CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
PERCEPTIONS OF THE QUIET AND VERBAL GROUP MEMBER
AS A FUNCTION OF LEADER EVALUATIONS
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Psychology
by
Judith Marie Mitchell
August, 1980
The Thesis of Judith Marie Hitchell is approved:
Leo Pirojni~f, Ph.D.
Karla
Butl~r,
Ph.D.
Mehlman, Ph.D.
e Chairperson
California State University, Northridge
ii
ACKNO\-ILEDGEMENT S
Sincere appreciation to Dr. Benjamin Mehlman, Dr. Leo Pirojnikoff,
and Dr. Karla Butler for their participation and involvement as
committee members, and to Dr. Barbara Tabachnick for her personal
time and assistance as a statistical consultant.
A special appreciation and thanks to Dr. Ben Hehlman, who's
guidance, advice, and considerable patience was invaluable in the
development and completion of this thesis.
Personal acknowledgements and appreciations go to Marc
Daignault, Dianne Taylor, Sharon Taylor-Ross, Gregory Hearne,
Stella Solnit, and Richard Norton whose voluntary involvement
contributed to the on-going progress and development of this
thesis.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKl'l"OWLEDGEMENT S. • • . • . . • • . . • • . . . . . • . • . . • • • • . . • • . . . • . . • . . • . . . . • . • . iii
LIST OF TABLES. . • . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . • . . . . • • . . . . • . . . . . .
vi
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................
ix
ABSTRACT. . . • . . . . • . . . • . . . • . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . • • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . .
X
Chapter
I.
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . • . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . .
1
Groups: General. • . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . • . • . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
Groups: Task. . . • . . . . • . . . . . . • • . • . . . . • . • . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . .
7
Groups: Therapy. . . . . • . . • . . . • . • . . • • • • • • • . • • . . • . . . • • . . . • . . .
10
The Verbally Active Group Member •••••••.•....•....•••.•..
14
The Verbally Quiet Group Member.. . . . . . • . . . • . • • . . . . . . . . . . •
16
Person Perception and Leader Influence ......•.•.•........
18
Experimental Hypotheses ....•.....•..•..................•.
21
METHODS....................................................
23
Subjects. • • . . . • . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • • • . • . • . . • . • • . • • . . . . .
23
Stimulus. . . . . • . . . • . • . • . . • . • . . • • • . . • . . • . . • . . • . . • . • . . • . . . . •
23
Experimental Procedure. • . • . . . . . . • • . . . . • • . . . . • . . . • • . . . . . . .
25
Questionnaire. . . • . . • . . • . . . • . . . . • . • . . • . • . • . • • • . . • • . • . . . . . .
26
RESULTS....................................................
29
Preliminary Analysis. . . . • . . • • . . . . • . • • • . • . . . • . . • . . . . • • . . . .
29
Main Analyses. . • . . . • . . . • . . . • • . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • . . . • . . . . . . . . .
29
Post Hoc Analyses. . • . . • . . . . . • . . . • • . . . . . . . . • • . . . • . . . . • . . . .
39
s
••• ••• • •• ••• ••• ••• • •• ••• • •• •••••• ••• ••• ••• •••
64
REFERENCES .••.•••.••••••.••••.•••.••••••.••• ·• • • • • • . • . • • • . . • • . • • • • .
75
II.
III.
~___l'L.__~~J2I CU_~S I ON_.~_. -" ~ •
iv
.APPEND IX A. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
79
APPENDIX B ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
89
APPENDIX C •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••.•••••.•
92
APPENDIX D •••••••••.••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••.•••••••••
108
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
· 6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Intercorrelations Among the Twelve Questionnaire
Variables................................................
30
Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Questionnaire
Perception Scores. . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . .
32
Univariate and Stepdm..m Analyses of Questionnaire
Variables as a Function of Verbal Level..................
34
Adjusted Means for Significant Questionnaire
Variables for Main Effect of Verbal Level................
35
Univariate and Stepdown Analyses of Questionnaire
Variables as a Function of Statement Condition...........
37
Univariate and Stepdown Analyses of Questionnaire
Variables as a Function of Interaction between
Verbal Level and Statement Condition.....................
38
Adjusted Heans for Significant Stepdown Questionnaire
Variables for Each Statement Condition...................
40
Adjusted Cell Means for Significant Stepdown
Questionnaire Variables as a Function between Statement
Condition and Verbal Level...............................
41
Adjusted Mean Differences for "Group Member Desirability"
(Question two) as a Function of Interaction between
Verbal Level and Statement Condition.....................
43
Adjusted Mean Differences for "Interest in Other Members"
(Question four) as a Function of Interaction between
Verbal Level and Statement Condition.....................
45
Adjusted Mean Differences for "Level of Contribution"
(Question five) as a Function of Interaction between
Verbal Level and Statement Condition.....................
47
Adjusted Mean Cell Differences for "Group Member
Desirability" (Question two) as a Function of Interaction
between Verbal Level and Statement Condition: CrossComparisons •.•.•...•••.•..••...•.. _. . . • • . . . . . • . • . . . • . • . . . •
51
Adjusted Hean Cell Differences for "Interest in Other
_Memb_ers_"__(Que.stiQI1_fgur) _as a Function of Interaction
between Verbal Level and Stat~ment- Conditicn1: Cros-s::. Comparisons. . • . . . . . • . • • . . . . . . • • . • . . • . . . . . . . . • • . . . • . . . . . . •
53
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27;
Adjusted Mean Cell Differences for "Level of Contribution" (Question five) as a Function of Interaction
between Verbal Level and Statement Condition: CrossComparisons. . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
Adjusted Mean Differences for "Likeability" (Question
one) as a Function of Main Effect of Statement
Condition.................................................
62
Adjusted Mean Differences for "Sense of Comfort with
Member" (Question three) as a Function of Main Effect
of Statement Condition..................................
63
Means and (Standard Deviations) for Questionnaire
Variables as a Function of Verbal Level..................
93
Means and (Standard Deviations) for Questionnaire
Variables as a Function of Statement Condition...........
94
Means and Standard Deviations for Question One as a
Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition.........
96
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Two as a
Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition.........
97
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Three as a
Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition.........
98
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Four as a
Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition.........
99
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Five as a
Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition ..••.....
100
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Six as a
Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition •..••....
101
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Seven as a
Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition .........
102
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Eight as a
Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition •.•......
103
MectfiS and Standard Deviations-for Quest.ion Nine as a
Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition •.•...•.•
104
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
28.
29.
30.
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Ten as a
Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition •••.•••••
105
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Eleven as a
Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition .••.•••..
106
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Twelve as a
Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition ..•••••••
107
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
Experimental Design.......................................
28
2.
Adjusted Mean Scores for "Group Member Desirability"
as a Function of Interaction between Verbal Level and
Statement Condition............................ . . . . . • . . . . .
58
Adjusted Mean Scores for "Interest in Other Members"
as a Function of Interaction between Verbal Level and
Statement Condition........................... . . • . . . . . . • • .
59
Adjusted Mean Scores for "Level of Group Contribution"
as a Function of Interaction between Verbal Level and
Statement Condition.......................................
60
3.
4.
ix
'
I
I
ABSTRACT
PERCEPTIONS OF THE QUIET AND VERBAL GROUP MEMBER
AS A FUNCTION OF LEADER EVALUATIONS
by
Judith Marie Mitchell
Master of Arts in Psychology
This study investigated the perceptions generated toward the
quiet and verbal group member as an outcome of group leader statements
of positive, negative, and neutral content.
This study also investi-
gated the results of incongruent labels placed on the quiet and verbal
group member under similar positive and negative leader statement
conditions.
A videotaped film of a six person group was edited into
a 20-minute segment, representative of a group discussion with a very
quiet group member and a verbally active group member.
The edited
videotape was shown to 120 subjects divided into ten groups of 12
subjects each.
The dependent variables were twelve perception charac-
teristics on a five-point rating scale.
The independent variables were
nine different leader statements representing positive, negative,
neutral, and incongruently labeled conditions for both the quiet and
verbal group member.
Five groups rated the twelve perception charac-
X
teristics for the quiet member as influenced by the three leader
statements of positive, negative, or neutral content, and also the
two leader statements of the quiet member incongruently labeled as
"verbal" followed by either a positive or negative statement.
The
remaining five groups rated the twelve perception characteristics for
the verbal member under the same leader statement conditions with an
incongruent label as "quiet".
"Group member desirability", "interest
in other members", and "level of group contribution" emerged as the
three significant perception variables.
Perceptions of the quiet
group member were significantly influenced by the leader statements,
with favorable perceptions generated in the positive condition and
unfavorable perceptions generated in the negative and neutral conditions for the first two perception variables.
The quiet member con-
tinued to be perceived as moderate in group contribution, regardless
of leader influence.
The verbal member was perceived very favorably
in the neutral statement condition, with no changes in perceptions
for the positive or negative statement conditions, thus indicating
that observed verbal participation had a stronger impact upon
perceptions of the verbal member than leader statements.
When the
quiet member was incongruently labeled as "verbal", he was perceived
as a verbal member for "group member desirability" and "interest in
'
other members", but not for his level of group contribution.
When
the verbal member was labeled as "quiet", he received perception
ratings similar to those of a quiet member only for the variable of
"level of group contribution''. Both the main effects of verbal and
leader statements, as well as the interaction, were significant.
xi
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Communication is a necessary function of groups, as without it,
group members would form a simple collection of individuals or an
audience, but not a group.
Through verbal communication, a member
establishes group identity and involvement, gives and receives group
related information, contributes to the group production, and initiates
various group activities (Hollander, 1964).
According to Loeser
(195 7) the "dynamic interaction" among members is a prominent and
central element in the group process, and the major modality by which
groups progress and accomplish their group goal.
Verbal communication also imparts personal information about each
member.
The verbal activity of a member can operate as a cue and
resource by which other members form impressions, relate to the member
and chose to acknowledge and utilize his or her contributions to the
group (Hayes & Meltzer, 1972; Bavelas, Hastorf, Gross & Kite, 1965;
Riecken, 1958; Knutson, 1960).
Researchers in group processes are aware that not all members
verbally contribute equally in a group, that some members, for
various reasons, are very quiet or relatively silent group par'ticipants.
Some small group leaders state that a balance between fre-
quent talkers and the more quiet members can be advantageous and useful to a group as a whole (Aston, 197Q; Knutson, 1960), but it has
been observed also that very quiet members often have difficulty in
1
2
establishing any degree of visibility in the group and can elicit
negative reactions and confrontations from other group members
(Hansen, Warner & Smith, 1976).
Groups: General
In exploring the relation that exists between verbal activity in
groups and members' perceptions of very high or low verbal persons,
Norfleet (1948) demonstrated that verbal activity in a group has a
direct association to the perceived productivity and contribution of
the group members.
A correlation of productivity and participation
was established at .94, with the high productivity ratings associated
with the more talkative group members.
Verbal activity was also associated strongly with leadership
qualities, with a correlation of .93 between the two (Bass, 1949).
Further investigation substantiated the strong association between
perceived leadership and a member's verbal activity, with the
additional finding that other characteristics associated with leadership (member status, valid group contributions, expertise, selfconfidence) were less influential in leader selection and perception
than was the single factor of amount of verbal participation (Jaffee
& Lucas, 1969; Reilly & Jaffee, 1970; Gintner & Lindskold, 1975).
Thus, those members who talked a great deal were more likely to be
perceived as leaders than other members who had leader-associated
abilities but talked less.
In addition to group productivity and leadership, a third
characteristic associated with verbal activity is sociometric group
rank and group membership desirability.
Talkative members are given
3
higher sociometric ranks and viewed as more desirable in the group
than are the less verbal group members (Bavelas et al., 1965;
Strodtbeck & Hook, 1961).
Thus, a member who is very talkative is likely to be viewed as
productive and contributing to the group goal, having potential as a
leader, being a desired group member, and receiving a high or top
sociometric rank from his peers (Bavelas et al., 1965; Riecken, 1958;
Jaffee & Lucas, 1969).
The perceptions about the quieter member differ
widely from those about the talkative one.
This individual is seldom
seen as having leader potential, or selected for leader activities,
is perceived as less productive and less contributory towards the
group than more active members, and tends to be viewed as a less
desirable group member with bottom or second bottom sociometric rank
(Bavelas et al,, 1965; Riecken, 1958; Jaffee & Lucas, 1969).
The act of verbal participation in groups appears to signify
and suggest to other members certain potential traits and abilities
on the part of the talker.
Verbal activity can operate as a tentative
indication that the talker is more likely to have qualities of competence, decisiveness and knowledge than less active and more quiet
members (Gintner & Lindskold, 1975; Stang & Castellaneta, 1976).
Persistent verbal participation throughout the group can be viewed as
a confirmation and cue of leadership qualities and ability (Bass,
1960).
And a high level of verbal activity can outweigh other member
of competence and useful contribution in peer perceptions
and judgements of leadership among their group members (Gintner &
Lindskold, 1975; Jaffee & Lucas, 1969).
f
Ii
4
In 1965 Bavelas, Hastorf, Gross and Kite engaged in a study to
determine the stability of the perceptions generated towards group
members and how strongly these perceptions were influenced by the
level of verbal activity.
Bavelas et al. moved a step past the
previous correlational research by experimentally manipulating verbal
behavior within a group through the use of light signals as reinforcers.
Green lights were flashed as reinforcement for the low-verbal members
for participation, and red lights were flashed for the high-verbal
members as punishment for participation.
Each group member was aware
of the light signals he or she received from a small box but not what
other members received.
As a result of reinforcement, silent members
significantly increased their verbal output, and also their sociometric rank from bottom level to top or second position in the groups.
The active members had a slight but not drastic decrease in their
verbal output and their sociometric rank. . The increased verbalization
and high sociometric rank of the low-verbal member continued to maintain itself during the extinction period of following sessions with
no reinforcers.
Data was also collected on the stability or change
of a member's status on the dimensions of "quality of ideas" and
"leadership".
As with sociometric status, these dimensions also
changed as a func'tion of a member's verbal output, with the previously
quieter members receiving newly altered perceptions of increased
qualitative ideas and .leadership ability.
'
l
1
This study demonstrated
that unfavorable perceptions previously generated towards quiet group
i
members can be altered for the better, and without significant
_decreases in the perceptions of the verbal members.
Later, in 1970,
5
Yalom, Rogers, and Lifton stressed the value and necessity of including the silent group member and assisting him in developing a better
image in the group through increased verbal participation.
Aiken (1965) and Zdep (1969) utilized the method of Bavelas et al.
to determine if interpersonal attributes also would vary systematically
with experimental changes in rates of talking.
They obtained increased
perception ratings of the low verbal member on factors of selfconfidence, leadership, group participation, and qualitative ideas
by simply increasing that member's verbal output.
The interesting aspect of these studies (Bavelas et al., 1965;
Aiken, 1965; Zdep, 1969) is that the actual abilities of the target
quiet member never changes; however, the perceptions of these individuals, as to whether certain abilities exist or not, can be strongly
changed by simply altering verbal output.
Therefore, it would seem
that the accuracy of perceptions based on verbal activity alone may
be questionable.
Verbal participation contains two interdependent parts, the
verbal frequency and the content of what is said.
Hayes and Meltzer
(1972) investigated the premise that total amount of verbal output
alone can provide a sufficient cue for many interpersonal impressions,
separate from verbal content.
Ninety judges
~ivided
into two separate
groups observed two different videotape versions of a group session,
one with verbal content intact and one where blinking lights
represented the verbal activity of the group members.
The initial
experiment collected ratings on ten semantic differential scale
items clustered into groups of potency items, evaluative items, and
6
activity items.
The results supported the hypothesis: the perceptions
of the different group members were the same when verbal content was
known and when it was not.
The second experiment used a set of
adjectives that were less obviously loaded on verbal activity and
contained a wider range of fifty terms connoting descriptive and
affective interpersonal characteristics selected from the Gough Adjective Check List.
Again the results supported the hypothesis with the
additional outcome that characteristics not directly related to verbal
activity can be strongly influenced by the verbal level of the perceived person.
In conclusion, Hayes and Meltzer states that "the
effects of amount of talk cannot be explained away as artifactual.
It is clear that the medium (vocalization) is itself a message • • . but
while verbal activity can be judged rapidly, it can also be judged
inaccurately."
The span of thirty years research has supported and documented
the premise that a close and influential link between verbal participation and formulated perceptions exists in groups, with the more
favorable ratings and perceptions attributed to the more talkative
group members.
This has been demonstrated in factors of sociometric
status, productivity and group contributions, leadership selection,
and a diverse range of interpersonal characteristics.
However, one cannot assume that because a person participates
that he or she "has" the qualities attributed to him or her, nor can
one assume that because a person is verbally quiet that he or she
"lacks" the qualities attributed only to the verbally active group
member.
It is equally plausible that perceptions based on verbal
7
participation do not always reflect an accurate or objective assessment of a group member's interpersonal and group abilities (Hayes &
Meltzer, 1972; Nydegger, 1975).
Also, distorted and inaccurate
perceptions of members, particularly negative or highly unfavorable
perceptions, can be harmful both for the member and for the group
(Yalom, 1970).
Researched discrepancies between subjective perceptions and
objective performances (particularly in the case of the quiet member)
as found in task and theraputic groups are discussed below.
The
harmful outcome of incongruence between perceptions and performance
is also included.
Groups: Task
The major purpose of task groups is productivity and task
accomplishment.
These groups are formed with the intention of
resolving tasks through collective efforts and abilities of its
group members.
For this to occur, the group needs members that can
engage in task contributions, problem solving, solution sharing,
organization, on-going productivity, and leadership (French & Bell,
1973).
Riecken (1958), Knutson (1960), and Jaffee and Lucas (1969)
investigated the degree to which quiet and verbally active members
were perceived and objectively do participate in the two major
task areas of: 1) group contribution, and 2) task accomplishment.
In 1958, Riecken investigated whether members who speak the
most in task groups were also viewed as contributing the most to the
j group's solution and task accomplishment.
L~ask
Through the use of several
gr.oups given a predetermined assignment, Riecken experimentally
8
manipulated the "best solution" by evenly dividing these contributions
among high and low verbal participants in different groups.
His find-
ings show that perceptions of group productive contributions were
based more on the amount of talkativeness and less on the accurate
assessment of who actually contributed the best solution.
The talkative members were able to have their solutions accepted
and acknowledged by the group in two-thirds of the cases, while the
quiet members had their solutions accepted in only one-third of the
cases.
Additionally, even if a group accepted and utilized a solution
offered by a quiet member, they were not always able to correctly
identify who offered the solution.
Success in having a solution
accepted from a quiet member was dependent, to an extent, by support
given from a more talkative member.
Jaffee and Lucas (1969) and later Reilly and Jaffee (1970)
demonstrated that verbal participation has more marked influence
on perceived confidence and leadership qualities than does the
actual quality of group performance.
A group member who talked a
great deal but solved few problems received higher leadership
ratings than a member who talked less but solved more problems.
Riecken (1958) and Jaffee and Lucas (1969) both concluded
that member perceptions in
t~sk
groups can underestimate the
contributions of the quiet member and overestimate the contributions
of the talkative member.
.
l
Knutson (1960) continued Riecken's investigation by forming
task groups of either all quiet or all active members.
Knutson
_(!ollected data on: 1) members' subjective perceptions of their
9
group experiment, and 2) the actual task output of each group.
It
was his intention to determine the quality of task accomplishment
from the active and quiet groups, and also to evaluate the accuracy
of members' perceptions of their group and group production.
According to perceptions in the active groups, the members were
more satisfied with their experience, their members, their group
progress and their productivity and leadership.
In the quiet groups,
members were less satisfied with their members, the experience, or
the perceived group production.
This outcome was interpreted by
Knutson as illustrative that both active and quiet persons place
greater status and value upon verbal activity.
Contrary to the perceptions of the groups and the expectations
of the researcher, the quality of work produced by the quiet groups
was in all ways superior to the verbal groups.
The quiet group
performance reflected careful thought and planning, an organized
and integrated approach to data gathering, and an ability to draw
conclusions.
The active group's production revealed the degree to
which competition for leadership or individual expression influenced
their group progress.
Their productivity was an outcome of many
creative ideas but lacked coordination or thought-out planning.
Knutson (1960) believes this study raises
t~~
possibility that
both types of members are valuable and contribute in complementary
ways to the task group process, and that it is a stereotyped and
inaccurate position that views silent members as less contributing
i or less task-productive than verbally active members.
l
Thus in task
groups, both active and quiet members have worthwhile contributions
10
to make; these simply have to be perceived, and utilized by the group
as a whole.
The problem confronting task groups is that the contributions
of the quiet member are seldom recognized.
This can result in
frustration for the contributing quiet member as well as nonreinforcement for verbalizations made, and also a loss of human resource to
the group.
Since the group's outcome is dependent on the ideas and
talents of all its members, it is strongly to the group's benefit to
make use of its less verbal but contributing members.
It has already
been demonstrated that reinforcement of the quiet member increases
verbal output which results in increased recognition by the group
members (Bavelas et al., 1965; Aiken, 1965; Zdep, 1969).
Groups: Therapy
In therapy groups, the main purpose is personal growth and
psychological insight as an outcome of interpersonal exchange in
the group.
This exchange takes the form of self-revelation, giving
and receiving feedback, and examination of hidden aspects of interpersonal feelings, behaviors and motivations (Yalom, 1970).
As was the case in task groups, the quiet group member may again
find himself or herself handicapped by his or her relative quietness,
and in therapy groups, this quietness may prevent or interfere with
the member benefiting fully from the group experience (Yalom, 1970).
Although few researchers are apt to insist that the verbally
quiet group member derives no benefit from the therapy group, still
I
l
o.ne might conclude from the amount of attention directed towards
·
periods of silence, the silent member, and techniques developed for
11
stimulating verbal group activity, that there is a strongly held
conviction that a member benefits most when he participates frequently
(Yalom, 1970).
Sechrest and Barger (1961) explored the connection between
verbal participation and perceived benefit from group psychotherapy.
"Perceived group benefit" was operationally defined into seven
different components and the relation of verbal activity to these
components was analyzed.
Results indicate that verbal activity is
associated with some but not all components of theraputic group benefit,
as perceived by the member himself.
Verbal participation was highly
associated with a perception of receiving help from the group, the
group's relevancy to one's own problems, and a willingness to share
and contribute to the group.
Verbal participation was not related
to developing an understanding of people, establishing a sense of
comfort in the group, or in evaluating and understanding one's own
problems.
Schrest and Barger's final conclusion was that members
tend to perceive more benefit from group sessions in which they
participate at a level that was for them relatively high and comfortable.
So called "high" verbal participation differs for different
individuals and what is high activity for an unusually quiet member
may be low or moderate activity for a talkative member.
Thus, one
can gain benefit from the group experience without a necessarily
high verbal participation rate (Schrest & Barger, 1961).
In congruence with task groups, perceptions generated about the
.
l'
•
q.uieter group members can be on a scale more negative than those
generated about the talkative members.
In theraputic groups where
12
contributions and content is usually of a social-emotional nature as
well as a confrontive one, many group members can develop a perception
of hostility and confusion towards those members who are not verbally
disclosing themselves as frequently as the other members (Hansen et
al., 1976).
This, coupled with the quieter members potential tendency
to be more anxious with confrontive feedback (Mossman & Ziller, 1968)
can make the theraputic group experience a negative one.
According
to Yalom (1970), in order for quiet members to gain as completely as
possible, increased verbal participation is desirable.
According to
Rogers (1970) and Aston (1970), in order for a member to initiate
participation, he needs to perceive and experience a group atmosphere
of trust, security, and caring.
The negative perceptions that can
be generated towards the quieter group member would create an atmosphere opposite to that necessary to encourage increased verbal participation and revelation in the group.
Yalom (1970), Lifton (1972) and Levine (1979) assert that both
talkative and quiet group members are viable and important members
for a theraputic group.
Since silence and participation is necessary
for theraputic groups, both kinds of members can serve theraputic
needs and even operate as models for these different kinds of
experiences.
However, while the talkative members are perceived
both by themselves and by others as contributing and desirable
group members (Mossman & Ziller, 1968), the quieter members can be
perceived both by others and themselves as being of less value to the
group, and as even creating or eliciting negative perceptions from
other members (Hansen et al., 1976; Mossman & Ziller, 1968).
13
Though quiet members do gain in several areas in the group
experience, it is still felt that encouragement of increased verbal
participation from the quiet member is desirable for more increased
theraputic benefit (Yalom, 1970).
In order for quiet members to in-
crease their verbal contributions, they need to perceive an encouraging attitude and perception from both the members and the group
experience (Rogers, 1970; Yalom, 1970).
If the group responds to the
quiet member in a negative fashion based on distorted perceptions and
reactions to silence, this will hamper the silent member from deriving
full benefit from the group.
There is a need for more accurate under-
standing and insight into the role of the quiet member in order to
assist the group to build the supportive environment in which quiet
as well as active members can gain from the group (Rogers, 1970).
The preceding research review has produced the following major
points:
1.
Verbal participation is so strongly linked to person percep-
tions in groups that amount of verbal activity alone is a sufficient
cue to generate impressions and judgements on a wide range of evaluative, affective, interpersonal and sociometric factors.
2.
Perceptions generated on the basis of verbal participation
produces strong favorable impressions towards the active member and
unfavorable impressions towards the quiet member in such factors as
productivity and group contribution, leadership, sociometric rank,
and "desirability" of the group member.
Also, these perceptions can
be diametrically altered and changed simply by changing a member's
verbal output.
14
3.
Perceptions based on verbal activity can be distorted,
incongruent, and inaccurate with a member's actual group performance,
primarily in regard to the quiet person.
These inaccurate percep-
tions usually take the form of overestimating the talkative member's
contributions and underestimating or ignoring the quieter member's
contributions.
It is the purpose of this study to investigate the possibility
of altering the unfavorable perceptions generated towards the quiet
member as a function of different group leader approaches rather than
by manipulation of verbal output.
Also, investigation will be done
to determine if these same approaches will influence the perceptions
of the active member and in what way.
The Verbally Active Group Member
The verbally active group member has an advantage over the
more quiet member in that he is not in an immediate position of
being viewed as isolated, nonproductive and a noninvolved member.
The talkative member is viewed as working for the group goal (Bass,
1960), contributing to the group process (Riecken, 1958), and
directly facilitating the group process (Yalom, 1970; Bass, 1960).
Because the active member is viewed as part of the group and operating
in
harmo~y
with the group goals and norms (Hollander, 1964), he has
the advantage of being "in step" with the group, while the quiet
member has the disadvantage of being perceived as "out of step" with
the group.
Irrespective of whether the talkative member's contribu-
tions add less in content toward the group goal than the quiet member's,
the talkative member, because of his verbal visibility and conformity
15
to the group structure of communication and interaction, will be
perceived as a more preferred, more influential, and more desired
group member than his quiet counterpart (Hollander, 1964; Bass, 1960;
Reilly & Jaffee, 1970).
The major contrast between the talkative and quiet member is that
the talkative member is unlikely to be viewed as a "problem" member,
while the silent member can be noticed primarily for his silence
and this factor is strongly reacted to as a problem (Yalom, 1970).
Thus the silent member's "problem" position may become his main
identifying characteristic, all other abilities going relatively unnoticed until this one is resolved in the group (Yalom, 1970).
Since the talkative member's verbal participation quickly
establishes him as an identified group member and is not attention
getting in any negative sense, the other members in their perceptions
of him will tend to focus upon the abilities and attributes he displays during his involvement in the group (Hollander, 1964).
Only
when the talkative member carries his activity to the extreme and
becomes domineering and manipulative, or utilizes speech to avoid
important group issues rather than contributing to them does he too
become classified as a "problem" member (Yalom, 1970).
The active member's own percept>ions of himself tend to be congruent with the perceptions others have formed of him.
He perceives
himself as high in self-esteem (Mossman & Ziller, 1968) and has a
• MMPI profile of forcefulness, vigor, aggressiveness, and candidness
I
I
\ (Grosz
L~~rge
&
Waggoner, 1967).
By observation, the active member is a
contributor to the group process and according to Knutson (1960)
16
it is the talkative member that excells in the sheer amount of ideas
generated and suggested.
The perceptions formed of the active group member are likely to
be either reasonably accurate, or skewed in an overestimated and
positive direction, as the perceivers may tend to enhance and build
upon the already displayed abilities of the member.
Consistent
research has shown that the only stereotyped position associated with
talkative members is that of "leadership", as several research findings indicate that high participation will be chosen over competence
and knowledge when selecting a potential group leader (Gintner &
Lindskold, 1975; Reilly & Jaffee, 1970).
The Verbally Quiet Group Member
The quiet group member can display understanding and sensitivity
to other people in groups and with time establish a sense of comfort
in the group.
He can also develop an understanding of his own
problems in therapy groups (Schrest & Barger, 1961) and contribute
organizational abilities to task groups (Knutson, 1960).
However,
the quiet person is usually regarded as a "problem" primarily because
of how others are reacting to his silence and struggling to perceive
and understand him (Hansen et al., 1976).
Group members can experience
frustration and puzzlement at coaxing, encouraging or challenging
the quiet member to verbally participate more.
If the quiet member
is viewed as slipping into an isolated role in the group, he may be
reacted to with hostility and anger (Hansen et al., 1976).
In contrast, the quiet person may view himself as actually
involved in the group; involved through his active listening and
17
understanding of members' contributions and problems, involved through
various nonverbal behaviors, involved through individual contact with
group members before or after group sessions.
From the perspective of the other group members, the quiet person
tends to provide little information about himself in the form of
verbal participation in the group.
Also, he has difficulty in estab-
lishing a sense of "member identification" with the group because of
his perceived isolated group role.
Thus, the other members may be at
a loss as to what to use to form an accurate and unbiased perception
of him.
The perceptions generated are usually the product of stereo-
typed viewpoints combined with members' emotional reactions of confusian and/or anger toward the quiet member's assumed lack of group
identification and involvement (Hollander, 1964).
As a consequence, there is a discrepancy between how the quiet
member is perceived and his objective performance in the group.
This
discrepancy can have negative consequences both for the silent member
and for the group. The quiet member is perceived as low in group
contribution, group production, and sociometric rank and status.
He
is a less desirable group member, and needs a longer time to establish
group involvement.
Research on the quiet member's group performance
indicate that, conversely, he does provide contributions, does gain
from the group experience, and has abilities that would make him as
·desirable a member as any (Knutson, 1960; Sechrest & Barger, 1961).
These negative incongruent perceptions can have their impact
i
I
i
'upon the silent member by contributing to a sense of low self-esteem
bd
:}
high caution and defensiveness in the group (Ohlson, 1970;
18
Mossman & Ziller, 1968).
Member reactions of anger and confusion do
not assist the quiet member in his attempts to be a productive and
involved part of the group, and in increasing his verbal participation.
Lack of recognition of his contributions can deprive the group of its
opportunity to utilize the abilities of the quiet member.
Person Perception and Leader Influence
According to the pioneering work by Ash (1946) and Sherif (1935)
and more recent recapitulation by Middlebrook (1974), the following
elements influence perception formation in groups:
a)
A group role, as determined by the first impressive behavior
of a group member, will create expectations about how the individual
will function in the group and will determine how others will receive
him.
Assumed future role behaviors, behavioral outcomes, and attri-
butes are all connected with the group member's role and the formed
perceptions.
The studies by Willard and Strodtbeck (1972), Bavelas
et al. (1965) and Hayes and Meltzer (1972) illustrated how a person's
level of verbal participation can assign him to a certain role from
which will follow assumptions and expectations associated with that
role; the quiet member being assigned to a role of passivity, low
sociometric rank and low group contribution (Hayes & Meltzer, 1972;
Bave{as et al., 1965; Riecken, 1958), and the verbally active member
being assigned to a role of high sociometric rank and potential
leadership (Bavelas et al., 1965; Jaffee & Lucas, 1969; Hollander,
1964).
i
l_~n
b)
The stated opinion of an influential or authority person
groups can have considerable sway and influence upon the generated
19
perceptions towards a target individual (Middlebrook, 1974).
This
influence is especially powerful in situations with confusing or
limited information, such as the limited verbal information provided
by the quieter group member.
c)
Norms are also powerful controls on behaviors and perceptions
in group structure.
If norms are violated, members are rebuked or
punished in subtle ways, and possibly ostracized or ignored in the
group.
It is possible that the attitude and behavior towards a quiet
group member is in many ways similar to behavior towards a person
who has violated a group norm.
In forming group norms, one of the
key sources is one's past experience and commonly shared expectations
for group behavior.
Norms are also formed by the impact of the leader
in the group and by handling critical incidents in the group (Middlebrook, 1974).
In connection with group norms is the concept of group cohesiveness, the need for each group member to establish a sense of group
identification and involvement.
According to Hollander (1964), the
establishment of this identification and cohesion with the group is
accomplished largely through a member's active verbal participation
in the group, i.e., the member's ability and efforts to establish
"verbal visibility".
.
Those members who do not contribute towards
the group cohesion or are perceived as not establishing any solid
group identification (i.e., the less verbal member) can be viewed
I
as out of step with the group's norms and purpose (Hollander, 1964).
i
I Also,
a member's group identification must be established first before
~erceptions
reflecting other attributes is forthcoming (Hollander, 1964).
20
The therapist or leader in a group holds a unique position.
He
is instrumental and influential in determining the group norms, in
reinforcing acceptable behavior and in disapproving unacceptable ones.
He assists in guiding and focusing the individuals into a group
orientation and towards establishing and accomplishing group goals.
The leader attempts to set the tone of the group and elicit those
qualities that are necessary for positive group growth (Levine, 1979;
Yalom, 1970).
To increase the verbal activity between members as a
whole, familiarity, trust and confidence within the group and between
the members is important and allows spontaneous verbal behavior to
occur (Rogers, 1970; Aston, 1970; Grosz & Wright, 1967).
It is, in
large degree, the action and guidance of the leader that establishes
these qualities in the group.
In dealing with the quiet group member and the stereotyped,
negative perceptions generated towards him or her by other group
members, the leader or therapist can be an important and influential
factor (Ohlson, 1970).
Hansen et al, (1976) states in their text on
theraputic group processes, that it is important for the therapist
to help the quiet member increase his verbal participation, and to
assist in establishing a norm or perceptive attitude towards the
member which is accepting.
The therapist can, through direct and
active support and assistance, help the quiet member become more
involved in the group process and also create a group environment in
i
which he will feel more comfortable and secure in talking (Levine,
i
! 1979).
l_
d)
Another important element in person perception and leader
21
influence is that of labeling.
The way in which a person is described
is almost certain to affect the way in which he or she is perceived
(Jones, Kanouse, Kelley, Nisbett, Valins & Weiner, 1969).
There are
at least two ways in which labeling can affect person perception.
First, the language used in labeling a person or events frequently
contains implicit attributions or perceptions itself and this can
strongly influence the perceptions formed by the persons hearing the
label.
Secondly, most individuals when forming a perception or im-
pression will exert effort in forming a perceptual explanation of a
person and then cease when an explanation is found, not willing to
venture further.
Labeling provided either by established norms,
former experiences, or an influential person can serve to determine
perceptions without further investigation or testing of that label
and perception.
Thus, given the established facts that: 1) the social perception
of the silent group member can be more easily distorted and underestimated, in contrast to the perceptions of the verbal group member;
2) the leader has a strong influence upon the group perceptions
through his actions and his verbal labeling of group members; and
3) it is viewed as theraputically wise to assist the quiet member in
his participation in the group, in his self-perceptions, and in his
group behavior through generating positive and accepting group perceptions, the following hypotheses have been formed:
: Experimental Hypotheses
1.
Perceptions of the quiet member will be significantly altered
as a function of therapist statements.
2.
Perceptions of the verbal member will not be altered as a
function of therapist statements.
The verbal member's
active participation will provide sufficient cues to judge
his performance and form perceptions.
3.
Perceptions of a quiet member incongruently labeled as
"active" by the therapist will reflect the stereotyped perceptions associated with that label.
The quiet member will be
perceived as "verbal".
4.
Perceptions of a verbal member incongruently labeled as
"quiet" by the therapist will reflect the stereotyped perceptions associated with that label.
perceived as "quiet".
The verbal member will be
Chapter II
1-IETHODS
Subjects
Subjects were 120 male and female students at California State
University,
Northridge~
who participated in the experiment as a
partial fulfillment of the requirements of an introductory psychology
course.
Stimulus
The stimulus presented was an edited videotaped film of a discussion group in progress followed by different summary statements made
by the leader of the group.
The videotaped film was a discussion by
a group consisting of five members (two male, three female) and a
group leader (male).
The members were current or former college
students, none of whom attended the university where the data were
collected.
The leader was a graduate psychology student with previous
experience in leading theraputic discussion groups.
All members of
the videotaped group were strangers prior to the group discussion.
All members were advised in advance that the group discussion would
be filmed, how the film would be used, and the general nature of the
experiment.
The group members were asked to discuss the topic of
male/female relationships as freely and as comfortably as they could •
. The two hour videotaped discussion was edited into a twenty-minute
'segment, representative of the discussion content and verbal activity
of the group members.
The edited segment was subsequently analyzed
L_-
23
24
in terms of frequency of verbal responses (FVR) by counting the number
of verbal responses per member and the amount of time of response.
This method was utilized to identify the quiet and verbally active
group members and has been found to be an objective and accurate
method of measurement (Grosz & Wright, 1967).
One member of each sex emerged as quiet group members with the
remaining members being either moderately or high verbal members.
In the twenty minute edited segment, the quiet male engaged in
a total of three verbal contributions and 83 seconds of spoken time,
and the talkative male engaged in a total of fourteen contributions
and 286 seconds of spoken time.
The quiet female engaged in five
verbal contributions and 77 seconds of spoken time.
The remaining
females engaged in, respectively, eleven verbal contributions and
194 seconds of spoken time, and seventeen contributions and 300
seconds of spoken time.
Thus the range of verbal activity for all
five members was from three to seventeen verbal contributions, and
from 77 to 300 seconds.
Holding sex constant, the two males were
chosen to represent the independent variable of verbal activity.
The edited tape included virtually all of the quiet members' participation but, of course, only a fraction of the talkative members'
participation.
The second independent variable, therapist or leader influence,
was represented by nine summary statements made by the group leader
at the end of the film.
These statements consisted of positive or
negative comments about either the quiet or talkative identified
_group member.
The statements were as follows:
25
1.
Positive statement about the quiet member.
2.
Negative statement about the quiet member.
3.
Quiet member labeled as "talkative", followed by a positive
statement.
4.
Quiet member labeled as "talkative", followed by a negative
statement.
5.
Positive statement about the talkative member.
6.
Negative statement about the talkative member.
7.
Talkative member labeled as "quiet", followed by a positive
statement.
8.
Talkative member labeled as "quiet", followed by a negative
statement.
9.
A neutral statement as a control.
In half the cases the statements and labels were congruent
with the subjective index of verbal activity (FVR) of the target
member and in half the cases the statements were incongruent or
contrasted with the FVR of the target member.
The verbal content
of the nine summary statements is listed in Appendix A.
Experimental Procedure
The videotape was shown to ten groups of twelve subjects each.
Subjects were told that the purpose of the experiment was to gather
reactions towards individuals involved in a group experience.
They
were asked to view the film attentively, paying attention to all the
group members.
They were told that they would be filling out a
questionnaire on one of the group members who would be identified
after the viewing of the film.
After the subjects viewed the filmed discussion, the Experimenter
l showed
the film of the leader making a statement which focused upon
26
either a quiet or talkative group member and
name.
iden~ified
that member by
Each group saw only one of the leader statements.
After viewing the group and a leader statement, the subjects were
instructed to fill out a questionnaire on the group member discussed
and identified by the leader at the end of the film.
To further insure
identification of the target member by the subjects, the Experimenter
referred the subjects to the member's seating position in the videotaped group by a diagram on the blackboard and described the target
member's dress and physical appearance.
When all subjects recalled
the appropriate target member, the questionnaire was handed out.
experimental groups viewed a different leader statement.
Eight
The neutral
statement was shown to two additional control groups with one group
filling out the questionnaire on the talkative member and the other
group filling out the questionnaire on the quiet member.
The questionnaire distributed at the end of each film viewing
collected data on the person perceptions of the subjects towards
either the quiet or verbal group member in either a positive, negative, control or incongruently labeled condition.
A description of
the experimental design is shown in Figure 1.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire was a five-point Likert scale measurement on
twelve perceptual characteristics.
The scores ranged from "very high"
(score of one) to "low" (score of five).
The items on the question-
naire were gleaned by the researcher from a variety of studies on the
subject of group verbal participation (Gintner & Lindskold, 1975;
Hayes & Meltzer, 1972; Willard & Strodtbeck, 1972; Knutson, 1960;
27
Mossman & Ziller, 1968; Riecken, 1958) and were based on those member
qualities and characteristics deemed desirable for enhancing group
process and group growth as determined by Yalom (1970), Rogers (1970),
and Truax and Charkhuff (1967).
The twelve dependent measures of person perception on the
questionnaire were as follows:
1.
Likeability
2.
Desirability as a group member
3.
Sense of comfort with target member
4.
Level of interest in other members and feelings discussed
5.
Level of contribution to the group
6.
Level of understanding towards other members
7.
In touch with own feelings
8.
Level of self-disclosure
9.
Level of assertiveness
10.
Level of intelligence
11.
Level of self-esteem
12.
Level of involvement
The questionnaire measured the subjects' perceptions of the viewed
target group member on the above twelve variables.
questionnaire is listed in Appendix B.
A sample of the
28
VERBAL ACTIVITY
THERAPIST
STATEMENTS
Quiet
Verbal
Quiet
Verbal
Congruent Labels
Positive
Positive
Condition
N
= 12
Quiet
Negative
Negative
Condition
N
Figure 1.
= 12
Experimental Design
Positive
Condition
N
= 12
Verbal
Negative
Condition
N
= 12
Chapter III
RESULTS
Preliminary Analysis
Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficients were calculated
for the twelve dependent variables of group member perception found in
the questionnaire.
The results are summarized in Table 1.
All depen-
dent variables were statistically correlated at p<.001, and therefore
represent measurements on interrelated components of perception.
Main Analyses
A two-way between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance
was performed on the twelve dependent variables of perception as a
function of verbal level and statement condition.
results is indicated in Table 2.
The summary of
The combination of dependent
variables was significantly affected by both main effects of verbal
level, approximate F(12,99)
approximate F(48,383)
=
18.82, p(.001; and statement condition,
3.57, p(.OOl.
The interaction between verbal level and statement condition was
also statistically significant for the combined dependent variables,
approximate F(48,383) = 2.92, p (.001.
Main Effects of Verbal Level. In order to investigate the nature
of relationship between the dependent variables and main effect of
verbal level, a stepdown analysis was performed.
The dependent
'variables were analyzed with the first variable serving as the variable of highest priority, and the preceeding variables operating as
29
30
Table 1
Intercorrelations Among the Twelve Questionnaire Variables
Part I
1*
2
3
4
5
6
1*
1.00
0.67
0.54
0.60
0.66
0.57
2
0.67
1. 00
0.59
0.60
0.69
0.68
3
0.54
0.59
1.00
0.61
0.48
0.59
4
0.60
0.60
0.61
1. 00
0.61
0.70
5
0.66
0.69
0.48
0.61
1.00
0.59
6
0.57
0.68
0.59
0.70
0.59
1. 00
7
0.55
0.65
0.59
0.65
0.65
0.78
8
0.59
0. 71
0.57
0.63
0. 77
0.69
9
0.49
0.57
0.48
0.50
0.67
0.50
10
0.51
0.59
0.46
0.59
0.48
0.61
11
0.42
0.50
0.51
0.54
0.57
0.46
12
0.66
0.68
0.59
0.60
0.78
0.62
all correlations significant at p
<. 001
*Identification of variables:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Likeability
Desirability as a group member
Sense of comfort with member
Interest in other members
Level of group contribution
Level of understanding
In touch with own feelings
Level of self-disclosure
Level of assertiveness
Level of intelligence
Level of self-esteem
Level of involvement
31
Table 1
Intercorrelations Among the Twelve Questionnaire Variables
Part II
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
0.55
0.59
0.49
0.51
0.42
0.66
2
0.65
o. 71
0.57
0.59
0.50
0.68
3
0.59
0.57
0.48
0.46
0.51
0.59
4
0.65
0.63
0.50
0.59
0.54
0.60
5
0.65
o. 77
0.67
0.48
0.57
0. 78
6
0. 78
0.69
0.50
0.61
0.46
0.62
7
1.00
0.78
0.52
0.60
0.54
0.61
8
0.78
1. 00
0.73
0.54
0.63
0. 72
9
0.52
0.73
1. 00
0.45
0.70
0.73
10
0.60
0.54
0.45
1. 00
0.50
0.53
11
0.54
0.63
0.70
0.50
1.00
0.68
12
0.61
o. 72
0.73
0.53
0.68
1.00
All correlations significant at p
<. 001
32
Table 2
Multivariate Analysis of Variance of
Questionnaire Perception Scores
Source
Wilks Lambda
Approx. F,
df
Main Effects
Verbal Level
. 3046
18.829*
12,99
Statement Condition
.2405
3.575*
48,383
• 3001
2.929*
48,383
Two-Way Interaction
Verbal x Statement
Error
*p
48,383
<.001
'
lJ
1
33
co-variates to the following variables in order of presentation on
the questionnaire.
An experimental error rate of .05 was achieved by
the apportionment of alpha for each dependent variable through the
procedure of: alpha= 1- (1- alpha )(1- alpha ) . • • (1- alphap).
1
2
This renders an alpha of .004 for each dependent variable analyzed
by the stepdown procedure.
The results of this analysis and the
apportioned alpha level are summarized in Table 3.
Three significant perceptual variables emerged as a function of
verbal level.
"Member likeability" (question one), stepdown
F(l, 110) = 55.42, P< .004; "group member desirability" (question two),
stepdown F(1,109) = 36.63, p<.004; and "level of group contribution"
(question five), stepdown !_(1,106) = 36.12, P< .004.
The remaining
perceptual variables share their variance with the three significant
variables and add no additional information to what is already
presented by the significant perceptions.
For comparison of group mean scores, the significant variables
were adjusted for the covariance with any preceeding variable.
The
first perceptual variable was analyzed using the univariate means
of the two verbal levels.
The remaining variable means were adjusted
for the covariance of preceeding variables in order of stepdown
analysis ·procedure.
•The adjusted means are summarized in Table 4.
Noting that the measured perceptions are scored inversely, the
low adjusted mean scores represent more favorable impressions than
the high adjusted mean scores.
The verbal member was perceived as a more likeable group member
(mean= 17.00) than was the quiet group member (mean= 24.17).
34
Table 3
Univariate and Stepdown Analyses of Questionnaire Variables as a
Function of Verbal Level
df
Variable
Univariate
F
Q 1
55.42
1,110
55.42*
1' 110
.004
Q 2
91.35
1,110
36.63*
1,109
.004
Q 3
27.03
1' 110
1. 67
1,108
.004
Q4
38.66
1,110
6.21
1,107
.004
Q 5
145.89
1,110
36.12*
1,106
.004
Q6
27.15
1,110
1. 33
1,105
.004
Q 7
25.19
1,110
. 06
1,104
. 004
Q8
72.28
1' 110
2.14
1,103
. 004
Q9
67.03
1,110
5. 76
1,102
.004
Q 10
18.13
1,110
.003
1,101
.004
Q 11
23.79
1,110
.43
1,100
. 004
Q 12
110.55
1' 110
3.30
1,99
. 004
Step down
F
df
alpha
-i
!
*P<. 004
.I
35
·Table 4
Adjusted Means for Significant Questionnaire Variables for
~fuin Effects of Verbal Level
Variable
Quiet
Verbal
Q1
24.17
17.00
Q2
26.41
17.74
Q5
35.74
23.42
After removing the influence of "group member likeability", the
verbal member was perceived as more desirable to be selected as a
group member (adjusted mean= 17.74) than was the quiet member
(adjusted mean= 26.41).
After adjusting far the perceived variance
of likeability, member desirability, sense of comfort with member,
and member's interest in others, the verbal member was again viewed
as higher in group contribution (adjusted mean= 23.42) than the
quiet group member (adjusted mean= 35. 74).
These results support the previous research conclusions (Bavelas
et al., 1965; Hayes & Meltzer, 1972; Jaffee & Lucas, 1969) that
the verbal members tend to be perceived more favorably than quiet
members on a majority of perceptual variables.
Main Effects of Statement Condition.
A second stepdown analysis
was performed to investigate the nature of relationship between
the dependent variables and the main effect of statement condition.
The dependent variables were analyzed with the first variable serving
as the variable of highest priority, and the preceeding variables,
,,
'r.
36
as listed in the questionnaire, operating as covariate to each
following variable.
The alpha level was set at .004.
Results of
this analysis are summarized in Table 5.
Five significant perceptual variables emerged as a function of
statement condition.
!_(4, 110)
=
10.01, p
"Member likeability" (question one), stepdown
<.004;
two), stepdown F(4,109)
=
"group member desirability" (question
6.32, p(.004; "sense of comfort with
member" (question three), stepdown F(4,108)
=
4.99, p< .004;
"interest in other members" (question four), stepdown F(4,107)
7. 42, p <. 004; and "level of group contribution" (question five),
stepdown F(4,106)
=
4.42, p< .004
Due to the five different levels of statement condition, the
direction and effect of the different therapist statements will be
described in terms of the post hoc analysis in a later section.
Interaction of Verbal Level by Statement Condition.
A third
stepdown analysis was performed to investigate the nature of the
relationship between the dependent variables and the interaction
of verbal level by statement condition.
The dependent variables
were analyzed in the same order as the previous stepdown analyses
performed on the two main effects, with alpha set at .004.
Results
of this analysis are summarized in Table 6.
Three perceptual variables emerged as a function of the interaction.
These variables are as follows: "group member desirability"
(question two), stepdown !_(4, 109)
=
5.18, p<( .004; "interest in
other members" (question four), stepdown F(4, 107)
=
5. 61, p
<. 004;
and "level of group contribution" (question five), stepdown F(4, 106)
37
Table 5
Univariate and Stepdown Analyses of Questionnaire Variables
as a Function of Statement Condition
Variable
Univariate
F
df
Q 1
10.01
4,110
Q 2
14.32
Q 3
df
alpha
10.01*
4,110
.004
4,110
6.32*
4,110
.004
12.59
4,110
4.99*
4,108
.004
Q 4
23.50
4,110
7.41*
4' 107
.004
Q 5
13.38
4,110
4.42*
4,106
.004
Q 6
13.77
4,110
1. 02
4,105
. 004
Q 7
26.20
4,110
4.07
4,104
. 004
Q 8
14. 76
4,110
. 36
4,103
. 004
Q 9
7.41
4,110
1. 31
4,102
.004
Q 10
14.07
4,110
1. 58
4,101
.004
Q 11
8.91
4,110
.38
4,100
.004
Q 12
10.20
4,110
.37
4,99
.004
*P<. 004
Step down
F
38
Table 6
Univariate and Stepdown Analyses of Questionnaire Variables
As a Function of Interaction Between
Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Variable
Univariate
F
df
Step down
F
df
alpha
Q I
I. 32
4,110
I. 32
4,110
.004
Q 2
5.91
4,110
5.18*
4,109
.004
Q 3
4.39
4,110
2.90
4,108
.004
Q 4
7.97
4,110
5.61*
4,107
.004
Q5
10.31
4,110
7.50*
4,106
. 004
Q6
5.33
4,110
2.26
4,105
.004
Q 7
5.43
4,110
. 88
4,104
• 004
Q 8
10.64
4,110
2.03
4,103
.004
Q 9
·s. 56
4,110
2.00
4,102
.004
Q 10
I. 26
4,110
.20
4,101
.004
Q 11
6.97
4,110
I. 37
4,100
.004
Q 12
12.93
4,110
2.95
4,100
. 004
*p(. 004
39
7.50, p(.004.
These results indicate that perceptual differences on three major
characteristics can occur as a result of interaction between verbal
level and therapist statements.
Post hoc analyses follow in order to
investigate the degree and direction of difference as a function of
both verbal level and statement condition, and to test the four
hypotheses.
Post Hoc Analyses
Several post hoc analyses were performed with the goal of
partialing out the direction of significant differences for the levels
of main effect of statement condition, and interaction of verbal level
by statement condition upon the relevant dependent perceptual variables.
Prior to the performance of Tukey's (a) specific comparisons post
hoc analysis, adjusted marginal means for the main effect of state.ment condition, and adjusted cell means for the interaction were
determined.
These adjusted means are represented in Table 7 for
main effect and Table 8 for the interaction, and were calculated for
the relevant variables only.
The unadjusted means for both main
effects and interaction on all twelve perception variables is listed
in Appendix C for reference.
The Tukey (a) specific comparisons test was utilized to analyze
the significance between the different levels of the interaction for
the quiet and verbal members separately (Tables 9, 10, 11) and also
for all crosswise comparisons (Tables 12, 13, 14) for the three
relevant variables.
The Tukey (a) specific comparisons test was also
' performed for the remaining two relevant variables of the main effect
40
Table 7
Adjusted Means for Significant Stepdown Questionnaire Variables
For Each Statement Condition
Variable
1*
2
3
4
5
Q 1
17.08
24.58
21.25
17.08
22.92
Q2
18.21
24.90
23.87
17. 79
25.63
Q 3
18.01
24.57
17.23
18.95
24.55
Q4
22.39
33.49
29.09
23.90
31.11
Q5
25.15
28.77
30.05
28.39
35.53
*Identification of Statement Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Positive statement
Negative statement
Control statement
Incongruent label, positive statement
Incongruent label, negative statement
41
Table 8
Adjusted Cell Means for Significant Stepdown Questionnaire Variables
As a Function of Interaction between Statement Condition
And Verbal Level
Variable
1*
2
3
4
5
Q2
Quiet
21.46
33.53
30.28
21.08
33.62
Verbal
15. 15
16. 15
17.07
14.86
17.57
Quiet
21.65
41.09
35.31
27.92
33.18
Verbal
23.39
25.91
22.95
19.87
28.68
Quiet
34.57
45.17
41.08
32.31
41.01
Verbal
15.77
12.60
19.29
24.95
28.04
Q 4
Q5
*Identification of Statement Condition:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Positive statement
Negative statement
Control statement
Incongruent label, positive statement
Incongruent label, negative statement
42
of statement condition not covered in the interaction.
The first two hypotheses address the interaction between the
member's verbal level and the first three statement conditions of
positive, negative, and control therapist statements.
These condi-
tions are represented numerically in the tables as one (positive),
two (negative) and three (control).
Hypotheses three and four address the results of incongruent
labels placed on the verbal or quiet group member with either a positive, or negative therapist statement.
These conditions are repre-
sented numerically in the tables as four (contrast label, positive
statement), and five (contrast label, negative statement).
Hypothesis One states that the quiet member's perception ratings
will be significantly altered as a consequence of the introduction
of different therapist statements.
The positive condition (one)
will produce favorable perceptions and the negative (two) and control
(three) conditions will produce unfavorable or less favorable perceptions.
The results of the adjusted mean comparisons for the perception
of "group member desirability" is summarized in Table 9.
The quiet
member received highest perception ratings on "group member desirability"
in the positive .(adjusted mean = 21.46) and contrast-label positive
(adjusted mean = 21.08) conditions, followed by significantly lower
perception ratings in the control condition (adjusted mean = 30.28)
and lowest perception ratings in both the negative (adjusted mean =
33.53) and contrast-label negative conditions (adjusted mean= 33.62).
When comparing only the contrast label conditions in which the
43
Table 9
Adjusted Mean Differences for
"Group Member Desirability" (Question two) as a Function of
Interaction between Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level: Quiet
1**
(21. 46)
1**
0
Statement Condition
2
3
4
(33.53)
(30.28)
(21.08)
12.07*
2
0
3
8.82*
.38
12.16*
3.25
12.35*
.09
9.20*
3.34
0
0
4
*p
5
(33.62)
12.54*
<. 05
Verbal Level: Verbal
1**
(15. 15)
1**
0
Statement Condition
2
3
4
(16.15)
(17. 07)
(14. 86)
5
(17.57)
1. 00
1. 92
. 29
2.42
0
.92
1. 29
1. 42
0
2.21
. 50
0
2.71
2
3
4
No significant differences
**Identification of statement conditions:
1. Positive statement
2. Negative statement
3. Control statement
4. Incongruent label, positive statement
5. Incongruent label, negative statement
44
quiet member is labeled as "verbal" and then given either a positive
or negative therapist statment, the member is viewed significantly
higher in the positive-contrast condition (adjusted mean= 21.08),
than in the negative-contrast condition (adjusted mean
33. 62) •
Since
these perception ratings differ from each other but do not significantly
differ from the ratings in the corresponding non-labeled positive
(adjusted mean= 21.46) or negative (adjusted mean= 33.53) conditions,
it is the impact of positive or negative statements that is more influentia! than the impact of the contrast labels.
The results of the adjusted mean comparisons for the perception
of "interest in other members" is summarized in Table 10.
The quiet
member received highest perception ratings on "interest in other
members" in the positive (adjusted mean = 21.65) and contrast-label
positive (adjusted mean= 27.92) conditions, followed by significantly
lower perceptions in the contrast-label negative condition (adjusted
mean= 33.18) and significantly lowest perception ratings in the
negative (adjusted mean= 41.09).
The control condition (adjusted
mean= 35.31) differed significantly only from the positive condition,
and was similar to all other conditions.
When comparing the contrast labeled conditions in which the
quiet member is labeled as "verbal", there were no perception differences between the positive (adjusted mean= 27.92) or negative
(adjusted mean= 33.18) contrast-labeled conditions.
Thus being
labeled "verbal" produced similar ratings for the quiet member regardless of positivity or negativity of therapist statement.
The variable of ''level of group contribution" most directly
45
Table 10
Adjusted Mean Differences for
"Interest in Other Members" (question four) as a Function of
Interaction between Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level:
Quiet
1**
(21. 65)
1**
0
2
Statement Condition
2
3
4
(41.09)
(35.31)
(27. 92)
19.44*
0
3
5
(33. 18)
13.66*
6.27
11. 53*
5.78
16.17*
7.91
7.39
2.13
0
4
0
5.26
*p( .05
Verbal Level:
Verbal
1**
(23.39)
1**
0
2
Statement Condition
2
3
4
(25. 91)
(22. 95)
(19.87)
2.52
0
3
.44
2.52
5.29
2.96
6.04
2. 77
0
3.08
5.73
4
0
*p (. 05
**Identification of statement condition:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5
(28.68)
Positive statement
Negative statement
Control statement
Incongruent label, positive statement
Incongruent label, negative statement
8.81*
46
measured the perceived verbal contribution of the quiet and verbal
group members.
Adjusted mean comparisons are summarized in Table 11.
There were no significant perception differences for the quiet member
in the positive (adjusted mean= 34.57), contrast-label positive
(adjusted mean= 32.31), control (adjusted mean= 41.08) or contrastlabel negative (adjusted mean = 41.01) therapist statement conditions.
The adjusted mean scores represent a moderately low perception rating
on "level of group contribution" for the quiet member,
In the nega-
tive condition (adjusted mean= 45.17) the quiet member was perceived
significantly lower in group contribution than he had been in the
positive or contrast-label positive conditions.
It is noted that only
for the variable of "level of group contribution" is the quiet member's
perception ratings most similar across almost all statement
conditions~
thus representing a recognition by the subjects of the member's quietness, regardless of statement level.
These results support Hypothesis One, with the positive statements
producing more favorable perceptions, and the negative and control
statements producing less favorable perceptions for "group member
desirability" and "interest in other members".
For "level of group
contribution", the positive and control conditions produced similar
, perceptions, with lower perceptions found in the negative statement
condition.
The contrast-label statements will be covered in Hypothesis
Three.
Hypothesis Two states that the active or verbal member's perception ratings will not be significantly altered as a result of positive,
negative, or control statement conditions.
The perceptions generated
47
Table 11
Adjusted Mean Differences for
"Level of Contribution" (Question five) as a Function of
Interaction between Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level: Quiet
I**
(34. 57)
I**
0
2
Statement Condition
2
3
4
(45.I7)
(41. 08)
(32. 31)
I0.60*
6.5I
2.26
6.44
0
4.09
I2.86*
4.I6
0
8. 77
3
4
*p
5
(4l.OI)
0
.07
8.70
<. 05
Verbal Level: Verbal
I**
(15. 77)
I**
0
Statement Condition
2
3
4
(I3.60)
(I9.29)
(24.95)
2.I7
0
2
3
3.52
9.I8
I2.27*
5.69
II. 35*
I4.44*
0
5.66
8.75
0
3.09
4
*p
<. 05
**Identification of statement conditions:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5
(28. 04)
Positive statement
Negative statement
Control statement
Incongruent label, positive statement
Incongruent label, negative statement
48
towards him will be based on the observations of his verbal participation in the group and thus will remain similar regardless of therapist
statement.
Tukey (a) post hoc analyses revealed no significant differences
across the three statement conditions of positive, negative, or control
statements for the perception variables of "group member desirability"
(see Table 9), "interest in other members" (see Table 10), and "level
of group contribution" (see Table 11).
The verbal group member
received equally high perception ratings on all three relevant variables
in all non-labeled statement conditions.
For the contrast-labeled conditions, where the verbal member was
labeled as "quiet", he received no significant perception rating
changes for "group member desirability" in either the positive or
negative contrast-label condtions, as well as in the non-labeled
conditions (see Table 9).
For the contrast-labeled conditions on the perception of "interest
in other members", he received significantly higher perception ratings
in the positive-contrast condition (adjusted mean = 19.87) than in
the negative-contrast condition
(adjusted mean= 26.68).
The ratings
for these conditions did not differ significantly from any of the nonlabeled conditions, only from each other (see Tabl'e 10).
It is noted
that the pattern for the actual quiet member on this variable (see
Table 10) in which a significant difference in perception exists
between positive and negative conditions is also found for the verbal
member labeled as "quiet".
For the contrast-label condition for "level of group contribution"
49
the verbal member received lower perception ratings in the
negative condition (adjusted mean= 28.04), than in the
contrast~
non~labeled
positive (adjusted mean= 15.77) or negative (adjusted mean= 13.60)
conditions.
Also the verbal member continued to be perceived as lower
in group contribution in the
mean = 24.95) than in the
mean
13.60).
contrast~positive
non~labeled
condition (adjusted
negative condition (adjusted
There were no significant differences in the perception
ratings between the contrast labels in either the positive (adjusted
mean = 24.95) or negative (adjusted mean= 28.04) conditions.
Thus,
the verbal member when labeled as "quiet" received significantly
lower perception ratings on "level of group contribution" than he did
when congruently labeled as verbal.
Also the contrast label conditions
produced equally low ratings regardless of the positive or negative
statements. (see Table 11).
These results support Hypothesis Two.
For the three statement
conditions of positive, negative, and control, the verbal member
received no significant perception changes in the three relevant
variables of "member desirability", "interest in other members 11 , and
"level of contribution".
The contrast label conditions will be
covered in Hypothesis Four.
Hypothesis Three states that the quiet member incongruently
labeled as "verbal'' will receive perception ratings similar to those
received by the actual verbal member.
Hypothesis Four states that
the verbal member incongruently labeled as "quiet" will receive
perception ratings similar to those received by the actual quiet
member.
50
To analyse the data for Hypotheses Three and Four, the comparisons
between congruent and incongruent or contrasting label conditions were
accomplished by holding the positive or negative components constant
and then through diagonal comparisons of adjusted means, compare the
difference between a contrast label condition to its corresponding
noncontrast labeled condition.
For example, a verbal member labeled
as "quiet" in a positive condition would be compared to the actual
quiet member in the same positive condition for the same perception
variable.
If no significant difference exists, support is provided
that both members are perceived as "quiet" and that the contrast label
has had an impact.
If a difference exists, then the contrasting label
has not altered the perception of the verbal member to be more in line
with the label of "quietness".
Tables 12, 13, and 14 represent the adjusted mean cell differences
for the three relevant variables.
All possible comparisons have been
calculated; however, those comparisons relevant to Hypotheses Three
and Four have been boxed for ease of location.
The following results discuss the quiet member when incongruently
labeled as "verbal".
For the perception of "group member desirability", the summary
of cell mean differences is indicated in Table 12.
There is no
significant difference between the contrast "verbal" label (adjusted
mean= 21.08), and the actual verbal condition (adjusted mean= 15.15)
for the positive level of "group member desirability".
A significant
difference does exist between the contrast "verbal" label (adjusted
mean= 33.62) and the actual verbal condition (adjusted mean= 16.15)
51
Table 12
Adjusted Mean Cell Differences for
"Group Member Desirability" (Question Two) as a Function of
Interaction between Verbal Level and Statement Condition:
Cross Comparisons
Verbal/
Statement
Quiet Level/Statement Condition
2
3
4
1**
(30.28)
(33. 53)
(21. 08)
(21. 46)
5
(33. 62)
1**
(15. 15)
6.31
18.38*
15.13*
1 5. 931
2
(16.15)
5.31
17.38*
14.13*
4.93
117.4 7*
3
(17. 07)
4.39
16.46*
13.21*
4.01
16.55*
( 6.60
18.67*
15.42*
6.22
18.76*
115.96*'
12. 71*
2. 71
16.05*
4
(14. 86)
5
(17.57)
*p
3.89
<. 05
**Identification of statement conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Positive statement
Negative statement
Control statement
,Incongruent label, positive statement
Incongruent label, negative statement
18.47*
I
52
for the negative level.
In the negative condition, the quiet member
labeled as "verbal" is perceived significantly lower in "group member
desirability" than the actual verbal member.
For the perception of "interest in other members", the summary of
mean cell differences is indicated in Table 13.
There are no signi-
ficant differences between either the positive (adjusted mean= 27.92)
or negative (adjusted mean
33.18) contrast "verbal" conditons to
the corresponding nonlabeled positive (adjusted mean = 23.39) or negative (adjusted mean= 25.91) verbal conditions.
Therefore, the quiet
member received similar perception ratings as the verbal member on
"interest in other members" in both the negative and positive statement
conditions, when the quiet member was labeled as "verbal".
For the perception of "level of group contribution", the summary
of mean cell differences is indicated in Table 14.
Significant dif-
ferences existed between the contrast "verbal" label (adjusted mean
= 32.31) and actual verbal condition (adjusted mean= 15.77) for the
positive statement level, and also between the contrast "verbal"
label (adjusted mean= 41.01) and actual verbal condition (adjusted
mean = 13.60) for the negative statement level.
For perception ratings
on ''level of group contribution", the quiet member was not perceived
as a "verbal" member when labeled verbal, but continued to be perceived
as a quiet member and received significantly lower perception ratings
than the verbal member in both the positive and negative statement
conditions.
These results indicate that Hypothesis Three was supported for
the variable of "interest in other members" in both positive and
53
Table 13
Adjusted Mean Cell Differences for
"Interest in Other Members (Question four) as a Function of
Interaction between Verbal Level and Statement Condition:
Cross Comparisons
Verbal/
Statement
Quiet Level/Statement Condition
1**
2
3
4
(21. 65)
(41. 09)
(35. 31)
(27. 92)
5
(33.18)
1**
(23.39)
1. 74
17. 70*
11.92*
4.53
9.79*
2
(25.91)
4.26
15.18*
9.40*
2.01
7.27
3
(22.95)
1. 30
18.14*
12.36*
4.97
10.26*
~
21. 22*
15.44*
8.05
13.31*
4
(19. 87)
5
(28. 68)
7.03
12. 41*)
6.63
**Identification of statement consitions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Positive statement
Negative statement
Control statement
Incongruent label, positive statement
Incongruent label, positive statement
.76
4.50
~--~--~~--------------·
54
Table 14
Adjusted Mean Cell Differences for
"Level of Contribution (Question five) as a Function of
Interaction between Verbal Level and Statement Condition:
Cross Comparisons
Quiet Level/Statement Condition
1**
(34.57)
2
(45.17)
3
(41.08)
1**
(15. 77)
18.80*
29.40*
25.31*
16. 54* 1
25.24*
2
(13.60)
20.97*
31. 57*
27.48*
18. 71*
27.41*
3
(19. 29)
15.28*
25.88*
21. 79*
13. 02*
21. 72*
~
20.22*
16.13*
7.36
16.06*
6.53
117 .13* 1
13.04*
4.27
12.97*
Verbal/
Statement
4
(24.95)
5
(28.04)
*p
<. 05
**Identification of statement conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Positive statement
Negative statement
Control statement
Incongruent label, positive statement
Incongruent label, negative statement
4
(32.31)
5
(41. 01)
55
negative settings, supported for the variable of "group member desirability" in the positive setting, and not supported for the variable
of "level of group contribution".
The following results discuss the verbal member when incongruently
labeled as "quiet".
There were no significant differences between the contrast label
of "quiet" and the actual quiet condition for the positive level for
all three relevant variables of "group member desirability" (see Table
12), "interest in other members" (see Table 13), and "level of group
contribution" (see Table 14).
Thus, in a positive setting, a verbal
member labeled as "quiet" will be perceived in a similar fashion as
a quiet member in the same positive condition.
However, does this
mean that the verbal member's perceptions have been altered to those
of a quiet member because of the introduction of a "quiet" label?
Glancing back to Tables 9 and 10, it is noted that the verbal member
has received the same high perception ratings in all statement conditions (with the exception of the negative-contrast condition for
"interest in other members").
Also a close look at Tables 12 and 13
reveals that the verbal member's high perception ratings for "group
member desirability" and "interest in other members" across all statement conditions are similar and nonsignificant to the quiet member's
perception ratings in the positive and contrast-label positive conditions.
Therefore, it is equally possible that the verbal member has
not been perceived as "quiet", but that the quiet member's ratings
in positive conditions are as high and favorable as the verbal member
in all statement conditions, for the perception variables of "group
56
member desirability" and "interest in other members''.
A different pattern exists for the variable of "level of group
contribution".
First, the verbal member's perception ratings are
significantly different for statement conditions of positive (adjusted
mean
15.77), negative (adjusted mean= 13.60) and control (adjusted
mean
19.29) from the quiet member's positive condition (adjusted
mean
34.57) (see Table 14).
Therefore, when the verbal member is
labeled as "quiet" in either the positive (adjusted mean= 24.95) or
negative (adjusted mean = 28.04) conditions, the perception ratings
on "level of group contribution" become similar to those for the
quiet member (adjusted mean = 34.57) in the positive setting.
For
this variable, the contrast label has the same impact regardless of
the positive or negative statements.
Significant differences exist between the contrast label of
"quiet'' and the noncontrast corresponding conditions for the negative
level for all three relevant variables of "group member desirability",
11
interest in other members'', and "level of group contribution".
The
contrast label of "quiet" does not alter the perceptions towards the
verbal member to be congruent with the quiet member in similar
nega~
tive conditions.
These results indicate that Hypothesis Four is supported for the
variable of "level of group contribution" only, where the verbal member
labeled as "quiet" will be perceived as a quiet member in a positive
setting.
Graphic representations of the interaction of verbal level and
statement condition are represented in Figure 2 for perception
57
ratings on "group member desirability", in Figure 3 for perception
ratings on "interest in other members", and in Figure 4 for perception ratings on "level of group contribution".
Two additional perception variables, "member likeability"
(question one) and "sense of comfort with member" (question three)
were significant for the main effect of statement condition.
Tukey (a)
post hoc analyses determined the significant differences between the
five statement conditions for these two variables.
Adjusted mean comparisons are summarized in Table 15 for "member
likeability".
The positive (adjusted mean= 17.08) and contrast
label positive (adjusted mean= 17.08) conditions produced the highest
perception ratings, followed by significantly lower ratings in the
negative (adjusted mean = 24.58) and contrast-label negative (adjusted
mean= 22.92) conditions.
The control condition (adjusted mean=
21.25) did not differ significantly from any of the other conditions.
Adjusted mean comparisons for "sense of comfort with member"
are summarized in Table 16.
The positive (adjusted mean= 18.01),
contrast-label positive (adjusted mean= 18.95) and control (adjusted
mean= 17.23) conditions produced similarly high perception ratings,
followed by significantly lower perceptions for the negative (adjusted
mean = 24.57) and contrast-label negative' (adjusted mean = 24.55)
conditions.
These results indicate that for the main effect of statement
condition, significant differences in perceptions exist between
positive and negative statements, regardless of congruent or incongruent labels, with the higher perceptions generated in the positive
58
50
45
CJ)
Q)
!-<
0
C)
40
Congruent Labels
/Quiet
Incongruent Labels
35
C/)
Quiet
b.O
s:: 30
·r-1
+.1
ctl
~
s::
0
•r-1
25
20
...
+.1
p.,
Q)
C)
15
...,....,.. Verbal
....
,.. ,.. ~Verbal
.. - - - - - .....IJII'-'
!-<
Q)
p..,
10
5
0
+
c
+
Statement Conditions
Figure 2.
Adjusted Mean Scores on "Group Member Desirability"
as a Function of Interaction between Verbal Level
and Statement Condition
59
50
Congruent Labels
Incongruent Labels
45
fJ)
40
Q)
l-1
0
CJ
trl
35
Quiet
/.Quiet
b.()
r:: 30
~Verbal
·r-i
....,
..,.,....-...........
co 25
,::t:j
r::
0
•r-i
....,
20
~
~
......
....
/
/
..... _Verbal
"
p,
Q)
CJ
~
fll'
15
l-1
Q)
P-<
10
5
0
+
c
+
Statement Conditions
Figure 3.
Adjusted Mean Scores on "Interest in Other Members"
as a Function of Interaction between Verbal Level
and Statement Condition.
60
50
Congruent Labels
Incongruent Labels
45
rJJ
40
Quiet
Q)
H
0
u
35
/Quiet
U)
bO
l=l
30
·
25
..,
·r-i
-1-1
(\j
p::j
l=l
0
•r-i
-1-1
A.
Q)
u
20
15
~
...
H
Q)
p..,
10
- --
.,
., .,
..-~Verbal
Verbal
./
/
,
/
./
5
0
+
c
+
Statement Conditions
Figure 4.
Adjusted Mean Scores on "Level of Group Contribution"
as a Function of Interaction between Verbal Level
and Statement Condition.
61
conditions, and the lower perceptions generated in the negative
conditions.
62
Table 15
Adjusted Mean Differences for
"Likeability" (Question one) as a Function of
Main Effect of Statement Condition
I**
(17. 08)
1**
0
2
(24.58)
7.50*
0
2
3
(21. 25)
4
(17.08)
4.17
8
3
7.50*
1. 66
0
4.17
1. 67
0
5.84*
<. 05
**Identification of Statement conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.84*
3.33
4
*p
5
(22.92)
Positive statement
Negative statement
Control statement
Incongruent label, positive statement
Incongruent label, negative statement
63
Table I6
Adjusted Mean Differences for
"Sense of Comfort with Member" (Question three) as a Function of
Main Effect of Statement Condition
U:*
(I8. 01)
0
I**
2
2
(24. 57)
6.56*
0
3
(17.23)
.94
6.54*
7.34*
5.62*
.03
1.72
7.32*
0
5.60*
4
*p
<. 05
**Identification of statement conditions:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5
(24. 55)
.78
0
3
4
(18. 95)
Positive statement
Negative statement
Control statement
Incongruent label, positive statement
Incongruent label, negative statement
..........
~~~~~~----
Chapter IV
DISCUSSION
Previous research on person perception toward the quiet and
verbally active group members has, in general, taken two approaches.
Correlational research has studied the different perceptions towards
quiet and verbal group members, while experimental research has,
through the use of various instruments, manipulated the verbal output
of quiet members and measured the perception changes that followed.
These studies provided valuable information on the relation between
perception and verbal communication, but they did not determine useful
group methods for producing accurate and constructive perceptions of
verbal or quiet members.
In on-going theraputic or task-oriented
groups, the use of an device to induce an increase in the verbal output of a quiet group member, and thereby influence the changes in
perception of that member, is not always feasible.
A more practical
approach in influencing perceptions of quiet and verbal members is
the use of statements made by the group leader or therapist.
The present research attempted to study perceptions of quiet
and verbal members, and evaluate group leader or therapist statements
that would result in altered perceptions, of the quiet member particularly.
Additionally, this research also investigated perception
changes as an outcome of labels placed upon verbal and quiet members
that are incongruent or in contrast to their actual group performance.
A synopsis of the four hypotheses is as follows:
64
65
Hypothesis One stated that perceptions of a quiet group member
would be significantly changed by intervention of therapist statements.
Hypothesis Two stated that perceptions of a verbally active
member would not be changed by therapist statements.
His verbal
participation would provide sufficient cues to form stable perceptions
on his group performance.
Hypotheses Three and Four address results
of incongruent labels upon perceptions of quiet and verbal group
members.
Perceptions of a quiet member incongruently labeled and
viewed as "verbal" by the therapist would receive perceptions associated with that label (Hypothesis Three), and a verbal member incongruently labeled and viewed as "quiet" by the therapist would receive
perceptions associated with that label (Hypothesis Four).
Twelve perception characteristics were studied, with three characteristics emerging as significantly influenced by therapist statements about quiet and verbal group members.
These characteristics
were "group member desirability", "member's perceived interest in other
members", and "level of group contribution".
An interpretation of
these perceptual characteristics, as assumed by this research, is as
follows: "Member desirability" may represent a member's overall value
and inclusiveness to the group, and can be viewed as representing a
member's
establi~hed
Middlebrook, 1974).
"group identity" with the group (Hollander, 1964;
"Interest in other group members" can be viewed
as measuring a member's receptive involvement in the group.
The
third characteristic, "level of group contribution", represents a
member's expressive involvement in the group, and can be viewed as
.a member's amount of offered contributions as well as a member's
.........
~~~~~~------
66
amount of verbal participation (Reilly & Jaffee, 1970; Jaffee & Lucas,
1969).
It must be emphasized that these interpretations are assump-
tions of this research, and alternate perspectives of the perceptual
characteristics may exist.
The findings indicate that the positive or negative content of
the therapist statements can have a strong influence upon the perceptions of the quiet member, and a very minimal, if any, influence upon
the perceptions of the verbal member.
In both the control and negative statement conditions, the quiet
member was perceived as an undesirable group member, as moderate in
his interest toward other members, and low in his contribution to the
group.
These results are in agreement with prior research in the
field (Knutson, 1960; Riecken, 1958; Bavelas et al, 1965).
With the
intervention of the positive or supportive therapist statement,
perceptions toward the quiet member changed to those of a very desirable member, high in his interest toward others, and moderate in his
group contribution.
These substantial perception changes of the quiet
group member occured with no change in the behavior by the member himself.
Perception of the quiet member's level of group contribution
was the least affected by the interventive positive therapist statements, with perception scores possibly indicating recognition by the
raters of the member's quietness.
In contrast to the quiet group member, the verbal member, in
agreement with prior research, was favorably perceived in the control
condition as a very desirable group member, very high in his interest
in other members, and very high in his group contribution.
These
67
initial perceptions did not change with the introduction of a positive
or negative interventive statement by the therapist.
These findings
provide additional support to the possibility that the active participation of the verbal member can provide sufficient cues to form stable
perceptions.
Additional findings addressed the changes in perceptions as a
consequence of incongruent labels placed upon the verbal and quiet
group members.
When the quiet member was labeled as "verbal" by the therapist
and followed by a positive, supportive statement, the perceptions of
the quiet member became as favorable as those of the verbal member.
He was viewed as a very desirable group member and high in his interest
toward other members.
The favorable perception of the quiet member's
"interest in other members" continued in the negative statement condition.
The label of "verbal" did not affect the quiet member's per-
ceived level of group contribution, and he continued to be viewed as
moderately contributing to the group.
The incongruent label of "quiet" placed upon the verbal member
did not alter his received perceptions of "group member desirability"
and "interest in other members" to be congruent with those of a quiet
group member.
The verbal member received the same favorable percep-
tions that existed during the positive, negative, and control statement conditions in which he was viewed as verbal.
Perceptions contin-
ued to be based primarily on the verbal member's participation and
less on the labels or statements made by the therapist.
However, this
was not the case for the characteristic of "level of group contribu-
...........
"
~~~~~~----
68
tion".
The verbal member labeled as "quiet" received the same percep-
tion as the quiet member and was viewed as being moderate in his group
contribution.
This perception existed regardless of the positive or
negative therapist statement, thus providing support that the incongruent label appeared to have the greater impact upon this perception
change than did the positive or negative therapist comments.
Several patterns emerged from these results.
First the percep-
tions of the quiet group member appear to be most strongly influenced
by the positive or negative nature of the therapist statements, with
favorable perceptions generated in the positive intervention and
unfavorable perceptions generated in the negative intervention.
Additionally, the results of the congruent or incongruent label
conditions tend to fall into the same division of positive and negative statement impact.
The results of the congruent or incongruent
label placed upon the quiet member produced the same favorable perceptions in the positive condition, and the same unfavorable perceptions
in the negative condition, for the characteristics of "group member
desirability" and "interest in other members".
Though the crosswise
comparisons indicate that the incongruent label of "verbal" significantly altered perceptions of the quiet member to be more congruent
with the verbal member, other comparisons indicate that the influence
of positive and negative statements have the greater impact.
For the verbal member, neither the direction, nor the incongruent
label altered favorable perceptions generated in the control condition for "group member desirability" and "interest in other members".
The one exception is the characteristic of "group contribution", where
U::J
the verbal member's previous perception of extremely high contribution
is decreased to moderate contribution when incongruently labeled as
"quiet".
Based on these results, the expectation of differential perceptions generated by either the positive or negative statements can be
supported, and looking at the data again, the expectation of differential perceptions generated by the incongruent labels can also be
supported.
For the quiet member, the data appear to be more suppor-
tive of the hypothesis that positive and negative aspects of the
therapist's statements have the stronger impact upon the perceptions
generated.
For one variable, "level of group contribution", the
incongruent label can be directly stated as having a definite impact
upon the perception of the verbal member, and therefore some of the
variance in the other characteristics may be due to a combination of
contrast label and positive/negative statement conditions.
Though positive results were obtained for the contrast-label
conditions, still, a limitation to this study is the possible
confounding and shared variance between the positive and negative
aspects of the therapist statements, and the incongruent labeling
aspect of the therapist statements.
ch~nges
Conclusions based on perception
as a result of incongruent labeling need to be interpreted
with caution.
A worthwhile area for investigation would be that of
partialing out the different effects of the positive and negative
intervention versus intervention by congruent and incongruent labeling,
as well as determining for what group members and what perception
characteristics these different interventions have similar and
...........
~~~~~------
70
different impacts.
A second limitation of this study related to the interpretation
of the incongruent label results is the factor of time.
This group
experiment ran for 20 minutes, a relatively short time for perception
formation.
Research by Rogers (1951) and Stephenson (1953) indicate
that at the beginning of therapy, whether individual or group, the
perceptions of a member and the therapist perceptions are at variance
with each other.
With time and the theraputic process, these incon-
gruent labels begin to converge, until reassessment indicates perceptual congruence between previously incongruent labels.
In reference
to the current study, it is noted that the perceptions of the quiet
and verbal members in a congruent non-labeled setting widely differ
from each other, but when the member received an incongruent label,
the difference in their perceptions began to decrease and the perceptual ratings began to approximate each other.
Thus the verbal member
ratings (when labeled "quiet") began to approximate more those of a
quiet member, and the quiet member ratings (when labeled "verbal")
began to approximate more those of a verbal member.
This is best
illustrated in the graphic representation found in Figures 2, 3, and
4 in the Results section.
Therefore, the short time span of the
experiment does not allow for the development of perceptions that might
reflect more significant findings for the incongruent labeling by the
therapist.
However, closer approximation in scores found in the
incongruent label part of the experiment hint at a potential impact
from incongruent labeling that cannot be currently stated as conclusive.
Therefore, the conclusions based on perception changes or lack of
71
change as a result of incongruent labels need to also be interpreted
with caution.
Research by Jaffee and Lucas (1969) and Reilly and
Jaffee (1970) suggest that the immediate perceptions of the verbal and
quiet group member in non-labeled conditions would not be strongly
altered as an outcome of increased group time span, but are more influenced by the level of verbal participation.
Several conclusions can be drawn from the findings.
First, the
use of positive statements have been found to produce favorable perceptions of the quiet member without an immediately forthcoming behavior
change by that member.
The usefulness of this conclusion based on
the data findings lies in the fact that previous research attempts to
upgrade perceptions of the quiet member usually depended on the quiet
member first producing a behavior change in verbal output before a
perception change would follow.
However, the difficulty and anxiety
with which the member attempts this change, coupled with the current
negative group atmosphere of unfavorable perceptions, makes verbal
behavior change long and difficult in coming (Phillips, 1968).
An
intervention method that would alter perceptions before an increase
in verbal behavior
on the member's part, could more quickly facilitate
the quiet member's ease and acceptance in the group.
A second conclusion is the tentative evidence that labeling and
viewing the quiet member as a verbally active participant has also
been found to improve and upgrade the perceptions of the quiet member.
In improving the perception of his group member desirability, the label
needs to be coupled with positive therapist statements, but to improve
the member's perceived "interest in other members" the label of
72
"verbalness" alone is sufficient.
A third conclusion is that the strongly favorable perceptions of
the verbally active member are not influenced by the positive or negative statements of the therapist.
This supports the suggestion by
previous research (Hollander, 1964) that a verbal member's group
participation provides sufficient information to generate stable and
lasting perceptions.
The lack of perception change of the verbal member provides
additional validity that it is the perceptions of the quiet member
which are exceedingly susceptible to the influence of the therapist
statements, whether positive or negative.
This outcome lends addi-
tional credence to the possible appropriate use of therapist or group
leader statements as a method of intervention for improving and upgrading the unfavorable perceptions generally held about the quiet
member.
A fourth conclusion focuses upon the specific perception characteristic of "level of group contribution".
This characteristic most
directly measures a member's perceived verbal or quiet level and also
illustrates the degree to which the verbal or quiet behavior can be
accurately perceived by the observers and/or influenced by the
therapist statements.
While this perception of the quiet member is
least altered by the statements or labels of the therapist, this was
the only characteristic in which the perception of the verbal member
was changed; the verbal member when labeled as "quiet" received a
perception change on "level of group contribution" that reflected
quietness.
Thus, the perception characteristics that are most easily
73
influenced in perception formation toward the quiet member are not
the same characteristics that can be influenced in perception formation toward the verbal member.
This result can provide a new direction for research in leadership and the verbally active group member, as previous studies have
viewed the verbal member's perceived level of contribution, when an
indication of verbal participation, as one of his more central
characteristics, as well as the one characteristic that mbst strongly
influences perception of leadership in groups (Hollander, 1964).
The findings of the present study indicate that positive and
supportive therapist statements about the quiet group member (in
addition to those directed to him) can be considered as a viable
method of intervention for influencing and improving the perceptions
generated toward the quiet member, and acknowledgement of that member
as desirable in the group.
Research by Truax, Tunnell, and Glenn (1966) determined that with
a low-verbal member, accurate and empathic understanding has the
greatest impact upon the quiet member's positive improvements, and
is one of the most successful or desired methods in dealing with his
low verbal participation in a group.
The improved favorable percep-
tions generated toward the quiet member, as an outcome of positive and
supportive therapist statements in this study, follow the pattern deemed
most successful by Truax, Tunnell and Glenn (1966).
The quiet member
received an accuFate perception of his moderate level of group contribution, coupled with more favorable and accepting perceptions toward
him as a desired group member and as one interested in other members.
......
~------------------
74
According to Rogers (1970) and Truax and Carkhuff (1967), behavior
change is not facilitated by anxiety, negative confrontation, rejection,
or punishment, but by support and acceptance toward a person's present
condition.
The favorable perceptions of the quiet group member, as an
outcome of positive and accepting therapist statements, may also be a
possible method for developing a supportive group atmosphere in which
the desired behavior change of increased verbal participation could
be facilitated without the usual accompanying anxiety and fear.
The use of positive group leader statements for enhancing the
quiet member's perceived group status can also be effective in taskoriented groups as well as therapist groups.
(1964), perceived isolation
According to Hollander
and lack of group or member identifica-
tion are two major factors that inhibit task group members in their
recognition and acceptance of the quiet member.
Unless a member has
a degree of "visibility" in the group, other members are unable to
recognize or utilize his task contributions.
The use of positive and
supportive leader statements can alter the isolated and low group
identity perception of the quiet member to that of a strongly desired
group member (thereby establishing group identification) and also as
receptively involved in the group.
Lastly, not only can the group leader's statements be a method
by which the perceptions of the quiet member is improved, it can also
be a way to assist the other group members in seeking out and recognizing positive experiences with the quiet member of the group.
75
REFERENCES
Aiken, E. "Changes in interpersonal descriptions accompanying the
operant condition of verbal frequency in groups." Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1965, i, 243-247.
Asch, S. "Forming impressions of personality.
and Social Psychology, 1946, ~. 258-290.
Asch, S.
Social psychology.
Journal of Abnormal
New York: Prentice-Hall, 1952.
Aston, J. "predicting verbal participation in group therapy."
British Journal of Psychiatry, 1970, 116, 45-50.
Bass, B. Leadership, psychology and organizational behavior.
New York: Harper & Row, 1960.
Bavelas, A.; Hastorf, A.; Gross, A.; Kite, R. "Experiments on the
alteration of group structure." Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 1965, !, 55-70.
Carkhuff, R. & Berenson, B. Beyond counseling and therapy.
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967.
New York:
Couch, A. "Psychological determinants of interpersonal behavior."
Unpublished PhD Thesis, Harvard University, 1960.
French, W. & Bell, C. Organizational development.
Prentice Hall, 1973.
New Jersey:
Gintner & Lindskold. "Rate of participation and expertise as
factors influencing leader choice." Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1975, 37(6), 1085-1089.
Golembiewski, E. & Blumberg, A. Sensitivity training and the
laboratory approach. Illinois: Peacock Publishing, 1973.
Grosz & Wagoner. "MMPI and EPPS profiles of high and low verbal
interaction in therapy groups." Psychological Reports, 1971,
28, 951-955.
Grosz & Wright. "Tempo of verbal interaction in an open therapy
group conducted in rotation by three different therapists."
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1967, J2, 513-523.
Hall, C. & Lindzey, G. (Eds.). "Rogers self theory" in Theories
of personality. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1970,
515-552.
76
Hansen, J.; Warner, R.; Smith, E. Group counseling: Theory and
process. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 1976.
Hayes & Meltzer. "Interpersonal judgements based on talkativeness:
Fact or artifact?" Sociometry, 1972, 35(4), 538-561.
Hollander, E. Leaders, groups, and influence.
University Press, 1964.
New York: Oxford
Jaffee & Lucas. "Effects of high-rate talkers on group voting
behavior in the leaderless group problem-solving situation."
Psychological Reports, 1969, 25, 471-477.
Jones, E.; Kanouse, D.; Kelley, H.; Nisbett, R.; Valins, S.;
Weiner, B. Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior.
Jersey: General Learning Corp., 1972.
Knutson, S.
"Quiet and vocal groups".
New
Sociometry, 1960, 23, 36-48.
Kramer, E. "Judgement of personal characteristics and emotion from
non-verbal properties of speech." Psychological Bulletin, 1963
60' 408-420.
Levine, B. Group psychotherapy: Practice and development.
Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1979.
New
Lieberman, M.; Yalom, I.; Miles, M. Encounter groups: First facts.
New York: Basic Books Inc., 1973.
Lifton, W. Groups: Facilitating individual growth and societal change.
New York: Wiley & Sons, 1972.
Loeser, L. "Some aspects of group dynamics."
of Group Psychotherapy, 1957,
5-19.
z,
International Journal
Mann, R. "Dimensions of individual performance in small groups
under task and social-emotional conditions." Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, ~. 674-682.
Middlebrook, P. "person perception" in Social psychology a11d modern
life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1974, 373-420.
Mossman & Ziller. "Self-esteem and consistency of social behavior."
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73(4), 363-367.
Norfleet, B. "Interpersonal relations and group productivity."
Journal of Social Issues, 1948, 2• 66-69.
Ohlson, M.
1970.
Group counseling.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
77
Phillips, G. "Reticence: Pathology of the normal speaker."
Speech Monographs, 1968, 35, 39-49.
Phillips, G. & Meltzer, J. "The reticent syndrome: Some theoretical
consideraton about etiology and treatment." Speech Monographs,
1973, 40, 220-230.
Reilly & Jaffee. "influence of some task-irrelevant factors on
leader selection." Psychological Record, 1970, 20, 535-539.
Riecken, 11 The effect of talkativeness on ability to influence
group solutions of problems." Sociometry, 1958, ~. 309-321.
Rogers, C. Carl Rogers on encounter groups.
Row, 1970.
Rogers, C.
1951.
Client-centered therapy.
New York: Harper &
Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
Sechrest & Barger. "Verbal participation and perceived benefit
from group psychotherapy." International Journal of Group
Psychotherapy,_ 1961, ll• 49-59.
Schultz, B. "Predicting emergent leaders: An exploratory study of
salience of communicative functioning." Small Group Behavior,
1978, 9(1), 109-114.
Schultz, B. "Characteristics of emergent leaders of continuing
problem-solving groups." Journal of Psychology, 1974, ~.
167-173.
Sherif, M. "A study of some social factors in perception."
Archives of Psychology, 1935, 187.
Sherif, M. The psychology of social norms.
Row, 1936.
New York: Harper and
Stang, D. & Castellaneta. "Actual vs. perceived talkativeness as
determinants of judged leadership, popularity, and likeableness."
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1976, 8(1), 44-46.
Stephenson, W. The study of behavior.
Chicago Press, 1953.
Chicago: University of
Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. The use and interpretation of multivariate statistics. Book in preparation, 1980.
Truax, C. & Carkhuff, R. Toward effective·cotinseling and psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1967.
78
Truax, C.; Tunnell, B.; & Glenn, A. "Accurate empathy, nonpossessive
warmth, genuineness and patient outcome in silent and verbal
outpatients." in Truax & Carkhuff's Toward effective counseling
and psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1967, 178183.
Willard & Strodtbeck. "Latency of verbal response and participation
in small groups." Sociometry, 1972, 35 (1) :, 161-175.
Yalom, I. The theory and practice of group psychotherapy.
New York: Basic Books Inc., 1970.
Zdep, S. "Intra-group reinforcement and its effects on leadership
behavior." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
1969, 4(3), 284-298.
79
APPENDIX A
GROUP LEADER STATEMENTS
80
LEADER STATEMENT #I
Positive Statement toward the Quiet Member
(Introduction) "I would say that it is certainly a fascinating
experience to be involved and interact in a group and especially to
have the opportunity to guide and lead the group.
I have been leading
groups for about two years now.
"One thing that I have learned as a group leader is that people
in a group are very diverse and usually communicate, share and grow
at their own individual pace.
Some people can be very quiet group
members and some people can be very active and talkative, but all gain
when allowed their own space."
(Statement)
"I
want to draw your attention to Dan.
You will
notice that although he was fairly quiet during the sessions, still
his contributions were marked by a deep sensitivity.
He is obviously
intelligent, and as obviously, if we really listen to him, he is
very perceptive.
You notice that when he spoke it was not with
some of the trivialities of the others.
He spoke directly from
his own experience, as is true of many persons who are quiet in groups.
It makes people feel comfortable and secure to be in the company of
such people.
spoken."
Contributions cannot be measured by the number of words
81
LEADER STATEMENT #2
Negative Statement toward the Quiet Person
(Introduction) "I would say that it is certainly a fascinating
experience to be involved and interact in a group and especially to
have the opportunity to guide and lead the group.
I have been leading
groups for about two years now.
"One thing that I have learned as a group leader is that people
in a group are very diverse and usually communicate, share, and grow
at their own individual pace.
Some people can be very quiet group
members and some people can be very active and talkative; while all
members gain, the quiet individual unfortunately gains only in a
minimum way."
(Statement)
11
I want to draw your attention to Dan.
that he was fairly quiet during these sessions.
You notice
This made it difficult
for others to know just how sensitive, or perceptive, or even
intelligent he might be.
When he did speak, it was with some awkward-
ness and self-consciousness, making it hard to see the experiences he
was referring to.
It makes people feel uncomfortable and confused to
be in the company of such people.
While contributions cannot be
measured by the number of words spoken, the individual has to say at
least a minimum amount to be heard and understood by others."
82
LEADER STATEMENT #3
Quiet Member Incongruently Labeled as "Verbal"
Followed by a Positive Statement
(Introduction) "I would say that it is certainly a fascinating
experience to be involved and interact in a group and especially to
have the opportunity to guide and lead the group.
I have been leading
groups for about two years now.
"One thing that I have learned as a group leader is that people
in a group are very diverse and usually communicate, share, and grow
at their own individual pace.
Some people can be very quiet group
members and some people can be very active and talkative, but all
gain when allowed their own space."
(Statement) "I want to draw your attention to Dan.
You will
notice that he was probably the most verbally active person during
these sessions.
His contributions were marked by a deep sensitivity.
He is obviously intelligent, and as obviously, if we really listen
to him, he is very perceptive.
You notice that when he spoke it was
from his own experience, as is true of many persons who are talkative
in groups.
It makes people feel comfortable and secure to be in the
company of such people.
Contributions cannot be measured by the
number of words spoken, yet the individual who is actively verbal
tends to be understood by others."
83
LEADER STATEMENT //4
Quiet Member Incongruently Labeled as "Verbal"
Followed by a Negative Statement
(Introduction)
"I would say that it is certainly a fascinating
experience to be involved and interact in a group and especially to
have the opportunity to guide and lead the group.
I have been lead-
ing groups for about two years now.
"One thing that I have learned as a group leader is that people
in a group are very diverse and usually communicate, share and grow
at their own individual pace.
Some people can be very quiet group
members and some people can be very active and talkative."
(Statement) "I want to draw your attention to Dan.
You will
notice that he was probably the most verbally active person during
these sessions.
This made it difficult for others to know just how
sensitive, or perceptive, or even intelligent he might be.
When he
spoke, it was with some awkwardness and self-consciousness, making
it hard to see the experiences he was referring to.
It makes people
feel uncomfortable and confused to be in the company of such people.
While contributions cannot be measured by the number of words spoken,
the individual has to avoid excessive talkativeness in order to be
understood by others."
84
LEADER STATEMENT //5
Positive Statement toward the Talkative Member
(Introduction) "I would say that it is certainly a fascinating
experience to be involved and interact in a group and especially to
have the opportunity to guide and lead the group.
I have been leading
groups for about two years now.
"One thing that I have learned as a group leader is that people
in a group are very diverse and usually communicate, share, and
grow at their own individual pace.
Some people can be very quiet group
members and some people can be very active and talkative, but all gain
when allowed their own space."
(Statement) "I want to draw your attention to Guy.
You will
notice that he was probably the most verbally active-person during
these sessions.
His contributions were marked by a deep sensitivity.
He is obviously intelligent, and as obviously if we really listen to
him, he is very perceptive.
You notice that when he spoke it was
not with some of the trivialities of the others.
He spoke directly
from his own experience, as is true of many persons who are talkative
in groups.
It makes people feel comfortable and secure to be in the
company of such people.
'
Contributions
cannot be measured by the
number of words spoken, yet the individual who is actively verbal
tends to be understood by others."
85
LEADER STATEMENT #6
Negative Statement toward the Talkative Member
(Introduction) "I would say that it is certainly a fascinating
experience to be involved and interact in a group and especially to
have the opportunity to guide and lead the group.
I have been leading
groups for about two years now.
"One thing that I have learned as a group leader is that people
in a group are very diverse and usually communicate, share and grow
at their own individual pace.
Some people can be very quiet group
members and some people can be very active and talkative."
(Statement) "I want to draw your attention to Guy.
You will
notice that he was probably the most verbally active person during
these sessions.
This made it difficult for others to know just how
sensitive, or perceptive, or even intelligent he might be.
When he
spoke, it was with some awkwardness and self-consciousness, making
it hard to see the experiences he was referring to.
It makes people
feel uncomfortable and confused to be in the company of such people.
While contributions cannot be measured by the number of words spoken,
the individual has to avoid excessive talkativeness to be understood
by others."
86
LEADER STATEMENT #7
Talkative Member Incongruently Labeled as "Quiet"
Followed by a Positive Statement
(Introduction) "I would say that it is certainly a fascinating
experience to be involved and interact in a group and especially to
have the opportunity to guide and lead the group.
I have been leading
groups for about two years now.
"One thing that I have learned as a group leader is that people
in a group are very diverse and usually communicate, share and grow
at their own individual pace.
Some people can be very quiet group
members and some people can be very active and talkative, but all
gain when allowed their own space."
(Statement) "I want to draw your attention to Guy.
You will
notice that although he was fairly quiet during the sessions, still
his contributions were marked by a deep sensitivity.
He is obviously
intelligent, and as obviously, if we really listen to him, he is
very perceptive.
You notice that when he spoke it was not with some
of the trivialities of the others.
He spoke directly from his own
experience, as is true of many persons who are quiet in groups.
It
makes people feel comfortable and secure to be in the company of such
people.
spoken."
Contributions cannot be measured by the number of words
87
LEADER STATEMENT
I~
Talkative Member Incongruently Labeled as "Quiet"
Followed by a Negative Statement
(Introduction) "I would say that it is certainly a fascinating
experience to be involved and interact in a group and especially to
have the opportunity to guide and lead the group.
I have been leading
groups for about two years now.
"One thing that I have learned as a group leader is that people
in a group are very diverse and usually communicate, share, and grow
at their own individual pace.
Some people can be very quiet group
members and some people can be very active and talkative; while all
members gain, the quiet individual unfortunately gains only in a
minimum way."
(Statement) "I want to draw your attention to Guy.
notice that he was fairly quiet during these sessions.
You will
This made it
difficult for others to know just how sensitive, or perceptive, or
even intelligent he might be.
When he did speak, it was with some
awkwardness and self-consciousness, making it hard to see the
experiences he was referring to.
It makes people feel uncomfortable
and confused to be in the company of such people.
While contributions
cannot be measured by the number of words spoken, the individual has
to say at least a minimum amount to be heard and understood by others."
88
LEADER STATEMENT #9
Neutral Statement for Control Conditions
"I would say that it is certainly a fascinating experience to
be involved and interact in a group and especially to have the
opportunity to guide and lead the group.
I have been leading groups
for about two years now.
"This group was one of many I have been involved with and I felt
that this group's progress was normal and at the rate that is common
for group encounters.
There is nothing really unusual to remark about
as the group progressed satisfactorily."
89
APPENDIX B
GROUP RATING QUESTIONNAIRE
90
GROUP RATING QUESTIONNAIRE
You have just viewed a 20-minute filmed composite of an actual group
held for several sessions. Please rate
on the following characteristics according to your own perceptions, feelings,
and reactions to the group member. PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR ANSWER.
A.
GROUP VALUE
1.
LIKEABILITY: Imagining yourself as a member of the filmed group
or a similar group, to what degree would you view this person
as a likeable and congenial group member:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2.
DESIRABILITY: If you were to belong to a similar group and could
choose your members from the members just viewed, please rate
the degree to which you would select this member to be a part of
your group:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
3.
Extremely likeable
Moderately likeable
Neither likeable nor dislikeable
Dislikeable
Extremely dislikeable
Extremely desirable as a group member
Somewhat desirable, but not my first choice
Neither desirable nor undesirable
Not likely to choose this member, an undesirable choice
Never would choose this member to be part of·a group
SENSE OF CO~~ORT WITH MEMBER: Imagining yourself as a member
of the filmed group, or a similar group, to what degree would
you feel comfortable around this member:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Very comfortable and at
Moderately comfortable
Neither comfortable nor
Somewhat uncomfortable,
comfortable
Extremely uncomfortable
ease
uncomfortable
more uncomfortable than
and uneasy
91
B.
GROUP CHARACTERISTICS
Please rate the member on the following group characteristics on
a 5-point scale, please circle your answer.
4.
His level of interest in others and the feelings discussed:
(I) Very High
5.
(2) High -- (3) Moderate -- (4) Occasional -- (5) Low
His Level of understanding and support towards other members:
(1) Very High
7.
(3) Moderate -- (4) Occasional -- (5) Low
His level of contribution to the group discussion:
(1) Very High
6.
(2) High
(2) High -- (3) Moderate -- (4) Occasional -- (5) Low
His ability to be in touch with his own feelings:
(1) Very High
(2) High -- (3) Moderate -- (4) Occasional
8.
self-~disclosure
His level of
(1) Very High
c.
--
(5) Low
--
(5) Low
and sharing in the group:
(2) High -- (3) Moderate -- (4) Occasional
INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS
Based on your personal perceptions, please rate this member on how
you saw him as an individual. No. 1 represents the highest rating
and No. 5 represents the lowest rating on each listed characteristic. Please circle your answer.
9.
Assertive-----------1-----2-----3-----4-----5----Passive
10.
Intelligent---------1-----2-----3-----4-----5----Unintelligent
11.
High Self-Esteem----1-----2-----3-----4-----5----Low Self-Esteem
12.
Involved Person-----1-----2-----3-----4-----5----Isolated Person
D.
ADDITIONAL PERCEPTIONS
Please list at least one quality you specifically liked about this
person:
Please list at least one quality you specifically found annoying about
this person:
92
APPENDIX C
UNADJUSTED MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR MAIN EFFECTS AND INTERACTION
93
Table 17
Means and (Standard Deviations) for Questionnaire Variables
As a Function of Verbal Level
Questionniare
Variable
Quiet
Verbal
Q 1
24.17
(6.19)
17.00
(5.91)
Q 2
28.00
(10.22)
16.17
(6.66)
Q 3
24.17
(10.30)
17.17
(7.61)
Q4
31.83
(11. 27)
24.17
(7. 43)
Q5
38.83
(12. 63)
20.33
(9. 20)
Q6
34.33
(11. 25)
26.50
(9.36)
Q 7
28.33
(13.17)
20.33
(11. 49)
Q8
36.00
(13.04)
22.67
(9. 72)
Q9
35.17
(9.83)
23.17
(9.65)
Q 10
24.67
(7.69)
19.67
(7.80)
Q 11
31.50
(9. 88) .
24.33
(9. 63)
Q 12
35.83
20.83
(9. 07)
(11.24)
94
Table 18
Means and (Standard Deviations) for Questionnaire Variables
As a Function of Statement Condition
Part I
Variable
Positive
Statement
Negative
Statement
Control
Statement
Q 1
17.08
(6.24)
24.58
(5. 88)
21.25
(7.41)
Q2
16.67
(6.37)
26.67
(10. 49)
24.17
(11. 39)
Q 3
15.83
(7.17)
26.67
(11.29)
17.92
(7.21)
Q4
20.42
(4.64)
35.83
(10. 60)
28.75
(9.92)
Q5
21.67
(14.04)
32.08
(17.44)
31.67
(14.94)
Q6
24.58
(5.88)
35.42
(11.79)
32.92
(12. 33)
Q 7
14.58
(5.09)
30.83
(14.42)
25.83
(11. 00)
Q8
22.50
(8.97)
35.00
(15. 04)
30.83
(15.01)
Q9
25.42
(9. 77)
32.50
(13.91)
29.17
(12.83)
Q 10
17.50
( 6. 08)
27.08
(6.90)
25.00
(8.85)
Q 11
23.33
(7.61)
31.25
(12. 27)
28.75
(11.16)
Q 12
22.50
(11. 52)
31.67
(16.06)
30.42
(14. 29)
95
Table 18
Means and (Standard Deviations) for Questionnaire Variables
As a Function of Statement Condition
Part II
Variable
Contrast Label
Positive Statement
Contrast Label
Negative Statement
Q 1
17.08
(5. 50)
22.92
(6.90)
Q 2
16.25
(6. 4 7)
26.67
(11.29)
Q 3
16.67
(6.37)
26.25
(9.70)
Q 4
22.08
(5.88)
32.92
(9.55)
Q 5
25.00
(8.34)
37.50
(10. 73)
Q 6
22.92
(8.06)
36.25
(8. 75)
Q 7
15.42
(7.21)
35.00
(10. 63)
Q 8
22.08
(9.32)
36.25
(10.13)
Q 9
24.17
(8.30)
34.58
(8. 33)
Q 10
16.25
(5. 76)
25.00
(6.59)
Q 11
22.50
(5.32)
33. 75
(9. 70)
Q 12
23.33
(7. 02)
33. 75
(8.75)
96
Table 19
Means and Standard Deviations for Question One
As a Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level by
Statement Condition
Mean
S.D.
Positive
20.00
6.03
Negative
28.33
3.89
Control
26.66
4.92
Contrast Positive
19.16
5.14
Contrast Negative
26.66
4.92
Positive
14.16
5.14
Negative
20.83
5.14
Control
15.83
5.14
Contrast Positive
15.00
5.22
Contrast Negative
19.16
6.68
Quiet
Verbal
97
Table 20
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Two
As a Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level by
Statement Condition
Mean
S.D.
Positive
19.16
5.14
Negative
35.83
5.14
Control
31.66
8.34
Contrast Positive
18.33
7.17
Contrast Negative
35.00
7.97
Positive
14.16
6.68
Negative
17.50
4.52
Control
16.55
8.87
Contrast Positive
14.16
5.14
Contrast Negative
18.33
7. 17
Quiet
Verbal
98
Table 21
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Three
As a Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level by
Statement Condition
Mean
S.D.
Positive
18.33
8.34
Negative
35.00
7.97
Control
22.50
6.21
Contrast Positive
16.66
7.78
Contrast Negative
28.33
9.37
Positive
13.33
4.92
Negative
18.33
7.17
Control
13.33
4.92
Contrast Positive
16.66
4.92
Contrast Negative
24.16
9.96
Quiet
Verbal
99
Table 22
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Four
As a Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level by
Statement Condition
Mean
S.D.
Positive
19.16
5.14
Negative
44.16
6.68
Control
35.83
7.92
Contrast Positive
25.00
5.22
Contrast Negative
35.00
10.00
Positive
21.66
3.89
Negative
27.50
6.21
Control
21.66
5. 77
Contrast Positive
19.16
5.14
Contrast Negative
30.83
9-;-(}Q-
Quiet
Verbal
!UU
Table 23
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Five
As a Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level by
Statement Condition
Mean
S.D.
Positive
29.16
6.21
Negative
48.33
3.89
Control
45.00
6.74
Contrast Positive
27.50
8.66
Contrast Negative
44.16
6.68
Positive
14.16
5.14
Negative
15.83
6.68
Control
18.33
5. 77
Contrast Positive
22.50
7.53
Contrast Negative
30.83
9.96
Quiet
Verbal
101
Table 24
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Six
As a Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level by
Statement Conditions
Mean
S.D.
Positive
24.16
5.14
Negative
42.50
11.38
Control
41.66
8.34
Contrast Positive
25.83
6.68
Contrast Negative
37.50
8.66
Positive
25.00
6.74
Negative
28.33
7.17
Control
24.16
9.00
Contrast Positive
20.00
8.52
Contrast Negative
35.00
9.04
Quiet
Verbal
102
Table 25
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Seven
as a Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level by
Statement Condition
Mean
S.D.
Positive
15.83
5.14
Negative
40.83
9.96
Control
32.50
8.66
Contrast Positive
15.83
6.68
Contrast Negative
36.66
8.87
Positive
13.33
4.92
Negative
20.83
10.83
Control
19. 16
9.00
Contrast Positive
15.00
7.97
Contrast Negative
33.33
12.30
Quiet
Verbal
Table 26
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Eight
As a Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level by
Statement Condition
Mean
S.D.
Positive
27.50
8.66
Negative
48.33
5. 77
Control
42.50
9.65
Contrast Positive
21.66
9.37
Contrast Negative
40.00
9.53
Positive
17 .so
6.21
Negative
21.66
7.17
Control
19.16
9.00
Contrast Positive
22.50
9.65
Contrast Negative
32.50
9.65
Quiet
Verbal
104
Table 27
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Nine
As a Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level by
Statement Condition
Mean
S.D.
Positive
32.50
6.21
Negative
43.33
6.51
Control
39.16
9.00
Contrast Positive
24. 16
5.14
Contrast Negative
36.66
9.84
Positive
18.33
7.17
Negative
21.66
10.29
Control
19. 16
6.67
Contrast Positive
24.16
10.83
Contrast Negative
32.50
6.21
Quiet
Verbal
1
Table 28
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Ten
As a Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level by
Statement Condition
Mean
S.D.
Positive
18.33
5. 77
Negative
31.66
3.89
Control
28.33
7.17
Contrast Positive
18.33
5. 77
Contrast Negative
26.66
4.92
Positive
16.66
6.51
Negative
22.50
6.21
Control
21.66
9.37
Contrast Positive
14.16
5.14
Contrast Negative
23.33
7.78
Quiet
Verbal
106
Table 29
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Eleven
As a Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level by
Statement Condition
Mean
S.D.
Positive
25.83
7.92
Negative
40.83
6.68
Control
35.00
10.00
Contrast Positive
23.33
4.92
Contrast Negative
32.50
8.66
Positive
20.83
6.68
Negative
21.66
8.34
Control
22.50
8.66
Contrast Positive
21.66
5. 77
Contrast Negative
35.00
10.87
Quiet
Verbal
107
Table 30
Means and Standard Deviations for Question Twelve
As a Function of Verbal Level and Statement Condition
Verbal Level by
Statement Condition
Mean
S.D.
Positive
30.83
9.96
Negative
45.83
6.68
Control
41.66
9.37
Contrast Positive
23.33
6.51
Contrast Negative
37.50
7.53
Positive
14.16
5.14
Negative
17.50
7.53
Control
19.16
7.92
Contrast Positive
23.33
7.78
Contrast Negative
30.00
8.52
Quiet
Verbal
11
APPENDIX D
WAIVER OF CONFIDENTIALITY
lC
California State University, Northridge
Masters Thesis - Psychology
WAIVER OF CONFIDENTIALITY
By signing this Waiver, I acknowledge that I understand and am
aware of the following:
1.
I will be participating in a group discussion for research
purposes.
2.
This group will be video-taped. The tape will be used for
research purposes only and will involve the viewing of this
tape by individuals for purpose of data collection.
3.
Any personal factors unrelated to the group content or
group process and not revealed in the tape will not be
released in the course of this research.
4.
This Waiver releases the researchers and California State
University, Northridge from any responsibility of any harm
or injury (personal, financial, etc.) that may result from
any person being identified in the course of the viewing
of the videotape.
Your willingness to assist in this research project is appreciated
and recognition for your participation will be given in the final
Masters thesis.
Thank you.
Participant
Masters Candidate
Thesis Chairperson
Witness