This article was downloaded by: [Central Michigan University] On: 23 December 2014, At: 23:51 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
Locus of Control and Behavior in Treatment Groups Dale L. Johnson & Philip G. Hanson Published online: 10 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Dale L. Johnson & Philip G. Hanson (1979) Locus of Control and Behavior in Treatment Groups, Journal of Personality Assessment, 43:2, 177-183, DOI: 10.1207/ s15327752jpa4302_13 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4302_13
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Personality Assessment, 1979,43,2
Locus of Control and Behavior in Treatment Groups
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 23:51 23 December 2014
DALE L. JOHNSON University of Houston
and
PHILIP G. HANSON Veterans Administration Hospital Houston, Texas
Summary: Studied the Rotter Locus of Control scale for effective prediction of behavior in small groups. Subjects were 205 male VA Hospital patients participating in self-directed groups who completed the AGCT, Psychological and Somatic Symptom Scales, and Rotter's I-E measure of locus of control. Group behavior was measured through sociometry and a Group Member Evaluaation form. Three hypotheseswere not supported: (a) Persons scoring high in the directionofinternal control (intemals) will be more likely to act to influence their social environment;(b) internals will be more active than externals in gathering and processinginformationingroupdiscussions, and (c)internals will be more self-directedand less susceptible to being influenced by others. Two hypotheseswere supported: (a) externals will express more somatic and psychological complaints than internals, and (h) externals will be perceived as behaving more defensively than intemals. In contrast, intelligence was correlated with a large number of group process measures. Locus of controlandintelligencemeasures predict different kinds of behavior in groups.
When a person with problems entersa group for psychological treatment, the experience always has anelement of novelty: The group members are usually strangers and the ways in which the group will operate are not clearly known. To the extent that the person does not know, he or she is limited in being able to predict the progress of the group and how well the person will function in it. The situation, of course, is never completelyunique; everyone has had many experiences in groups of many different kinds. In fact, everyone has such a vast store of experience with groups that it is possible for people to generate their own intuitive theories about how groups function, and how the person in particular deals with group relationships. These theories, when applied to entry into a new group, are used to construct a set of expectancies, one of which clearly relates to control. Lefcourt (1972) states: T h e locus of control construct refers t o the degree t o which individuals perceive the events in their lives a s being a consequence of their own actions, a n d thereby controllable (internal control), o r a s being unrelated t o their own behaviors a n d therefore beyond personal control (external control). I t is a generalized expectancy, a s opposed t o a specific expectancy, beingan abstraction developed f r o m a host of experiRequests for reprints may be sent to Dr. Hanson at the address listed at the end of this article.
ences in which expectancies have met with varying degrees of validation. I t is but one element of a behavioral prediction formula which also includes reinforcement value a n d situational determinants. (p. 9!)
Rotter's social learning theory (Rot, icance ter, 1966) has elaborated the signif' of such expectancies and developed the widely used Internal-External (IEI) locus of control scale. Except as a measure of change, apparently little work has been done with the IEscaleinnaturally occurring smallgroups or in treatment groups, although the scale and the theory seem to be clearly relevant for such persongroup interactions. Recent reviews of the literature (Joe, 1971; Lefcourt, 1972, 1976; Phares, 1973, 1976) have pointed to several areas where theory, measure, and person behavior have converged satisfactorily. Those areas having to do with behavior in small groups have been selected for further examination here. The hypotheses that emerged from this literature review are as follows: 1. Persons scoring high in the direction of internal control (internals) will be more likely to act to influence thezr social environment. More specifically, high internal subjects will be viewed by group members as exerting more influence on other group members than those subjects scoring low on the control dimen-
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 23:51 23 December 2014
178 sion (externals).' That is, high IE scores (externals) will be negatively correlated with leadership and influence. Phares (1973) found internals to be more active in attempting to influence their environment and states that this is "the hypothesis that is most consistently verified across a wide range of studiesW(p.10). It should be noted that all of the studies reviewed were laboratory experiments. 2. Internals will be more active than externals in gathering and processing information in group discussions. According to Lefcourt (1972), "persons with internal control expectancies tend to be more cognitively active than those with external control expectancies" (p. 14). In small group discussions, high internals should (a) participate more in group discussions, (b) be more task-oriented, and (c) be more attentive in group discussions. 3. Internals will be more self-directed and less susceptible to being influenced by others. High internals will be viewed by group members as not giving in to pressures from others in the group. A number of studies have found externals to be more suggestible (Klemp, 1969) and more apt to change under pressure from high-status persons (Ritchie & Phares, 1969). Whenanumber ofstudies are reviewed, however, it isapparent that the results are somewhat inconsistent: Sometimes externals are more easily influenced, but this is not always the case. 4. Externals will express more somatic and psychological complaints than internals. In a psychiatric population, one form of externalization is manifested in physical and psychological complaiats. Not only are the causes of one's problems projected into the environment but into one's body. Complaints are frequently heard in group that "If I didn't have this back trouble I could hold down a job," or "My headaches keep me from getting along with my family." In addition, previous research has indicated that these kinds of complaints tend to persist during and after the treatment program 1 Although the terms "externals" and "internals" are used here, it should be understood that the scoresactually represent points on a locus of control continuum
Locus of Control and Behavior in individuals who perseverate on them. In a program centered around personal and interpersonal problem-solving, symptomatic complaints do not get the kind of attention that individuals demand. In other words, the locus of control (or responsibility) resides in the body or in the environment rather than in a location more central to the individual. Studies reviewed by Ratter (1975) indicated that high externalizers do express more somatic symptoms. 5. Externals will be perceived as behaving more defensively than internals. Many of the psychiatric patients who enter the program see themselves in the role of "victim." That is, they see themselves as victimized by spouse, bosses, family, and society ingeneral. These patients externalize the cause oftheir problems onto the environment. When confronted about their role in the problem situation they rationalize or explain their behavior in terms of being caused by others or justify their position as being right and others wrong. This defensive behavior frustrates fellow group members, violates group goals of "owning responsibility for one's behavior," and may be seen as antagonistic to the attempts of others to "help." Phares (1973, 1976), Lefcourt (1972), and Joe (1971) have all cited studies that support this hypothesis.
Intelligence and Group Behavior The value of a concept such as locus of control lies in its ability to help understand problem situations. Likewise, much of the value of a research measure is to be found in its ability to predict behaviors; it is useful to the extent that it reliably and validly measures some significant attributes. For testing the validity of the locus of control concept and its related measure, the IE scale, a general measure of intelligence has been included as a competitor variable. Can the IE scale tell us more about small group behavior than a measure of intelligence?To answer this question each hypothesis above is alternatively stated with the term "high intelligence" substituted for "internals" and "low intelligence" for "externals."
D. L. JOHNSON and P. G. HANSON
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 23:51 23 December 2014
This is done because it seems reasonable that highly intelligent people would be more influential, would be more likely to seek information in the group, and would resist being influenced. Brighter people would probably also be less likely to discuss symptoms and to appear defensive. This substitution is for purposes of clarity of format and does not imply that intelligence is correlated with locus of control (i.e., "high intelligence" correlated with "internals," "low intelligence" correlated with "externals"). The Setting The Human Interaction Training Laboratory (HITL) has been described in detail elsewhere (Hanson, Rothaus, Johnson, & Lyle, 1966; Hanson, Rothaus, O'Connell, & Wiggins, 1969; Hanson, Rothaus, O'Connell, & Wiggins, 1970). Although the program has changed in many ways over the course of its first 10 years in existence, e.g., from having four groups begin at once to havingnewgroups begin whenever 10 new people had been admitted and were ready to begin, the basic features were quite similar. Thus, the groups were self-directed, having no trained therapist present during the unstructured group meetings. Instead, group members received training in how to develop their group into an effective unit for personal and group learning through special exercises, theory input, add shared processing (structured sessions). The treatment time was limited to four weeks. The groups dissolved at that time and while most men then exited the hospital, some went on to continue treatment in other programs. Staff members were available as consultants and did interact agreat dealwith the participants in the special exercises, role-playing, psychodrama, and in individual and group consultations. During the unstructured group time, participants were free to talk about anything they wished, but there was encouragement to explore their owngroup processes and how they influenced these processes. In addition to the "here-and-now" focus in group meetings, they typically spent much time talking about the prob-
lems that led them to seek hospitalization. Outcome studies (Rothaus, Morton, Johnson, Cleveland,\.& Lyle, 1963; Hanson et al., 1966) and a follow-up study (Johnson, Hanson, Rothaus, Morton, Lyle, & Moyer, 1965) have demonstrated that the program is effective with psychiatric patients. Observations of group interaction make it clear that the group interaction of approximately four hours per day is intense, and the people come to know each other very well. Methods Subjects Men participating in the Houston VA Hospital's Human Interaction Training Laboratory (HITL) were subjects for this study. All 220 men who had participated in 22 groups completed some part of the core research measure battery (only part of which is utilized in this :study). Those subjects who lacked completed data for various reasons, including premature dropouts, were omitted from the study, leaving 205 subjects. They had a mean age of 39.92 years (SD:10.'72), an average education of 11.88 years (SD: 2.60), and a mean AGCT score of 105.37 (SD: 17.26). While the men had a variety of psychiatric diagnoses, anxiet:y reaction or depressive reaction constituted the largest block of patients with some being diagnosed as psychotic. Procedures On entering the program subjects completed a Biographical Inventory, the Army General Classification Test (AGCT), Psychological Symptom Scale (PSS), Somatic Symptom Scale (SSS), arid Rotter's IE Scale. The tests wereadministered as part of the larger preprogram test battery by a highly trained psychollogical technician. At the end of each of the four training weeks, subjects completed a 20-item sociometric questionnaire for members of their group. Subjects were asked to answer such questions as "Which two members of the group can most easily influence others to change their opinion?" Scores based on this questionnaire consisted of the number of choices each individual received for each item divided by the total
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 23:51 23 December 2014
Locus of Control and Behavior
number of group members excepting the subject himself. Each subject also completed a 16-item Group Member Evaluation (GME) form during the second and fourth weeks of the program. This form required the subject to rate (a) his own group behavior, and (b) that of each member of his group. The ratings were for such group behaviors as "Helps members express their ideas and feelings." Scores were derived for the subject's self-rating and the mean ratings by others of the subject. The amount and distribution of participation in group discussions was measured by having each subject rate his own and each group member's talkativeness during each group session on a 9-point scale. Average scores for the first week for each individual were used to indicatethetypical participation level of each subject. In this study, only first-week sociometric scores and second-week GME scores were used. Early scores were used because having spent 20 hours together in group sessions the men knew each other well, but at the same time, the sociometrics were a novelty. They typically responded in a serious, thoughtful way. Some of the novelty had worn off for the later sociometrics. These same measures were factor analyzed for a different but comparable large group ( n = 217) of HITL men. This factor analysis was replicated several times and the factor scores have been found to be highly consistent. The relevant factor scores were obtained for the present study. Factor scores were included along with scores for specific items because by including a broader range of information they offered the possibilities of stronger associations with the IE measure.* Specific items and factors used to test the stated hypothesis appear in Table 1. Results Locus of Control None of the first three hypotheses received support. As may be seen in Table 1, the correlations between the IE scale and group behavior measures were uni2 Details on the factor analysls and psychometr~cproperties of the group measures areavailable from the authors
formly low and nonsignificant. Hypothesis 4, that high expression of somatic and psychological symptoms would be associated with an external control orientation, was supported. All of the correlations with the self-report symptom measures were significant both before and after group participation. While the sociometric item on symptoms was not significantly correlated with the IE scale, most of the Group Member Evaluation items were. Ratings by other group members of the person were slightly more highly correlated with IE than ratings by the person of himself. Hypothesis 5 stated that externally oriented persons would behave more defensively in groups, and this was supported. Of the eight items used to test this hypothesis, five were significant. Greater externality was associated with being perceived by others as annoying, being more ready to fight than work out problems, seeing oneself as "unfriendly," and with being seen by others as alienated. Intelligence The first and third hypotheses as restated in terms of intelligence and group behavior received considerable support. On both sociometric and Group Member Evaluation measures, most of the items were significantly correlated with AGCT scores. On the Group Member Evaluation, this result was stronger for other ratings than self-ratings in that correlations ranged from .26 to .30 on the former and were nonsignificant on the latter. The second hypothesis regarding intelligence and information seeking in groups was only partially supported. Higher intelligence was associated with group participation (.33), helping others express ideas (.26), and paying attention to others (.22), but the other six items were nonsignificantly related. Hypothesis 4 received scattered support. Brighter men reported fewer psychological (-.22) and somatic (-.25) symptoms at posttesting. There were no significant group behavior measure correlations for this hypothesis. Thf: results for Hypothesis 5 were also
181
D. L. JOHNSON and P. G . HANSON Table 1 Correlations Between Small Group Behavior Measures and IE Scale and AGCT Measures Group Variables
1E
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 23:51 23 December 2014
Sociometric Influence others .06 Genuine leader -.02 Keep group on the ball -.04 Factor score: leadership -.05 Group member evaluation Leads in selecting topic Other .05 Self -.08 Helps group stay on target Other -.04 Self -.09 Factor: task maintenance .03 Other Self -.11
.33** .16 .25* .27**
.26* .16 .30** .06 .30** .14
Hypothesis 2: Internals will seek information .33** Participation .07 Sociometric Talks about problems with others .13 .12 Desire to accomplish something -.05 .2 1 Group member evaluation Helps others express ideas -.04 .26* Other Self -.05 .I0 (-) Dominates and imposes will Other .08 .16 Self .03 .I8 Pays attention to others Other -.07 .22* Self -.08 .02 Hypothesis 3: Internals will be less susceptible to influence Sociometric Depend on most
.OO .12
-.22* -.27**
.ll
-.26*
AGCTIQP
Hypothesis 4: Externals will express more soma1ic and psychological complaints Self-report PSS pre .15* -.17 PSS post .15* -.22* SSS pre .33*** .OO SSS post .33*** --.25* Sociometric Talks about medical and physical problems .13 .OO Group member evaluation Talks about medical problems Other .14* --.07 .08 --.01 Self Talks about psychological problems Other .23** .I8 Self .14* .I8 Factor: Talks about medical and psychological problems Other .20** --.03 Self .16* .03 Hypothesis 5: Externals will be perceived as behaving more defensively Group member evaluation Annoys others Other .16* Self -.I 1 More ready to fight than work out problems Other .15* Self .la** (-) Is warm and friendly Other -.09 -.14* Self Factor: Aliena.tion Other .15* Self .10 Note; (-) = predicted negative correlation.
" n not always 205.
(-) Factor:
hyperdependency
IE
ACCT IQ"
Hypothesis 1: Internals act to influence their socialenvironment
(-) Gives in easily
Measures Group Variables
*p
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
Locus of Control and Behavior in Treatment Groups Dale L. Johnson & Philip G. Hanson Published online: 10 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Dale L. Johnson & Philip G. Hanson (1979) Locus of Control and Behavior in Treatment Groups, Journal of Personality Assessment, 43:2, 177-183, DOI: 10.1207/ s15327752jpa4302_13 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4302_13
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Personality Assessment, 1979,43,2
Locus of Control and Behavior in Treatment Groups
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 23:51 23 December 2014
DALE L. JOHNSON University of Houston
and
PHILIP G. HANSON Veterans Administration Hospital Houston, Texas
Summary: Studied the Rotter Locus of Control scale for effective prediction of behavior in small groups. Subjects were 205 male VA Hospital patients participating in self-directed groups who completed the AGCT, Psychological and Somatic Symptom Scales, and Rotter's I-E measure of locus of control. Group behavior was measured through sociometry and a Group Member Evaluaation form. Three hypotheseswere not supported: (a) Persons scoring high in the directionofinternal control (intemals) will be more likely to act to influence their social environment;(b) internals will be more active than externals in gathering and processinginformationingroupdiscussions, and (c)internals will be more self-directedand less susceptible to being influenced by others. Two hypotheseswere supported: (a) externals will express more somatic and psychological complaints than internals, and (h) externals will be perceived as behaving more defensively than intemals. In contrast, intelligence was correlated with a large number of group process measures. Locus of controlandintelligencemeasures predict different kinds of behavior in groups.
When a person with problems entersa group for psychological treatment, the experience always has anelement of novelty: The group members are usually strangers and the ways in which the group will operate are not clearly known. To the extent that the person does not know, he or she is limited in being able to predict the progress of the group and how well the person will function in it. The situation, of course, is never completelyunique; everyone has had many experiences in groups of many different kinds. In fact, everyone has such a vast store of experience with groups that it is possible for people to generate their own intuitive theories about how groups function, and how the person in particular deals with group relationships. These theories, when applied to entry into a new group, are used to construct a set of expectancies, one of which clearly relates to control. Lefcourt (1972) states: T h e locus of control construct refers t o the degree t o which individuals perceive the events in their lives a s being a consequence of their own actions, a n d thereby controllable (internal control), o r a s being unrelated t o their own behaviors a n d therefore beyond personal control (external control). I t is a generalized expectancy, a s opposed t o a specific expectancy, beingan abstraction developed f r o m a host of experiRequests for reprints may be sent to Dr. Hanson at the address listed at the end of this article.
ences in which expectancies have met with varying degrees of validation. I t is but one element of a behavioral prediction formula which also includes reinforcement value a n d situational determinants. (p. 9!)
Rotter's social learning theory (Rot, icance ter, 1966) has elaborated the signif' of such expectancies and developed the widely used Internal-External (IEI) locus of control scale. Except as a measure of change, apparently little work has been done with the IEscaleinnaturally occurring smallgroups or in treatment groups, although the scale and the theory seem to be clearly relevant for such persongroup interactions. Recent reviews of the literature (Joe, 1971; Lefcourt, 1972, 1976; Phares, 1973, 1976) have pointed to several areas where theory, measure, and person behavior have converged satisfactorily. Those areas having to do with behavior in small groups have been selected for further examination here. The hypotheses that emerged from this literature review are as follows: 1. Persons scoring high in the direction of internal control (internals) will be more likely to act to influence thezr social environment. More specifically, high internal subjects will be viewed by group members as exerting more influence on other group members than those subjects scoring low on the control dimen-
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 23:51 23 December 2014
178 sion (externals).' That is, high IE scores (externals) will be negatively correlated with leadership and influence. Phares (1973) found internals to be more active in attempting to influence their environment and states that this is "the hypothesis that is most consistently verified across a wide range of studiesW(p.10). It should be noted that all of the studies reviewed were laboratory experiments. 2. Internals will be more active than externals in gathering and processing information in group discussions. According to Lefcourt (1972), "persons with internal control expectancies tend to be more cognitively active than those with external control expectancies" (p. 14). In small group discussions, high internals should (a) participate more in group discussions, (b) be more task-oriented, and (c) be more attentive in group discussions. 3. Internals will be more self-directed and less susceptible to being influenced by others. High internals will be viewed by group members as not giving in to pressures from others in the group. A number of studies have found externals to be more suggestible (Klemp, 1969) and more apt to change under pressure from high-status persons (Ritchie & Phares, 1969). Whenanumber ofstudies are reviewed, however, it isapparent that the results are somewhat inconsistent: Sometimes externals are more easily influenced, but this is not always the case. 4. Externals will express more somatic and psychological complaints than internals. In a psychiatric population, one form of externalization is manifested in physical and psychological complaiats. Not only are the causes of one's problems projected into the environment but into one's body. Complaints are frequently heard in group that "If I didn't have this back trouble I could hold down a job," or "My headaches keep me from getting along with my family." In addition, previous research has indicated that these kinds of complaints tend to persist during and after the treatment program 1 Although the terms "externals" and "internals" are used here, it should be understood that the scoresactually represent points on a locus of control continuum
Locus of Control and Behavior in individuals who perseverate on them. In a program centered around personal and interpersonal problem-solving, symptomatic complaints do not get the kind of attention that individuals demand. In other words, the locus of control (or responsibility) resides in the body or in the environment rather than in a location more central to the individual. Studies reviewed by Ratter (1975) indicated that high externalizers do express more somatic symptoms. 5. Externals will be perceived as behaving more defensively than internals. Many of the psychiatric patients who enter the program see themselves in the role of "victim." That is, they see themselves as victimized by spouse, bosses, family, and society ingeneral. These patients externalize the cause oftheir problems onto the environment. When confronted about their role in the problem situation they rationalize or explain their behavior in terms of being caused by others or justify their position as being right and others wrong. This defensive behavior frustrates fellow group members, violates group goals of "owning responsibility for one's behavior," and may be seen as antagonistic to the attempts of others to "help." Phares (1973, 1976), Lefcourt (1972), and Joe (1971) have all cited studies that support this hypothesis.
Intelligence and Group Behavior The value of a concept such as locus of control lies in its ability to help understand problem situations. Likewise, much of the value of a research measure is to be found in its ability to predict behaviors; it is useful to the extent that it reliably and validly measures some significant attributes. For testing the validity of the locus of control concept and its related measure, the IE scale, a general measure of intelligence has been included as a competitor variable. Can the IE scale tell us more about small group behavior than a measure of intelligence?To answer this question each hypothesis above is alternatively stated with the term "high intelligence" substituted for "internals" and "low intelligence" for "externals."
D. L. JOHNSON and P. G. HANSON
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 23:51 23 December 2014
This is done because it seems reasonable that highly intelligent people would be more influential, would be more likely to seek information in the group, and would resist being influenced. Brighter people would probably also be less likely to discuss symptoms and to appear defensive. This substitution is for purposes of clarity of format and does not imply that intelligence is correlated with locus of control (i.e., "high intelligence" correlated with "internals," "low intelligence" correlated with "externals"). The Setting The Human Interaction Training Laboratory (HITL) has been described in detail elsewhere (Hanson, Rothaus, Johnson, & Lyle, 1966; Hanson, Rothaus, O'Connell, & Wiggins, 1969; Hanson, Rothaus, O'Connell, & Wiggins, 1970). Although the program has changed in many ways over the course of its first 10 years in existence, e.g., from having four groups begin at once to havingnewgroups begin whenever 10 new people had been admitted and were ready to begin, the basic features were quite similar. Thus, the groups were self-directed, having no trained therapist present during the unstructured group meetings. Instead, group members received training in how to develop their group into an effective unit for personal and group learning through special exercises, theory input, add shared processing (structured sessions). The treatment time was limited to four weeks. The groups dissolved at that time and while most men then exited the hospital, some went on to continue treatment in other programs. Staff members were available as consultants and did interact agreat dealwith the participants in the special exercises, role-playing, psychodrama, and in individual and group consultations. During the unstructured group time, participants were free to talk about anything they wished, but there was encouragement to explore their owngroup processes and how they influenced these processes. In addition to the "here-and-now" focus in group meetings, they typically spent much time talking about the prob-
lems that led them to seek hospitalization. Outcome studies (Rothaus, Morton, Johnson, Cleveland,\.& Lyle, 1963; Hanson et al., 1966) and a follow-up study (Johnson, Hanson, Rothaus, Morton, Lyle, & Moyer, 1965) have demonstrated that the program is effective with psychiatric patients. Observations of group interaction make it clear that the group interaction of approximately four hours per day is intense, and the people come to know each other very well. Methods Subjects Men participating in the Houston VA Hospital's Human Interaction Training Laboratory (HITL) were subjects for this study. All 220 men who had participated in 22 groups completed some part of the core research measure battery (only part of which is utilized in this :study). Those subjects who lacked completed data for various reasons, including premature dropouts, were omitted from the study, leaving 205 subjects. They had a mean age of 39.92 years (SD:10.'72), an average education of 11.88 years (SD: 2.60), and a mean AGCT score of 105.37 (SD: 17.26). While the men had a variety of psychiatric diagnoses, anxiet:y reaction or depressive reaction constituted the largest block of patients with some being diagnosed as psychotic. Procedures On entering the program subjects completed a Biographical Inventory, the Army General Classification Test (AGCT), Psychological Symptom Scale (PSS), Somatic Symptom Scale (SSS), arid Rotter's IE Scale. The tests wereadministered as part of the larger preprogram test battery by a highly trained psychollogical technician. At the end of each of the four training weeks, subjects completed a 20-item sociometric questionnaire for members of their group. Subjects were asked to answer such questions as "Which two members of the group can most easily influence others to change their opinion?" Scores based on this questionnaire consisted of the number of choices each individual received for each item divided by the total
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 23:51 23 December 2014
Locus of Control and Behavior
number of group members excepting the subject himself. Each subject also completed a 16-item Group Member Evaluation (GME) form during the second and fourth weeks of the program. This form required the subject to rate (a) his own group behavior, and (b) that of each member of his group. The ratings were for such group behaviors as "Helps members express their ideas and feelings." Scores were derived for the subject's self-rating and the mean ratings by others of the subject. The amount and distribution of participation in group discussions was measured by having each subject rate his own and each group member's talkativeness during each group session on a 9-point scale. Average scores for the first week for each individual were used to indicatethetypical participation level of each subject. In this study, only first-week sociometric scores and second-week GME scores were used. Early scores were used because having spent 20 hours together in group sessions the men knew each other well, but at the same time, the sociometrics were a novelty. They typically responded in a serious, thoughtful way. Some of the novelty had worn off for the later sociometrics. These same measures were factor analyzed for a different but comparable large group ( n = 217) of HITL men. This factor analysis was replicated several times and the factor scores have been found to be highly consistent. The relevant factor scores were obtained for the present study. Factor scores were included along with scores for specific items because by including a broader range of information they offered the possibilities of stronger associations with the IE measure.* Specific items and factors used to test the stated hypothesis appear in Table 1. Results Locus of Control None of the first three hypotheses received support. As may be seen in Table 1, the correlations between the IE scale and group behavior measures were uni2 Details on the factor analysls and psychometr~cproperties of the group measures areavailable from the authors
formly low and nonsignificant. Hypothesis 4, that high expression of somatic and psychological symptoms would be associated with an external control orientation, was supported. All of the correlations with the self-report symptom measures were significant both before and after group participation. While the sociometric item on symptoms was not significantly correlated with the IE scale, most of the Group Member Evaluation items were. Ratings by other group members of the person were slightly more highly correlated with IE than ratings by the person of himself. Hypothesis 5 stated that externally oriented persons would behave more defensively in groups, and this was supported. Of the eight items used to test this hypothesis, five were significant. Greater externality was associated with being perceived by others as annoying, being more ready to fight than work out problems, seeing oneself as "unfriendly," and with being seen by others as alienated. Intelligence The first and third hypotheses as restated in terms of intelligence and group behavior received considerable support. On both sociometric and Group Member Evaluation measures, most of the items were significantly correlated with AGCT scores. On the Group Member Evaluation, this result was stronger for other ratings than self-ratings in that correlations ranged from .26 to .30 on the former and were nonsignificant on the latter. The second hypothesis regarding intelligence and information seeking in groups was only partially supported. Higher intelligence was associated with group participation (.33), helping others express ideas (.26), and paying attention to others (.22), but the other six items were nonsignificantly related. Hypothesis 4 received scattered support. Brighter men reported fewer psychological (-.22) and somatic (-.25) symptoms at posttesting. There were no significant group behavior measure correlations for this hypothesis. Thf: results for Hypothesis 5 were also
181
D. L. JOHNSON and P. G . HANSON Table 1 Correlations Between Small Group Behavior Measures and IE Scale and AGCT Measures Group Variables
1E
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 23:51 23 December 2014
Sociometric Influence others .06 Genuine leader -.02 Keep group on the ball -.04 Factor score: leadership -.05 Group member evaluation Leads in selecting topic Other .05 Self -.08 Helps group stay on target Other -.04 Self -.09 Factor: task maintenance .03 Other Self -.11
.33** .16 .25* .27**
.26* .16 .30** .06 .30** .14
Hypothesis 2: Internals will seek information .33** Participation .07 Sociometric Talks about problems with others .13 .12 Desire to accomplish something -.05 .2 1 Group member evaluation Helps others express ideas -.04 .26* Other Self -.05 .I0 (-) Dominates and imposes will Other .08 .16 Self .03 .I8 Pays attention to others Other -.07 .22* Self -.08 .02 Hypothesis 3: Internals will be less susceptible to influence Sociometric Depend on most
.OO .12
-.22* -.27**
.ll
-.26*
AGCTIQP
Hypothesis 4: Externals will express more soma1ic and psychological complaints Self-report PSS pre .15* -.17 PSS post .15* -.22* SSS pre .33*** .OO SSS post .33*** --.25* Sociometric Talks about medical and physical problems .13 .OO Group member evaluation Talks about medical problems Other .14* --.07 .08 --.01 Self Talks about psychological problems Other .23** .I8 Self .14* .I8 Factor: Talks about medical and psychological problems Other .20** --.03 Self .16* .03 Hypothesis 5: Externals will be perceived as behaving more defensively Group member evaluation Annoys others Other .16* Self -.I 1 More ready to fight than work out problems Other .15* Self .la** (-) Is warm and friendly Other -.09 -.14* Self Factor: Aliena.tion Other .15* Self .10 Note; (-) = predicted negative correlation.
" n not always 205.
(-) Factor:
hyperdependency
IE
ACCT IQ"
Hypothesis 1: Internals act to influence their socialenvironment
(-) Gives in easily
Measures Group Variables
*p
