Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Andrews, J. D. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Interpersonal Challenge: A Source of Growth in Laboratory Training

John D. W. Andrews

Counseling and Psychological Services; University of California at San Diego.

This study tests the hypothesis that growth in human relations training is furthered by working through challenging personal relationships. A high-challenge relationship is one in which the parties hold expectations that are not fulfilled by the other's behavior, so that interaction is problematic. In this study, interpersonal expectations and behavior styles were measured with Leary's Interpersonal Check List. Greater individual growth, as measured by a "Critical Incidents" Questionnaire, occurred in high-challenge dyads; groups that made the greatest progress according to trainer ratings contained many high-challenge pairings. In highgrowth groups, a greater proportion of energy and activity was focused on high-challenge relationships than in low-growth groups.

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 9, No. 4, 514-533 (1973)
DOI: 10.1177/002188637300900410


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Small Group ResearchHome page
D. E. Waltman and D. G. Zimpfer
Composition, Structure, and Duration of treatment: Interacting Variables in Counseling Groups
Small Group Research, May 1, 1988; 19(2): 171 - 184.
[Abstract]


Home page
Small Group ResearchHome page
P. B. Smith
Laboratory Design and Group Process as Determinants of the Outcome of Sensitivity Training
Small Group Research, August 1, 1987; 18(3): 291 - 308.
[Abstract]


Home page
Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceHome page
J. Melnick and M. Woods
Analysis of Group Composition Research and Theory for Psychotherapeutic and Growth-Oriented Groups
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, October 1, 1976; 12(4): 493 - 512.
[Abstract] [PDF]