Table Of ContentThe Pennsylvania State College
The Graduate School
Department of Psychology
VERBAL SIGNS OF RESISTANCE IN CLIENT-CENTERED THERAPY
A dissertation
by
John F. Gillespie, Jr.
Submitted in partial fulfil
of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
August 1951
/'
Associate Professor of Psychology
AG KHOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer* is deeply indebted to the other members of the
Psychotherapy Research Group whose cooperation and assistance
during the two years of data collection, coding, transcribing,
and resistance rating made this investigation possible*
The important role played by Dr. V/illiam U. Snyder in
the formation of the group and the supervision of this inves
tigation is gratefully acknowledged. His patience, willing
ness to listen to problems, and availability are sincerely
appreciated.
Acknowledgement is due Dr. Robert G. Bernreuter and
members of The Psychological Clinic who modified clinic pro
cedures to permit the collection of the data in the manner
desired and provided many necessary facilities and supplies
for the Psychotherapy Research Group.
The writer owes a special obligation to Dr. Phillip Ash
who reviewed several of the statistical procedures and clar
ified numerous statistical problems.
The members of the group who assisted in the location and
classification of resistance were: Manuel Aronson, BenAmi Blau,
James J. Gallagher, Marvin W. Kahn, Horace A. Page, John M.
Rakusin, Jean G. Roshal, and John E. Tucker.
To my wife, Jean H. Gillespie, goes credit for patience
and understanding during the period of this investigation.
PREFACE
Beginning in the spring semester of 19^9 a group of grad
uate students met with. Dr. William U. Snyder to discuss ways
of organizing a file of basic research data of client-centered
therapy. The hypotheses that they desired to investigate re
quired larger samplings of case material than had previously
been used. It was apparent that no one individual could
collect the necessary cases but that some cooperative system
might make sufficient case material available for all group
members•
As a result of these meetings with Dr. Snyder, and with
the cooperation of The Psychological Clinic, the Psychotherapy
Research Group was formed and procedures established for the
collection of data. The members met at least once each week
over a period of two years and gradually became an integrated,
intimate group in which cooperation was the keynote. Individ
ual research plans were modified, redefined, and gradually
reflected the tenor of the group opinion. Practically every
faculty member had a hand in shaping the growth of the group
through suggestions and constructive criticism given in informal
meetings and seminars.
No study in the group can be considered an individual in
vestigation although they all began In that manner. While
each one retains the original thoughts and contributions of
its author, it also reflects the cooperative thinking and
iv
assistance of every other group member. The criteria scales
were developed by the group as a whole as were the pre and
post-therapy test procedures, transcription of recordings,
coding of statements, judging of case material, and many other
small details.
A report of the meetings would amount to a study of
group dynamics or a democratic experiment in the traditionally
individualistic area of graduate student research. Perhaps
one of the most valuable and meaningful results discovered by
the group was how to be a cooperative and responsible member
of a research team. It was not an easy lesson for any of the
members to learn. Frequently hot arguments lasted into the
morning but the resulting decisions were unanimous and the
best the group was capable of making at the time.
The entire group is indebted to Dr. William U. Snyder
who unselfishly devoted many hours to the formation and super
vision of the project. He patiently allowed us to explore
and argue thoroughly our ideas week after week. He willingly
discussed problems on an individual basis and aided the group
whenever possible.
Dr. Snyder has consented to serve as custodian of the
basic data in order that additional studies and investigations
can be made or results of the present studies checked.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER Page
I. Summary of the Investigation 1
II. Introduction
Introduction to Resistance in Psychotherapy 20
Review of the Literature on Resistance. . . 21
Previous Studies on Resistance............. 23
The Need for This Investigation . .........
3lp
Statement of the Problem. . . . . ......... 37
Hypotheses to be Tested .................... 37
III. Sources of the Data
The Population. . Lo
The Counseling. . 1+2
Collection of the Interview Data,
The Criteria. . .
1+7
Classification of C ounselor Re sponses 1+9
Classification of Verbal Signs
0
of Resistance . . . .
A. Development of the C ategories
B. Training Coders. . IS
C. Reliability of the Location and
Classification of Signs of Resistance, 6l
IV. Procedures
Order of Data Collection. ............. 6
Tabulation of Resistance................. 6
Statistical Analysis of Resistance Data . 67
V. Results and Conclusions
Results ............................ ... . 73
Interpretation of the Results............... 85
Conclusions .......................... 93
Limitations of the Conclusions.............. . 95
BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................. 99
APPENDIX A. . . ..........................................10i|.
Client Post-Therapy Rating Scale
Instructions
Counselor Rating Scale
APPENDIX B, 112
Counselor Coding Categories
Notes on Coding XCFi, XCFU* and XIT
Coding Work Sheet for Counselor C ategories
APPENDIX C .............................................. 122
Resistance Coding Categories
Resistance Coding Work Sheet
Resistance Tally Sheet
TABLES
Ilurnber Page
I. Average Agreement of Seven Coders of
Counselor Responses............. Jp
II* Number of Coders In Exact Agreement on the
Location and Classification of Resistance
in l8l Responses of the Reliability Study. . . . . 7
III* Frequency and Percentage of Each Sign
of Resistance in the Total Population
of [j_3 Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
IV. Total Number of Signs of Resistance
Occurring After Each Counselor Category
and Their Various Percentages................ . . . 1 3
V. Product-Moment Correlations Between
Measures of Resistance and the Multiple
Criterion and the Length of Treatment. . 34
VI. Frequency, Average Severity, and Per
Cent of Total of 157 Signs of Resistance
in Daulton's Study................... . . . . . . . 3 3
VII. Comparison of the Experimental
Population With the All-College Population
of the Pennsylvania State College for the
Academic Year 191-1-9-1950.............................. lj-1
VIII. Sources of Referral for the
Experimental Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1\2.
IX. Percentage of Responses in Each
Counselor Category on Snyder's, Seeman's,
and the Present Study. ............. Iqlp
X. Number of Coders in Exact Agreement in
the Coding of 233 Counselor Responses. • • • • • • 52
XI. Number of Coders in Exact Agreement in
the Correct Coding of I4.6 Counselor Error Responses 54
XII. Number of Coders in Agreement on the
Identification of 62 Coimselor Error Responses . • 55
XIII. Categories of Resistance Mentioned by Various
Authors in Current Psychological Literature. . . . 60
Lii
age
Humber of Coders in Exact Agreement on the
Location and Classification of Resistance
in 181 Responses of the Reliability Study . . • 6 2
Frequency and Percentage of Each Sign of
Resistance in the Total Population of
I4.3 Cases.........................................
Til-
Total Number of Signs of Resistance
Occurring After Each Counselor Category
and Their Various Percentages................ . 76
Product-Moment Correlations Between the
Number of Counselor Statements in Each
Category and the Number of Signs of
Resistance Occurring After Each Category
For 26 Cases. . . . . . ........... . . . . . . 77
Analysis of Variance of Total Signs of
Resistance for the Error and Non Error
Categories.......................... ............ 78
Analysis of Variance of the Counselor
Statements in the Error and the Non Error
Categories..................................... .. 78
Analysis of Covariance of the Total Amount
of Resistance for the Error and the
Non Error Categories............. ............... 79
Tables of Means Including Total Signs
of Resistance . . . . .......................... 80
Analysis of Variance of Resistance to the
Therapist and the Therapeutic Process for
the Error and the Non Error Categories. • . • • 81
Analysis of Covariance of the Amount of
Resistance to the Therapist and the Therapeutic
Process for the Error and Non Error Categories. 81
Table of Means Including Resistance Toward
the Therapist and the Therapeutic Process . . . 82
Product-Moment Correlations Between Measures
of Resistance and the Multiple Criterion and
the Length of Treatment ........................ 83
Significance of the Difference Between Means
of the 25 Cases Which Decreased and the ll|_
Cases Which Increased in Resistance From the
First-Third to the Last-Third of Treatment. • • 814.
CHAPTER I
SUMMARY OP THE INVESTIGATION
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study is to investigate verbal signs
of resistance in typescripts of client-centered therapy inter
views. Specific purposes to be fulfilled are:
1. To develop a technique for the location and classifi
cation of verbal signs of resistance in client-centered
interviews*
2. To determine the relationship between certain counse
lor errors and the occurrence of verbal signs of
resistance.
3. To determine the relationship between verbal signs
of resistance and the success of the treatment
process.
I4-. To check the implication in previous research that
resistance decreases in successful cases of client-
centered therapy.
Hypotheses
Rogers (32) has stated in Counseling and Psycho therapy
that resistance to counseling and to the counselor grows pri
marily out of poor techniques of handling the client's expres
sion of his problems and feelings. He mentions the recognition
of unexpressed feeling, interpretation, and inaccurate clari
fication of the client's feeling as the errors associated with
signs of resistance. The first hypothesis of this investiga
tion has been drawn to test Rogers' statement concerning re
sistance in client-centered therapy.
Hypothesis 1: Verbal signs of resistance In client-
centered therapy are preceded by counselor
statements that reflect unexpressed feel
ing, make inaccurate clarifications of
feeling, or interpret the meaning of the
client's feeling to him.
2
A review of the literature on resistance in therapy indi
cated that many therapists consider resistance to retard, hin
der, or slow down the therapeutic process. In such case it
would be expected that the most resistant clients would either
take longer to complete the therapeutic process or would
derive fewer benefits from the therapy and therefore be rated
less successful. The following two hypotheses accept the
opinions expressed in the literature and attempt to measure
their implications for the population of this Investigation.
Hypothesis 2. The frequency of verbal signs of resist
ance in client-centered therapy is nega
tively correlated with the success of the
therapy.
Hypothesis 3» The frequency of verbal signs of resist
ance in client-centered therapy is posi
tively correlated with the length of the
treatment process as measured by the num
ber of interviews.
The data of Haigh's study of defensiveness (20) suggest
that exhibited signs of defensiveness decrease in successful
cases ofc lient-centered therapy. As the present investigation
defines resistance in terms of overt manifestations of defen
sive behavior it should be possible to test the decrease on
the larger population of this study. The fourth hypothesis
attempts to answer this question by accepting the trend appar
ent in the ten cases reported by Haigh.
Hypothesis Ip. A decrease in the frequency of verbal signs
of resistance is correlated positively with
success in client-centered therapy.
In addition to the specific hypotheses to be tested, this
study was directed .toward obtaining additional information on
