sponses which in turn precede T responses. This may account for why Rogers@) consistently finds that as his patients make progress in therapy they begin t o talk more about themselves (P) responses. Table shows that P responses increased more than T responses which in turn increased more than E responses. This may be due to the fact that the greatest change was in areas where S had greatest room for change.
An additional finding should be mentioned. Of the three subjects only one had any idea of the purpose of the experiment. S1 and S2 were completely unaware of the experimental treatment. S3 could verbalize that E was trying to influence her and on further questioning it was elicited that she believed the examiner was trying to get her t o talk about the examiner. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS An experimental design was developed in which categories of verbal behavior, comparable to three therapeutic approaches, could be observed, reinforced, and measured to determine the effects of the reinforcement. The initial purpose was to demonstrate the possibility that varying theoretical positions may direct the verbalizations of their subjects into areas in keeping with their own theoretical biases. Results of the study were:
- Frequency of responding was significantly increased as predicted in the response categories of Environment, Patient and Therapist. 2. The categories of response concerned primarily with the environment, the subject, and the examiner can be rated reliably and offer a potential tool for further research in the area of psychotherapy.
The authors feel that the most important contribution of this paper is that an objective way has been developed to score therapeutic verbal responses.
It seems to be essentially content-free.