Marathon sensitivity training was examined in terms of changes in coping. Ss were 28 college students, and a control activity group was utilized. Pre- and posttest scores were obtained on a Sentence Completion Test. Results indicated a significant increase in coping scores after the marathon experience; no change was observed in control Ss. Sex of Ss was not related to change. An explanation in terms of a tension-increment model of personality is offered. Suggestions for future research are made.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderE. D.From play-therapy to the encounter marathon. Psychotherapy, 1969, 6, 188–193.
2.
AndrewJ. M.Recovery from surgery, with and without preparatory instruction, for three coping styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 15, 223–226.
3.
BachG. R.The marathon group: intensive practice of intimate interaction. Psychological Reports, 1966, 18, 995–1002.
4.
BachG. R.Marathon group dynamics: II. Dimensions of helpfulness. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 1147–1158. (a)
5.
BachG. R.Marathon group dynamics: III. Disjunctive contacts. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 1163–1172. (b)
6.
BerzonB.SolomonL.The self-directed therapeutic group: three studies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 13, 491–497.
7.
BradfordL. P.GibbJ. R.BenneK. D.T-group theory and laboratory method. New York: Wiley, 1964.
8.
CampbellJ. P.DunnetteM. D.Effectiveness of T-group experiences in managerial training and development. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 73–104.
9.
GoldsteinM. J.The relationship between coping and avoiding behavior and response to fear-arousing propaganda. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 247–252.
10.
GoldsteinM. J.AdamsJ. N.Coping style and behavioral response to stress. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1967, 2, 239–251.
11.
GoldsteinM. J.JonesR. B.ClemensT. L.FlaggG. W.AlexanderF. G.Coping style as a factor in psychophysiological response to a tension-arousing film. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 290–302.
12.
GottschalkL. A.PattisonE. M.Psychiatric perspectives on T-groups and the laboratory movement: an overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1969, 126, 823–839.
13.
GuinanJ. F.FouldsM. L.Marathon group: facilitator of personal growth?Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970, 17, 145–149.
14.
HarrisonR.Cognitive change and participation in a sensitivity-training laboratory. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966, 30, 517–520.
15.
HillW. F.Hill interaction matrix. Los Angeles: Univer. of Southern California, Youth Studies Center, 1965.
16.
KruschkeD.StollerF. H.Face to face with the drug addict: an account of an intensive group experience. Federal Probation, 1967, 31, 47–52.
17.
LazarusR. S.Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
18.
LubinB.ZuckermanM.Affective and perceptual-cognitive patterns in sensitivity training groups. Psychological Reports, 1967, 21, 365–376.
19.
MaddiS. R.Personality theories: a comparative analysis. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey, 1968.
20.
MartinH. O.The assessment of training. Personnel Management, 1957, 39, 88–93.
21.
MathisA. G. “Trainability” as a function of individual valency pattern. In StockD. & ThelenH. A. (Eds.), Emotional dynamics and group culture. Washington, D. C.: National Educational Association, 1958. Pp. 150–156.
