APPRAISAL OF A MILIEU THERAPY ENVIRONYENT 545

SUMMARY Therapeutic climate in a neuropsychiatric hospital was evaluated on 4 staff

characteristics : Congruence, level of regard, empathy, and unconditional regard. These were judged by staff themselves ( N = 13) and by their patients ( N = 31) using a modified Barrett-Lennard inventory. Hypotheses confirmed by multivariate analysis: (a) Climate as a composite was judged favorable by both groups (p < .001), and (b) climate was judged more favorable by staff than by patients (p < .005). Re- lated to (a) was a suggestion from univariate analysis that patients thought uncondi- tional regard was deficient. Principal components analysis indicated a quantitative difference between the two sets of judgments with simpler dimensional structure for staff self-judgments. Further, staff and patient judgments differed qualitatively ; on Factor 1, loadings for unconditional regard were high for staff ratings and zero for patient ratings.

REFERENCES 1. BARRETT-LENNARD, G . T. Dimensions of therapist response tu causal factors i n therapeutic

2. CALVIN, !. S. Probability and statistics. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kentuck , 1969. 3. GROW, W. F. Significant movement in comparatively short-term counseling. J . counsel. dychol . ,

4. HALKIDES, G. An experimental study of four conditions necessary for'therapeutic change.

5. ORRISO ON, D. F. Multivcrrialc Statieticol &&oak. #kv York: McCraw-Hill, 1967. 0. ROQERS, C. R. The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. J .

7. ROQERS, C. R. On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifin, 1961. 8. THONIBON, G. H . The FadmMl Analysis of Human Ability. London: university of London

9. TRUAX, C. B. and C.IRKHUFF, R. It. Toward Ef ld ive Counseling and Psychotherapy: Training

change. Ps chol. Mmrogr., 1962 66g, 2-4.

1966,13, 98-99.

Un ublished doctoral dissertation, Universit of Chic 0, 1958.

consult. Psychol., 1957, 21, 95103.

Press, 1951.

and Pradice. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.

THE EFFECTS OF MODEL REINFORCEMENT ON EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED ADOLESCENT BOYS*

LAURENCE LECKERMAN AND DENIS J. LYNCH

Eastern SLaie School and Hospital Trevose, Pennsylvaniu

University of Toledo

PROBLEM This study investigated the susceptibility of emotionally disturbed adolescents

to modeling effects. Relatively few studies". ') have dealt with this area and the importance of further knowledge is clear.

METHOD The Ss were 32 white adolescent boys in a residentid treatment center for

emotionally disturbed children. Only boys whose primary psychiatric diagnosis indicated an emotional disqrder were included, Ss exhibiting motor and/or sensory impairments being eliminated from consideration. The Ss were between the ages of 12 and 15, and all were of at least average intelligence as measured by the WISC. Ss were chosen and -signed randomly to the various experimental and control groups. There were two treatment groups. Eleven Ss were in the punishment group (PM group), and 10 Ss in the positive reinforcement or reward group (RM group). The control group was composed of 11 members.

+This study was conducted at the pevereux Schools while the authom were Postdoctoral Fellows at the Institute for Research and Training, Devereux Foundation.

546 LAURENCE LECKERMAN AND DENIS J. LYNCH

The model was a 15 year old white male, unknown to any of the Ss. He was recruited from a high school dramatics club and was thoroughly trained to produce the desired behaviors. The experimental situation was set up so that each S was brought individually into a room equipped with a one-way observation mirror. In the experimental room were the model and an adult proctor. The S was brought into the room and told briefly that the model was a new resident of the school. Each S kas then instructed by the proctor to solve a jigsaw puzzle equivalent to one already being worked on by the model. To lower the threshold for aggression, frustration was introduced by imposing a time limit of 5 minutes and rendering the puzzle insoluble by not supplying all the necessary pieces.

In the two experimental situations, in which a model was used, the model reacted in a pre-planned manner. Sixty seconds after the S was seated, the model stood up and performed a predetermined and rehearsed sequence of behavior (e.g., standing, pounding fist on desk while yelling, etc.). The proctor reacted in one of two ways to the model’s behavior, with either positive reinforcement or punishment. The sequence of response had previously been arranged in a randomly designed manner. For one group of Ss, the model was told, “Oh, I’m sorry, I guess you got one of those puzzles that had some pieces missing. I thought we threw all those out. Well, I’m glad you found it. I’m sorry it got you upset. Here, I’ve got a tray of cakes for some kids coming later today, but you can pick out one for yourself. Thanks again and goodbye.” For the second group of Ss the proctor said to the model, “The school principal told me that if any of you gave me any trouble you’d lose a day of vacation and would be sent to the disciplinary unit. You can go to your room now and wait till he comes to deal with you.” For the third group of Ss, no model was provided and the proctor therefore did not respond to any model.

Three observers, two in the observation room and the proctor, rated the S’s behavior. The rating scale used was composed of a list of the 8 model exhibited behaviors. Another scale designed to evaluate the similarity of each S’s behavior to that of the model was also used. This latter evaluation consisted of an 8 point scale including ratings from “not a t all” to “extremely”. Thus, the number of verbal and motoric behaviors exhibited by the model that were performed sub- sequently by the S provided one dependent variable measurei while the overall rating of similarity of behavior was the other measure. A third measure taken was the amount of time the S spent on the tasks.

RESULTS The number of imitative behaviors shown by the RM group was not sig-

nificantly different from the number of behaviors shown by the PM group, as assessed by the Mann-Whitney U Test. Neither were there any significant differ- ences among the three groups on the variable of Similarity to the model. Inter-rater reliability for judgments of number of imitative, behaviors was .50; reliability for judgments of similarity to the model was ,30.

An examination of the relationships between group membership and response latency (the period of time which the S spent working on the task before he told the proctor he was unable to complete the task and in fact stopped working on it) was conducted by means of a one-way analysis of variance. The obtained F ratio was significant at greater than the .01 level of confidence, and so a further examina- tion of the differences between the means was done with the use of the Scheffe method(*). The difference between the means of the PM group and the control group was not statistically significant; however, the difference between the RM group and the PM group, and that between the RM group and the control group were highly significant (p < .Ol>. A shorter response latency was associated with exposure to a positively reinforced model. Ss observing the model being rewarded for his behavior spent less time at their assigned task than did either the PM group or the control group. This finding suggested the presence of a disinhibitory effect(’).

THE EFFECTS OF MODEL REINFORCEMENT ON ADOLESCENT BOYS 547

Therefore, while this study did not demonstrate gross behavioral model effects, it is clear that the behavior of the model, at least in the RM group, was influencing the behavior of the Ss.

SUMMARY This study attempted to evaluate the susceptibility of emotionally disturbed

adolescent males to modeling effects. While no gross behavioral modeling was demonstrated, a disinhibitory effect on response latency was observed that sug- gested the importance of more subtle modeling effects than had been previously considered.

REFERENCES 1. BANUUHA, A. Behavioral modification through modeh procedures. Iii Krasner, L. and Ullmann, L. (Edu.). Research in BeJlcwior Mdijicrrtim. New !fork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.

2. FERGUSVN, G. Sldislical Anal sis in Psychology and Education. New York: McCraw-Hill, 1966. 3. MARSCHAK, M. Imitation anlparticipation in normal and disturbed young boys in interaction

4. WALTERS, R. and WILLOWS, D. Imitat,ive behavior of disturbed and nondisturbed children with their parents. J. elin. Psychol., 1987,W, 421-427.

following exposure to aggressive and non-aggressive models. ChzM Develop., 1968, 39, 79-89.

A TALK WITH (OR LISTENING TO) CARL JUNG T. S. KRAWIEC

In 1954, after a stiiit as a Fulbright lecturer in family and I charted our return to

i % n i J States to include stop at Rome of the distinguished laborato+w of psycholoy in Europe, as well as meetin with some o their learned professors. I n c i u s in this itinerary was a stop in Zurich, Switzerland.

Prior letter communications indicated that i t would be impossible for me to visit wtth Carl Jung because he was away from his residence. When we arrived in Zurich, 1 made 8 d to the Jungian Institute and found that Dr. Jung was not really connected with this eatabhhment. However, there was a message to the effect that he was in town.

The following day, I received a @ from a representative of thls institution, askm me to dro by his house after lunch, which I did! Later, as ?was entering the lobb of our hotel, the deak clerk informed me that dere was a @ for me and would I accept it? This I did, and in m n c e the call was to the effect that I was to meet m t h Carl Jung in his residence, the following after- noon at 4 P. M. (Apparently I was screened.)

The followin day, after a boat trip on Lake Zurich to Car! Jung’s.how, I found myself knocking at the door, whch was opened by a very attractive young lady. Upon presenting my

t, m name, I ww ushered in and was asked to follow her to the third floor. A knock upon the door evoked a loud “Enter.” The room turned out to be a sumptuous study, the walls of which were lined with books. A booming voice said to me: “You don’t mind if an old man does not riy”, to which I promptly replied: “Of course not.

He offered me a cigarette while he relit hia cigar and asked me to sit down. Then from the clear he said: “What the hell is the uncon- scious?”, to which I replied like a flash: “If you do not h o w , then I am sorry I can’t help you.”

His reeponse was a loud roar, and the remark “I just wanted to find out what kind of a psy- chologist ou are.” Then he proceeded to tell me that I h t Egypt, a Moslem country in which people truly act out their beliefs, and that I was

to a country where people talk about ~ % % f e f s . The rest of the time was spent listening to him talk about his experience in Egypt. Soon the time came to an end, for there was a knock on the door and another visitor for Carl Jung.

about this experience, what a pro%%3ung turns out to be when we con- sider the 1969 phenomena 80 f uently en- countered in the United States,%ere people just talk, so few listen, and so few act.