2 12 MAE ALEXIK AND ROBERT R. CARKHUFF

following a “crisis” or an inability on the part of the client to explore herself are important.

Counselor B, OR the other hand, was not manipulated by the client’s level of process involvement. However, rather than continuing to function consistently across the interview, he tended to function at higher levels with the introduction of the experimental period. He seemed to invest more of himself in an attempt to relate the client’s impersonal expressions to very deep and personal experiences, and actually commented a number of times that he felt that the client was “running away” from significant material during period 2. It is noteworthy that during period 3 counselor B functioned a t levels significantly higher than during period 1.

The results suggest that although the level of counselor-offered conditions may be determined by the counselor, the client’s level of intrapersonal exploration has differential effects upon counselor-offered conditions, effects which may cancel each other out when averaged. The need for replication with larger numbers of counselors and clients is obvious and necessary.

SUMMARY Two counselors, of identical training and experience, one functioning a t high

levels of empathy, respect, genuineness and concreteness and the other functioning a t low levels, were seen by a client who, unknown to the counselors, had a response set to explore herself deeply during the first third of the interview, not a t all during the middle 20 minutes and then again during the last third of the session. Objective tape ratings indicated that the low level functioning counselor functioned at levels related to the client’s depth of self-exploration. The higher level functioning coun- selor functioned a t higher levels following the introduction of the experimental period.

REFERENCES 1.

2.

CARKUFF, R. R. The counselor’s contribution to facilitative processes. Urbana, Illinois: Parkinson, 1966.

TRUAX, C. B. and CARKHUFF, R. R. Significant developments in psychotherapy research. Chapter 7, Progress in clinical psychology (L. E. Abt and B. F. Reiss, Eds.). New York: Grune - _ -_ andbtratton, 1964.

3. TRIJAX, C. B. and CARKHUFF, R . R. The experimental manipulation of therapeutic conditions. J . consult. Psychol., 1965, 29, 119-124.

T H E DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF HIGH AND LOW FUNCTIONING COUNSELORS UPON COUNSELORS-IN-TRAINING*

RICHARD PIERCE, ROBERT R. CARKHUFF AND BERNARD G . BERENSON

University of State University of Massachusetts New York at Bufalo

University of Arkansas

PROBLEM The extensive evidence (*) establishing the relationship between the facilitative

conditions of counselor empathy, respect, genuineness, concreteness and self-dis- closure and indices of client process movement and constructive change has led to hypotheses that a critical client change which takes place in counseling involves client movement toward higher levels of functioning on the facilitative conditions ( 3 ) .

In addition, it has been hypothesized that client movement will be determined in large part by the positive or negative differential between the level of functioning of counselor and client. That is, clients will move toward the level a t which their counselors are functioning.

*The authors wish t o acknowledge the iiivalunble assistarice of William Quill.

THE DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF HIGH AND LOW FUNCTIONING COUNSELORS 213

Further, i n the area of training, specific programs emphasizing an integration of the didactic and the experiential approaches have been successfully implemented with significant demonstrations of trainee gains in levels of functioning(lS 4 , and the client out,comes which the trained counselors elicited a t the conclusion of trainingc5). Nevertheless, even here the question concerning whether or not the results of train- ing are related to the level a t which the therapist is functioning remains. In the earlier work, while they are not measured in the specific studies involved, all of the therapists and supervisors involved were functioning at very high levels of facilita- t,ive conditions as measured in previous research.

In the present study, it was hypothesized that two groups of counselors-in- training would gain differentially in their levels of functioning according to the level of functioning of their counselor-trainers, with those of the higher funct.ioning counselor gaining the most.

METHOD Seventeen volunteers from the Amherst college community for a lay mental

health counselor training program, 3 of whom were male, were randomly assigned to two groups, 8 to a high level functioning counselor and 9 to a low level functioning counselor for t’en two-hour sessions. The integrated didactic and experiential ap- proach to training employed previously validated rating scales in “shaping” trainee responses while emphasizing a therapeutic experience focusing upon trainee de- velopment or “growth”. Assessment indices were administered prior to and following the training. Object,ive type ratings of standard interviews, where the trainees were given a ment,al set to “be as helpful as possible”, were accomplished with previously validated research scales ( 2 ) . Standardized reports concerning the trainee’s level of functioning were filled out by a standard interviewee trained to function in the role of the client and given a set to explore himself if he felt the counselors were facilita- tive. In addition, an index of whether or not the trainees continued in training was employed.

Random excerpts were taken from the tapes and rat,ed by experienced raters on five 5-point8 scales‘’ assessing the following dimensions of interpersonal function- ing which have been related to constructive client changes in counseling and psycho- therapy : Counselor empathy (Ej, respect (Rj, genuineness (G), concreteness ( C ) , self-disclosure (SD) and the depth to which the client explores himself (Ex). E ranges from level 1, where the counselor is unaware or ignorant of even the most conspicuous surface feelings of the counselee to level 5 , where the counselor com- municates an accurate empathic understanding of the client’s deepest feelings. R ranges from the counselor’s clear demonstration of negative regard to his communi- cation of a deep caring for the client. C: varies from the communication of a wide discrepancy between the counselor’s experiencing and his verbalizations to his being freely and deeply himself in a non-exploitative relationship. C ranges from the vague and abstract discussions t,o the direct discussion of specific feelings and ex- periences. SD varies from level 1, where the counselor actively attempts t.o remain detached from the second person and discloses nothing of himself to level 5 , where the counselor, with discrimination, freely volunteers personal material. Ex ranges from the level 1, where the client does not explore himself at all to the highest level, where he is searching to discover new feelings concerning himself and his world. The items of the inventories were related to each of the six constructs involved in the scales.

Pearsoii r rate-rerate reliabilities for the two raters involved were as follows: h’, .92, .95; €2, .90, .93; GI .89, .92; C , .87, 3 9 , SD, .93, 3 2 ; Ex, .95, .90. The inter- correlations between thc raters were as follows: El .98; R, .99; GI .83; C, .91; SD, .91; E.r, .78.

Two male counselors, each with two years’ experience and each having received very similar training a t the same institutions, had been found in previous research to be functioning at the following average rated levels of facilit,ative conditions:

2 14 RICHARD PIERCE, ROBERT R. CARKHUFF AND BERNARD G . BERENSON

counselor A, the high functioning counselor: E, 3.42; R , 3.40; G, 3.92; C, 3.19; Ex, 3.40; counselor B, the low functioning counselor: E, 2.03; R , 2.23; G, 2.28; C, 1.78; Ex, 1.63.

RESULTS Of the 8 trainees assigned to counselor A, all continued in training to its con-

clusion. Of the 9 trainees assigned to counselor B, 4 remained and 5 quit. A chi square of 4.0 was significant at the .05 level. For purposes of pre-post testing, the 2 trainees of counselor B’s group who completed three-fourths of the sessions before quitting were post-tested. The remaining three terminators quit during very early sessions.

The pre- and post-levels of functioning for both randomly assigned groups appear in Table 1. Counselor A’s group was functioning slightly higher than coun-

TABLE 1. PRE- AND POST TRAINING MEAN LEVELS OF FACILITATIVE FUNCTIONING OF HIGH AND Low COUNSELOR GROUPS

Pre-Training Post-Training Change Interpersonal High Coun- Low Coun- High Coun- Low Coun- High Coun- Low Coun-

Dimensions selor (A) selor (B) selor (A) selor (B) selor (A)* selor (B)**

Empathy Mean 1.58 1.38 2.32 1.89 .74 .51 SD .31 .26 .53 .68 .65 .83

Mean 1.67 1.43 2.23 1.92 .56 .49 SD .27 .26 .52 .53 .60 .86

Respect

Genuineness Mean 1.75 1.46 2.47 2.06 .72 .60 SD .28 .26 .56 .84 .65 .95

Mean 1.75 1.46 2.46 2.04 .71 .48 SD .25 .20 .42 .64 .58 .80

Concreteness

Self-Disclosure Mean 1.43 1.36 2.46 1.89 1.03 .53 SD .35 .23 .59 .79 .56 .97

Client Self-Exploration Mean 2.33 2.17 2.80 2.51 .53 .34 SD .23 .41 .16 .36 .49 .77

*Counselor A’s group demonstrated significant improvement at the .05 level. **Counselor B’s group demonstrated no significant changes.

selor B’s group prior to training and gained more during training. The assumptions for the use of parametric tests were not met, and the Wilcoxon Paired-Comparison Signed-Ranks test was employed for each group with the following results: Counselor A’s group demonstrated significant improvement at the .05 level or better for all individual conditions on both the objective tape ratings and the standard inventory. Counselor B’s group demonstrated no significant changes on any of the indices.

Ratings were also made from tape recorded training sessions with the following mean ratings for each trainer: Counselor A, the high functioning counselor: E, 3.00; R, 3.08; G, 3.33; C, 3.33; SD, 3.00. Counselor B, the low functioning counselor: El 1.67; R, 1.58; G, 2.00; C, 2.08; SD, 2.00.

DISCUSSION The counselors functioned in training consistently with the past ratings of

their counseling, with some tendency for the average level of conditions to be lower

THE DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS O F HIGH A N D LOW FUNCTIONING COUNSELORS 215

during training than in counseling. That is, the high counselor functioned a t levels significantly higher than the low counselor in training.

In general, the results indicate that the highest level functioning counselor elicited the greatest amount of constructive gain in functioning in the trainees. The implications for longer term training such as supervision and/or graduate training in general are profound.

In accordance with predictions, the average level of the low counselor’s group was similar a t the end of the 20 hours to the level of functioning of the low counselor. However, in the case of the high functioning counselor, the group did not approach the counselor’s average. We would hypothesize that in an extended long-term study, the group of the high counselor would move toward his level, while the group of the low counselor would remain a t the level of the low counselor.

The significant differences in the number of drop-outs might be related to the drop-outs of voluntary therapy and/or training groups: The counselees of those counselors who are functioning a t the highest levels remain in therapy, while those of the lowest level functioning counselors tend to drop out.

The initial level of interpersonal functioning of the volunteers for lay mental health counseling training is significant. In general, it is slightly lower than college students cast in the helping role(l), functioning on an average a t less than level 2, thus suggesting that these persons, when cast in the helping role, are functioning a t less than minimally facilitative interpersonal levels prior to training.

The fact, that the trainees of the lower level functioning counselor were function- ing a t slightly lower levels than the trainees of counselor A is confounding. On the one hand, we would hypothesize that the higher the level of the functioning of the trainees, the greater the potential for gain. On the other hand, because of the trainee’s initially lower level of functioning, the discrepancy between them and counselor B was greater and thus the potential for gain was greater. The study re- quires replication with groups equated more closely on the pre-testing level of functioning.

SUMMARY Seventeen volunteers for a lay mental health counselor training program were

randomly assigned to two groups, eight to a high level functioning counselor and nine to a low level functioning counselor as measured by previous objective tape ratings of empathy, respect, genuineness, concreteness and self-disclosure. Ten 2-hour sessions integrating the didactic and experiential approaches to training were conducted. Pre-post objective tape ratings of standard interviews conducted by the trainees and standardized reports concerning the trainee’s level of functioning filled out by the standard interviewees yielded the following results: The high level functioning counselor’s group demonstrated significant improvement on all in- dividual conditions. The group of the low level functioning counselor demonstrated no significant changes, although the trainees on an average did move toward the levels a t which the trainer was functioning.

REFERENCES 1. BEHENSON, B. G., CARKHUFF, R. R . and MYRUS, PAMELA. The interpersonal functioning and training of college students. J . wunsel. Psychol., in press, 1966.

2. CARKHUFF, R . R. The Counselor’s Contribution to Facilitative Processes. Urbana, Ill.: Parkin- son, 1966.

3. CARKHUFF, R. R. Toward a comprehensive model of facilitative interpersonal processes. J . counsel. Psychol., in press, 1966.

4. CARKHCIFF, R. R. and TRUAX, C. B. Training in counseling and psychotherapy: An evaluation of an integrat,ed didactic and experiential approach. J . consult. Psychol., 1965, 9.9, 333-336.

5. CARKHUFF, R . R. and TRUAX, C. B. Lay mental health counseling: The effectiveness of lay group counseling. J . consult. Psychol., 1965, 29, 426-431.