There is always a second
chance at S. F. & no one needs to cheat.
System IV (female, age 21).
This I1 believe about using drugs:
It is basically a form of diversion and experimentation I get more pressure from alcohol and find that the risks are less. However, like anything
forbidden, it must be tried just to satisfy curiosity.




24
This I believe about love: It is a warm, sharing and intimate bond with anyone you have chosen to be the object of your affection. It exists in many forms from sisterly, parental and marital. It is a necessity to basic human security.
This I believe about religion: I have no need to believe in a God. However, I do not deny that others might find a meaningful relation with religion. I believe in the strength and abilities of the individual. I believe in the honest life and feel a person can be an asset to mankind without having a God.
This I believe about birth control: It's the best thing to happen in this century. It has the potential to solve the overpopulation problem, social problems as well as the psychological problem of the unwed mother. Viva la pill!
This I believe about friendship: The necessary others in our lives provide us with the comfort, reassurance and happiness that makes life so valuable. No man is an island. People need other people to trust, love and believe in.
This I believe about sex:
It is a biological necessity to reproduce the species. It has the potential of binding two people together in a union for life. It relaxes, relieves tensions and satisfies the needs of the human being. Sex is a wonderful thing.
This I believe about student dissent: It's healthy to question and ask why. Also, it's very normal for the adolescent. Through education you learn to think for yourself. By so doing it is sometimes necessary to deviate from popular opinion.
This I believe about education: I would like to drown myself in the humanities. I would love to go to school forever, not learning any particular vocation, but absorbing a taste of every aspect that interests me. I would like to see education advance to a non-graded stage where students attended college strictly from inner motivation.




25
This I believe about suicide:
It is a drastic measure but certainly not unthinkable.
At times death seems to be the only way out. However,
if you have friends who love you a step this drastic
would be selfish and tragic- -suicide is for those who
absolutely have nothing else.
This I believe about cheating:
It is a way some people choose to get through life.
It is not very courageous and in my thinking very low.
Only an extremely desperate person would cheat. I question the morals of the cheater and wonder what
basic training he lacks.
Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale
Carkhuff derived his Self-Exploration Scale from an earlier scale designed by Truax (1963) to measure depth of intrapersonal exploration. Research studies on these scales, validated in extensive process and outcome research on counseling and psychotherapy reviewed by Truax and Carkhuff, (1967) show that the SelfExploration Scale measures an essential process in personality change in a consistent, reliable manner whether used by naive or experienced judges. They report (Truax and Carkhuff, 1967, p. 195) Pearson interjudge correlations ranging from 68 to 88, for a group of 12 studies. They indicate also that predictable relationships exist between self-exploration level and numerous traditional indices of therapeutic personality change. More recently, Fisher (1968) has successfully demonstrated that the scale can be used to rate written responses to questionnaires such a. the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire used in




26
this study (See Appendix B). The scale is scored from low (1) to high (5) levels of self-exploration process.
A :rating of level 1 on the Self-Exploration Scale means that the subject does not discuss personally relevant material in his response to the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire and that he avoids any self-descriptions or direct expression of feelings. He does not give any evidence of self-exploration. A rating of level 2 means the subject discloses personally relevant material but does so only in a mechanical manner. He simply discusses the mal:eri al without exploring its significance or meaning or attempting to uncover related feelings or material. A rating of leve.L 3 means thaL tilere is sLill eniotional renoteness and a mechanical manner which gives the response the quality of being rehearsed. The subject discusses personally relevant material without spontaneity or emotional proximity or an inward probing to the newly discovered feelings and experiences. At level 4 the subject discloses personally relevant material with both spontaneity and emotional proximity but without a distinct tendency toward inward probing to newly discovered feelings and experiences. Level 5 is distinguished by an active inward probing to newly discovered feelings or experiences about one's self and his world disclosed in the response. The subject is fully active and actively exploring himself and his world even




27
though he may be doing so perhaps fearfully and tentatively. No
subjects in this study were rated level 1 or level 5 by all three
judges.
The following are verbatim responses to the Self-Exploration
Stimulus Questionnaire (Appendix A) rated for level of selfexploration. The first paragraph was in response to question 1:
Listed below are the topics about which you indicated
your beliefs: using drugs, love, religion, birth control,
friendship, sex, student dissent, education, suicide, cheating. Select one of the topic areas for which you can describe an intense persona] experience. Briefly
describe the experience.
The second paragraph was in response to question 2:
-low do you feel about this experience now? Describe
your feelings as completely as you can. You may
include any details.
Level I (male, age 19, rated 1. 66).
Friendship.
Friendship I try to make friends with everyone that U can so that in case I ever need anything or anyone
U can at least turn to a friend for advice. Made
friends with a girl in Georgia & plan to follow up-U feel friendship is a quality of the existence of
mankind and everyone should experience it sometime
in their lifetime.
Level Z (male, age 20, rated 2. 0).
Cheating.
Ihave had to cheat on exams in some courses in
my stint with University College. It was a harried
experience and I hope not to have to do so again.
I feel the same way now as I did then. There are
times when a student is driven to cheat. He has
to maintain a certain grade point average and to do




28
so, if ill prepared, he must rely on cheating.
As stated in the other reply, there is too much emphasis ongrades in the school & colleges of
today and not enough on just plain simple learning
the material presented.
Level 3 (female, age 20, rated 3. 0).
Suicide.
My feelings about suicide hit close to home--a close very dear friend of mine killed himself.
Experiencing suicide, although it was not
involving me affected me because I feel I could
have done something to prevent it. Gary was addicted to heroin and I knew it yet I failed to
bust him, simply because he was a good friend
and the law does funny things to people in this
condition.
I had talked with him several hours. He seemed despondent yet at the end of our conversation he said he was happy. Six hours passed and he was dead. I felt sick inside and only wish that I could have helped him before he was too far gone. Not a day goes by that one of my thoughts isn't about
Gary.
Level 4 (female, age 21, rated 4. 0).
Suicide.
When I was younger & stupider I decided the problem
that I was having to face was too big for me to face.
I decided suicide was the only way out. This act was
very stupid I know, but from it I learned alot about
not only myself but a few people around me.
Now I see how silly and immature I was then. I sort
of regret it in a way but if I lived thru it again I would probably do the same thing. It caused me to face facts
and know that I'll always have problems to face and
you have to solve them not run from them. I also
realize now everyone has problems some are big some
are small but until they're solved all are big. I also
found you need more than parents who baby you and friends who overlook your faults instead of bringing
them out into the open, telling you.




29
I now have a 2 year old daughter that is simply
beautiful that once seemed like the worst problem
any one could ever have. Now I wouldn't trade her
for the world.
Level 5 (female, age 18, rated 4. 66).
Friendship.
The experience is friendship. I used to be friends with a girl about 7 years ago. She was my closest friend before she moved. We wrote at first, then we kind of drifted about. After about 5 years my
high school teams played hers in football. I went to
it, called her and I saw our friendship was still there.
This past summer we went traveling & learned a great
deal about each other. We are very open and honest.
We trust each other to the fullest and have learned a
lot about people because of our friendship.
I feel things inside that give me a beautiful and warm
feeling. It's such a good feeling to know someone really loves me and takes me for what I really am.
Anad I like the feeling of knowing that I am open-nindcd and can dig what other people do and are without doing it myself. I am glad I got in touch with this friend, I
learned so much from it to see how we both had changed
how we both lived, but deep down there was still the same friendship and still the hidden voice that meant
we both still cared about our friendship.
Analysis of the Data
Written responses to the TIB and the Self-Exploration Stimulus
Questionnaire were evaluated independently by trained judges. After
judging was completed, there were two scores for each subject in
the study: a conceptual system classification and a level of selfexploration rating.
The following procedures were used to investigate the five
research hypotheses in this study:




30
Hypothesis I involved a relationship between conceptual system orientation and level of self-exploration process and was tested by a Pearson Product-Moment Correlation.
Hypothesis II explored the extent to which conceptual system orientation is significantly related to age and was tested by the use of a Pearson Product-Moment Correlation.
Hypothesis III sought to determine the relationship of level of self-exploration process to chronological age and was tested by a Pearson Product-Moment Correlation.
Hypothesis IV investigated the relationship between conceptual system orientation and sex. Of the 114 subjects, 46 percent were males and 59 percent were females. A point-biserial correlation coefficient was computed for testing this hypothesis.
Hypothesis V involved the relationship between level of selfexploration process and sex and was tested by a point-biserial correlation.
All tests of significance were two-tailed and involved the 05 level of significance.




CHAPTER III
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between conceptual system orientation of subjects as developmental stages in personality development measured by the "This I Believe" (TIB) test, and level of self-exploration process in personality functioning measured by the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale. Judges categorized written responses of 114 undergraduate college students to the "This I Believe" (TIE) itest and the SelfExploration Stimulus Questionnaire, as previously described in Chapter II. The findings of the study are reported in this chapter.
Conceptual Systems and Self-Exploration
The first hypothesis was designed to test whether there might be a significant relationship between judges' ratings on the TIB and Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire. Table 3 shows the results of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient computed for conceptual system scores on the TIB and summed level of self-exploration scores on the Carkhuff Self-Exploration
31




32
Scale. The correlation coefficient was .009, and the null hypothesis was retained. Conceptual system orientation and level of self-exploration were not-found to be significantly related.
TABLE 3
PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENT COMPUTED FOR CONCEPTUAL
SYSTEM ORIENTATION SCORES ON THE TIB AND SUMMED CARKHUFF SELF-EXPLORATION RATINGS
r
Variables N = 114
Conceptual system orientation/ .009
Self- exploration level
Conceptual Systems and Age of Subjects
The second hypothesis investigated whether there might be a significant relationship between conceptual system orientation and chronological age of the subjects. This null hypothesis was retained, as shown by the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of -. 047 reported in Table 4. No differences could be detected between conceptual system orientation and age of the subjects. However, while the age range for the sample was from 16 years to 58 years, 86 percent of the subjects were between the ages of 18 years and 22 years old, thereby representing a narrow range of variability in age; 93 percent of the subjects were in the age range




33
of 18 years to 25 years old. The mean for the total group was 21. 07 years, the median age was 20. 5 years, and the modal age was 19 years old.
TABLE 4
PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION
COEFFICIENTS COMPUTED FOR AGE OF SUBJECTS
IN RELATION TO CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM
ORIENTATION SCORES AND SUMMED
LEVEL OF SELF-EXPLORATION RATINGS
Age
N= 114
Conceptual system -. 047 Self- exploration -. 018
Self-Exploration and Age of Subjects
The possibility of a significant relationship between level of
self-exploration process and chronological age of subjects was also investigated. As reportedin Table 4, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient computed for summed level of self-exploration ratings and subject age was -. 018. The null hypothesis was retained, and it would therefore have to be stated that subject age is not significantly related to judge's ratings of level of self-exploration process using the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale. Again, it must be noted that most of the students in the sample comprising the present study were concentrated in the age range of 18 years to 25 years.




34
Conceptual Systems and Sex of Subjects
The judged responses to the TIB were correlated with the sex of the subject to test for a possible relationship between conceptual system orientation and subject sex. Of the 114 subjects, 46 percent were male and 54 percent female. A pointbiserial correlation coefficient was computed for conceptual system orientation scores and subject sex. This value, shown in Table 5, was 14, and the null hypothesis was retained. There was no difference in subjects' conceptual system classification by sex. Sex does not seem to affect one's conceptual system orientation.
TABLE 5
POINT- BISERIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM SCORES
AND SUMMED SELF-EXPLORATION
RATINGS WITH SEX OF SUBJECTS
Variables Lpb N = 114
Conceptual systems/sex .14 Self-exploration/sex 32*
* p<. 001, two-tailed




35
Self-Exploration and Sex of Subjects
This hypothesis examined the relationship between judges' ratings of level of self-exploration process and the sex of the subjects. As noted above, of the 114 subjects, 46 percent were male and 54 percent were female. A point biserial correlation coefficient of 32 was computed for summed level of self-exploration process ratings and subject sex (See Table 5). The null hypothesis was therefore rejected at the 001 level. This suggests that subjects' level of self-exploration differs systematically by sex, with females exhibiting the higher level of self-exploration. The mean of the summed self-exploration scores for females was 8. 95, with a standard deviaLion of 1. 79. The nean for the males was 7. 86, with a standard deviation of 1. 37.
In summary, the results indicate that conceptual system
orientation as measured by the TIB is not related to level of selfexploration process, as measured by the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale. The results also indicate that both conceptual system orientation and level of self-exploration process are not systematically related to the age of the subject. These data suggest that conceptual system orientation is unrelated to the sex of the subjects, but that self-exploration and sex of the subjects are significantly related (p<. 001, two-tailed test), with females showing the higher level of self-exploration.




CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS Summary
This study was designed to investigate the relationship
between conceptual systems orientation as developmental stages in personality development and level of self-exploration process in personality functioning.
A two-part instrument was administered by the researcher to 114 undergraduate college students a' Santa Fe Junior College and the University of Florida. Part I, the "This I Believe" (TIB) test (Harvey, 1966), was used to measure conceptual system orientation. Part II, the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire, was designed to elicit a written narrative of an intense personal experience relative to one of the topics in Part I (TIB) from which level of self-exploration could be inferred by judges using the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale.
Conceptual systems are based on the theoretical constructs advance.d by Harvey, Hunt and Schroder (1961). Four modal conceptual systems or ways of relating to the world were described which people consistently demonstrate in most of their interactions and which are somewhat independent of actual situational factors.
36




37
System I is the most concrete mode of construing and responding to the world; it is characterized by low level of abstraction and a positive orientation toward extrapersonal referents. System II functioning is slightly more abstract than System I and is oriented toward opposing the same extrapersonal referents. System III functioning is more abstract than System II and is oriented toward establishing and maintaining intragroup consensus as a step toward dependence and manipulative control of other people. System IV is the most abstract mode of functioning. It represents a highly differentiated and integrated cognitive structure manifested in multiple alternative ways of relating to the world based on personal standards founded on objective evidence.
The Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale attempts to define concrete
operations by which self-exploration can be inferred (Carkhuff, 1969a, 1969b; Carkhuff & Berenson, 1967; Fisher, 1968; Rogers, 1959; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). Self-exploration is the process in which the person is actively and spontaneously engaging in an inward probing to newly discovered feelings about himself and his world. He is fully and actively focusing upon himself, searching to discover new feelings concerning himself, even though he may be doing so perhaps feaifully and tentatively. The Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale measures an essential process in personality change. The scale is scored from low (1) to high (5) levels of self-exploration.




38
Predictable relationships exist between self-exploration and numerous traditional indices of therapeutic change (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967).
Written responses to the TIB and the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire were evaluated independently by trained judges, and examined for: (a) extent of correlation between conceptual system orientation and summed level of self-exploration ratings; (b) correlations between conceptual system orientation and summed level of self-exploration ratings with subject age and sex.
The results indicate that conceptual system orientation, as
measured by the TIB, is not related to level of self-exploration process, as measured by the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale. The results also indicate that both conceptual system orientation and level of selfexploration process are riot systematically related to the age of the subjects. These data suggest that conceptual system orientation is unrelated to the sex of the subjects, but that self-exploration and sex of the subjects are significantly related (p 001, two-tailed test), with females showing the higher level of self-exploration.
Conclusions
On the basis of these findings, and within the assumptions
and limitations stated, the following conclusions appear warranted:
First, once can conclude that conceptual systems theory and self-exploration process are functionally unrelated. This means that conceptual system functioning cannot be inferred from level




39
of self-exploration process; and that leve] of self-exploration process cannot be inferred from the stage of one's conceptual develcpment and functioning. These are two separate and chance-related theoretical approaches.
Second, this study assumes that self-exploration is fundamental to constructive personality change. Self-exploration theory is emerging out of clinical research and practice in psychotherapy and the resulting constructive personality growth and change. Conceptual systems, on the other hand, were theoretically formulated. And while subsequent research findings in a number of areas have tended to confirm most of Harvey et al. 's (1961) characterizations, the systems themselves are still, in this writer's judgment, more theoretically than empirically derived. Since self-exploration has been repeatedly shown to be empirically related to constructive personality change, there is now less reason to conclude that conceptual systems theory is related to constructive personality development and therapeutic change except by chance.
Third, one can conclude that stages of conceptual advancement are probably not correlated with the process of Rogerian (Rogers, 1959) self-actualization.
Fourth, one can conclude that conceptual openness is probably not related to levels of self-exploration. As a consequence, it cannot be assumed that having achieved the highest level of




40
conceptual development (System IV) means that one is also in the process of constructively developing himself and his personality through self-exploration. A person functioning at the most abstract stage conceptually does not necessarily use his highly differentiated and integrated cognitive structure most effectively; that is, to explore himself. He can explore the world without exploring himself and thus fail to maximize his own personality growth and development.
Fifth, assuming that self-exploration skills are voluntarily acquired (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967) and that conceptual development involves increasing adaptability to change, one can logically conclude that no matter what conceptual system a person is functioning in, he can probably benefit from high level selfexploration. A System I person might be just as capable of high level self-exploration as a System IV person. Constructive personality development is significantly influenced by one's decision as to which level of self-exploration he chooses. The results of this study show that a System IV person is just as likely to decide to explore himself at a low level as a System I person is likely to decide to explore himself at a high level.
Sixth, the finding that self-exploration is positively related to sex replicates data in a study on self-exploration and deathencounter by Fisher (1968). While self-exploration in this study




41
is being measured in the context of a belief-encounter situation rather than in the context of death-encounter, as in the case of Fisher's study, there is now more reason to conclude that high self-explorers in this culture are more likely to be women.
Seventh, the assumption made in this study that conceptual systems and self-exploration process are two different methods for inferring personality development has been confirmed by the results.
Eighth, self-exploration can be reliably inferred using written responses to questionnaires in a belief-encounter situation as well as in a death-encounter situation (Fisher, 1968).
Implications
Some of the implications suggested by the results of this study are as follows:
First, since it was concluded that conceptual systems theory
and self-exploration process are not directly related in a functional way, there remains the possibility that they could be indirectly related. A functional preference typology, such as the MyersBriggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1962, 1970), could be used as an intermediary way of relating the conceptual systems and selfexploration. Conceptual systems may be related more to a typology of functional differences than to developmental process.




42
Second, the literature in counseling and therapy would suggest
that the System I person would be the poorer candidate for counseling and therapy. This may perhaps be so, but apparently not in terms of his capacity for self-exploration. A System I person who chooses to explore himself at a low level might be a poor candidate for therapy. But a System I person who chooses to explore himself at a high level might be an excellent candidate for counseling or therapy.
Third, one could hypothesize for future research that the
probability of conceptual advancement (moving from one system to another) will be greater for those individuals who explore themselves at high levels than for those who are low self-explorers.
Fourth, women in this culture may be better candidates for counseling, or may not need it. Women clients are more likely to decide to explore themselves at high levels than men are. Women may also be good counselors and candidates for counselor education programs on the same grounds.
Fifth, it was concluded that the TIB and the self-exploration scale are two discrete methods for inferring personality development and functioning. One can interpret this discreteness to mean that the TIB is a more content-oriented self-report method, asking subjects to disclose their opinions and beliefs; and that a self-exploration questionnaire is a more process -oriented




43
methodology, asking subjects to disclose their immediate feelings and experiences. The structure of one's conceptual system does not seem to be related to what is actually happening to the person as he is reporting the contents of his beliefs (relating to various issues). What one reports he believes (content) is not necessarily how one is experiencing himself in relation to his beliefs (process). The content does not adequately indicate the level of process one is experiencing.
Sixth, the writer believes that although self-exploration cannot be inferred from conceptual system orientation using the TIB, the TIB does elicit self-exploration and the instrument itself could have been evaluated for level of self-exploration process in a belief-encounter situation, using the Carkhuff Scale. The data in this study could probably be replicated using the TIB responses alone.
Seventh, there is a strong possibility that personality
develops through the systems more than one time. This may explain why there may not be a strong correlation between conceptual systems and self-exploration. It may well be that the systems are a repeating pattern, given the impetus of high level self-exploration.




APPENDICES




APPENDIX A
SUBJECT QUESTIONNAIRE
Part I
Instructions
In the following pages you will be asked to write your opinions or beliefs about several topics. Please write at least two (2) sentences about each topic. You will be timed on each topic at a pace that will make it necessary for you to work steadily.
Be sure to write what you genuinely believe you feel.
You must write on the topics in the order of their appearance. Wait to turn each page until the person in charge gives the signal. Once you have turned a page, do NOT turn back to it. PLEASE DO NOT OPEN THIS BOOKLET UNTIL YOU ARE
INSTRUCTED TO BEGIN.
Note: (The following items appear sequentially, one to a page.) This I believe about using drugs... This I believe about love... This I believe about religion... This I believe about birth control... This I believe about friendship.. This I believe about sex... This I believe about student dissent... This I believe about education... This I believe about suicide... This I believe about cheating...
45




46
Part H
PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL
YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO DO SO




47
Part II
Listed below are the topics about which you indicated your beliefs:
Using drugs
Love
Religion
Birth control
Friendship
Sex
Student dissent
Education
Suicide
Cheating
Select one of the topic areas for which you can describe an intense personal experience. Briefly describe the experience.
How do you feel about this experience now? Describe your feelings as completely as you can. You may include any details.




APPENDIX B
CARKHUFF SELF-EXPLORATION SCALE'
Level I
The second person does not discuss personally relevant material, either because he has had no opportunity to do such or because he is actively evading the discussion even when it is introduced by the first person.
Example: The second person avoids any self-descriptions
or self-exploration or direct expression of
feelings that would lead him to reveal himself
to the first person.
In summary, for a variety of possible reasons, the second person does not give any evidence of self-exploration.
Level 2
The second person responds with discussion to the introduction of personally relevant material by the first person but does so in a mechanical manner and without the demonstration of emotional feeling.
Example: The second person simply discusses the material
without exploring the significance or the meaning of
the material or attempting further exploration of
that feeling in our effort to uncover related feelings
or material.
In summary, the second person responds mechanically and remotely to the introduction of personally relevant material by the first person.
* The entire contents are taken from Carkhuff, 1969a,
pp. 327-28.
48




49
Level 3
The second person voluntarily introduces discussions of
personally relevant material but does so in a mechanical manner and without the demonstration of emotional feeling.
Example: The emotional remoteness and mechanical manner
of the discussion give the discussion a quality of
being rehearsed.
In summary, the second person introduces personally relevant material but does so without spontaneity or emotional proximity and without an inward probing to newly discover feelings and experiences.
Level 4
The second person voluntarily introduces discussions of
personally relevant material with both spontaneity and emotional proximity.
Example: The voice quality and other characteristics of the
second person are very much ''with:' the feelings
and other personal materials which are being
verbalized.
In summary, the second person introduces personally relevant discussions with spontaneity and emotional proximity but without a distinct tendency toward inward probing to newly discover feelings and experiences.
Level 5
The second person actively and spontaneously engages in an inward probing to newly discover feelings and experiences about himself and his world.
Example: The second person is searching to discover new
feelings concerning himself and his world even
though at the moment he may be doing so, perhaps,
fearfully and tentatively.
In summary, the second person is fully and actively focusing upon himself and exploring himself and his world.




50
The present scale "Self-exploration in interpersonal processes" has been derived in part from "the measurement of depth of intrapersonal exploration" (Truax, 1963) which has been validated in extensive process and outcome research on counseling and psychotherapy (Carkhuff & Truax, 1965, 1965a, 1965b; Rogers, 1962; Truax, 1963; Truax and Carkhuff, 1963, 1964, 1965). In addition, similar measures of similar constructs have received extensive support in the literature of counseling and therapy (Blau, 1953; Braaten, 1958; Peres, 1947; Seeman, 1949; Steele, 1948; Wolfson, 1949).
The present scale represents a systematic attempt to reduce the ambiguity and increase the reliability of the scale. In the process many important delineations and additions have been made. For comparative purposes, Level 1 of the present scale is approximately equal to Stage 1 of the earlier scale. The remaining levels are approximately correspondent: Level 2 and Stages 2 and 3; Level 3 and Stages 4 and 5; Level 4 and Stage 6; Level 5 and Stages 7, 8, and 9.




BIBLIOGRAPHY
Braaton, L. J. The Movement from Non-Self to Self in ClientCentered Psychotherapy. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Chicago, 1958.
Branden, N. The Psychology of Self-Esteem. New York: Bantam
Books, 1969.
Berenson, B. G., and Mitchell, K. M. Confrontation in Counseling
and Life. Mimeographed book, American International College,
Springfield, Massachusetts, 1968.
Campbell, B. N. Assumed Similarity, Perceived Sociometric
Balance and Social Influence. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Colorado, 1960.
Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and Human Relations: A Primer for Lay
and Professional Helpers. Vol. I.Selection and Training. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. (a)
Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and Human Relations: A Primer for Lay
and Professional Helpers. Vol. II. Practice and Research,
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. (b)
Carkhuff, R. R., and Berenson, B. G. Beyond Counseling and
Therapy. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967.
Dahms, A. M. Preferred Sources of Help in Time of Crisis as
Related to Conceptual Systems of College Students. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1969.
Fisher, B. Self-Exploration Experience in Death Encounter.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1968.
Fromm, E. Escape -from Freedom. New York: Rinehart, 1941.
Gough, H. G., and Sanford, R. N. Rigidity as a Psychological
Variable. Manuscript, University of California, Institute of
Personality Assessment and Research, 1952.
51




52
Hanke, H. E., Houston, S. R., and Usher, R. Researching the
Effective College Teacher: A Perceptual Approach. Journal
of the Student Personnel Association for Teacher Education,
1971, 9, 51-55.
Harding, M. E. Woman's Mysteries. New York: Panetheon Books,
Inc., 1955.
Harding, M. E. The "I" and the "Not-I". New York: Pantheon
Books, 1965.
Harvey, 0. J. Some Cognitive Determinants of Influencibility.
Sociometry, 1964, 27, 208-21.
Harvey, 0. J. System Structure, Flexibility and Creativity. In
0. J. Harvey (Ed.), Experience, Structure and Adaptability.
New York: Springer Publishing Co., 1966.
Harvey, 0. J. Conceptual Systems and Attitude Change. In C. Sheriff
and M. Sherif (Eds. ), Attitude, Ego-Involvement and Change.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967.
Harvey, 0. J., Hunt, D. E., and Schroder, H. M. Conceptual Systems
Personality Organization. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1961.
Harvey, 0. J., White, B. J., Prather, M. S. Alter, R. D., and
Hoffmeister, J. K. Teachers' Belief Systems and Pre-School
Atmospheres. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966, 57, 373-81.
Holder, T., Carkhuff, R. R., and Berenson, B. G. The Differential
Effects of the Manipulation of Therapeutic Conditions upon High and Low Functioning Clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967,
14, 63-66.
Landsman, T. Positive Experience and the Beautiful Person.
Presidential Address to the Southeastern Psychological Association, 1968
Lynch, S. Intense Human Experience: Its Relationship tc Openness and
Self-Concept. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1968.
McGlashan, A. The Savage and Beautiful Country. Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1967.
Maslow, A. H. Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: D. Van
Nostrand, 1962 (a)




53
Maslow, A. H. Lessons from the Peak Experience. Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 1962, 2, 9- 18. (b)
Maslow, A. H. Conversation with Abraham H. Maslow.
Psychology Today, 1968, 2, 35-37, 54-57. (a)
Maslow, A. H. Some Educational Implications of the Humanistic
Psychologies. Harvard Educational Review, 1968, 38, 685-96.
(b)
Maslow, A. H. Theory Z. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology,
1969, 1, 31-47.
Maslow, A. H. New Introduction: Religions, Values, and PeakExperiences. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1970,
2, 83-90.
Merrill, C. H. The Experience of Being Confirmed: Its Relationship to Self-Exploration and Self-Concept. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Florida, 1968.
Myers, I. B. Manual: Myers -Briggs Type Indicator, Princeton,
New Jersey: Educational 'iesting Service, 1962.
Myers, I. B. Consequences of Psychological Type. Unpublished
manuscript, 1970.
Rogers, C. R. A Theory of Therapy, Personality and InterPersonal Relationships as Developed in the Client-Centered
Framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A Study of a
Science. Vol. III. Formulations of the Person and the
Social Context. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
Rogers, C. R. The Developing Values of the Growing Person.
Talk Given to a Conference on Theoretical Bases of Counseling,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, January 6, 1961. (a)
Rogers, C. R. On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1961. (b)
Rogers, C. R. Psychotherapy Today or Where Do We Go from
Here? American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1963, 17, 1-16.
Rogers, C. R. Carl Rogers Says, "It is My Observation..."
Association for Humanistic Psychology Newsletter, 1970, 7,
1, 7.




54
Rogers, C. R.., Gendlin, E. T., Kiesler, D. J., and Truax,
C. B. The Theraycutic Relationship and Its Impact: A Study of Psychotherapy witli Schizophrenics. Madison,
Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967.
Rogers, C. R., and Stevens, B. (Eds.). Person to Person:
The Problem of Being Human. Walnut Creek, California:
Real People Press, 1967.
Rogers, C. R., and Truax, C. B. The Relationship Between
Patient Intrapersonal Exploration in the First Sampling
Interview and the Final Outcome Criterion. Brief Research
Reports, Wisconsin Psychiatric Institute, University of
Wisconsin, 1962, 73.
Rogers, C. R., Walker, A., and Rablen, R. Developm-nent of a
Scale to Measure Process Changes in Psychotherapy.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1960, 16, 79-85.
Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic
Books, 1960.
Scats, D. E. Personal conmunication to author, June 19, 1967.
Schutz, W. C. Joy: Expanding Human Awareness. New York:
Grove Press, 1967.
Schutz, W. C. Here Comes Everybody. New York: Harper &
Row, 1971.
T omlinson, T. M. and Hart, J. T. A Validation Study of the
Process Scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1962, 26,
74-78.
Truax, C. B. Effective Ingredients in Psychotherapy: An Approach
to Unraveling the Patient-Therapist Interaction. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1963, 10, 256-63.
Truax, C. B., and Carkhuff, R. R. For Better or f or Worse:
The Process of Psychotherapeutic Personality Change. In
W. Hill (Ed.), Recent Advances in the Study of Behavior
Change. Montreal, Canada: McGill University Press, 1963.
Truax, C. B., and Carkhuff, R. R. Toward Effective Counseling
and Psychotherapy: Training and Practice. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Company, 1967.




55
Walker, H. M., and Lev, J. Statistical Inference. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1953.
White J. and Harvey, 0. J. Effects of Personality and Own
Stand on Judgment and Production of Statements About A
Central Issue. Journal of Expcrimental Social Psychology,
1965, 1, 334-47.




BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Irene Frees Penry was born May 28, 1939, in Dallas, Texas. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in Anthropology from The University of Texas at Austin in June, 1961; and her Master of Science degree with a major in Student Personnel and Guidance from East Texas State University in August, 1962. In 1964 she enrolled in the Graduate School of the University of Florida and has pursued her work in Counselor Education toward the degree of Doctor of Education until the present time.
She has held positions as counselor and instructor, San
Antonio College, San Antonio, Texas, 1962-64; Ocala High School, Ocala, Florida, 1965-66, A. L. Mebane School, Alachua, Florida, 1966; Sonoma State College, Rohnert Park, California, 1970. From 1966-68 she held Graduate Assistantships in the Counselor Education Department at the University of Florida, and in 1968-69 was Administrative Assistant for the NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institute. In the Summer of 1970 she was employed as a Graduate Assistant, Counselor, in the University of Florida Reading Laboratory and Clinic. She is currently on the faculty of Santa Fe Junior College, Gainesville, Florida.
56




57
She is a member of the American Personnel and Guidance
Association, the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision, the American College Personnel Association, the Student Personnel Association for Teacher Education, the American School Counselor Association, the Association for Humanistic Psychology, and the American Society for Psychical Research.




I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation r the degree of Doctor of Education.
'Jam Lister, Chairman P'- fessor of Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education.
E. L. Tolbert
Associate Professor of Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education.
aryT. Ga'j Jr. Professor of Psychology
This dissertation was submitted to the Dean of the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education.
August, 1971
fR
Dean, College oI Eduation
Dean, Graduate School




Full Text

PAGE 1

CONCEPTUAL SYSTEMS AND SELF-EXPLORATION By Irene Frees Penry A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Docto r of E2ucation UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1971

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is with pleasure that the writer wishes to express her sincere thanks and deepest appreciation to her Chairman, Dr. James L. Lister, for his creative teaching of scholarship, and to the members of her supervisory committee, Dr. Harry A. Grater, Jr., and Dr. E. L. Tolbert, for their patience, understanding, friendship and encouragement; extending over many years. She is grateiul to M arilyn Lister for her warrn friendship, hospitality and n1.any kindnesses. She also wishes to thank all those persons who participated in the study as subjects and judges. Her special thanks go to Dr. Bradley Fisher, for creatively initiating her into the mysteries, joys and delights of writing a dissertation, a:id to Dr. Alan Martin Dahms, for his sustaining friendship, technical assistance and practical advice throughout the project. She also wishes to express her appreciation to the women in her life who have loved and inspired her, Dr. Eleanor Camp Criswell, Dr. Mary H. McCaulley, Irene Carneal Penry, ii

PAGE 3

Patricia Penry Dashiell, and Margie Trinka Penry, and to the next generation of w01nen, Mary Irene and Patricia Michele Dashiell. And finally, she wishes to thank the men in her family, Jack Michael Penry and James Norris Dashiell, for their love and professional encouragement. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE O F CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 11 LIST' OF TABLES . . . . . . . . Vl ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . Vll CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ...................... I Conceptu2 l Systems Theory. . . 3 Self-Exploration Process. . . 9 Statement of Problem and Hypotheses.................... 13 II PROCEDURES 15 Instrwnentation and Data Collection 15 Subjects... . . . . . . 16 Evaluating the Responses . . 16 nThi.s I Believe" (TIB) Test . . 18 Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale . 2 5 Analysis of the Data . . . 29 III RESULTS 31 Conceptual Systems and Self-Exploration . . . . 31 Conceptual Systems and Age of Subj e ct s . . . . . 3 2 Self-Exploration and A g e of Subjects . . . . . 33 Conceptual Systems and Sex of Subjects ............ ,........ 3 4 Self-Exploration and Sex of Subjects 35 1V

PAGE 5

CHAPTER IV Page SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS ............... 3 6 Summary......................... 36 Conclusions . . . . . 38 Implications . . . . . 41 APPENDlCES. . . . . . . 44 A SUBJECT QUESTIONNAIRE .......... 45 B CARKHUFF SELF-EXPLORATION SCALE . . . . 48 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . 51 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . 56 V

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1 PEARSON INTERJUDGE RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR TWO SETS OF RATERS ON 10 RELIABILITY SAMPLES 17 2 INTERJUDGE PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENT FOR TWO SETS OF RATERS ON 10 RELIABILITY SAMPLES 18 3 PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENT COMPUTED FOR CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM ORIENTATION SCORES ON THE TIB AND SUMMED CARKHUFF SELF-EXPLORATION RATINGS--------------------------------32 4 PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS COMPUTED FOR AGE OF SUBJ EC TS IN REL.A TION TO CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM ORIENTATION SCORES AND SUMMED LEVEL OF SELF-EXPLORATION RA TINGS 33 5 POINTBISERIP~L CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN CON-CEPTUAL SYSTEM ORIENTATION SCORES AND SUMMED SELF-EXPLORATION RATINGS WITH SEX OF SUBJECTS 34 .. Vl

PAGE 7

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education CONCEPTUAL SYSTEMS AND SELF-EXPLORATION By Irene Frees Penry August, 1971 Chairman: Dr. James L. Lister Major Department: Counselor Education This study was designed to investigate the relationship between conceptual system orientation as developmental stages in personality development a21d level of self-exploration process i n p ersonaliiy functioning. A two-part instrument was administered by the researcher to 114 undergraduate college students at Santa Fe Junior College and the University of Florida. Part.I, Harvey's "This I Believe" (TIB) Test, was used to measure conceptual system orientation. Part II, the Self-Exploration Stirnulus Questionnaire, was ciesigned to elicit a written narrative of an intense personal experience relative to one of the topics in Part I (TIB) from v 1hich level of self-exploration could be inferred by judges using the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale. Conceptua l systems are based on the theoretical constructs advanced by Harvey, Hunt and Schroder. Four modal conceptual vii

PAGE 8

systen1S or "ways of r elating to the worl
PAGE 9

in personality change. The scale is scored from low (1) to high (5) levels of self-exploration. Predictable relationships exist between self-exploration and numerous traditional indices of therapeutic change. Written res pons es to the TIE and the Self-Explor2.tion Stimulus Questionnaire were evaluated independently by trained judges, and examined for: (a) extent of correlation between conceptual system orientation scores and summed level of self-exploration ratings; (b) correlations between conceptual system orientation scores and summed level of self-exploration ratings with subject age and sex. The results indicate that conceptual system orientation, as measured by the TIB, is not related to level of self-exploration process, as measured by the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale. The results also indicate that both conceptual system. orientation and level of self-exploration process are not systematically related to the age of the subject. These data suggest that conceptual system orientation is unrelated to the sex of the subjects, but that self-exploration and sex of the subjects are significantly related (_E_ < 001, two-tailed test), with females showing the higher level of self-exploration. lX

PAGE 10

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION From the beginning of time a principal problem of human existence has been to experience, understand, and make judgments about human experience itself (Fisher, 1968; Harding, 1955, 1965; Scates, 1967). In every epoch of history man has been try-ing to search out creative ways of coping with the myriad pressing problems of daily living through his ways of relating to the world and to further, wherever possible, the psychic development of his inner experience and personality. The current thinking of many concerned psychologists and others in the helping professions in our day may be generally summed up: (1) that the psychological advancement of mankind and the progress of civilization can be achieved only by an increase in consciousness (awareness) and in individual responsi-bility (Branden, 1969; Harding, 1965; McGlashan, 1967; Maslow, 1968a, 1968b; Rogers, 1963); (2) that "we should n e ver forget that the world is made up of individuals, and t hat the one thing within our reach is our own development: it should not be neglected however much it may cost" (Harding, 1965, p. 217); and also, (3) that the process of growth and the experience itself 1

PAGE 11

2 of expanding human awareness and the fulfi.llrnent of one's potential is often one of pure joy (Landsman, 1968; Maslow, 1968a, 1968b, 1970; Rogers, 1959, 1961a, 19f:ilb; Rogers & Stevens, 1967; Schutz, 1967, 1971). As recently as 1963 Carl Rogers stressed the "ocean of confusion" regarding the state of psychotherapy and the helping relationship as "teaming with life, spawning vital new ideas, approaches, procedures and theories at an incredibly rapid rate" (Rogers, 1963, p. 11 ). He concluded t:11at the present period is one in which the most di.verse methods are used and in which the most d i v ergent explanations are given for a single event--whi c h makes possible a n d inevitable the clevelopn1ent of a new fact-finding attitude--a more objective appraisal of different types of change in personality and behavior, and a more empirical understanding of the subtle conditions which lead to these changes. As Rogers views the situation, only out of such a fact-finding attitude can a reasonable order emerge in this crucially significant area, and thus bring us to some clarity in our understanding of ways by which constructive personality change may be facilitated (Rogers, 1963 ). This study examined two different conceptualizations of positive human functioning which have been proceeding along independent lines of investigation, each supported by extensive research findings over the past several years. They are conceptual systems

PAGE 12

3 theory (Harvey, Hunt & Schroder, 1961) and self-exploration process (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). These two conceptualizations have not been reconciled--either cori.ceptually or empirically. In fact, a review of the literature publishe d to d ate did not disclose any reports of conceptual systems theory and self-explor2..:ion process ever having been considered together, thus indicating a n.eed for exam.ining the findings, implications, contributions, correlation and interrelationship of each of these approaches. Research findings also hav e indicated each approach to be a very promising avenue for further extending our knowledge of constructive personality
PAGE 13

4 and development a l histories affect functioning within each s y stem. As a result, the systerns var y structurally both in concretenessabstractness (the maj o r und erlying dimension) and in the conceptu2_ l referents or guidelines around which i:hey are organized. The [our n~odal conceptu a l systems can be sturtm::i.:cizc d as follows (Dahms, 196(); Harvey et al., 1961; Harvey, 1966, 1967): Syst~m I_functioning is the most concrete mode of construing and responding to the world. It is characterized by: (1) the low level of abstraction, (2) sensitization to externa l control, (3) a positive orientation toward extrapersonal referents (such as God and institutional authority), (4) acceptance of externally d erived concepts 01 n10dels not based on personal experience, (5) high absolutism, ( 6 ) closedness of beliefs, (7) high evaluativeness, (8) things endowed with power (as in magical thought), (9) h igh identification with social roles and status positions, and (10) high conventionality. System I individuals comfortably relate to authority figures. System I functioning is often illustrated by the phrase, 1 1Tell me what to do. 11 In a new or relatively unstructured situation, the System I person characteristically does not clearly differentiate between his own experience and outside authority and prefers to seek external criteria for evaluating h i s behavior. System II functioning is more abstract than in System I. System II persons reject and oppose authority; they do not comfortably relate to authority figures. System_ II persons are rebels characterized by

PAGE 14

5 hostile reactions, negativism, and the emergence of 11self will. 11 Persons functioning within this system, as compar e d with the other thl'ec, seem to be anti-authority, guided mor e by rebellion against social prescriptions and perceived social pressures than by positive adherence to personally derived standards of their own. It is i mportant to note that authority figures, although rejected, are still extremely important and that behavior is almost as concrete and "predictable11 as in System I functioning. This conceptual system has often been referred to as 1 1freedom from11 authoritarian control as contrasted with positiv e freedorn, independence or 11freedom to11 (Frornm, 1941) characteristic of System IV. The childhood 1 1terrible two11 functioning and the phrases, ''Don1t tell n1e what t o do'1 and 11I'll do it myself!' are illustrative of System II. System III is characterized by: (1) evaluations and judgments based largely on social consensus and reference group authority, (2) more autonomous internal standards than System I, (3) more positive ties to the prevailing social norms that System II, (4) obtaining satisfaction from pleasing others, (5) dependence upon external conditions or upon observations of the effects of one's reactions (behavior)~ on others and (6) experience and skill in manipulating people through dependency on them. Functioning in System III is primarily oriented toward establishing dependencies on other people. Persons functioning in this system are concerned with establishing and maintaining mutual friendships, relationships, intrag roup consensus and manipulative dependency

PAGE 15

6 relationships in order to avoid the feelings of helplessness a r:d social isolation that would result from being on their own and having to be responsible for themselves. Systern N is the highest level of conceptual development. Syste1n IV functioning is characterized by autonomous internal standards and self-direction, rather than dependence upon outside authorities or peer reference groups. This means that an increased number of ways of looking at the world are available. Syste1n N functioning is logically relate d to the "freedom to" c o ncept (Fromm, 1941). The System IV person manifests:(1) high percei ved selfworth (despite momentary frustrations), (2) a highly differentiated and integrated cognitiv e structure, (3) the ability to generate new alternatives operationally, (4) a marked tendency to assimilate diversity, and consequently, (5) to become more flexible, more creative, and more relative in thought and action. In every case his own internal standards control his behavior, in some cases coinciding with social definitions, and in others, not. He holds strong beliefs but tends to be unprejudiced because these beliefs are based on objective evidence. System IV functioning is most likely to exhibit exploratory behavior and to interpret criticism constructively in the sense that it is reality-oriented and selfactualizing (Harvey et al. 1961 ). The construct validity of conceptual systems theory has been well established by Harvey and his associates (Harvey, 1966 ).

PAGE 16

7 System IV subjects were found to be the n1ost cognitively con1plex using Campbell's ( 1960) modification of Kelley's Role Repertoire Test, followed in orde r by Systems III, TI, and I. Syste1n N subjects were found t o b e the most cognitively complex, followed by Systems III, II, and I in that order. System I subjects scored the highest on Rokeach' s Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1960), followed in order by Systems II, III, and IV. Harvey's data also indicate that System I subjects were the most rigid, using the Gough and Sanford (1952) Rigidity Scale, followed ?Y. System s II, III, and IV. System IV subjects were highest in self-causality, as measured by the Srole Scale of Anornie, followed by Systems III, I, and lI re spe cti vcl y On five subscales of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Harvey reports (1966) the following results. On Deference, System I subjects scored significantly higher than Systems II and IV. On Autonomy, System II and N subjects had almost identical scores and scored higher than both Systems I and III; System II significantly higher than System I. On Affiliation, System II subjects scored significantly lower than any system. On Change, significant differences were found between Systems I and IV; Systems II and IV scored higher (with highly similar scores) than Systems I and III (also highly similar). On Aggressiveness, System II subjects scored the highest. These results strongly indicate a developmental trend.

PAGE 17

8 The study of influencibility data (Ha rvey 1964) shows tha.t System IV subjects do not relate to authority, as expected; Systems I II, and III d o relate to authority, as expected. Othe r findings also tend to confirm the devel opmenta l trend of conceptual systems theory. Harvey, White Prather, Alter and Hoffmeister (1966) studied the effects of preschool teachers' belief systems upon the classroom atmospheres they created for their Head Start students. System III and IV teachers (more abstract) differed from System I teachers (concrete) in a more educationally favorable direction on 26 dimensions. Effective college teachers have also been reported (Ha nke, Houston & Usher, 1971) to b e abstract-oriented, more open to change, and to have positive self-concepts. In summary, development of conceptual structures follows a given course, moving from concreteness to abstractness and from other-direction to self-direction as the locus of final authority for evaluating perceptions, beliefs, and actions. System I is the most concrete mode of construing the world and is characterized by the lowest level of abstraction and a positive orientation toward extrapersonal referents. System II is slightly more abstract and typically opposed to the same extrapersonal referents. System III functioning is still more abstract, and primarily oriented toward establishing and maintaining intragroup

PAGE 18

9 consensu s as a step toward dependence and manipu lative control of others. System IV is the highest level of conceptual development and r epresent s a highly differentiated and integrate d cognitive structure manifested in rnultiple alternative ways of relating to the world base d on persona l standards founded on objective evidence. The progre ssion is from other-direction base d on outside authority (Sys temI) throug h resistance an
PAGE 19

10 of his time exploring himself. And Truax and Carkhuff ( 1967) emphasize that this central role of the client's self-exploration is seen in virtually all forms of psychotherapy, including behavior therapy. Research evidence converges (Carkhuff, 1969a; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967) in support of the hypothesis that high levels of self-explorati o n facilitate constructive personality change. Taking the frequency o f self-reference as an indication of self-exploration, we can interpret Braaton's (1958 ) findings as part o f this evidence. Braaten studied the amount of change in self-reference for successful and unsuccessful cases in client-centered psychotherapy. He foun d a greater increase in the arnounL of seH-1eferences in the r apy for the more successful cases of the emotionally disturbed part o f his sample, than for the unsuccessfu l cases. Rogers, Walke r and Rablen (1960) developed a Process Scale for rating process changes in personality of clients during successful psychotherapy. This scale~ which essentially measures the degree of self-exploration, the rigidity of concepts, and the degree of immediate experiencing, was used by Tonuinson and Hart (1962) for comparing successful and unsuccessful counseling cases. Successful cases were found (1) to be rated higher on the Process Scale, (2) to evidence more move1nent (client process change) during the period of therapy, and (3) to begin, as well as end, therapy at a significantly higher level of client process, than unsuccessful c ases.

PAGE 20

11 In their research on individual psychotherapy with schizophrenics, Truax & Carkhuff ( 1964, 196 7) used the D e pth of Intrapersonal E xploration Scale for rating tape-recorded interviews. This scale, as adapted by Carkhuff (1969a), is the self-exploration scale used i n this study. They found that patients who were high self-explorers showe d significantly greater p ersonality change with the final o utcome criterion which was based on a number of psychological tests including a blind analysis of the Rorschach. Truax and Carkhuff emphasize in their interpretation of this data that patients who were high self-explorers showed an average improvement one standard deviation beyond that of patients who were low self-explorers. It has also been reporte d (Rogers & Truax 1962; Truax & Carkhuff, I 96 7) that successful psychotherapy cases, as a group, were found to show significantly more self-exploration as early as the second interview. In addition, when comparisons were made using a control group, patients who explored themselves at high levels were reported as showing improvement significantly greater than the control patients. But patients exploring themselves at low levels showed less improvement, or even deterioration controls. than their The degree to which the person can explore himself within the helpin g process, and the degree to which the person focuses upon his immediate experiences have been directly related to the degree he changes constructively (Berenson & Mitchell, 1968; Carkhuff &

PAGE 21

12 Berenson, 196 7; Truax & Carkhuff, 19 6 7). Moreover, while the therapist may facilitate and influence the patient's self-exploration by offering certain levels of therapeutic conditions, it is the pati.ent himself who primarily controls his own level of self-exploration (Roger s et al., 1967; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). One can ir,fer that clients functioning at high levels of self-exploration continue to function independently of the levels of conditions offered by the counselor (Holder, C arkhuff & Berenson, 1967). There is also some evidence that high self-explorers are more often females of age 21 or over (Fisher, 1968 ). To summarize, in self-exploration, the person is open to his experience with self and is atten1pting to ddine his own beliefs, values, motives and actions in terms of his here-and-now experiences. The high self-explorer characteristically utilizes opportunities to reorganize and reassess previously distorted perceptions of himself, other persons and his external world. The research cited above has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that high level self-exploration process is related to positive therapeutic outcome in psychotherapy and correlates highly with divers~ indices of constructive personality change. The importance of this kind of self-exploration experience as fundamental to the process of personality growth and development is continually stressed by Rogers ( 1 9 6 1 a, 1 9 6 1 b, 1 9 6 7, 1 9 7 0).

PAGE 22

13 Staten1ent of Problem and Hvuotheses Both the self-exploration process and conceptual systems theoryapproaches examined in this E'tudy were purported to measure constructive p ersonality development. Thus the ground was laid for comparing the developmental validity of conceptual systems theory by relating conceptual system and level of selfexploration process. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the relationship between conceptual systems theory and self-exploration process, primarily to test the developmental validity of conceptual systems theory in terms of constructive personality change. More specifically, the p urpose of this study was to support or disprove the hypothesis that there is a sigr.ihcant Pearson product-moment correlation between conceptual system orientation of subjects (classified using the "This I Believe" test) and level of self-exploration process (using the Carkhuff Self Exploration Scale). The following null hypotheses were tested: I. There will be no significant relationship between conceptual system orientation as measured by the "This I Believe" (TIB) test and level of self-exploration process as measured by the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale. 2. There will be no significant relationship between conceptual system orientation and chronological age.

PAGE 23

14 3. There w ill be no significant relati.o nshi.p between level of self-exploration process and chronological age. 4 Subject sex will not be significantly r elated to conceptual system orientation. 5. Subject sex will not be significantly related to level of self-explorc1tion process.

PAGE 24

CHAPTER II PROCEDURES This study was designed to investigate the relationship between subjects1 conceptua l system orientation and level of self-exploration process. The procedure followed in this study was to administer a two-party instrun1ent, the ''This I Believe" (TIB) Test and the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire, to the subjects. These written res pons es were then ev2.luated by trained judges a n d classii.e d by conccf,tuc.. l systern a11d lr:vel of self-exploration. The relationship between conceptual system orientation and self-exploration process was examined. Both variables were also examined independently in relation to the subjects' age and sex. Instrumentation and Data Collection A two-part instrument was used in this study (Appendix A). Part I,. the riThis I Believe" (TIB) test (Harvey, 1966, 1967; White & Harvey, 1965 ), was used to measure conceptual system orientation. Part II, the Self-Exploration S ti.1nulus Questionnaire, was used to obtain responses for rating level of self-exploration process with the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale (Appendix B). 15

PAGE 25

16 The Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire was designed to elicit_ a written narrative of an intense personal experience relative to one o f the topics in Part .I (TIB) from which level of self-exploration could be inferred. Such written questionnaires have proved successful in studies of this nature {Fisher, 1968; Lynch, 1968; Merrill, 1968). The researcher adm.iniste:::-ed the instrurnent during a regularly scheduled class p eriod. Part I \,Vas administered first followed immediately by Part II. In order to encourage rnaximurn. freedom of response, subjects were not identified by name or student number. Subjects Subjects for this study were 114 undergraduate students enrolled at Santa Fe Junior College and the University of Florida. The sample included 53 males and 61 females. Ages of the subjects ranged from 16 to 58 years, with a mean age of 21. 07 years, a mode of 19 years, 'and a median age of 20. 5 years. Ninety-three percent of the subjects were between the ages of 18 and 25 years. Evaluating the Re'Sponse s Written responses to the TIB and the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire were rated independent! y by two teams of trained judges whose interjudge reliability was established prior to the rating of the responses used in this study.

PAGE 26

17 The TIB responses w~re scored by a team of two judges who had had suffi.ci.ent trai.ning t o achieve a 90 percent i.nt erjudge agree-ment i n classifying responses into conceptual system I, II, Ill, or IV (See Table 1). The TIB judges were trained b 'f one of the Harvey research as soci.ates who was experienced in the use of the TIB. TABLE I PEARSON INTERJUDGE RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR TWO SETS OF RATERS O N 10 RELIABILITY SAMPLES Scale Self-exploration Scale *p<. 01, two-tailed *~tp< 001, two-tailed Judges Judges 12 13 783,:, 8 9 6 ,;:,;, Judges 23 394,:,,: Subject responses to the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire were rated by a team of three judges for level of self-exploration, using the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale. Training in the use of the Carkhuff scale was conducted by the researcher. Interjudge reliability coefficients ranged from 783 to 896 with an average interjudge reliability coefficient (Pearson..... with Fisher's Z Conversi.on) of 86. (See Table 2).

PAGE 27

TABLE 2 INTERJUDGE PERCENTAGE O F AGREEMENT FOR TWO SETS OF RATERS O N 10 RELIABILITY SA1'.1PLEs,:, Category judged TIB (Conceptua l system) Judges 12 90 ,:, Satisfactory reliability set at 66 2/3 p ercent agreement 11This I Believe" (TIB) Test 18 The "This I B elieve" (TIB) Test was developed by Harvey and his associates to rneasure conceptual syste m orientation of subjects (classify subjects by conceptual system). The test is a relatively short sentence completion test which is easy to administer. I t has been used extensively in a variety of studies, reviewed by Harvey (1966), and has demonstrated high predictive and con-structive validity. The TIB requires the subject to indicate his beliefs in writing about a number of socially and personally relevant concept referents to be chosen by the researcher. The subject completes in two or three sentences the phrase: "This I believe about ... ," the blank, for this study, being replaced successively by one of the following referents:

PAGE 28

drugs love religion birth control friendship sex student dissent education suicide cheating 19 Responses to all the TIB referents are considered in totality, and one overall score is assigned, classifying an individual according to unpublished scoring criteria made available by O. J. Harvey through one of his research associates, defining the characterizations of the different systems. Harvey (1966) reports inter judge reliability in classifying subjects int o one of the main systems has been 90 percent for 12 different samples. Mixtures of in-between systems have constituted a problem. In his 1966 review Harvey states that of more than 1400 individuals whose TIB completions had been scored, about a third were eliminated as admixtures of two or more systems. In most of their studies Harvey and his associates report using only those subjects who were unanimously classified into one of the four principal systems. This study forced each subject into a single system. No admixtures were used and no subjects were eliminated. The following are TIB completions (verbatim) from this study, classified by system:

PAGE 29

20 System I (female, age 20). This I believ e about using drugs: I will never p ersonally use drugs. I feel tha t people using them are accepting a r-oor substitute for trying to find meaning to their life. I would never favor legal drugs. This I believ e about love: Love is the whole basis for my being. Jesus first loved n1e & now I must love others. Love is a genuine concern. I can love someone but not necessarily like them This I believe about religion: I could write a book I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. Only thru a personal relationship to Jesus Christ, & a dependence upon his Holy Spirit, have I found life. There is only one true religion--that is accepting Christ as your personal savior. This I believe about birth control: I am not concerne d about over population. I think b. c. should be to protect unborn children from would be abusive parents. I personally do not use b. c. but do think some should. This I believe about friendship: Friendship is loving & caring for someone as you do for yourself. To accept them for what they are. This I believe about sex: Sex was God's gift to man to use for his pleasure & to produce offspring within the bonds of marriage. Any other way it is wrong! Sex is only beautiful when we enjoy it the way God ordained it. Sex is sacred. This I believe about student dissent: If the protestors would put as much energy into worthwhile projects, something n1.ight get done. To me, they're just a bunch of immature kids who have gotten what they wanted just by pitching a little tant:rum. They feel infringed upon? They' re infringing on our rights by protesting.

PAGE 30

21 This I believe about education: It is not neces $2 .ry for one to have a book learned education I feel there is too rriuch emphasis on getting a degree. I doubt we'll ever find a computer or whiz kid who can build a house or fix a toilet. This I believe about suicide: I don't know. People know where they can get help. Seems to be the cowards way out. This I believe about cheating: It's wrong in any way, shape or form! System II (male, age 26). This I believe about using drugs: I think grass is all right. If the person wants to turn on let him. Grass is better than rotten your guts out with booz. This I b elieve about love: I am not married so I gess I don't know about love. I like to make love to women and it doesn't matter you who they are or what they are as long as I can get turned on. This I believe about religion: I don't believe in God. The churches do have a good racket going and I wish I had my hand in the tiJl. This I believe about birth control: I do believe in birth control. There are too many people on this earth now so we should stop having children now. You can't make any money out of a screaming kid. This I believe about friendship: I will be friends with about anyone or try to help a person out. If he doesn't appreciate it or screws me up, I will do anything or pay money to screw his mind up to get back at him. This I believe about sex: I believe for a person to get all the sex he can. I don't care if the girl is married or what she does. I think they should legalize prostitution.

PAGE 31

This I believe about student dissent: I don't have anything to say. I don't know what is going on myself. This I b elieve about educatiori: I think a person should get all the e ducation he can get. If you doesn' t have much education life isn't very easy or sweet. Money is where it 1s at and more education means more money. This I believe a bout suicide : I would like to try suicide to see where it is at. Maybe I will someday when I am down and out. This I believe about cheating: 22 When you cheat you o nly hurt yourself as that is what they say. But if it mean~ more power and better grade and grades mean more money tha n why not. Syste m III (female, age 22). This I b elieve about using drugs: That if a p erso n wants t o use drugs which are medically approved he should be allowed to or have the right to do so-like marij: it should be legalizedThis I believe about love: Love is the thing which gives man's life meaning. I feel it is the strongest force in life to be loved-and without love man dies. What purpose is there without love? This I believe about religion: I feel that religion is a very personal thing--anyone should have his own belief. Personally I do notcannot accept Christianity or any organized religionmy religion is faith in mankindThis I believe about birth control: Birth control should be a vailable to every one. Sex education should emphasize family planning and everyone should use contraceptives & only people who want to have children--will--If everyone used birth control there wouldn't be a need for most abortions.

PAGE 32

This I believe about friendship: Love & friendship are the same--Friendship 1s loving another person o r people --Friendship is sharing--Man needs friends-This I believe about sex: ( Sexua l intercourse) 23 Sex w hen you love someone 1s sharing one of the most beautiful things in lifeWhen you love someone sex is natural. Sex is healthy. This I believe about student dissent: Students are getting involve d about issues which a-re relevant. They stan d up for their beliefs which is honorable--But I'm for Peaceful d issent--No violence! Love--Thi s I believe about education: Education should be gear e d to help the student know himself. Education should be relevant to the society we live in--more emphasis should b e on learning which stimulates thinking instead of fact memorized. This I believe about suicide: If a person is happy he loves life--People who commi t suicide are sick &: need help. It1 s sad and society's fault for making people so frustrated and sick-T.his I believe about cheating: Why cheat? School shouldn 1t pres sure students to think he needs to cheat. There is always a second chance at S. F. & no one needs to cheat. System IV (female, age 21 ). This I believe about using drugs: It is basically a form of diversion and experimentation_ I get more pressure from alcohol and find that the risks are less. However, like anything forbidden, it must be tried just to satisfy curiosity.

PAGE 33

24 This I believe abou t ]eve: It is a warm, sharing and intimate bond with anyone you have chosen to b e the object of your affection. It exists in n1any forrns from sisterly, parenta l and marital. It is a necessity to uasic human security. This I believe a bout religion: I have no need to believe in a God. However, I do not deny that others might find a rneaningful r elation with religion. I believe in the strength and abilities of the individual. I believe in the honest life and feel a p erson can be an asset to mankind without having a God. This I believe about birth control: It's the best thing to happen in this century. It has the potential to solv e the overpopulation proble1n, social problems as well as the psychological problem of the unwed n1.other. Viva l a pill! This I believe about friendship: The necessary others in our lives provide us with the comfort, reassurance and happiness that makes life so valuable. No man is an island. People need other people to trust, love and believe in. This I believe about sex: It is a biological necessity to reproduce the species. It has the potential of binding two people together in a union for life. It relaxes, relieves tensions and satisfies the needs of the human being. Sex is a wonderful thing. This I believe about student dissent: It's healthy to question and ask why. Also, it's very normal for the adolescent. Through education you learn to think for yourself. By so doing it is sometimes necessary to deviate from popular opinion. This I believe about education: I would like to drown myself in the hmnanities. I would love to go to school forever, not learning any particular vocation, but abs orbing a taste of every aspect that interests me. I would like to see education advance to a non-graded stage where students attended college strictly from inner motivation.

PAGE 34

25 This I b elieve about suicide: It is a drastic measur e but certainly not unthinkable. At ti.mes death seems to b e the only way out. However, i f you have friends who love you a step this drastic would b e selfish and tragic--suicid e is for those who absolutel y have nothing else. This I b elieve a bout cheating: It i s a way some people choose to get through life. It is not very courageous and in my thinking very low Only an extremely d esperate p erson would cheat. I question the morals of the cheater and wonder what basic training he lacks. Carkhuff S elf-Exploration Scale Carkhuff derive d his Self-Exploration Scale from an earlier scale designed by Truax ( 1963) to measure depth of in t r a p e rsona l exploration. Research studies on these scales, validated in extensive process and outcome research on counseling and psycho-therapy reviewed by Truax and Carkhuff, (196 7) show that the Self-Exploration Scale measures an essential process i n personality change. in a consistent, reliable manner whether used by naive or experienced judges. They report (Truax and Carkhuff, 196 7, p. 195) Pearson interjudge correlations rangi n g from 68 to 88, for a grou p of 12 studies. They indicate also that predictable relationships exist between self-exploration level and numerous traditi,nnaI indices of therapeutic personality change. More recently, Fisher (1968) has successfully demonstrated that the scale can be used to rate written responses to questionnair e s such as the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire used in

PAGE 35

26 this skdy (See Appendix B). The scale is scored from low (1) to high (5) leve l s of self-exploration process. A :rating of level 1 on the S elf-Exploration Scale rn.eans that the subject does not discuss personally r elevant material in his respon: 3e to the S elf-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire and that he avoids any self-descriptions or direct expression of feelings. He doe: 3 not give any evidence of self-explora.tion. A rating of level 2 rneans the subject discloses p ersonally relevant material but does so only in a rnechanical manner. He simply discusses the material without e xploring its significance or meaning or attemp~:ing to uncover related feelings or material. A rating of leve~'. 3 rneans that there is still enwtional ren1otenes s an
PAGE 36

27 though he may be doing so perhaps fearfully and tentatively. No subjects in this study were rated level 1 or level 5 by all three judges;_ 'F.he following are verbatim responses to the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire (Appendix A) rated for level of self-exploration. The first paragraph was in response to question 1: Listed below are the topics about which you indicat e d your beliefs: using drugs, love, religion, birth control, friend_ship, sex student dissent, education, suicide, cheating. Select one of the topic areas for which you can describe an intense personal experience. Briefly describe the experience. The second paragraph was in response to question 2: How d o you feel about this experience now? Describe your f eelings as completely as you can. You rr1ay include any details. Leve! I (male, age 19, rated 1. 66). Friendship. Friendship I try to make friends with everyone that U can so that in case I ever need anything or anyone U can at least turn to a friend for advice. Made friends with a girl in Georgia & plan to follow up-U feel friendship is a quality of the existence of mankind and everyone should experience it sometime in their 1 ifetime. Level z (male, age 20, rated 2. 0). Ch.eating. I have had to cheat on exams in some courses in my stint with University College. It was a harried experience and I hope not to have to do so again. I feel the same way now as I did then. There are times when a student is driven to cheat. He has to maintain a certain grade point average and to do

PAGE 37

so, if ill prepared, he must rely on cheating. As stated in the other reply, there is too much emphasis on_grades in the school & colleges of today and not enough on just plain simple lea rning the 1naterial presented. Level 3 (female, age 20, rated 3. 0). Suicide. My feelings about suicide hit close to home--a close very dear frien d of mine killed himself. Experiencing suicide although it was not involving me affected me because I feel I could have done something to prevent it. G ary was addicte d to heroin and I knew it yet I failed to bust him, simply because he was a good friend and the law does funny thing s to p eople in this condition. I had talked with him several hours. He seemed d espondent yet at the end of our conversation he said he was happy. S i.x hours passed and he was dead. I felt sick inside and only wish that I could have helped him before he was too far gone. Not a day goes by that one of my thoughts isn't about Gary. Level 4 (female, age 21, rated 4 0). Suicide. 2 8 When I was younger & stupider I decided the problem that I was having to face was too big for me to face. I decided suicide was the only way out. This act was very stupid I know, b u t from it I learned alot about not only myself but a few people around me. Now I see how silly and immature I was then. I sort of regret it in a way but if I lived thru it again I would probably do the same thing. It caused me to face facts and know that I'll always hav e problems to face and you have to solve them not run from them. I also realize now everyone has problems some are big some are small but until they're solved all are big. I also found you need more than parents who baby you and friends who overlook your faults instead of bringing them out into the open, telling you.

PAGE 38

I now have a 2 year old daughter that is simply beautiful tha t once seemed like the worst problem any one could ever have. Now I wouldn't trade her for the world. Level 5 (female, age 18, rate d 4. 66). Friendship. The experience is friendship. I used to be friends with a girl about 7 years ago. She was my closest frien d before she moved. We wrote at first, then we kind of drifte d about. Afte r about 5 years my 29 high school teams played hers in football. I went to it, called her and I saw our friendship was still there. This past summer we went traveling & learned a great deal about each other. We are very open and honest. We trust each other to the fullest and have learned a lot about people because of our friendship. I feel things inside tha t give me a beautiful and warm feeling. It's such a good feeling to knov1 someone really loves me and takes m e for what I really am. And I like the feeling of kr1ow~ng that I a m. open-1ni n d c d and can dig what other people do and are without doing it myself. I am glad I got in touch with this friend, I learned so much from it to see how we both had changed how we both lived, but deep down there w a s still the same friendship and still the hidden voice that meant we both still cared about our friendship. Analysis of the Data Written responses to the TIB and the Self-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire were evaluated independently by traine d judges. After judging was completed, there were two scores for each subject in the study: a conceptual system classification and a level of self-exploration rating. The following procedures were used to investigate the five research hypotheses in this study:

PAGE 39

30 Hypothesis I involved a relationship between conceptual system orientation and leve l of self-exploration process and was tested by a Pearson Product-Moment Correlation. Hypothesis II explore d the extent t o which conceptual system orientation is significantly related to age and was tested by the use of a Pearson Product-Moment Correlation. Hypothesis III sought to determine the relationship of level of self-exploration process to chronological age and was tested by a Pearson Product-Moment Correlation. ~thesis_ IV investigated the relationship between conceptual system orientation and sex. Of the 114 subjects, 46 percent were males and 59 percent were females. A point-biserial correlation coefficient was computed for testing this hypothesis. Hypothesis V involved the relationship between level of selfexploration process and sex and was tested by a point-biserial correlation. All tests of significance were two-tailed and involved the 05 level of significance.

PAGE 40

CHAPTER III RESULTS The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between conceptual system orientation of subjects as developmental stages in personality development measured by the "This I Believe'' (TIB) test, and level of self-:exploration process in personality functioning measured by the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale. Judges categorized written responses of 114 u ndergra duate college student:;, to the "This I Believe" (Till) test an
PAGE 41

32 Scale. The correlation coefficient w a s 009 and the null hypo-thesis was retained. Conceptual syste m. orientation and level of self-exploration were not found to b e significantly related. TABLE 3 PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENT COMPUTED FOR CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM ORIENTATION SCORES O N THE TIB AND SUMMED CARKHUFF SELF-EXPLORATION RATINGS r Vari.ables N = 114 Conceptual system orienta ti.on/ Self-exploratio n level Conceptu a l Systems and Age of S ubjects .009 The second hypothesis investigated whether there might be a significant relationship between conceptual system ori.entati.on and chronological age of the subjects. This null hypothesis was retained, as shown by the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of-. 047 reporte d i.n Table 4 No differences c ould be detected between conceptual system orientation and age of the subjects. However, while the age range for the sample was from 16 years to 58 years;,. 86 percent of the subjects were between the ages of 18 years and 22 years old, thereby representing a narrow range of variability in age; 93 percent of the subjects were in the age range

PAGE 42

33 of 1 8 years t o 2 5 year s o l d The mean for the total group was 21. 07 yea r s the m edian age was 20. 5 years, and the modd age was 1 9 year s old. TABLE 4 PEARSON PRODU CT.:. M O M ENT CORRELATiO N COEFFICIENTS COMPUTED FOR AGE O F SUBJECTS IN RELATION TO CONCEPTUAL S Y.ST E M ORIENTATION SCORES A N D S UM:l\~E D LEVEL OF SELF-EXP LORATION RA 'T'I NGS Conceptual system S elf-exploration Age N = 114 -.04 7 -. 018 Self-Exploration and Age of Subject s The pas sibility of a significant relationship between level of self-exploration process and chronological age of subjects was also investigated. As reportedin Table 4, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient computed for summed level of self-exploration ratings and subject age was -. 018. The null hypothesis was retai n ed, and it would therefore hav e to be stated that s ubject age is not significantly related to j udge's rating s of level of self-exploration process using the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale Again, it must be note d that most of the students in the sample comprising t h e present stu d y were concentrate d in the age range of 18 yea:rs to 25 years.

PAGE 43

34 Conceptu~Syster:ns and Sex of Subjects The judged responses to the TIB were correlated with the sex of the subject to test for a possirle relationship between conceptual system orientation and subject sex. O f the 11 4 subjects, 46 percent were male and 54 percent female. A pointbiserial correlation coefficient was compute d for conceptual syste m orientation scores and subject sex. This value, shown in Table 5, was 14, and the null hypothesis was retained. There was no difference in subjects' conceptual syst~m classification by sex. Sex does not seem to affect one's conceptual system orientation. TABLE 5 POINT-BISERIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM SCORES AND SUMMED SELF-EXPLORATION RATINGS WITH SEX OF SUBJECTS Variables r -pb N = 114 Conceptual systems/sex .14 Self-exploration/sex 32>:< >!


PAGE 44

35 Self-Exploration and Sex of Subjects This hypothesis examined the r e ]ationship between judges' ratings of level of self-exploration process and the sex of the subjects. As noted above, of the 11 4 subjects, 46 percent wer e m a l e and 5 4 p ercen t wer e female. A point bi.serial c orrelation coefficient of 32 was computed for summe d level of self-exploration process ratings and subject sex (See Table 5). The null hypothesis was therefore rejected at the 001 level. This suggests that subjects' level of s elf-exploration differs systematically by sex with females exhibiting the higher level of self-exploration. The mean of the summe d self-expl oration scores for females was 8. 95, with a stariclard deviation of 1. 7 9 The n1ean for the rnales was 7. 86, with a standard deviation of 1. 37. In surnmary, the results indicate that conceptual system orientation as measured by the TIB is not related to level of selfexploration process, as measured by the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale. The results also indicate that both conceptual system orientation and level of self-exploration process are not systematically related to t h e age of the subject. These data suggest tha t conceptual s ystem o rientation is unrelate d to the sex of the subjects, but that self-exploration and sex of the subjects are significantly related (:e_ <. 001, tv/o-tailed test), with females showing the higher level of self-exploration.

PAGE 45

CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CON CLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS Summary This stu d y was designe d to investigat e the r e l ationship b etween conceptu a l system s orieritation as developmenta l stages in personality developn.1.en t and level o f s elf-exploration process in personality functioning A h vo-part instrumen t was administe r e d by the researche r to 11 4 undergrad u ate college s1.-.i.dcnts a t S ant2.. F e Junior College and the University of Florida. Part I, the 11 This I Believe" (TIB) test (Harvey, 1966), was used to measure conceptual system orientation. Part II, the Self-Exploration Sti n1.ulus Questionnaire, was de signed to elicit a written narrative of an intense personal experience relative to one of the topics in Part I (TIB) from which level of self-exploration could be inferred b y judges using the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale. Conceptual systems are based on the theoretica l c onstructs adv an.c:e.d by Har vey, Hunt and S chroder ( 196 1 ). Four modal conceptual system s or ways of relating to the world were described which people c onsistently demonstrate in most of their interactions and which are somewhat independent of actual situational factors. 36

PAGE 46

37 System I is the most concrete mode of construing and responding to the world; it is characterized b y low level of abstraction and a positive orientation toward extrapersonal referents. Syste1n II functionin g is slightly more abstract than System I and is oriented toward opposing the same extrapersonal referents. System III functioning is more abstract than System II and is oriented toward establishing and 1naintaining intragroup consensus as a step toward dependence and 1nanipula tive control of other people. System IV is the most abstract mode of functioning. It represents a highly diffe rentiated and integrate d cognitive structure manifested in multiple alternative ways of relating to the world based on personal standards founded on objective evidence. The Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale attempts to define concrete operations by which self-exploration can be inferre d (Carkhuff, 1969a, 1969b; Carkhuff & Berenson, 1967; Fisher, 1968; Rogers, 1959; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). Self-exploration is the process in which the person is actively and spontaneously engaging in an inward probing to newly discovered feelings about himself and his world. He is fully and actively focusing upon himself, searching to discover new feelings concerning himself, even though he may be doing so perhaps fearfully and tentatively. The Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale measures an essential process in personality change. The scale is scored from low (1) to high (5) levels of self-exploration.

PAGE 47

38 Predictable relationships exist between self-exploration and numerous traditional indices of therapeutic change (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967 ). Written responses to the TIB and the SeJf-Exploration Stimulus Questionnaire were evaluated independently by trained judges, and examined for: (a) extent of correlation between conceptual systen1 orientation and summed level of self-exploration ratings; (b} correlations between conceptual system orientation and summed level of self-exploration ratings with subject age and sex. The results indicate that conceptual system orientation, as measured by the TIB, is not related to leve l of self-exploration process, as measure d by the Carkhuff Self-Exploration Scale. The results also indicate that both conceptual system orientation and level of self-e xploration process are not syste1natic2..lly r e l ated to the age of the subjects. These data suggest that conceptual system orientation is unrelated to the sex of the subjects, but that self-exploration and sex of tne subjects are significantly related (E. 001, two-tailed test), with females showing the higher level of self-exploration. Conclusions On the basis of these findings, and within the assumptions and limitations stated, the following conclusions appear warranted: First, once can conclude that conceptual systems theory and self-exploration process are functionally unrelated. This means that conceptual system functioning cannot be inferred from level

PAGE 48

39 of s elf-explorati o n process; and that level of self-expl o ration process cannot b e inferr e d from the s tage of one's conceptual develcpment and functioning. These a r e two s e p arate and c hance-related theoretical approaches. Second, this study assun1es that s elf-expl o r a tion 1s fun dament a l to constructive perso n ality change. S elf-exploration theory is emerging out of clinical research and practice in psychotherapy and the resulting constructiv e personality growth and change. Conceptual syste1ns, on the other hand, were theoretically formulated. A n d while subsequent research findings in a number of areas have tended t o confirm mos t of Harvey e t al. 's (1961) characterizations, t h e syste1ns themselves are s t ill, in this writer's judgment, more theoretically than empirically d erived. Since self-exploration has been repeatedly shown to be empirically related to constructive personality change, there is now less reason to conclude that conceptual systems theory is related to constructive personality development and therapeutic change except by chance. Third, one can conclude that stages of conceptual advancement are probably not correlated with the process of Rogerian (Rogers, 1959) self-actualization. Fourth, one can conclude that conceptual openness is probably not related to levels of self-exploration. As a consequence, it cannot be assumed that having achieved the highest level of

PAGE 49

40 conceptual development (Systern IV) n1eans that one is also in the process of constructively developing hin1self and his person;1lity through self-exploration. A person functioning at the most abstract stage conceptually does not necessarily ~se his highly differentiated and integrated cognitive structure rnost effectively; tha t is, to explore himself. He can explore the world without exploring himself and thus fail to maximize his own personality grov;.rth and development. Fifth, assuming that s elf-explora.tion skills are voluntarily acquired (Truax & Carkhuff, 196 7) and that conceptual develop-n1ent involves increasing adaptability to change, one can logically conclude that no matter what conceptual system a person is functioning in, he can probably benefit from high level selfexploration. A System I person might be just as capable of high level self-exploration as a System IV person. Constructive personality development is significantly influenced by one's decision as to which level of self-exploration he chooses. The results of this study show that a System IV person is just as likely to decide to explore himself at a low level as a System I person is likely to decide to explore himself at a high level. Sixth, the finding that self-exploration is positively related to sex replicates data in a study on self-exploration and deathencounter by Fisher (1968). While self-exploration in this study

PAGE 50

41 is being rn.easured in the context of a belief-encounter situation rather than in the context of death-enco unter, as in the case of Fisher1s study, there is now n1ore reason to conclude that high self-explorers in this culture a r e 1nore likely to be women. Seventh the assumption made in this study that conceptual systems and self-exploration process are two different 1nethods for inferring personality development has been confirmed by the results. Eighth, self-exploration can b e reliably inferred using written responses to questionnaires in a belief-encounter situation as well as in a death-encounter situation ( F isher, 1968). Implications Some of the implications suggested by the results of this study are as follows: First, since it was concluded that conceptual systems theory and self-exploration process are not directly related in a functional way, there remains the possibility that they could be indirectiy related. A functional preference typology, such as the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1962, 1970 ), could be used as an intermediary way of relating the conceptual systems and selfexploration. Conceptual systems may be related more to a typology of functional differences than to devel opmental process.

PAGE 51

42 Second, the literature in counseling and therapy would suggest that the System I p erson would b e the poor e r cand i date for counseling and therapy. This may perhaps be so, but apparently not in terms of his capacity for s elf-exploration. A Systerr1 I p erson who chooses to explore himself at a low level might be a poor candidate for therapy But a System I person who chooses to explore himself at a high level might be an excellent candidate for counseling or therapy. Third, one could hypothesize for future research that the probability of conceptual advan.cement (moving from one system to another) will be greater for those individuals who e xplore themselves at higl1 levels than for those who a 1e low self-explorers. Fourth, women in this culture may be better candidates for counseling, or may not need it. Women clients are more likely to decide to explore themselves at high levels than men are. Women may also be good counselors and candidates for counselor education programs on the same grounds. Fifth, it was concluded that the TIB and the self-exploration scale are two discrete methods for inferring personality develop-ment and functioning. One can interpret this discreteness to mean that the TIB is a more content-oriented self-report method, asking subjects to disclose their opinions and beliefs; and that a self-exploration questionnaire is a more process-o riented

PAGE 52

43 methodology, asking subjects to disclose their immediate feelings and experiences. The structure of one's c o nceptua l system does not see1n to be r e lated t o what is actually happen ing to the person as he i s reporting the contents of his beliefs (re lating to various issues). What one reports he believes (content) is not necessarily how one is experiencing himself in relation to his beliefs (process). The content does not adequately indicate the level of process one is experiencing. Sixth, the writer b elieves tha t although self-exploration cannot be inferred from conceptual system orientation using the TIB, the TIB does elicit self-exploration and the instrument itself could have been ev;J..luated or leve l of self-exploration process in a belief-encounter situation, using the C a rkhuff Scale. The data in this study could probably be replicated using the TIB responses alone. Seventh, there is a strong possibility that personality develops through the systems more than one time. This may explain why there may not be a strong correlation between conceptual systems and self-exploration. It may well be that the systems are a r epeating pattern, give n the impetus of high level self-exploration.

PAGE 53

APPENDICES

PAGE 54

APPENDIX A SUBJECT QUESTIONNAIRE Part I Instructions In the following pages you will be asked to write your oprn1ons or beliefs about severa l topics. Please write at least two (2) sentences about each topic. You will be timed on each topic at a pace that will make it necessary for you to work steadily. Be sure to write what you genuinely believe you feel. You must write on the topics in the order of their appearance. Wait to turn each page until the person in charge gives the signal. Once you have turned a page, d o NOT turn back to it. PLEASE DO NOT OPEN THIS BOOKLET UNTIL YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO BEGIN. Note; (The following items appear sequentially, one t o a page. ) This I believe about using drugs ... This 1 believe about love ... This I believe about religion ... This I b e lieve about birth control. .. Thi s I believe about friendship ... This I believe abou t sex ... This I b elieve about student dissent. .. This I believe about education .. This I believ e about suicide .. This I believ e about cheating .. 45

PAGE 55

Part II PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO DO SO 46

PAGE 56

47 Part II Listed below are the topics about which you indicated your beliefs: Using drugs Love Religion B irth control Friend ship Sex Student dis sent Education Suicide Cheating S e lect one of the topic areas for which you can describe an intense personal experience. Briefly describe the experience. How do you feel about this experience now? Describe your feelings as completely as you can. You may include any details.

PAGE 57

APPENDIX B CARKHUFF SELF-EXPLORATION SCALE':' LeveI I The second person does not discuss personally relevant material, either because he has had n o opportunity to do such or because he is actively evading the discussion even when it is introduced by the first p erson. Example: The second person avoids any self-descriptions or self-exploration or direct expression of feelings that would lead him to reveal himself to the first person. In summary, for a variety of possible reasons, the s econd person does not give any evidence of self-exploration. Level 2 The second person responds with discussion to the introduction of personally relevant material by the first person but does so in a mechanical manner and without the demonstration of emotional feeling. Exarnpie: The second person simply discusses the material without exploring the significance or the meaning of the material or attempting further exploration of that feeling in our effort to uncover related feelings or material. In summary, the second person responds mechanically and remotely to the introduction of personally relevant material by the first person. The entire contents are taken from Carkhuff, 1969a, pp. 32 7-28. 48

PAGE 58

49 Level 3 The second person voluntarily introduces discussions o f personally relevant 1 n aterial but does so in a r:nechanical m anner and without the dem. onstration 0 emotional feeling Exa1nple: The emotional r emotenes s a n d mechanical manner o f the discussion give the dis cussion a quality of being rehearsed. In summary, the second p erson introduces personally relevant materia l but does so without spontaneity or emotional proximity and w ithout an inward probing to newly discover feelings and experiences. Level 4 The second person voluntarily introduces discussions of personally relevant material with both spontaneity and emotional proximity. Example: The voice qualit y and other characteristics of the second p erson a.re very rnuch 11wit h : the feelings and other p erson a l materials which are being verbalized. In summary, the second person introduces personally relevant discussions with spontaneity and emotional proximity but without a distinct tendency toward inward probing to newly discover feelings and e xperiences. Level 5 The second person actively and spontaneously engages in an inward probing to newly d iscover feelings and experiences abou t himself and his world. The second person i s searching to disco ver new feelings concerning himself and his world even though at the moment h e : may be doing so, perhaps, fearfully and tentatively. In summary, the second person is fully and actively focusing upon himself and e xploring himself and his world.

PAGE 59

50 The present scale ''Self-expl o ration in interpersonal processes" has been derived in part from "the measurement 0 d epth of intrapersonal exploration 11 {Truax, 1963) which has been validated in extensive process and outcome research on counseling and psychotherapy (Carkhuff & Truax, 1965, 1965a, 1965b; Rogers, 1962; Truax, 1963; Truax and Carkhuff, 1963, 1964, 1965). In addition, similar measures of similar constructs have received extensive support in the literature of counseling and therapy (Blau, 1953; Braaten, 1958; Peres, 1947; Seeman, 1949; Steele, 1948; Wolfson, 1949). T h e present scale r epre sents a systematic attempt to reduce the arn.higuity and increase the r eliability o f the scale In the process many important d elineations and additions have b een made For comparative purposes, Level 1 of the present scale is approximately equal to Stage 1 of the earlier scale. The remaining levels are approximately correspondent: Level 2 and Stages 2 and 3; Level 3 and Stages 4 and 5; Level 4 and Stage ,; Level 5 and Stages 7, 8 and 9

PAGE 60

BIBLIOGRAPH Y Braaton, L. J. The Movement from Non-Self to Self in Client Cente r e d Psychotherapy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1958. Branden, N. The Psychology of Self-Esteem. New York: Bantam Books 19 69 Berenson, B. G., and Mitchell, K. M. Confrontation in Counseling and Life. Mimeographed book, American International College, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1968. Campbell, B. N. Assumed Similarity, Perceived Sociometric Balance and Soc ial Influence. Doctoral d issertation, University of Colorado, 1960. Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and Human R elations: A Primer for Lay and Professiona l Helpers. Vol. I.Selection and Training. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. (a) Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and Human Relations: A Primer for Lay and Professional Helpers. Vol. II. Practice and Research, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. (b) Carkhuff, R. R., and Berenson, B. G. Beyond Counseling and Ther~. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967. Dahms, A. M. Preferred Sources of Help in Time of Crisis as Related to Conceptual Systems of College Students. Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1969. Fisher, B. Self-Exploration Experience in Death Encounter. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1968. Fromm, E. Escape Jrom Freedom. New York: Rinehart, 1941. Gough, H. G., and Sanford, R. N. Rigidity as a Psychological Variable. Manuscript, University of California, Institute of Personality Assessn1ent and Research, 1952. 51

PAGE 61

52 Hanke, H. E Houston, S. R., and Usher, R. Researching the Effectiv e College Teacher: A Perceptual App roach. Journal of the Student Per sonncl As sociati.on for Teacher Education, 1971, 1.., 51-55 Harding, M. E. Woman's Mysteries. New York: Panetheon Books, Inc., 1955. Hardi n g 1\11. E. The I a n d the "Not-I New York : Pantheon Books, 1965. Harvey, 0. J. Some Cognitive Determinant s of Influencibility. Sociometry, 1964, ?:.]_, 208-21. Harvey, 0. J. System Structure, Flexibility and Creativity. In 0. J. Harvey (Ed.), E xperience, Structure and Adaptabili !Y., New York : Springer Publishing Co., 1966. Harvey, 0. J. Conceptual Systems and Attitude Change. In C. Sheriff and M. Sherif (Eds. ), Attitu de, E go-Invol vement and Change. New York : John Wiley and Sons 1967. Harvey, 0. J., Hunt, D. E and Schroder, H M Conceptual System s Personality Organi z a t ion. New York : John Wiley and Sons, 1 96 1. Harvey, 0. J., White, B J., Prather, M S. Alter, R. D., and Hoffmeister, J. K. Teachers I Belief Systems and Pre-School Atmospheres. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966, 2.]_, 373-81. Holder, T., Carkhuff, R. R., and Berenson, B. G. The Differential Effects of the Manipulation of Therapeutic Conditions upon High and Low Functioning Clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, _!j, 63-66. Landsman, T. Positive E xperience and the Beautiful Person. Presidential Address to the Southeastern Psychological Association, 1968 Lynch, S. Intense Human E x p erience: Its Relationship t o Openness and Self-Concept. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1968. McGlashan, A. The Savage and Beautiful Countr y Boston: HoughtonMifilin, 1967. Maslow A. H. Toward a Psychology o f Being New York: D. Van Nostrand, 19 62 (a)

PAGE 62

53 Maslow, A. H Les sons from the Peak Experience. Journal of Humanistic Psycholog_y_, 1962, 2, 9 -18. (b) Maslow, A. H. Conversation with Abrc3 .ham H Maslow. Psychology Today, 19 6 8 2 35-37, 54-57. (a) Maslow, A. H. Some Educational Implications of the Hmnanistic Psychologies. Harvard Educational Review, 1968 38, 68 5-96. (b) Maslow, A. H. Theory Z. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1969, l_, 31-4 7 Maslow, A. H. New Introduction: Religions, Values, and PeakExperiences. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1970, ~' 83-90. Merrill, C. H. The Experience of Being Confirmed: Its Relationship to Self-Exploration and Self-Concept. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1968. Mye r s I. B. Manual: Myers -Briggs Type Indicator, Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1962. Myers, I. B. Conseque nces of Psychological Type. Unpublished manuscript, 1970. Rogers, C. R. A Theory of Therapy, Personality and InterPersonal Relationships as Developed in the Client-Centered Framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A Study of a Science. Vol. III. Formulations of the Person and the Social Context. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. Rogers, C. R. The Developing Values of the Growing Person. Talk Given to a Conferenc e on Theoretical Bases of Counseling, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, Gainesville, Florida, January 6, 1961. (a) Rogers, C. R. O n Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961. (b) Rogers, C. R. Psychotherapy Today or Where Do We Go ram Here? American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1963, l.2, 1-16. Rogers, C. R. Carl Rogers Says, "It is My Observation ... Association for Humanistic Psychology Newsletter, 1970, ]_, 1, 7.

PAGE 63

54 Rogers, C. R., Gendlin, E. T., Kiesler, D. J., and Truax, G. B The Therc~JJcutic_ RelationshiE, _anr:1 Its Impact: A Study of Psychotherap_y__ v.: ith Schizophr~ni:=:~. Madison, Wisconsin: University of 'Wisconsin P ress, 1967 .IR.ager s C. R., and Stevens, B. (Eds.). P e rson to Person: The Problem of B eing Human. W alnut Creek, C alifornia: Real People Press, 1967. Rogers,. C. R., and Truax, C. B. The Relationshi p Between Patient Intrapersonal Exploration in the First Sampling Interview and the Final Outcome Criterion. Brief Research Reports, Wisconsin Psychiatric Institute, University of Wisconsin, 1962, 73. Rogers, C. R. Walker, A. and Ra blen, R. D evelopr:nent of a Scale to Measure Process Changes in Psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1960, .!, 79-85. Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Scat ~s, D E. Personal cornn1unication to author, June 1 9 196 7. Schutz, W C. Joy: Expanding Hun1an Aware ness. New York: Grov e Press, 1967. Schutz, \ V C. Here Comes Everybody. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. Tomlinson, T. M., and Hart, J. T. A Validation Study of the Process Scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1962, 26_, 74-78. Truax, C. B. Effective Ingredients in Psychotherapy: An Approach to Unraveling the Patient-Therapist Interactio n Journal of Coun seling Psychology 1963, l.Q_, 256-63. Truax, C. B., and Carkhuff, R. R. For Better or for Worse: The Process of Psychot11erapeutic Personality Change. fa W. Hill (Ed.), Recent Advances in the Stui,y of Behavior Change. Montreal, Canada: McGill University Press, 1963. Truax, C. B., and Carkhuff, R. R. Toward Effective Counseling and Psychotherapy: Training and Practice. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967.

PAGE 64

55 Walker, H M., and Lev, J Statistical Inference. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1953. White J., and Harvey, 0. J. Effects 0 Personality and Own Stand on Judgment and Production of Statements About A Central Is sue. Journa l 0 Experimental Social Psychology, 1965, 334-47.

PAGE 65

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Irene Frees Penry was born May 28, 1939, in Dallas, Texas. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in Anthropology from. The University of Texas at Austin in June, 1961 ; and her Master of Science degree with a major in Student Personnel and Guidance from East Texas State University in August, 1962. In I 964 she enrolled in the Graduate School of the University of Florida and has pursued her work in Counse]or Educa.tion toward the degree of Doctor of Education until the present time She has held positions as counselor and instructor, San Antonio College, San Antonio, Texas, 1962-64; Ocala High School, Ocala, Florida, 1965-66, A. L. Mebane School, Alachua, Florida, 1966;, Sonom a State College, Rohnert Park, California, 1970. From 1966-68 she held Graduate Assistantships in the Counselor Education De-partment at the University of Florida, and in 1968 -69 was Administrative Assistant for the NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institute. In the Summer of 19 70 she was employed as a Graduate Assistant, Counselor, in the University of Florida Reading Laboratory and Clinic. She is currently on the faculty of Santa Fe Junior College, Gainesville, Florida. 56

PAGE 66

57 She is a m ember of the American Personnel and Guidance Association, the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision, the America n College Personnel Association, the Student Personnel Association for Teacher Education, t h e American School Counselor Association, the Association for Humanistic Psychology, and the American Society for Psychical Research.

PAGE 67

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion i t conforn1s to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and i s fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertatio/.1. r the degree I of Doctor of Education. f ( ~ -r/'Lk.yj_( ~_./ /Jam. Lisfer, Chairman (_ P fessor of Education I certify that I have read this study and that in 1ny opinion i t conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education. ( J J E L Tolbert Associate Profos s or of Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education. 2~~tQ,Jr~ Professor of Psychology This dissertation was submitted to the Dean of the College of Eclncation and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillnient of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education. August, 1971 / Dean, Dean, Graduate School