Node-link mapping, a graphic representation tool, was used to improve mandated substance-abuse treatment in a 4-month residential criminal justice program. Three hundred eighty probationers (residents) were randomly assigned to either mapping-enhanced or standard counseling. Compared to those in standard counseling, residents receiving mapping gave more favorable evaluations to their group meetings, counselors, co-residents, and security staff. They also rated themselves higher on treatment effort and self-efficacy measures than did their counterparts. These findings suggest that mapping-enhanced counseling fosters more effective communication during meetings, promotes stronger therapeutic alliances, and thus enhances the perceptions of the effectiveness of the program and of the people associated with it.
Illicit drug use by criminal offenders is a major contributor to the national problems of overcrowding and high recidivism rates in the criminal justice system (Ball et al. 1983; Leukefeld and Tims 1993; Tonry and Wilson 1990; Wish and Johnson 1986). Drug offenders admitted to Texas prisons, for example, increased by 177% between 1984 and 1989 (Fabelo and Riechers 1989). Most drug users have extensive criminal histories (Lehman and Simpson 1990; Nurco et al.1991), and are more likely than non-users to commit violent crimes (Chaiken 1986). Additionally, many are injection drug users (IDUs) who, through their risky needle use and/or unsafe sexual practices, are at higher risk for contracting and spreading HIV (Anglin and Hser 1990).
Criminal justice authorities have addressed these problems by mandating substance-abuse treatment for incarcerated individuals. Previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of therapeutic community approaches with drug abusing offenders (De Leon 1995; Knight et al. n.d.; Tims et al. 1991). Research on the Stay'n Out program (Wexler and Williams 1986), the Cornerstone program (Field 1985, 1989), the AMITY program (Wexler et al. 1992), and the CHOICE program (Walters et al. 1992) has demonstrated the effectiveness of treatment for lowering both relapse and recidivism rates. Though initially somewhat more expensive, these treatment programs appear to be cost-effective in the long run. Lipton (1996) estimates that most programs pay for themselves in about 2 to 3 years.
Although evaluations of these programs reveal some success with treating incarcerated populations, there is considerable room for improvement. Leukefeld et al. (1992) note that, while public funding and support for treatment has grown, new treatment approaches have not been developed. One strategy that appears be wellsuited for use in residential treatment settings involves node-link mapping, a multipurpose visual communication technique applicable to a variety of counseling and educational situations. In using this technique, ideas are represented by "nodes" and are connected to each other by named links specifying interrelationships (see figure 1 for an example of a node-link map). Earlier research has demonstrated the effectiveness of using maps in educational applications (e.g., Evans and Dansereau 1991; Lambiotte et al. 1989), whereas more recent studies have focused on the application of mapping as an adjunct to traditional drug abuse counseling. In this latter case, counselors and clients develop maps that represent critical issues and potential solutions. Research in outpatient methadone clinics through the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) supported Drug Abuse Treatment and AIDS-risk Reduction (DATAR) project (Simpson, Chatham, and Joe 1993) has revealed that clients exposed to mapping-enhanced counseling attend more sessions; are rated by their counselors as having higher rapport, motivation, and self-confidence (Dansereau et al. 1993) and are less likely during treatment to have drugs detected in their urine specimens (Joe et al. 1994). Mapping sessions are also viewed by clients as having more depth than non-mapped sessions (Dansereau, Dees, et al. 1995). Mapping appears to reduce communication difficulties, help focus attention, and provide a basis for developing therapeutic alliances (Czuchry et al. 1995; Dansereau, Joe, and Simpson 1995; Pitre et al. n.d.).
Although a small percentage of the clients in the DATAR program entered treatment to avoid legal troubles, the majority enrolled voluntarily. Participants in this outpatient program attended individual and small group counseling sessions in conjunction with their methadone treatment. The present study, which is part of a NIDA-supported project entitled Cognitive Enhancements in Treatment of Probationers (CETOP), extends the previous investigations by examining the application of node-link mapping to treatment in a residential criminal justice setting that provides only large group counseling. The first study in the CETOP project (Newbern et al. n.d.) provided evidence that mapping improves participation in group counseling and enhances the perception of counseling session depth. Building on these results, the present objectives were to determine if incarcerated probationers exposed to node-link mapping develop stronger therapeutic alliances (with counselors and fellow residents) and, consequently, rate the treatment program and its staff more positively. We hypothesized that favorable perceptions of program components would positively affect probationers' ratings of their treatment effort and their ability to become involved in the treatment program.
The CETOP project is being implemented in a 140-bed residential substanceabuse treatment program in an urban community criminal justice treatment facility. Judges mandate offenders to this 4-month program primarily for violating probation or parole, either as a result of or in conjunction with the problem of substance abuse. The program has two stages: a residential stage lasting 16 weeks, followed by a 12-week aftercare program. During their stay at the facility, residents participate in activities that reflect a modified therapeutic community approach. These activities include large counseling groups (16 to 35 residents), traditional community meetings, and education classes addressing life skills, graduate equivalency degree (GED) training, substance abuse, and other experiential issues (e.g., general emotional and social concerns, as well as gender-specific issues). Probationers mandated to the program are placed on a waiting list until a new "community" (group) can be formed. Typically, a community consists of 30 to 35 residents and is served by two counselors. A new community is formed each month. During their stay in the program, residents live and attend meetings with other members of their community; contact between communities is restricted.
Probationers admitted between January 1995 and November 1995 to the substance-abuse treatment facility formed the sample for this study. Four hundred fifteen probationers were admitted into 12 communities (6 mapping and 6 standard) during this period. All residents were informed about the research project, told that the terms of their probation would be unaffected by their decision, and asked for their written consent to participate in the research. Three hundred and eighty-one probationers agreed to participate. The rest were either unable to participate (n=11), refused to participate (n=7), or left the treatment facility prematurely (n=l 6). One participant was deleted from the sample due to incomplete data resulting in a final sample of 380 participants. Of these, 201 participants received treatment in mapping communities and 179 in standard communities. See table 1 for demographic and background information on this sample.
Using chi-square analyses, residents assigned to mapping and standard communities were compared on their background and demographic information. Results showed that standard residents were more likely than mapping residents to report employment as their major source of financial support in the 6 months preceding admission [chi ^sup 2^ (1) = 4.46 and p<.04, and were less likely to have used cocaine on a weekly basis during this period, chi ^sup 2^ (1) = 4.72 and p<.03. No other comparisons were significant. Due to the large number of analyses performed, it is important to interpret these results cautiously. In any case, it is unlikely that the differences noted would have an impact on the dependent variables used in this investigation.
Of the 10 counselors participating in this study, 6 were females and 4 were males. One was African American and nine were White. All but one had 4-year college degrees. Four had formal education in alcohol and drug abuse, six in psychology, three in sociology, four in social work, three in criminal justice, and three had formal education in religion. Five counselors were certified alcohol and drug abuse counselors, two were social-work certified, two had HIV training certification, and eight had some other form of relevant certification. On average, counselors had 6 years of counseling experience and had been at the treatment facility for 5 years.
Mapping counselors used either "free" or "guide" maps during their mapped sessions. Free maps were created by counselors in collaboration with residents to diagram or highlight critical points of group discussions (see figure 1). Guide maps are "fill-in" or pre formed maps on selected topics (see figure 2). Approximately 50 guide maps were available to help counselors and residents focus group discussions and address critical issues. During group sessions, mapping counselors developed their maps on large boards clearly visible to group members. Residents completed maps during sessions using lapboards or tables.
A comprehensive data system for assessing individual background information and during-treatment change was developed on the basis of previous psychometric studies (see Simpson, Chatham, and Joe 1993 for an overview). During-treatment measures included evaluations of the most salient program elements such as group meetings, other therapeutic activities, and the key people involved in the treatment process (i.e., counselors, co-residents, and security staff). In addition to providing an evaluation of treatment effectiveness, it was expected that the assessments of key people would serve as indicators of the strength of rapport and working relationships established at the treatment facility. Also included were measures for assessing changes in treatment effort or engagement and self-efficacy. These inclusions were in response to the considerable research establishing the importance of these elements to the counseling process and its outcomes (e.g., quality of a therapeutic alliance or relationship [Broome et al. N.d.; Gerstley et al. 1989], engagement [Simpson and Joe 1993; Simpson et al. 1995], and self-efficacy [Burling et al. 1987; DiClemente et al. 1985]). Soon after a resident was admitted, a counselor administered an intake interview to collect information on the following areas: sociodemographic background, family and peer relations, health and psychological status, criminal and drug involvement, and AIDS-risky behavior such as unsafe sexual practices and risky needle use. The evaluation measures used in this study were administered midway through the treatment program (at approximately 8 weeks) and toward the end of the program (at approximately 14 weeks).
Evaluation of the treatment program
Thirteen items related directly to residents' perceptions of the group meetings, their counselors, security staff, and the other residents in the program. Ratings were assigned on a seven-point scale (where 1 = disagree strongly, 4 = not sure, and 7 = agree strongly). A principal components factor analysis of these items produced a three-factor solution. These factors were labeled: counselor and session evaluation, evaluation of residents, an iarvaetiot security staff. (See table 2 for alpha coefficients and items.)
Items that had a .50 or higher loading on a factor were averaged to create a composite score for that factor. To receive a composite score on a given factor, a participant had to have complete data on at least 75% of the composite items. This was done to ensure that residents' factor scores were based on a comparable number of items. This procedure was followed for all the composites used in this study.
Treatment effort ratings
Nine items addressed treatment effort. Residents indicated the amount of effort they were willing to put into the treatment program and into their interactions with counselors, fellow residents, and the security staff on a seven-point scale (where 1 = very little or no effort, 4 = moderate amount of effort, and 7 = a tremendous amount of effort). All nine items started with the stem "The effort I am willing to make to. . . " followed by various activities (e.g., get along with the counselors). A one-factor solution emerged (see table 3).
Nme items assessed confidence in one's ability to participate in and benefit from the treatment program. Using a seven-point scale, residents rated how sure or confident they felt in being able to complete various program-related activities. All items began with the stem I can. . " and ended with an action (e.g., get along with the counselors). The anchors for this scale were 1= not at all sure I can do it, 4 = somewhat sure I can do it, and 7 = very sure I can do it. Again, a one-factor solution was appropriate (see table 3).
Training and map implementation
All counselors were trained in data-collection methods. Counselors responsible for mapping-enhanced counseling were given approximately 9 hours of training on the use of free and guide maps during group sessions. Mapping counselors were encouraged to complete a minimum of two or three maps each week with their communities; they decided if the use of a map was appropriate or desirable in a particular session. From the outset of the project, both mapping and non-mapping community sessions were randomly chosen for monitoring to provide a manipulation check. The standard communities did not use mapping, whereas mapping communities were exposed to an average of 2.5 maps per week.
An onsite data coordinator ensured that all forms were administered on time and were complete with no missing or obviously inaccurate data. Trained editorial personnel checked the completed forms and resolved errors to ensure the quality of data. Computerized range and inconsistency checks were performed to detect and correct any remaining problems with the data.
One multivariate and two univariate analyses of variance were performed on the factors derived from the rating scales. In each, counseling condition (mapping vs. standard) was the between-group variable, and time (midterm vs. endterm) was the repeated measure. Community designation was used as a nested variable within counseling condition to statistically control for the effects that community groupings might have had on the dependent variables.
Evaluation of Treatment
A nested, multivariate repeated measures analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted using the three treatment factor scores (counselor and session evaluations, resident evaluations, and evaluation of security staff) as the multiple dependent measures. Factor scores were created separately for midterm and endterm by averaging the ratings for the relevant items on each factor. Analyses revealed a significant effect for time, F(3,340)=6.73 and p<.0002; for counseling condition, F(3,340)=3.66 and p<.01; and a significant time X counseling condition interaction, F(3,340)=3.94 and p <.009.
Repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to explore the significant multivariate effects. Results indicated significant main effects for time for evaluation of counselor and sessions, F(1,365=7.35, p<.007, and MSE=.63; evaluation of residents, F(1,354)=18.43, p<.0001, and MSE=1.17; and for evaluation of security staff, F(1,355)=3.76"tF.053, andMSE=1.13. Irrespective of counseling condition, residents' evaluations tended to become more favorable over time.
Significant main effects for counseling condition were obtained for two of the three analyses: evaluation of residents, F(1,354-6.28, p<.01, and MSE=2.80; and evaluation of security staff, F(1,355)=9.48, p<.002, and MSE=4.13. Mapping groups rated all program elements higher than did the standard counseling groups.
A significant time X counseling condition interaction was obtained for the evaluation of counselor and sessions analysis, F(1,365)=6.92, p<.009, and MSE=.63. Post-hoc (least square means) t-tests showed that, at the end of the program, those in the mapping counseling condition rated counselors and sessions higher than did those in the standard counseling condition, t(377)2.73, and p'.006. Analyses using evaluations of residents and evaluations of security staff as dependent variables did not yield significant interactions. Table 4 contains a listing of means and standard deviations associated with the above analyses and the two that follow.
Treatment Effort Ratings
Results of a nested, repeated measures ANOVA using the treatment effort factor as the dependent measure showed a significant time X counseling condition interaction, F(1,361)5.89, p<.02, and MSE=.24. No other differences were significant. Post-hoc (least square means) t-tests indicated that at the end of the treatment program, those in the mapping counseling condition rated themselves as more willing to expend treatment effort than did those in the standard counseling condition, t(373)=2.43 and p<.02 (see table 4). There was no significant difference in the two groups' ratings at midterm.
Results of a nested, repeated measures ANOVA using the self-efficacy factor as the dependent measure showed a significant time X counseling condition interaction, F(1,365)=7.41, p<.007, and MSE=.31. No other differences were significant. Post-hoc (least square means) t-tests indicated that at the end of the treatment program, those in the mapping counseling condition rated themselves higher on self-efficacy than did those in the standard counseling condition, t(377)2.36 and p<.02. There was no significant difference in the two groups' ratings at midterm.
Probationers receiving mapping-enhanced counseling reported more favorable perceptions of their counselors and counseling sessions, their fellow residents, and the security staff than did those receiving standard counseling. This extends previous research indicating favorable during-treatment outcomes for mapping in outpatient methadone clinics (e.g., Dansereau, Dees, et al. 1995; DansereauJoe, and Simpson 1995; Joe et al. 1994). In these previous evaluations of mapping, counseling consisted of one-on-one and small group sessions, whereas in the present program counselors met exclusively with groups of 16 to 35 residents. It is likely that the size of these groups serves to restrict the establishment of therapeutic relationships. Mapping may ameliorate these problems by facilitating communication and enhancing on-task attention. In doing these things, mapping is likely to heighten both counselor-resident and resident-resident rapport as indicated by the positive ratings on these measures. Because research has demonstrated that good relationships with counselors and fellow residents predict treatment outcomes (Broome et al. n.d.; Gerstley et al.1989; Luborsky and Auerbach 1985), mapping residents may be expected to have better long-term treatment outcomes than those receiving standard counseling.
Ratings of security staff are also likely to be important to the success of treatment in criminal justice facilities. Although the same personnel served both, mapping residents rated the security staff more positively than did those receiving standard counseling. This may indicate that using mapping allows for easier resolution of problematic issues. Interactions between the residents and the security staff are frequently negative and hostile, an issue much discussed during group meetings. From observations of group sessions, it appears that mapping counseling promotes more efficient and effective discussion of such problematic issues. It is also possible that mapping residents' positive perceptions of the rest of the program generalize to include the security staff. In any case, counseling that enhances relationships between security staff and residents may be beneficial in improving the day-to-day administrative activities in criminal justice facilities.
By the end of their 4-month residential stay, the mapping group reported that they were willing to expend more efforts toward treatment (to establish rapport with their counselors, their fellow residents, and the security staff) than residents in standard counseling. This finding is especially important in the context of mandated treatment in which offenders often are hostile and poorly motivated for treatment (Lipton 1996). Given that motivation to engage in treatment relates positively to successful treatment outcomes (Simpson and Joe 1993; Simpson et al. 1995), enhancing motivation (treatment effort) among reluctant participants may be potentially critical.
Mapping residents also felt more confident about being able to participate in the treatment program. Because feelings of self-efficacy have been shown to be related to more successful drug treatment outcomes (Burling et al. 1987; Di Clemente et al. 1985), residents in this program who felt more confident about participating in and benefiting from treatment would be expected to have better treatment outcomes than those who do not share these feelings of confidence.
It should be noted that the lack of significant differences between mapping and standard counseling on the midterm ratings of treatment effort, self-efficacy, and counselors and sessions is important in discounting across-the-board placebo effects. If the mapping residents were merely responding to the novelty of the enhancement, then one would expect differences on all measures. That this did not occur suggests that placebo factors probably are not responsible for the observed effects.
In summary, the early results from the evaluation of mapping-enhanced counseling in a mandated treatment setting indicate that it increases meaningful discussion in large counseling groups (Newbern et al. n.d.) It also improves probationers' evaluations of the treatment program, the counselors, the support staff as well as their own treatment effort and their self-perceived ability to benefit from treatment. Furthermore, it appears that mapping can be effectively implemented in a criminal justice facility without negatively affecting existing activities. Future CETOP studies will extend the present findings by examining the impact of mapping on critical posttreatment outcomes (e.g., urinalysis and recidivism data).
We would like to thank the staff and counselors at the Tarrant County Community Correctional Facility in Mansfield, Texas, for their assistance. This work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Grant No. DA08608. The interpretations and conclusions, however, do not necessarily represent the position of NIDA or the Department of Health and Human Services.
Anglin, M.D., and Y.I. Hser
1990 Treatment of drug abuse. In Drugs and Crime, eds. M. Tonry, and J. Q.
Wilson, 393-460. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Ball, J., J. Shaffer, and D. Nurco
1983 Day to day criminality of heroin addicts in Baltimore: A study of offense
rates. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 1(2):119-142. Broome, K.M., K. Knight, M. Hiller, and D.D. Simpson n.d. Drug treatment process indicators for probationers and prediction of
recidivism. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, in press. Burling, T.A., P.M. Reilly, J.O. Moltzen, and D.C. Ziff 1987 Self-efficacy and relapse among inpatient drug and alcohol abusers: A
predictor of outcome. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 50(4):354-360. Chaiken, J. M.
1986 Crime rates and substance abuse among types of offenders. In Crime rates among drug abusing offenders: Final report to the National Institute of Justice, eds. B.D. Johnson and E.D. Wish. New York:Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc.
Czuchry, M., D.F. Dansereau, S.M. Dees, and D.D. Simpson 1995 The use of node-link mapping in drug abuse counseling: The role of
attentional factors. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 27(2):161-166. Dansereau, D.F. ,S.M. Dees, J.M. Greener, and D.D. Simpson 1995 Node-link mapping and the evaluation of drug abuse counseling sessions.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 9(3):195-203. Dansereau, D.F., G.W. Joe, and D.D. Simpson
1993 Node-link mapping: A visual representation strategy for enhancing drug
abuse counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology 40(4):385-395. Dansereau, D.F.,G.W. Joe, and D.D. Simpson
1995 Attentional difficulties and the effectiveness of a visual representation strategy for counseling drug-addicted clients. International Journal of the Addictions 30(4):371-386.
1995 Therapeutic communities for addictions: A theoretical framework. The
International Journal of the Addictions 30(12):1603-1645. DiClemente, C.C., J.O. Prochaska, and M. Gibertini 1985 Self-efficacy and the stages of self-change of smoking. Cognitive Theory
Research 9:181-200. Evans, S.H., and D.F. Dansereau
1991 Knowledge maps as tools for thinking and communication. In Enhancing Learning and Thinking, eds. R.F. Mulcahy, R.H. Short, and J. Andrews, 97-120. New York:Praeger. Fabelo, T., and L. Riechers
1989 Drug Use and Recidivism: Analysis of Drug Offenders Admitted to Texas
Prisons. Austin, TX:Criminal Justice Policy Council. Field, G.
1985 The cornerstone program: A client outcome study. Federal Probation
49:50-55. Field, G.
1989 The effects of intensive treatment on reducing the criminal recidivism of
addicted offenders. Federal Probation 53(4):51-56. Gerstley, L., AT. McLellan, AI. Alterman, G.E. Woody, L. Luborsky, and M. Prout 1989 Ability to form an alliance with the therapist: A possible marker of prognosis for patients with antisocial personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry 146:508-512.
Joe. G.W., D.F. Dansereau, and D.D. Simpson
1994 Node-link mapping for counseling cocaine users in methadone treatment.
Journal of Substance Abuse 6:393-406. Knight, K., D.D. Simpson, L.R. Chatham, and M.L. Camacho n.d. An assessment of prison-based drug treatment: Texas' in-prison therapeutic
community program. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, in press. Lambiotte, J.L., D.F. Dansereau, D.R. Cross, and S.B. Reynolds 1989 Multirelational semantic maps. Educational Psychology Review 1:331-367. Lehman, W.E.K., and D.D. Simpson
1990 Criminal involvement. In Opioid addiction and treatment: A 12-year follow-up, eds. D.D. Simpson and S.B. Sells. Malabar, FL:Kreiger Publishing.
Leukefeld. C.G., R.W. Pickens, and C.R. Schuster 1992 Recommendations for improving drug treatment. International Journal of
the Addictions 27(10):1223-1239. Leukefeld, C.G., and F.R. Tims
1993 Drug abuse treatment in prisons and jails. Journal of Substance Abuse
Treatment 10:77-84. Lipton, D.S.
1996 Prison-based therapeutic communities: Their success with drug-abusing offenders. National Institute of Justice Journal 12-20.
Luborsky, L., and A.H. Auerbach
1985 The therapeutic relationship in psychodynamic psychotherapy: The research evidence and its meaning for practice. Psychiatry Update: American Psychiatric Association Annual Review 4. Newbern, D., D.F. Dansereau, and S.M. Dees
n.d. Node-link mapping in substance abuse: Probations' ratings of group
counseling. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, in press. Nurco, D.N., T.E. Hanlon, and T.W. Kinlock
1991 Recent research on the relationship between illicit drug use and crime.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law 9:221-242. Pitre, U., D.F. Dansereau, and D.D. Simpson
n.d. The role of node-link maps in increasing counseling efficiency. Journal of
Addictive Diseases 16(3), in press. Simpson, D.D., L.R. Chatham, and G.W. Joe
1993 Cognitive enhancements to treatment in DATAR: Drug abuse treatment for AIDS risk reduction. In Innovative approaches to the treatment of drug abuse: Program models and strategies, eds. J. Inciardi, F. Tims, and B. Fletcher, 161-177. Westport, CT:Greenwood Press. Simpson, D.D., and G.W. Joe
1993 Motivation as a predictor of early dropout from drug abuse treatment.
Simpson, D.D., G.W. Joe, G.A Rowan-Szal, and J. Greener 1995 Client engagement and change during drug abuse treatment. Journal of
Substance Abuse 7(1):117-134. Tims, F., B.W. Fletcher, and R.L. Hubbard
1991 Treatment outcomes for drug abuse clients. In Improving Drug Abuse Treatment, eds. RW. Pickens, C.G. Leukefeld, and C.R. Schuster. Rockville, MD:National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 106, DHHS Publication No. ADM 91-1754. Tonry, M., and J. Wilson, eds.
1990 Drugs and Crime. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Walters, G.D., M. Heffron, M. Whitaker, and S. Dial 1992 Comprehensive residential treatment program for drug-involved federal offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 36(1):21-29.
Wexler, H.K., G.P. Falkin, and D.S. Lipton
1992 Outcome evaluation of a prison therapeutic community for substance abuse
treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior 17(1):71-92. Wexler, H.K., and R Williams
1986 The Stay 'N Out therapeutic community: Prison treatment for substance
abusers. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 1:221-230. Wish, E.D., and B.D. Johnson
1986 The Impact of Substance Abuse on Criminal Careers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, Criminal Careers and Career Criminals, vol. 1, 54-59.
Urvashi Pitre received her Ph.D. in experimental psychology from Texas Christian University in 1993. She is presently at the Institute of Behavioral Research at Texas Christian University. Sandra ML Des received her Ph.D. in experimental psychology from Texas Christian University in 1989. She is presently at the Institute of Behavioral Research at Texas Christian University. Donald F. Dansereau received his Ph.D. in psychology from Camegie-Mellon University in 1969. He is presently Senior Scientist at the Institute of Behavioral Research and Professor of Psychology at Texas Christian University. D. Dwayne Simpson received his Ph.D. in psychology from Texas Christian University in 1970. He is Director of the Institute of Behavioral Research and Professor of Psychology at Texas Christian University. Please address correspondence and requests for reprints to the Institute of Behavioral Research, Texas Christian University, TCU Box 298920, Fort Worth, TX 76129.…