Direct versus vicarious experiencing in a primarily nonverbal personal growth group microlab

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between a direct group experience, a vicarious group experience, and a control group experience and measures of self-actualization (I scale of the Personal Orientation Inventory) and self-congruence (DOM differences and LOV differences on the Interpersonal Check List).Prior to the group experiences, the sample of 75 subjects was divided into three groups of 25 graduate and undergraduate students per group. On the night of the group experience, 66 of these subjects participated in the study. The direct group (13 females and 7 males) participated in a primarily nonverbal personal growth group microlab lasting for one and one-half hours. The vicarious group (11 females and 10 males) viewed the direct group via closed-circuit television. The control group (10 males and 15 females) spent an equivalent amount of time viewingthree films assumed to be unrelated to moving toward self-actualization and increasing self-congruence.The Interpersonal Check List and the Personal Orientation Inventory were administered to the subjects at the conclusion of the group experiences. The subjects responded to the ICL in two different manners. First, each subject responded to the ICL by indicating which adjectives and/or phrases were applicable to S as he saw himself (real self). Next, each subject responded to the ICL by indicating which adjectives and/or phrases were applicable to S as he would like to be ideally (ideal self).The instruments were scored and three scales (DOM differences of the ICL, LOV differences of the ICL, the I scale of the POI) were subjected to a multivariate analysis of variance. The F value which was obtained (.7670) was not statistically significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the major null hypothesis--There will be no statistically significant difference between mean vectors for the direct group, the vicarious group, and the control group on the I scale of the POI, the DOM differences of the ICL, and the LOV differences of the ICL--was not rejected. As the analysis failed to yield results leading to the rejection of the major null hypothesis, the sub-hypotheses were not investigated and were therefore not rejected.Analysis of the intercorrelations between the I scale of the POI, the DOM differences of the ICL, and the LOV differences of the ICL yielded no statistically significant correlations. Since the three scales used within this study provided essentially uncorrelated, independent measures of self-actualization and self-congruence, using these three scales within one study seems to be statistically sound.Further analysis of the data indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in selfactualization and self-congruence between the direct group, the vicarious group, and the control group as measured by the DOM differences on the ICL, LOV differences on the ICL, and the I scale of the POI. Therefore, a personal growth group microlab leader could expect to achieve no statistically significant change in his group participants based on self-actualization and self-congruence as measured by the instruments and scales used in this study. If leaders continue to present personal growth group microlabs, there is a need to re-examine the goals of such an experience and re-evaluate the microlab in terms of the new redefined goals.Thesis (D. Ed.