CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN INTERPERSONAL

COMMUNICATION SKILLS WORKSHOP

A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in

Psychology

by

Hal W. Levine

August, 1981

The Thesis of Hal William Levine is approved:

• James McMartin, PhD.

Committee Chairperson

California State University, Northridge

August, 1981

i i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Dee Shepherd­

Look, chairperson of my thesis committee, for her guidance, her

support, and tried patience, through every phase of this study.

I also wish to thank the other committee members, Or. James McMartin

and Rabbi Ken Klaristenfeld, MA, MFCC for their cooperation and their

unique contributions to this study. Extended appreciation to Rabbi K.

for sitting in on my committee, dedicated work as my supervisor/

colleague, instruction of psychoanalytic psychotherapy, and being

a trusted friend to me.

A special thanks goes to my co-leader, Diane Lenkin, MA,MFCC,

for all her hard work and dedicated faith which allowed me to

achieve my goal.

Much love to Michael Fields for getting me .. unstuck, .. with

continued support in our friendship.

I also wish to express my gratitude to the National Council

of Jewish Women and all of the members who volunteered to serve

as subjects for this study.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................. 111

ABSTRACT • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • . • . . • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • . • • . • • . • • Vl

INTRODUCTION • • • • • • • . • • . . . • • . . • • . . • • . • • • • • • . • • . . • • • • • . • . • • • • • 1

Objectives and Theoretical Rationale •••••.••••.•••••..•...• 8

Experimental Evidence of Communication Skills Workshops •• 12

Summary ..................................................

Description of Investigation

General Hypothesis

Specific Hypothesis

11 .......................... .

METHOD .......................... .; .......................... . Program Format

A'.'1areness Ski 11 s

Communication Skills .............................. Selection of Subjects

Characteristics of Subjects

18

18

19

19

20

20

20

23

28

30

Characteristics of Instructors and Instructor Training.... 30

The Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory •••• 31

iv

Figure 1: The Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory

Collection of Data

RESULTS .................................. ·- ................. .

Analysis of Data

Table 1.1: Individual and Difference Pretest & Posttest scores on the Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory According to Experimental and Control

33

34

37

37

Groups . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . • . • • • • . . • . . • • • • . . • • • • . 39

Table 1.2: Analysis Of The t-Test For Related Measures... 39

DISCUSSION ................................................. 40

Discussion of Results 40

Summary and Conclusions 49

REFERENCES ................................................. 51

APPENDIX 59

v

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN INTERPERSONAL

COMMUNICATION SKILLS WORKSHOP

by

Hal W. Levine

Master of Arts in Psychology

August, 1981

The purpose of this investigation was to present an Interpersonal

Communication Skills Workshop (ICS Workshop) to adults devised to

promote positive communication by the instruction of both communication

skills and awareness skills. It was hypothesized that adults who

participated in the training program would perceive the level of

communication to be higher in their dyadic-partner as measured by the

Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory (com-sat inventory)

than their pretest scores as compared with pretest-posttest Control

group scores (those placed on a waiting list). The training program

vi

consisted of an orientation meeting, four training sessions,

conclusing with an evaluation meeting. Participants were instructed

in understanding the patterns of communication and the rules by which

their interpersonal relationships operate. Communication skills and

related exercises were introduced as an effective change agent to

disrupt rigid communication patterns.

Ths study employed a 11 pretest-posttest control group 11 design.

Fifteen adult women participated in either an experimental or control

group. Eight experimental subjects attended the first ICS Workshop,

with seven placed on a waiting list and participated in a second

ICS Workshop at a later date. The t-Test for Related Measures was

used to determine the effects of the ICS Workshop. Analyses of the

data did not find statistically significant differences to support

the effects of treatment.

vii

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS WORKSHOP

Hal William Levine

California State University, Northridae

This study represents an attmpt to experimentally determine the

effectiveness of an Interpersonal Communication Skills (ICS) Workshop

in changing the perceived level of communication in adults after

completion of the training program. The understanding of communication

effectiveness represents a shift from a focus on traditional indivi­

dual pathology to a more social view, proposing that the unit of

research should include interpersonal relationships. This is not to

imply that the individual condition is not a significant factor in

influencing interpersonal relationships, but the individual must be

considered a member of a social unit that contains the problem. This

"problem" can be defined as a type of behavior that is part of a

sequence of acts between several people. Because all behavior can

be construed as a form of communication, the pragmatic effect this

has in interpersonal situations will be our interest herein.

In their book, "Pragmatics of Human Communication" (1967),

Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson consider communication a relationship

1

that is qualitatively different from the 11 properties 11 of the

individuals involved. Instead of studying specific properties the

person may or may not possess, they prefer to address, 11 the observable

manifestations of relationships." In other words, they prefer to

observe the 11pragmatic effect" communication has on behavioral

interactions. Frm their perspective of pragmatics, "all behavior, not

only speech, is communication, and all communication- even the

communicational clues in an impersonal context- affects behavior 11

(p.22). What is important about Watzlawick's et al. pragmatic theory

of communication is that communication is not viewed as a linear

progression of Stimulus-Response interaction, but more 11 0n the sender­

receiver relation, as mediated by communication. 11 The focus considers

the individual in a process with his/her important relatioships, and

most importantly stressed is the interactional system between

communicants (Jackson, 1965). This view of communication is shifted

from a speaker-centered perspective to a more holistic transactional

perspective.

For use in this study, then, 11Communication" will be generally

understood to refer to a piece of behavior in a social context (verbal,

nonverbal, and the contexB in which these behaviors occur that affects

a receiver, and the inseparable link the receiver's reaction has upon

2

the sender. The communication techniques which people use, then, can

be seen as reliable indicators of interpersonal functioning.

Communication viewed in this way is no longer seen as a

phenomenon in isolation with linear exchanges of information being

sent and received, but meaningful only in relation to an on-going

interpersonal relationship. Since the individual'sbehavior affects

and is affected by the behavior of others, a feedback loop is

established in which certain cues are paid more attention to and

others drop away. Within an on-going relationship, certain patterns

of communication begin to be formed that become fixed over time.

Jackson (1965, p.9) coined the metaphor, 11rule 11 to describe

these consistent patterns of interrelating in the families he

observed. He observed the family acting as a rule-governed system,

11 and its members act in an organized, repetitive fashion, which can

be abstracted as the governing principles of family life .. (Jackson,

1965). Rules are relationship agreements which perscribe and limit

behavior over a wide range of content areas, organizing family

interaction into a reasonably stable system. Relatively few rules can

cover the major aspects of on-going interpersonal relationships. A

rule is a 11format of regularity imposed upon a complicated process by

an investigator, .. and is a formula for a relationship 11 (Jackson, 1965,

3

p.9). A rule occurs in an on-going relationship and defines its

nature.

Watzlawick and Weakland (1977) go even further, suggesting that

it has become increasingly plausible that ••communication is the widest

sense is at least as rule-governed as natural language is determined

by its gram~er and syntax .. (1977, p.59). A similar rules orientation

has gained increasing attention in recent interpersonal co~munication

research (Gushman & Whiting, 1972: Cushman & Florence, 1974; Cushman &

Craig, 1976; and Pearce, 1976). Disagreement to follow these rules

once they have been established is at the root of countless relation­

ship struggles.

In systems theory, families are characterized as .. rule-governed

systems 11 (Watzlawick, et al., 1967). These rules delimit how the

system interacts and have a powerful impact on how effectively it

functions. The process of communication between members of a system

may be viewed both as an index for understanding the system and as a

vehicle for altering it (Scherz, 1966). In on-going relationships,

the nature of the relationship can not be endlessly fluctuating and

unstable. Such a condition is characteristic of dysfunctional

relationships. However, relationships which are defined and confirmed

too quickly and which do not possess procedures for reordering

4

themselves are limited in their capacity to cope with internal and

external system demands for modification over time.

The social system that functions most effectively appears to be

one in which rules both define interaction patterns to establish

some degree of stability and provide procedures for changing patterns

to maintain flexibility. Thus, in order to provide procedures for

both stability and change within the system, an Interpersonal

Communication Skills Workshop (ICS Workshop) was devised that

teaches participants two major sets of skills: those skills enabling

them to understand their rules and interaction patterns (i.e.,

awareness skills) and skills enabling them to change their rules

and interaction patterns (i.e., communication skills).

It is, of course, difficult for members of a social system to

simultaneously participate in and monitor the system. Nevertheless,

humans are able to step outside the circle of their on-going

interaction with another person and temporarily discuss "how we talk,"

11 how we make decisions," or "how we deal with tension between us."

People can be taught to metacommunicate- that is, to "communicate

about their communication" (Watzlawick, et al., 1967). In the process

of learning how to metacommunicate effectively, participants in the

ICS Workshop need to establish procedures for self-monitoring,

5

regulation, and directing the rules of their relationship, and

consequently~ the relationship itself.

It is the purpose of this research to show that if communication

skills and awareness skills are taught to participants in an

Interpersonal Communication Skills Workshop, it will help members

explore their own rules and patterns of communication as it relates

to their current interpersonal relationships. The new communication

and awareness skills will hopefully feedback into their present

relationships and produce 11 Second-order change" (Watzlawick et al.,

1974).

11 Second-order change" is considered to be the general goal

of the Interpersonal Communication Skills Workshop because it's

occurrence produces significant changes in interpersonal systems.

Watzlawick~ Beavin, and Jackson_(1974) posit two general kinds

of change. One is change within a system that itself stays invariant.

This occurs when interactants recognize that there is considerable

conflict in their relationship, but are not willing to take the

responsibility to do anything about it. When conflict occurs in

such a relationship, it is either ignored or counteracted to maintain

stability. Helpinq individuals to adapt to such a system may be

thought of as exemplary. In this analysis, within-group change is

6

called 11first-order change ...

The second type of change, referred to as 11 Second-order change, ..

occurs when interactants take the responsibility to change the rules

that govern their relationships and to produce effective interpersonal

functioning and satisfaction. Only then is 11 real 11 change possible.

With the instruction of communication skills and awareness skills

in the ICS Workshop, participants have the choice to either produce

first-order change or second-order change. Within the context of the

first approach, members can use their new skills as a way to protect

themselves in a defensive manner and only produce first-order change

in their relationships. This type of change is really no change at all

but a way to blame the other person for the problems in the relation­

ship. Communication skills by it's very nature instructs people to

be more responsible for their own behavior (e.g., "I messages 11); but

their is no guarantee that the person will use them in a responsible

manner. An example of irresponsible communication within the context

of .. trying new skills" would be in the form of, "I am really angry at

you because you only care about yourself ... The blamer in such a situ­

ation would feel justified in attempting an 11 I feel" message- which is

appropriate- but uses it as a weapon. This type of change does not

significantly change the system, but is a way to destructively

7

maintain stability in an inflexible system, Second-order change, on

the other hand, would occur if participants use the skills in a

responsible, mutually supporting, and problem-solving manner. A

feedback loop could then be created, since the behavior of each

person affects and is affected by the behavior of each other person,

and second-order change is produced.

Objectives and Theoretical Rationale

The immediate objectives of the ICS Workshop were to provide

participants with (1) skills for improving self and interactional

awareness (by understanding the rules that keep relationships from

becoming satisfying), and (2) communication skills for creating more

effective and mutually satisfying interaction patterns, if they

choose to do so. The long-term objectives were to increase the

flexibility of interpersonal systems in dealing with change and

to enhance the autonomous functioning of each member. With heightened

awareness and with skills to express that awareness, members of the

ICS Workshop will be able to speculate on the communication patterns

and rules in their current interpersonal relationships, and modes of

communication appropriate to their intentions at the moment.

Current theorists have discussed the importance of investigating

the function of 11 rules 11 in changing the communication patterns in

8

time-bound dyadic subsystems. At the root of the rules theory are the

structural characteristics of systems that has been elaborated on

by current researchers (Jackson, 1957; Haley, 1959, 1967; Minuchin,

1974; and by Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). These theorists

contend that in human relationships the only changes of consequence

are in the systematic patterns. Any change that does not alter the

basic premises governing the system, it is claimed, is no change at

all. Accordingly, real change involves not merely a change from one

state to another state of the system, but a way out of one system

into another, i.e., the creation of a new and different system. As a

therapeutic paradigm, then, the theory is grounded in the cybernetic

assumption that no transformation to a new system can be generated

completely from within the original system.

According to Haley (1976):

11 A theraputic change can be defined as a change in the repeating acts of a self-regulating system- preferably a change into a system of greater diversity. It is the rigid, repetitive sequence of a narrow range that defines pathology (p.105). 11

Watzlawick, et al. (1974), argues that second-order change,

i.e., transformational change, occurs when the body of rules governing

the system is changed. Thus, a marriage or family (as a relational

system) is transformed when changes are made in the set of expectations

9

which governs the behavior of its members (p.111).

To Minuchin, rules are our definition of reality (1974).

Consequently, his therapeutic model is designed to alter the family's

reality image. Minuchin owes much to Jackson (1965) who was the first

person to differentiate clearly between rules and norms. Maintaining

that a few rules govern a great deal of family behavior, Jackson saw

the rules for managing interpersonal conflict as the only really

important ones. Minuchin's change strategies correspond closely to

Jackson's conception of rules. His therapeutic strategy is to create

family crises (conflicts which enhance family tension) and, thereby,

mandate a new construction of reality. This emergent asymmetry forces

families to develop new ways of relating, regulated by new rules

which help extinguish the original psychiatric symptoms. Thus, .the

symptoms which brought the family to therapy in the first place, its

transaction patterns, are changed when the family's collective

construction or reality is changed. Minuchin orchestrates this change

by creating either a different reality (the 11yes, but .. technique) or

an expanded reality (the 11yes, and 11 technique).

In addition tb insight into the rules by which communicants

interact with each other, it is essential that members of an intimate

relationship learn communication skills necessary for renegotiating

10

current communication patterns. These new skills are sometimes met with

with considerable resistance by participants in communication workshops

because of the tremendous change this causes in the prevailing system.

For better or worse, awareness of these skills differentiates the

system-in-the-present from the system-as-it-was-before and points to

the tremendous work required to change communication styles. Some

participants attempt to return to 11 the way things used to be, 11 and

resign themselves to a depleated relationship at the expense of

personal growth and mutual relational satisfactions. Another option is

to terminate the relationship, an option chosen by an increasing

number of married couples. This usually takes place after some years

of alternating between resignation and unsuccessful attempts to create

change.

To be aware of interpersonal discomfort and to be unable to alter

the feeling can be frustrating. To perceive something undesirable in

your relationship and to be unable to express it and move to

alleviate it can be worse than no recognition at all. Conversely,

knowing how to recognize self-information (thought, feelings,

intentions) and express it effectively can be satisfying and productiva

This expression involves certain communication skills, and people who

do not exercise these communication skills depend heavily on guesswork.

11

Individuals who can effectively express important self-information,

and know how to elicit information from their partner, interact

differently from couples who do not have this ability. This research

indicates that the ingredients of effective communication can be

discovered, taught, and used by participants in the ICS Workshop to

improve their ability to communicate directly, congruently, and

supportively together.

It is believed that in order for second order change to occur

(significant changes in interpersonal systems), members of relation­

ships must include awareness into What they do (rules), and How

to change it (communication skills). The literature suggests that the

social system which functions most effectively has rules which both

define interaction patterns to insure some degree of stability, and at

the same time provide procedures for changing patterns to maintain

flexibility and to deal with conflict (Speer, 1970; Sprey, 1966).

Thus, to provide for both stability and for change within the system,

the ICS Workshop incorporates both awareness into understanding of the

rules and interaction patterns as well as communication skills to

bring about this change.

Experimental Evidence of Communication Skills Workshops

Open, honest communication is believed to be a major factor in

12

effective interpersonal relationships. The recognition of its impor­

tance has led to a growing number of workshops and training programs

demonstrating varying degrees of effectiveness in the development of

such skills (Ely, Guerney, & Stover, 1973; Higgins, Ivey, & Uhlemann,

1970; and Miller, Nummally, & Wackman, 1972). Communication skills

emphasized in these training programs have typically been selected on

the basis of the theoretical background and experience of the program

developers. Clear behavioral objectives are often lacking which

differentiate between an open-ended, non-structured, sensitivity

training experience, and workshops with a cognitive emphasis. It is

apparent that the target skills so selected for these workshops are

often quite vague, simply not mentioned, or lack statistically

significant backing to prove their usefulness.

In an attempt to develop "A Structured Communication Skills

Workshop," Arbes and Hubbell (1973) composed a "minigroup" that

resembled a growth group more than a communication skills workshop.

The workshop did not teach communication skills, per se, but taught

the basics of effective interpersonal functioning. The workshop was

designed to focus on four target areas: (a) developing a readiness for

appropriate self-disclosure; (b) learning how to give and receive

functional positive and negative feedback; (c) practicing specific

13

behavior change goals related to personal problem areas; and (d)

learning how to obtain a sense of intimacy with others in small and

large groups. Arbes and Hubbell assume that, "efforts to become close

to people by expressing friendly and affectionate feelings and

trying to be personal and intimate" (p.337), will change the

communication patterns of group members. Pretest and posttest results

indicated a significant difference between the experimental and

control group with respect to (a) reduced anxiety in interpersonal

situations, and (b) reported increases in establishing interpersonal

relationships. These findings suggest that patterns of clear,

supportive communication are associated with components of

interpersonal satisfaction.

Communication between partners is generally acknowledged as a

crucial factor in the maintenance of harmonious relationships. This

recognition lends further support to the assumption that marital

satisfaction and effective communication are closely related. Relying

of self-report measures, Navran (1967) and Murphy & Mendelson (1973)

found high positive correlations between spouses'scores on marital

satisfaction inventories and their scores on questionnaires assessing

openness of marital communication. The establishment of open

communication became a vital component to the resolution of marital

14

conflicts. This led to the development of a series of prevention­

oriented communication skills training programs for couples.

Although theoretically sound, researchers found no significant

support for the effectiveness of a communication-oriented workshop in

marital conflict resolution (Witkin, 1976; Allred, 1977; Zimmerman,

1978). The major skills taught in these workshops increased positive

messages, and lowered the percentage of destructive communication

behaviors. Results indicated that the workshop participants believed

the workshop was, in fact, personally helpful, but limitations of the

research design and the small number of subjects trained make conclu­

sions concerning program effectiveness tenuous. Improvement scores

of the experimental group were often not significant and thus did not

indicate constructive conflict resolution. The couples were able to

eliminate much negative communication behavior but did not necessarily

improve according to positive communication indicators.

One of the difficulties evidenced with current marital

communication skills workshops is that there are not specific skills

that are employed for the effective resolution of marital conflict.

Boyd and Roach (1977) attempted to solve this problem by identifying

specific communication skills differentiating couples who reported

more satisfying marital relationships from those who were less

15

16

satisfied with their marriages. Empirically derived skills I

discriminating more satisfying from less satisfying relationships will

provide a sound basis for designing marital communication skills

workshops. In their study, twenty-five statements representing

specific communication skills were derived from a review of the

literature and arranged as two scales, Interpersonal Communication

Skills Inventory-Self (ICSI-Self) and Interpersonal Communication

Skills Inventory-Spouse (ICSI-Spouse). Further testing indicated

that marriages found to be more satisfying clearly indicated different

styles of communication as compared with less satisfying marriages.

Content analysis significantly differentiated 17 items from the two

criterion groups. The results indicated three clusterings or major

groups: One group of eight items appeared to be closely related to

sending clear, direct messages; with a second group of five items

clearly related to active listening or receiving messages. The third

group of four items dealt with verbal expressions of respect or esteem

for spouse. More than developing as effective insturment for measuring

marital communication, this data suggests that a few specific verbal

skills may be more important to the relationship that are many other

communication skills currently emphasized in training programs.

Epstein and Jackson (1978) did, in fact, conduct a communication

skills workshop for married couples that incorporated the skills

suggested above by Boyd and Roach. Their workshop was designed to

increase clarity and assertiveness of communication. The program

focused on increasing openness of communication with respect to

empathy, congruence (open, direct communication), positive regard,

and conflict resolution4 Specific assertive requests, opinions, and

statements of feeling were also emphasized in the communication

treatment. The overall findings provide evidence that the communication

training produced greater changes in some categroies of subjects'

behavior, when compared to interaction insight training. When it came

to specific communication skills, however, there was a lack of

significant change in other categories of verbal behavior and in the

spouse-perceived congruence and unconditional positive regard. This

research clearly indicated that a clear-cut answer to the use of

specific communication skills in workshops need to be tested further.

Epstein and Jackson (1978) suggest that it is important to determine

whether treatment of longer duration would produce comparable change

across the various communication categories, or whether certain

classes of behavior are particularly resistant to change with this

intervention •

17

Summary

In many respects, this short review reflects the scattered and

disconnected nature of the research performed in the area of interper­

sonal communication. There is, as yet, little agreement about what

to observe, let alone how, or by what methods, to observe it. One of

the problems with workshops employing communication skills is that

rigid communication patterns often impede the implementation of new

and always vulnerable intrusions into an already failing system. The

understanding of the rules by which these systems operated must also

accompany a communication skills workshop before significant decreases

in marital conflict will be seen. Participants will be resistent to

change unless they also understand their current communication system;

have established an affective readiness; are not currently in crisis;

and have sufficient motivation to change [see Discussion section

for elaboration on these points].

Description of Investigation

The purpose of this study was to present an Interpersonal

Communication Skills Workshop devised to promote effective

interpersonal communication in adults. The program is designed around

two major sets of skills: (1) skills to enable participants to

18

understand their rules and interaction patterns, i.e., awareness

skills, and (2) skills to enable them to change their rules and

interaction patterns, i.e., communication skills. The establishment

of such skills will hopefully create more effective and mutually

satisfying interpersonal relationships.

The primary focus of this study is on the individual learning

about his own intrapersonal communication system. It is believed that

such a change on the individual level will generalize and produce

second order change within interpersonal relationships.

General Hypothesis

It was hypothesized that adults who attended the Interpersonal

Communication Skills Workshop would increase more in interactional

awareness and open communication skills from pretest to posttest

than a control group.

Specific Hypothesis

Posttest scores of adults in attendance at the Interpersona 1

Communication Skills Workshop will perceive the level of communication

to be higher in their dyadic-partner as measured by the Interpersonal

Communication Satisfaction Inventory (com-sat inventory) than their

pretest scores as compared with pretest-posttest control group scores.

19

METHOD

Program Format

Adults were asked to attend a series of six, two-hour meetings.

The meetings were held weekly at the National Council of Jewish Women

(NCSW): Education Social Action Service, Council House. This was

located in the San Fernando Valley, California. The ICS Workshop took

place during the months of February, March, and April, 1981.

The six, two-hour meetings were divided into one orientation

meeting, four training sessions, and one evaluation meeting. The

participants were informed at the orientation meeting of the purpose

of the Interpersonal Communication Skills Workshop. The Interpersonal

Communication Satisfaction Inventory (Hecht, 1978) was administered

to the adults at this time.

The ICS Workshop was administered to the participants during

the second, third, fourth, and fifth. meetings. The meetings were

divided equally and incorporated both awareness skills and

communication skills as follows:

Awareness Skills

One of the major differences between previous communication

skills workshops and the present study is the belief that participants

20

must understand the patterns of communication and the rules by which

their interpersonal relationships operate. An understanding of these

rules and a willingness to apply them to their current interactions

are a crucial precipitating event before communication skills can

operate as an effective change agent.

In his book, 11 Family Communication .. (1974), Dr. Sven Wahlroos

compiled twenty basic rules by which interpersonal systems operate.

Wahlroos believes that these rules must be understood if communication

is to be constructive rather than problem-creating. The following

rules are not arranged in.any particualr order of importance, but are

listed here in the order Wahlroos presents them in his book:

RULES OF COMMUNICATION

Rule 1. Actions speak louder than words. Rule 2. Define what is important and stress it;

Rule 3. Rule 4. Rule 5. Rule 6. Rule 7.

define what is unimportant and ignore it. Make your communication positive. Be clear and specific. Be realistic and reasonable. Test all your assumptions verbally. Recognize that each event can be seen from different points of view.

Rule 8. Recognize that your family members are experts on you and your behavior.

Rule 9. Learn how to disagree without destructive arguments. Rule 10. Be open and honest about your feelings. Rule 11. Do not use unfair communication techniques. Rule 12. Let the effect, not the intention, of your

Rule 13. Rule 14. Rule 15. Ru 1 e 16. Rule 17.

communication be your guide. Accept all feelings and try to understand them. Be tactful, considerate, and courteous. Do not preach or lecture. Do not use excuses and do not fall for excuses. Do not nag, yell, or whine.

21

Rule 18. Learn when to use humor and when to be serious. Rule 19. Learn to listen. Rule 20. Beware of playing destructive games.

The experimentor obtained permission from Dr. Walhroos in

October, 1980 to condense his book, 11 Family Communication .. to an

abreviated form for purposes of the ICS Workshop [see Apendix].

The condensed version was distributed to the participants at the

first orientation meeting. The participants were instructed to read

five rules per week and write down their personal reactions of them

in a personal journal. The reactions were to include recalling

specific incidents that occured in their lives during the week that

corresponded to the rules. During the last fourty-five minutes of each

meeting, participants gathered in a circle and shared how they

personally related to the rules and to answer questions about them.

The incorporation of the journal in the ICS Workship was used

only to help participants become more aware of the communication

patterns they use. Other researchers have used journals as an

effective change agent in and of itself. This experimentor did feel

that the writing was significant enought to change communication

patterns and incorporate into the experimental analysis. There was

no attempt to experimentally validate what impact the journal had on

22

had on members, but was used instead as an adjunctive technique for

the understanding and integration of the rules.

In addition to the journal writing, participants acted out

(by 11 role-playing 11) various communication patterns they had

difficulty in during the week. Instructional material is best

assimilated when the participants can relate to it personally and

when rehersed in front of group members. A supportive, non-threat­

ening atmosphere was encouraged by the instructors to allow new

communication patterns to be formed in ICS members.

Communication Skills

Particular communication skills were adopted for each meeting to

follow basic themes encompassing the five weekly rules. Each meeting

started with a discussion of the five assigned rules for that week.

Fourty-five minutes at the end of the meeting was devoted to the

personal application of these rules by discussion and applied

practice via role-playing. The four meetings in which the ICS Workshop

was implemented included the following themes, skills, and exercises:

Meeting One

The major theme of the first meeting was learing how to

accurately exchange important information with one's partner. Two

major skills were discussed and later applied in formal exercises

which included listening skills and the ability to accurately send and

receive clear messages.

To help participants develop rapport with each other to enable

them to openly self-disclose personal communication styles and to

incorporate listening skills, an introductory exercise was implemented.

Participants were placed in dyads with the expectation that they would

introduce the other person to the group. Each partner was instructed

to talk about themselves for ten minutes while the other person was to

listen without interruption. When each partner completed their

discussion of who they are with their partner, dyads were assembled

into one large group and each introduced their partner to the group.

Feedback on accurate listening was offered from their partner until

an accurate description of the other person was agreed upon by both

partners.

The second exercise dealt with "Active Listening" (AdTer and

Towne, 1978, p.206), and a discussion of this method of listening

took place after the exercise.

Meeting Two

The second meeting focused on constructive and argumentative

styles of handling anger. Some typical ways of responding to problems

24

were presented; (1) the differences between assertive communication

vs. agressive communication; (2) the ownership of responsibility in an

argument; and (3) the incorporation of Active Listening to reduce

conflict.

The first exercise was taken from the book, "Peoplemaking," by

Virginia Satir (1972), showing different destructive, argumentative

communication styles: 1) Blaming; 2) Placating:. 3) Computing; and

4) Irrelevant role styles. Participants were shown by instructors

how these positions are portrayed in actual conversation. Participants

were then given the opportunity to act out these positions in a

role-playing exercise in the situation of "planning a vacation."

Discussion followed the exercise with feedback on alternative

problem-solving techniques.

Different approaches to responding to problems were discussed:

advising; judging; analyzing; questioning; and supporting (taken

from the book~ "Looking Out/Looking In," pp.209-211). A "Responding

Exercise" )pp.212-213) took place in which hypothetical problem­

situations were presented and participantw were asked to write down

various ways of responding by advising, judging, analyzing,

questioning, and supporting. The alternative "Active Listening"

approach was presented for each problem situation.

25

Meeting Three

The third meeting was centered around how different styles of

commuication can be associated with different intentions and

meanings. Specific focus was on how to pick out the intended

meanings in communication by addressing not what the person actually

states (content), but the pragmatic effect in an interaction (process).

To pick out the meaning behind the content-as well as the feelings-

is a process of 11metacommunicating 11 (Bateson, 1956), or 11 Communication

about communication ... Discussion centered on how we interpret what

we receive according to our own perceptions and feelings.

The exercise dealt with delivering accurate 11 YOU 11 statements

(those beginning with the word 11 You ..... preceeding a sentence).

The second part of the statement is followed by a specific feeling,

e.g., 11 You feel [afraid] when •.• 11 A series of statements were

presented to participants on a sheet of paper. Participants wrote

down specific responses in the form of, 11 You feel. •• , 11 followed

by an accurate description of the behavior referred to. Participants

then presented their answers to the group and received feedback.

Meeting Four

The fourth meeting addressed itself to responsible communication

for resolving conflicts. Specific skills of 11 1 messages .. and the

26

incorporation of .. you messages .. (from last meeting) to implement

a 11 no-lose 11 problem solving technique as developed by Thomas

Gordon (1975), from his book, 11 Parent Effectiveness Training. 11

The ability of participants to own their portion of the conflict

in interpersonal relationships is seen as a crucial skill in

effective problem-solving communication.

A 11 psycho-drama 11 format was introduced which allowed participants

to step behind two people in chairs and deliver responsible 11 111

and 11 YOU 11 messages. Participants were invited to share a conflict

situation in their lives and rehearse actual communication styles.

[The last meeting of the ICS Workshop was devoted to an overall

review of the previous four meetings. No new material was presented.

at this point. The Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory

(Hecht, 1978) was administered at this time.]

Specific books used for implementing the communication skills

and exercises were as follows:

(1) Adler, R., Towne, N. Looking Out/Looking~: Interpersonal

Communication, Second Edition. Holt, Rinehart & Winston,

New York, New York, 1978.

(2) Gordon, T. Parent Effectiveness Training. Plume Printing: New

American Library, New York, New York, 1975.

27

(3) Satir, V. Peoplemaking. Science and Behavior Books, Inc., Palo

Alto, California, 1972.

Selection of Subjects

The Vice-President and Staff Consultant of the National Council

of Jewish Women was contacted and they agreed to support and promote

the proposed study as part of a voluntary program for Council Members.

A stipulation of the agreement would be that participants would have

to be a member of the National Council of Jewish Women and no other

fees would be charged. The Council in turn agreed to have the ICS

Workshop and the testing of participants run at their center.

The focus of the testing would be to determine whether or not changes

would occur in the perceived level of communication in member-dyads

after the instuction of tntrepersonal communication and awareness

ski 11 s.

Members of the National Council of Jewish Women were informed

of the ICS Workshop from a monthly news letter that was mailed to

their 3,000 registered members. The first advertisement was published

in late January and a second was placed in an "updated" newsletter

distributed two weeks latter.

It was decide that before the advertisements were run, those

28

people who telephoned for pre-registration in response to the first

advertisment would be part of the Experimental group and those who

responded to the second newsletter would be on a waiting list

(Control group). Members of the later control group were told that

due to an overwhelming response from the first advertisement and lack

of space, a second group would be run immediately following the first.

They were invited, however, to participate in the first orientation

meeting to discover more details about the Workshop.

Both Experimental and Control group members attended the first

orientation meeting and were administered the Interpersonal

Communication Satisfaction Inventory. Members of the Experimental and

Control group were placed in separate rooms, respectively, and coded

during the testing. During the pretesting there were eight (8)

participants in the Experimental group and eleven (11) in the Contol

goup. Four participants did not return for the second Workshop and

were dropped from the Control data; leaving eight (8) that participated

in the Experimental group arid seven (7) that were placed on a waiting

list and eventually participated in a second ICS Workshop. The

posttest questionaire was administered at the end of the first ICS

Workshop for the Experimental group and the start of the second ICS

Workshop for the Control group.

29

Characteristics of Subjects

In cooperation with the National Council of Jewish Women in

California, fifteen adult females participated in the ICS Workshop

during the Spring of 1981. There was no attempts to select or limit

the sample other then a strong interest in the improvement of personal

communication skills and relationship awareness. Only married women

responded to the advertisement, arid they were incouraged to bring

their husbands. Only one couple attended the orientation meeting

but did not return as participants in the second ICS Workshop.

The women ranged in age from fourty-five to fifty-eight years,

with a mean age of fifty-two years. The participants were white,

middle class, who were professionally employed and residing in the

greater San Fernando Valley (Los Angeles, California).

Characteristics of Instructors and Instructor Training

The present study was organized, designed, and implemented

by the Experimenter. The Experimenter was assisted by a female who

helped implement the Workshop. She was a licensed Marriage, Family,

Child Counselor with a M.A. degree in clinical psychology. Being

that she was close in age and family background to the participants,

rapport was easily established.

30

Both instructors had previous experience working with clients in

this age group. The were trained in communication theory and

development.

The Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory

The Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory (com-sat

inventory) was developed by Michael L. Hecht (1978) to measure

interpersonal communication satisfaction with actual and recalled

conversations in social setting with another perceived to be a friend,

acquaintance, or stranger. The com-sat inventory was adopted for use

in the present research because it assesses: (1) communication as

a process vs. a static sender-receiver model; (2) a general approach

to measuring satisfaction with strangers within an interpersonal

situation; (3) the actual interactional patterns between participants;

(4) the understanding of internal states as a function of the mutual

and simultaneous behavioral realities of interactants; and (5) the

link between current perceptions of relationships and publicly

observable events.

Hecht adopted a behavioral perspective, conceptualizing

satisfaction as the affect associated with the reinforcement of

behavior emitte~ in the presence of discriminative stimuli (Hecht,

/ ___ ~-~

31

1978, a). Seven-step Likert items were generated from two types of

questionnaires, interviews, and a review of related literature

[refer to Figure 1 for a list of these items]. Consistent

with Hecht's conceptualization, these items were written to reflect

responses to discriminative stimuli and the attendant environmental

reinforcement or punishment. Item analyses were conducted to identify

the most salient of such experiences. Respondents used the items to

rate ideal notions of satisfying and dissatisfying conversations.

Items which did not discriminate were eliminated. The remaining items

were used by a different sample to rate recalled and actual conversa­

tions with friends, acquaintances, and strangers. Items were required

to discriminate between the most and least satisfied respondents

within each of five groups (actual, recalled, friend, acquaintance,

and stranger). The remaining items were subjected to factor analysis.

These procedures produced five specialized inventories for use in

measuring communication satisfaction with immediate or recalled

conversations, and when the other is perceived to be a friend,

acquaintance, or stranger (Hecht, 1976). In addition, a general

communication satisfaction inventory was constructed from those items

which discriminated satisfied and dissatisfied respondents within all

five categories (Hecht, 1978, a).

32

FlGl'!tE l lntcrper!oonal Communication Sottb!"..tl!ion lrncntory *

Instructions for us'! with actual conversat.ior,:

The purpose of this questionnaire is to investigat<• your ro::actiuns to the <.:•>~­

versation you just !':ad. On the next few pag .. -'s 'IU'J. .... i~l be ask..:d to reilc:t:. to a null'.ber of statements. Please indicate the deqree to which you -3-~r~e or disagree that each statem~nt describes this conversat.ion. The 4 or reiddle position on the scale represents "undecided" or "neutral,'' then MOving out from the center, "slight" agreement or disagreement, then "moderat:.e," t~en

"strong" agreement or disagreement.

For example, if you strongly agree with the following statement you would circle l;

The other person moved around a lot.

Agree: __ 1_: __ 2_: __ 3_:_!_: __ 5_:~: __ 7_: Qisagree

1. The other person let me know that I was coll'municating effactivcly. 2. Nothing was accomplished. 3. I would like to have another conversation like this one. 4. The other person genuinely wanted to get to know me. 5. I was very dissatisfied with the conversat.ion.

•6. I had so~e~~ing else to do. 7. I falt that d~ring the conversation I was able to present myself as I

wanted the other person to view me. •e. The other person showed me that he/she understood what I said. 9. I was very satisfied with the conversation.

10. The other person expressed a lot of interest in what I had to say. tl. I did ~enjoy the conver3ation. 12. The other person did NOT provije support for what he/~he was saying. 13. I felt I co•Jld talk about anything with the other per~on. 14. We each got to say what we wanted. 15. I felt th~t-we could laugh easily together. 16. ':'he conv·~rsation flowed smoothly.

•l7. The other person changed the topic when his/her feelings w~re brought into the conversation.

18. Tile ot!"ler p.:!rson frequently said thinqs which added littl~ to th~ conversat:.ion.

~9. We talked <lbout something I was ~OT inter~sted in.

*The three items not included in the 16-item version are inJicat~d by an as.~risk.

Scoring Key:

f"or items 1, ), 4, 7, tl, 9, 10, lJ, 14, 15, 16! Strongly !\qr<'l!"' 7, ~\-,dcr<l".<'l'/

Agree • 6, Slightly Agrees 5, Neutral~ 4, Slightly Disagree • 3, ~od·rately Disagree • 2, Strongly Disagree 2 1.

f"or Items 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19: Strongly Agree • 1, Moderately hqrc• ~ 2, Slightly Agree a 3, Neutral • 4, Slightly ~i~aqree a 5, ~odcratcly ~iso~r.:!c ~ 6, Stror.gly Disagree • 7.

* Hecht, M.l. The conceptualization and measurement of Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction. Human Communication Research,

1978(Spring), Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 253-264, (b).

33

34

Split-half reliabilities with Spearman-Brown correction factors

were calculated. The reliabilities of these measures ranged from

.94 to .97. The general inventory was tested within the same five

categories and exhibited reliabilities between .90 and .97.

Validity was extablished for the general measure by correlating

it with a nonverbal measuring technique and the Faces Scale (Kunin,

1955). These validity coefficients ranged from .64 to .87. Test-

retest reliabilities of .60 and .73 have been reported for the Faces

Scale when used to measure organizational communication satisfaction

(Robert & O'Reilly, 1974). As the maximum concurrent validity is a

function of the product of the reliabilities the validity coefficients

are exceptionally high.

Collection of Data

The responses of thec:Experimental group and the Control group

were collected February, 1981 at an orientation meeting held for

both groups at the National Council of Jewish Women, "Council House."

This collection represented the pretest response data of the

participants used in the study.

The com-sat inventory was administered a second time to the

Experimental group in March, 1981. This took place during the last

session. The same test was administered to the Control group during

the initial session of the second ICS Workshop. There was a time lap

of one week between the two ICS Workshops.-This collection of data

represents the posttest responses which followed the same procedure

as the administering of the pretest.

Both groups were informed of the purpose of the ICS Workshop at

the orientation meeting. The Experimental and Control groups were

placed in separate rooms so as not to contaminate each other and

were administered the pretest. Each participant placed a coded

number on the top of their answer sheet that was randomly selected

from a master control sheet with their names on it. This sheet

was then concealed from the experimentors until after all

statistical computations were made.

The recommended procedure for administering the com-sat

inventory was followed according to guidelines specified by Hecht

(1978, a). The respondents were randomly divided into dyads and

instructed to converse socially while avoiding the topic of

11 Cornmunication 11 or items pertaining to the ICS Workshop. After 15

minutes, a questionnaire [see Figure 1, page 33] was administered

consisting of the 19 randomly-ordered items from the com-sat inventory

with instruction clearly printed at the top of the page. This included

35

a Seven-step Likert scale responding to questions reflecting the

satisfaction of the conversation they just had and the communication

skills employed by the other person of the dyad. In addition to the

coded name of the person responding to the question, the code of the

participant in the dyad was also recorded on the answer sheet.

The procedure for taking the posttest was identical for the

Experimental and Control groups. By using the codes as the referent~

participants were placed with the same person as the orientation

meeting and pretest. The same procedure was repeated in the posttest

as was initially performed during the pretest.

36

RESULTS

Analysis of Data

Participants were placed in dyads and engaged in a conversation

with each other for 15 minutes. The Interpersonal Communication

Satisfaction Inventory (com-sat inventory) was distributed to members

at the end of their conversation. Pretest and posttest scores were

derived from the questions asked on the com-sat inventory that was

developed and standardized by Hecht (1978). Two separate groups of

people represented four sets of data: those that were members of the

Control group (those on a waiting list) completed (1) pretest scores

and (2) posttest scores. Members of the Experimental group (those

attending the first ICS Workshop) completed (3) pretest scores,

and (4) posttest scores. The scores obtained from these four sets

of data appear in raw form in Table 1.1 [refer to Table 1.1]. The

t-Test for Related Measures was selected as appropriate for score

data from unequal Experimental and Control groups that were parametric

in nature. The t-Test for Related Measures was employed to analyze

whether or not significant changes had occured in the perceived

level of communication in dyadic-members from pretest to posttest.

The following null hypothesis was tested:

37

Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference between the pretest-posttest scores of adults in attendance at the ICS Workshop in the perceived patterns of communication in dyadic-members as measured by the Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory (com-sat inventory) as compared with pretest-posttest Control group scores.

A t score was computed on the four sets of data to determine if

significant differences existed between them. The .05 level of

probability was adopted as the criterion for rejecting the null

hypothesis with degrees of freedom equal to fourteen. The null

hypothesis was rejected if the level of significance was equal to

or less than the .05 level with df= 14.

The obtained value of t was equal to 0.07 which is not

significant at the .05 level with df= 14 (refer to Table 1.2 for

analyses on the t-Test for Related Measures). It was concluded

that the difference between pretest and posttest scores in the

perceived level of communication in dyadic-members as measured by the

com-sat inventory for the Experimental group was not significantly

different from the Control group. Therefore, the major hypothesis

of this study was not supported.

38

Table 1.1

Individual & Difference Pretest & Posttest Scores On The

Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory

According To Experimental & Control Groups

Control Group Experimental Group

s Pretest Post test 01 02 s Pretest Posttest 02 02 ... 02 ... :;; 1+2 1 ... 2 ... .,, 1

1 . 127 126 -1 1 ... 1 . 116 114 -2 4 ... 49 ... ... .. . 25 ...

2. 117 124 +7 49 ... 2. 129 128 -1 1 .. . 4 ... ... 1

3. 120 125 +5 25 ... 3. 113 116 +3 9 .. . 1 ... ... ... 0

4. 117 115 -2 4 ... 4. ... 124 128 +4 16 .. . 4 ... .. . 1 ...

5. 117 116 -1 1 ... ... 5. 120 126 '+6 36 .. . 9 ... ... 16

6. 132 131 -1 1 ... 6. 124 127 +3 9 .. . 36 ... ... .. . 9 ...

7. 116 116 0 0 ... 7. 117 119 +2 4 .. . 4 ... ... ... 4

lx=1699 ~0 =7 i:D2=81 ..

... 8 . 115 117 +2 4 ...

1 1 ... ... ...

n=14 ~y=1933 ' 2 2 1:02=17~02=83 ~01+2 =

n=16

Table 1.2

Analysis Of The

tobs=

*tobt=0.07;df=14;p .05;N.S.

t-Test For Related Measures

121.4- 120.8

~164- (24)2

;/15(15-1) 15 .

164

39

DISCUSSION

Discussion of Results

The result showed that the specific hypothesis regarding the

major treatment effect was not supported. The statistical analysis did

not show that the Experimental group was higher than the Control group

in the perceived level of communication of adult dyadic-members

attending the ICS Workshop from pretest to posttest compared with

those placed on a waiting list as measured by the Interpersonal

Communication Satisfaction Inventory (com-sat inventory). Although

not statistically significant, adults in attendance at the res

Workshop did report that they learned a great deal from the program.

Since the major hypothesis of the study was not supported, the

following ideas and suggestions may be spurious. A brief discussion is

included here to provide some suggestions on how it could have been

improved. It is the hope of the Experimenter that such a discussion

will benifit researchers conducting modified res Workshops.

The initial problem encount.er:e-.d by the Experimenter was in

locating an agency that would support the implementation of the res

Workshop and the testing of participants. Five agencies were approached

40

previous to the support of the National Council of Jewish._Wo.met:~; an

organization designed specifically to bring education to the community.

Non-participation from the original agencies were due to the following

reasons: (1) an unwillingness from an administrator to create an

extention of their program that would limit participation in current­

run programs; (2) the Experimentor was not licenced, which may have

cause psychological harm to members of their agency; (3) the lack of

funds available for advertising costs; (4} an unwillingness to use

testing materials on clients currently in counseling; and (5) a

reluctance to implement an educational program in agencies that are

primarily theraputic in orientation. Based on these objections,

it is advised to start within an agency that contains a population

best suited for an Interpersonal Communication Skills Workshop, and

to have a licensed co-leader.

In this study there was no selection of subject variables

which could have possibly contributed to the non-significant results.

This sample was restricted specifically to members of the National

Council of Jewish Women. These members had already experienced

communication difficulties related to raising their families and were

married to their husbands cf may years. They felt that however they

have communicated in the past, it was effective enough to get them

41

this far in their life without any major conflicts. Participants during

the orientation meeting asked the instructors if they could, "teach an

old dog new tricks." This was interpreted by the Experimentor to mean

that there was not significant motivation in the participants to

possibly alter their communicational patterns of long standing.

People develop a rigid framework of communication that offers

a sense of security, but may also produce severe interpersonal

relationship problems. The members of the ICS Workshop obviously did

not experience any major problems related to communication. Most of the

members were there to possibly improve their communication style, but

did not have the motivation or need to change it to a significant

degree.

It is known that the individual•s communication problems are

rooted in the complex area of family behavior in which the person

lived as a child. If the parents of a child were not able to resolve

their problems jointly, if their messages to each other and the child

were unclear and contradictory, then the child too will learn to

communicate in an unclear and contradictory way.

Numerous studies have shown that the family behaves as if it

were a unit. In 1954 Jackson introduced the term "family homeostasis"

to refer to this behavior (Jackson, 1954). According to the concept of

42

family hoeostasis, the family acts so as to achieve a balance in

relationships. Members help to maintain this balance overtly·~nd

covertly. The familie's repetitious, circular, predictable communica­

tion reveal this balance, creating fixed patterns of interrelating.

These ways of communicating are always functional within the family

unit. A family becomes dysfunctional when it has not learned to

communicate properly. This occures when a member of the family,

..... does not manifest a means of perceiving and interpreting themself

accurately, or interpreting accurately messages from the outside, the

assumptions on which they base their actions will be faulty and their

efforts to adapt to reality will be confused and inappropriate (Satir,

1967) o II

The most recent proponent of the instruction of communication

skills as having a direct impact on the family has been Virginia Satir

(1967). Satir strongly believes that certain skills can be developed

which will produce a deepening, fulfilling relationship with signifi­

cant others in a person's life. Satir contends that, 11 For me, the

feelings of isolation, helplessness, feeling unloved, [low self-image],

or incompetency comprise the real human evils of this world. Certain

kinds of communication will continue this and certain kinds of

communication can change it."

43

There appears to be a series of factors lacking in the ICS Work­

shop that could have facilitated increased motication in the partici­

pants. The first, as suggested by Virginia Satir {above), is to

first strengthen a person•s self-esteem {ego) to counterballance

the devestating effects of early childhood conditioning. It is only

when a person feels confident enough in themselves that they will try

new interactional patterns.

The atmosphere in ICS Workshops need to be safe enough so that

members will non-defensively try new forms of communication. This

can be achieved by: (1) Stressing the positive aspects of current

interpersonal functiong; (2) eliminating irresponsible "put-down"

messages from other group members who are observing; (3) accepting

the person for where they are in their current communicational

style; and {4) emphasizing the way they are currently communication

can be more functional.

Another factor that could possibly lead to greater participant

motivation would be to experimentally investigate the specific

subject variables contributing to ICS Workshop. If if interpersonal

relationships can be helped through imporved communication, such

variations in treatment condition should be further investigated in

order to best tailor treatment programs to the diversity of people and

44

relationships who seek them.

Motivation could also be strengthend by administering pre-session

interviews with each participant separately to assess their commitment

to the objectives of the program. This is believed to be an important

factor in the participants satisfaction and motivation with the

program. This in turn should help contribute to a decrease in the

frequency of drop-out rates.

A major factor that would also contribute to participant

motication in communication improvement was related to the amount

of conflict (nuetrality vs. crisis) the participants were experiencing

at the time of ICS Workshop enrollment. People who are currently in

crisis would be under excessive anxiey that would prevent new

changes from occuring and necessitate ego integration. The opposite

is equally true. Those that are functioning normally in their

interpersonal relationships would have no reason to ''rock the boat."

This latter group strongly resembles members that participated in the

ICS Workshop.

The amount of conflict that appears best suited for the

incorporation of new communication styles is one that lies between

the two extreams. There needs to be some interpersonal conflict that

necessitates change; while at the same time not being so severe that

45

the person is just trying to survive.

Motivation in ICS Workshop members would not be as great if they

could not strongly relate to the material presented. The major

emphasis of the program was on a cognitive/educational level in

learning communication and a'11areness skills. Proper integration of

all learning material requires a personal application to heighten

awareness. With the exception of the literature presented on awareness

skills, there was very little generalization from the training

program to the actual lives of the participants. The incorporation of

an open-ended, self-disclosing of personal concerns to the participants

could have increased greater interest.

In addition to the personal application of the material to

members of the ICS Workshop, there was no empirical justification for

a rules approach in a communication skills workshop. It was suggested

in an interview with Dr. Sven Wahlroos [the author of the book,

"Family Communication" (1974), from which a "rules orientation"

was implemented in the ICS Workshop] with the Experimentor that

experimental research be conducted contrasting a communication skills

workshop with a group encorporating only the rules. Although there

is much theoretical evidence supporting a rules orintation in the

area of communication theory, there is a dearth of evidence supporting

46

the appJication in an ICS Workshop. Further investigation supporting

the rules orientation and awareness skills needs to be made.

A final comment on how the ICS Workshop could have been

imporved would be the inclusion of couples in the Workshop.

All of the women attended the Workshop without their spouses,

and there was no insistence by the Experimentor that they appear

in couples. Recent investigation in the study of communication

workshops suggest that this may have a significant impact in the

incorporation and motivation of participants to learn new styles

of communicating.

In an unpublished dissertation by Beaver (1978) entitled,

"Conjoint and Pseudo-Disjunctive Treatment in Communication Skills

For Relationship Improvement with Marital Couples," he set out

to experimentally determine if the presence of the spouse makes a

significant difference. Beaver created three experimental treatment

groups: (1) with husbands and wives together; (2) only the husbands;

and (3) only the wives. The results of this study did not indicate

statistically significant differences between the three groups.

Despite these findings, Beaver's results indicated that:

"Husbands and wives did change (score) differently in respect to treatment conditions. The husbands revealed the larger changes in the treatment conditions where they

47

received direct treatment, that is, the conjoint and the husbands only pseudo-disjunctive treatment conditions. Conversly, the wives showed the larger changes in the treatment conditions where they were not treated directly, that is, the control and the husbands only pseudo­disjunctive treatment conditions (Beaver, 1978)."

Beaver hypothesized that because there was neither complete

random assignment nor an acceptable level of statistical significance

achieved, he suggests that, " ••• it is better to offer treatment in

communication skills to just one partner when the other is unable or

unwilling to attend. But according to this research, this would only

apply when it is the husband who attends" (Beaver, 1978).

Based on tentative conclusions assumed by Beaver, it could be

suggested that a limitation of the ICS Workshop was the lack of

feedback addressed to partners about the communication skills and

patterns observable in the couple's interaction. Without the inclusion

of "live systems" it can only be assumed that partners who attend the

ICS Workshop individually will bring something back into the

relationship, and this appears to occur when the husband attends.

Comments from the women attending the ICS Workshop stated that when

new skills were tried with their husbands, they were rejected as

something "phony or game-like." Many participants could have given

up when learning and applying the new skills were not accepted by

their husbands. Incorporation of new skills appears to be strengthen

48

within the context of the system for which learning is intended­

couple workshops.

Based on these speculated conclusions, it appears that many

factors could have led to the attainment of non-significant changes

in the perceived levels of communication in ICS Workshop members.

It is suggested that these factors be kept in mind by those researchers

intending to run an Interpersonal Communication Skills Workshop.

Summary and Conclusions

The purpose of this investigation was to prpsent an Interpersonal

Communication Skills Workshop (ICS Workshop) to adults devised to

promote positive communication by the instruction of both communication

skills and awareness skills. It was hypothesized that adults who

participated in the training program would perceive the level of

communication to be higher in their dyadic-partner as measured by the

Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory (com-sat inventory)

than their pretest scores as compared with pretest-posttest Control

group scores (those placed on a waiting list). The training program

consisted of an orientation meeting, four training sessions, concluding

with an evaluation meeting. Participants were instructed in under­

standing the patterns of communication and the rules by which their

interpersonal relationships operate. Communication skills and related

49

exercises were introduced as an effective change agent to disrupt

rigid communication patterns.

The study emplyed a "pretest-posttest control group" design.

Fifteen adult women participated in either an experimental or control

group. Eight experimental subjects attended the first ICS Workshop,

with seven placed on a waiting list and participated in a second ICS

Workshop at a later date. The t-Test for Related Measures was used

to determine the effects of the ICS Workshop. Analyses of the data

did not find statistically significant differences to support the

effects of treatment.

50

REFERENCES

Adler, R., & Towne, N. Looking Out/Looking~: Interpersonal

Communication, Second Edition. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

New York, New York, 1978.

Allred, G.L. Husband and wife communication training: an experimental

study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977(Dec), Vol 38

(6-A), 3757-3758.

Arbes, B.H., & Hubbell, R.N. Packaged impact: a structured communica­

tion skills workshop. Journal of Counseling Psycholoqy, 20, 332-

337, 1973.

Bandler, R., Grinder, J., & Satir, V. Changing With Families, Volume 1.

Science and Behavior Books, Inc., Palo Alto, California, 1976.

Bateson, G., Jackson, D.O., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. Toward a theory

os schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1, 251-264, 1956.

Bateson, G. Steps to an Ecology of Mind.Ballantine Books, New York,

New York~ 1972.

Beaver, W.A. Conjoint and pseudo-disjunctive treatment in communication

skills for relationship improvement with marital couples.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 1978(Dec), Vol 39(6-A),

3361-3362.

51

52

Bochner, A.P. Conceptual frontiers in the study of communication in

families: an introduction to the literature. Human Communication

Research, 1976(Sum), Vol 2, No 4, 381-397.

Boyd, L.A., & Roach, A.J. Interpersonal communication skills differen-

tiating more satisfying from less satisfying marital relationship~

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1977, Vol 24, No 6, 540-542.

Brock, G.W. Unilateral marital intervention: training spouses to train

their partners in communication skills. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 1979(May), Vol 39 (11-B), 5511-5512.

Carkhuff, R.R., & Berenson, B.G. Beyond Counseling and Therapy.

Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York~ New York, 1967, Chap 9.

Ely, A.L., Guerney, B.G., & Stover, L. Efficacy of the training phase

of conjugal therapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practic~

1973, 10, 201-207.

Faunce, D.O., & Riskin, J. Family interaction scales: II. Data

analysis and findings. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1970,

22, 513,-526.

Ferreira, A.J., & Winter, W.O. Family interaction and decision making.

Archives of General Psychiatry~ 1965, 13, 214,-223.

Ferreira, A.J., &Winter, W.O. Stability of interaction variables in

family decision-making. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1966,

. I ·._/,! . ..._ ' ( '- ... ~

14, 352-355

Gordon, T. Parent Effectiveness Training. Plum Printing: New American

Library, New York, New York, 1975.

Haley, J. Changing Families: ~ Family Therapy Reader. Grune & Stratton,

New York, New York, 1971.

Haley, J. Critical overview of present status of family interaction

research. In J.L. Framo (Ed.). Family Interaction:~ Daialouge

Between Family Researchers and Family Therapists. Springer,

New York, New York, 1972, 113-140.

Haley, J. Strategies of fsychotherapy. Grune & Stratton, New York~

New York, 1963.

Haley, J. The family of the- schizophrenic: a model system. Journal of

Nervous and Mental Disease, 1959, 129, 357-374.

Hecht, ML.L Measures of communication satisfaction. Human Communication

Research, 1978(Sum),Vol 4, No 4, 350-368. (a).

Hecht, M.,. The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal

communication satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 1978

(Spring), Vol 4, No 3, 253-264, (b).

Hecht, M.L. The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal

communication satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Department of Speech Communication, University of Illinois, 1976.

53

Higgins, W.H., Ivey, A.E., & Uhleman, M.R. Media therapy: a programed

approach to teaching behavioral akills. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 1970, 17, 20-26.

Howel1s, J.G. Theory and Practice of Family Psychiatry. Oliver & Boyd

LTD, Edinburgh and London, 1968.

Jackson, D.O. (Ed). Communication, Family and Marriage: Human

Communication Volume 1. Science & Behavior Books, Palo Alto,

California, 1968a.

Jackson, D.O. (Ed). Communication, Family and Marriage: Human

Communication Volume 2. Science & Behavior Books, Palo Alto,

California, 1968b.

Jackson, D.O. The question of family homeostasis. Psychiatric

Quarterl~ Supplies, 31, 79-90, 1957; first presented at A.P.A.,

St. Louis, 1954.

Jackson, D.O. The study of the family. Family Process, 1965, 4, 1-20.

Jackson, D.O., Riskin, J., & Satir, V. A method of analysis of a

family interview. Arch. Gen. Psychiat., 5, 321-339, 1961.

Kunin, T. The construction of a new type of attitude measure.

Personnel Psychology, 1955, 8, 65-77.

Miller, S., Nunnally, E.W., & Wackman, D.B. A communication training

54

program for couples. Social Casework, 1976(Jan), Vol 57(1), 8-18.

Miller, S., Nunnally, E.W., & Wackman, D.B. Training Program: Instruc­

tor•s Manual.Minneapolis, Minn., Interpersonal Communication

Program, 1972.

Minuchin, S, Families and Family Therapy~ Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, Mass., 1974.

Mullahy, P., et, al. ~Study of Interpersonal Relationships. Hermitage,

New York, New York, 507-508, 1949.

Nunnally, E.W., Miller, S., Wackman, D.B. The Minnesota couples

communication program. Small Group Behavior, 1975(Feb), Vol 6(1),

57-71.

Patterson, C.H. Relationship Counseling and Psychotherapy. Harper &

Row, New York, New York, 1974, Chap 6 & 9.

Riskin, J., & Faunce, E.E. An evaluative review of family interaction

research. Family Process, 1972, 11, 365,455.

Riskin, J., & Faunce, E,E, Family interaction scales: I. Theoretical

framework and method. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1970,22,

504-512, (a).

Riskin, J., & Faunce, E.E. Family interaction scales: III. Discussion

of methofology and substantive findings. Archives of General

Psychiatry, 1970, 22, 527-537, (b).

55

Roberts, K.H., & O'Reilly, C.A.,III. Measuring organizational

communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 321-326.

Ruesch, J., & Bateson, G. Structure and process in social relations.

Psychiatry, 12, 105-124, 1949.

Ruesch, J., & Bateson, G. Communication: The Social Matrix of

Psychiatry. W.W. Norton, New York, New York~ 1951

Satir, V. Peoplemaking. Science and Behavior Books Inc., Palo Alto,

California, 1972.

Scherz, F.H. Family treatment concepts, Social Casework, 47, 234-240,

1966(April).

Sluzki, C.E., Beavin, J., Tarnoplosky, A., & Vernon, E. Transactional

disqualification: Research of the double bind. In P. Watzlawick

and J. Weakland (Eds), The Interactional View: Studies at the

Mental Research Institute, Palo Alto, 1965-1974. W.W. Norton,

New York, New York~ 1977m 208-277.

Speer, D.C. Family systems; morphostasis and morphogenesis or 'is

homeostasis enough?' Family Process, 1970, 9, 3, 259- 278.

Sprey, J. The family as a system in conflict. Journal of Marriage and

The Family, 1966, Vol 31(Nov), 699-706.

Thompson, K.B. The effectiveness of couples communication training on

interpersonal orientation, couple communication, perceptual

56

Weakland, J.H. The double-bind theory by self-reflexive hindsight.

Family Process~ 1974, 13, 269-277.

Whitehead, A.N., & Russell, B. Principia Mathematica, 2nd ~d.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1910.

Winter, W.O.,& Ferreira, A.J. (Eds). Research in Family Interactions:

Readings and Commentary. Science and Behavior Books, Palo Alto,

California, 1971

Winter, W.O., & Ferreira, A.J. Interaction process analysis of

family decision making. Family Process, 1967, 6, 155-172.

Zimmerman, A.R. The effects and effectiveness of a communication­

oriented workshop in marital conflict resolution. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 1978 (Dec), Vol 39(6-A), 3228-3229.

58

57

congruence, and verbal communication style: a field study.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 1978 (Dec), Vol 39(6-B),

3009-3010.

Truax, C.B., & Carkhuff, R.R. Toward Effective Counseling and

Psychotherapy. Aldinem Chicago, 1967~ Chap 2.

Von Bertalanffy, L. General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development,

& Applications. George Braziller (Ed) Rev. Ed., New York,

New York, 1968.

Wahlroos, S. Family Communication. New American Library, New York,

New York, 1974.

Watzlawick: P., & Beavin, J., & Jackson, D.O. Pragmatics of Human

Communication: ~ Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies,

and Paradoxes. W.W. Norton, New York, New York, 1967.

Watzlawick, P., Weaklandm J., & Fisch, R. Change: Principles of

Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. W.W. Norton, New York,

New York, 1974.

Weakland, J.H. Schizophrenia: basic problems in sociocultural

investigation. In P. Watzlawick, and J.Weakland (Eds), The

Interactional View: Studies at the Mental Research Institute,

Palo Alto, 1965-1974. New York, W.W. Norton, 1977, 13, 141-168.

APPENDIX A

LETTERS OF REQUEST FOR PERMISSION OF USE OF MATERIALS

59

The Experimenter obtained permission from Dr. Sven Wahlroos

in October of 1980 to condense his book, 11 Family Communication .. (1974)

to an abreviated form for use in the ICS Workshop. The reason the

book was condensed and distributed to members of the Workshop was

to assure that each person has a copy. Dr. Wahlroos explained to

the Experimenter that the paperback book was difficult to obtain

and he gave permission to reproduce the book in an abreviated form

as long as full rights be give to the publisher and himself. The

condensed version was given to Dr. Wahlroos for his inspection and

approval. No new material was added to the condensed version and

permission was granted for use in the Interpersonal Communication

Skills Workshop. Permission was also requested from the publishers

to use the material in letter form [also included here]; as well

as a sample of the material. There was no response from the publisher

nor objection to it•s use [Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc, 866

Third Avenue, New York, New York~ 10022]; but the Experimenter

has not encluded the condensed version of Wahlroos• book to protect

copy rights. Suffice it to say,that researchers intending to know

the details of its contents will obtain the same information by

simply reading the original book. NO NEW MATERIAL WAS ADDED! H.L.

60

Hal William Levine [Home Address]

June 17, 1981

Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 866 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022

Dear Sirs:

I am writing to request permission to use the material in Dr. Sven Wahlroos' Book entitled, 11 Family Communication .. (1974). I met with Dr. Wahlroos personally for three times in October, 1980. At this time, I presented him with a condensed version of his book (34 pages) to be used for the sole purpose of distribution to members of an Interpersonal Communication Skills Workshop that I will be conducting. The original contents of the book has not been altered, with only qualifying examples deleated, and major points retained. There will be no intent to use this material for any other purpose than the Workshop and in no way will be published at any time. Dr. Wahlroos has read the condensed version and was greatly moved by it's accuracy. He at that time granted me full permission to use this material for purposes of the Workshop as long as full recognition for it's contents be given to him and Macmillan Publishing Company. Enclosed you will find the first page of the material. The following is at the top of the page:

Wahlroos, S. Family Communication: A Guide to Emotional Health, New York~ Macmillan Publishing-Company-, 1976,

11 Family Communication, 11 by Sven Wahlroos, PhD. Notes for Communication Skills Workshop by Hal Levine

(Permission for the reproduction of these notes were obtained from Dr. Wahlroos by Hal Levine for use in the Communication Skills Work­shop. All Rights, priviledges, and formal ideas belong to the author; where permission must be granted for reproduction of either the original book or the following notes.)

The purpose of the Workshop is to gather data for my research study. This research is being conducted in order to fulfill a requirement for my M.A. in Community/Clinical Psychology from California State University, @ Northridge. Your Cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

Hal William Levine Community/Clinical Psychology C.S.U.N.

61