More Rogers: an unexpected research result
Mar. 9th, 2002 02:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mattlistenerHere's another Rogers excerpt from his symposium paper. I love hearing about unexpected results in psychology, especially ones so heartwarming as this.
Rogers writes:
A competent student, doing his graduate work under my supervision, chose to study the factors which would predict the behavior of adolescent delinquents. He made careful objective ratings of the psychological environment in the family, the educational experiences, the neighborhood and cultural influences, the social experiences, the health history, the hereditary background, of each delinquent. These external factors were rated as to their favorableness for normal development. Almost as an afterthought, a rating was also made of the degree of self-understanding, since it was felt that although this was not one of the primary conditioning factors, it might play some part in predicting future behavior. This was essentially a rating of the degree to which the individual was open and realistic regarding himself and his situation, whether he was emotionally acceptant of the facts in himself and in his environment. These ratings, on seventy-five delinquents, were compared with ratings of their behavior and adjustment two to three years after the initial study.
{{Matt's translation: the student will examine a set of variables regarding kids' circumstances, to find out which is the best predictor of their years-later behavior (on a scale of healthy->delinquent).}}
It was expected that the ratings on family climate and social experience with peers would be the best predictors of later behavior. To our amazement, the degree of self-understanding was much the best predictor, correlating .84 with later behavior, while quality of social experience correlated .55, and family environment .36. We were simply not prepared to believe these findings and laid the study on the shelf until it could be replicated.
Later it was replicated on a new group of seventy-six cases, and all the essential findings were confirmed, though not quite so strikingly. Furthermore, the findings stood up even in detailed analysis. When we examined only the delinquents who came from the most unfavorable homes and remained in those homes, it was still true that their future behavior was best predicted, not by the unfavorable conditioning they were receiving in their home environment, but by the degree of realistic understanding of themselves and their environment which they possessed.
Behaviorism and Phenomenology: Contrasting Bases for Modern Psychology, edited by T.W.Wann, 1964.
---------
I was so touched when I read this. I daydreamed myself as an older adult, listening to a teen tell me about her troubles. On picking up a suggestion that she felt like ignoring or discounting some of her experience, I delivered this impassioned message: "It's OK to *know* anything. It might hurt, you might not want it to be true, but you can always just be aware that it *is* true, and go from there."
Rogers writes:
A competent student, doing his graduate work under my supervision, chose to study the factors which would predict the behavior of adolescent delinquents. He made careful objective ratings of the psychological environment in the family, the educational experiences, the neighborhood and cultural influences, the social experiences, the health history, the hereditary background, of each delinquent. These external factors were rated as to their favorableness for normal development. Almost as an afterthought, a rating was also made of the degree of self-understanding, since it was felt that although this was not one of the primary conditioning factors, it might play some part in predicting future behavior. This was essentially a rating of the degree to which the individual was open and realistic regarding himself and his situation, whether he was emotionally acceptant of the facts in himself and in his environment. These ratings, on seventy-five delinquents, were compared with ratings of their behavior and adjustment two to three years after the initial study.
{{Matt's translation: the student will examine a set of variables regarding kids' circumstances, to find out which is the best predictor of their years-later behavior (on a scale of healthy->delinquent).}}
It was expected that the ratings on family climate and social experience with peers would be the best predictors of later behavior. To our amazement, the degree of self-understanding was much the best predictor, correlating .84 with later behavior, while quality of social experience correlated .55, and family environment .36. We were simply not prepared to believe these findings and laid the study on the shelf until it could be replicated.
Later it was replicated on a new group of seventy-six cases, and all the essential findings were confirmed, though not quite so strikingly. Furthermore, the findings stood up even in detailed analysis. When we examined only the delinquents who came from the most unfavorable homes and remained in those homes, it was still true that their future behavior was best predicted, not by the unfavorable conditioning they were receiving in their home environment, but by the degree of realistic understanding of themselves and their environment which they possessed.
Behaviorism and Phenomenology: Contrasting Bases for Modern Psychology, edited by T.W.Wann, 1964.
---------
I was so touched when I read this. I daydreamed myself as an older adult, listening to a teen tell me about her troubles. On picking up a suggestion that she felt like ignoring or discounting some of her experience, I delivered this impassioned message: "It's OK to *know* anything. It might hurt, you might not want it to be true, but you can always just be aware that it *is* true, and go from there."
