A Contingency Approach to Laboratory Learning: Psychological Types Versus Experiential Norms

Abstract

This study investigated the psychological dynamics and situational factors that determine whether an individual will experience support and/or confrontation in a laboratory setting. The psychological dynamics were represented by C. G. Jung's psychological types and the situational factors were the experiential norms that manifest these psychic functions. A Contingency framework was derived to suggest the conditions that will lead to the acceptance or rejection of the laboratory experience, or to self-awareness and personal growth. The research data give reasonable evidence to this framework, and the implications of the study are given for: (1) the identification of the rejectors of particular laboratory experiences, (2) the design of different laboratories via alternative experiential norms, and (3) the intervention strategies for staff and trainers according to the laboratory setting and goals.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

BENNIS, W. G. , Goals and meta-goals of laboratory training . Human relations training news, 1962, 6, (3), 1-4 .

BRADFORD, L. P. , GIBB, J. R. , and BENNE, K. D. , T-group theory and laboratory method. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York , 1964.

BUROS, O. K. , Personality tests and reviews, Highland Park, N.J. , 1970.

CLARK, J. V. , CULBERT, S. A. , and BOBELE, H. K. , Mutually therapeutic perception and self-awareness under variable conditions . Journal of applied behavioral science, 1969, 5, (1), 65-72 .

COOPER, C. L. , The influence of the trainer on participant change in T-Groups , Human relations, 1969, 22, (6), 515-530 .

DYER, W. G. , Here-and-now data versus back-home personal concerns. In Dyer, W. G. , (ed.) Modern theory and method in group training. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold , 1972.

HARRISON, R. & LUBIN, B. , Personal style, group composition, and learning . Journal of applied behavioral science, 1965, 1, (3), 286-301 .

JUNG, C. G. , Psychological types, Rutledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. London , 1923.

MARSHALL, I. N. , The four functions: a conceptual analysis . Journal of analytical psychology, 1967, 12, 1-31 .

10.

MATHIS, A. G., Development and validation of a trainability index for laboratory training groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1955.

11.

MILES, M. B. , Human relations training: processes and outcomes . Journal of counseling psychology, 1960, 1, 301-306 .

12.

MYERS, I. B. , Myers-Briggs type indicator, Educational Testing Survey, Princeton, N.J. , 1962.

13.

STEELE, F. , Personality and laboratory style , Journal of applied behavioral science, 1968, 4, (1), 25-45 .

14.

STOCK, D. , A survey of research on T-Groups, In Bradford, L. R. , Gibb, J. R. , and Benne, K. D. , (eds) T-group theory and laboratory method. New York: John Wiley and Sons , 1964, 395-441.

15.

YALOM, I. D. , and LIEBERMAN, M. A. , A study of encounter group casualties , Archives of general psychiatry, 1971, 25, 15-30 .