Systematic Human Relations Training: Appraisal and Status

Abstract

The immense impact of the Systematic Human Relations Training (SHRT) model on the contemporary helping scene is underscored and verified. The rudiments of the model and its historical antecedents are described and various technical and philosophical issues are identified.The model's uncertain theoretical status, questionable and conflicting developmental elements, the merits and hazards of graded structure, the meaning and permanency of client change, the relationship of process and outcomes, the dangers of universalizing and venerating the model's attributes, and the paradox of training for transcendence are all discussed.Truax and Carkhuff's affiliation with Rogers at the Wisconsin Psychiatric Institute less than a decade ago led them to the seemingly insoluble and awesome task of operationalizing the helping process. Ironically, in the process of systematizing and elaborating Rogers' work, Truax and Carkhuff (1967) produced a reconstructed model which was both conceptually unique and philosophically antithetical to Rogerian precepts. Truax persisted in his quest for identifying the necessary ingredients of an effective therapeutic relationship by focusing on an essentially patient population. Carkhuff's research and writing efforts have been increasingly directed toward assisting professional and lay counselors working in the school and community setting and toward solving the pressing social problems of our time through the application of his model in settings characterized by chronic failure, e.g., adult and juvenile correctional institutions and the black ghetto (schools and the hardcore unemployed). Not surprisingly, the number of counselors attracted to Truax and Carkhuff's work has grown considerably.Despite its beguiling simplicity and convincing validity, certain aspects of Truax and Carkhuff's model temper its credibility and value. In addition, Truax, Carkhuff, and their collaborators differ on a number of salient particulars in the way they construe the model. Finally, there are a number of provocative philosophical issues raised by the authors' concept of "training" and their postulation of definitive universal helping attributes. This article will describe the rudiments of the model, examine assumptions, raise questions, and assess the model's adaptability for current practice.

Skill Training: Cautions and Recommendations

“…Along a similar vein, Calia (1974) states that "confining the helping process to a series of graded steps negates the importance of the inspirational and humanistic components of therapists' conditions" (p. 91). Calia is critical of Carkhuff's training model because it does not go far enoughit does not help trainees to transcend their training, nor influence their view of the world.…”

The Impact of Developmental Issues on Human Relations Training for Preservice Teachers

“…It is clear from the issues raised that effective human relations training is a complex process. Unfortunately, this process has often been described as if it were quite simple and straightforward (Calia, 1974). Although it is known that human relations training produces short-term behavioral changes in trainees' responses (Allgire, 1978;Avery, 1978;Beale, Payton, & Zachary, 1978;Blume, 1978;Calia, 1974;Carkhuff, 1969Carkhuff, , 1972cGantt, Billingsley, & Giordano, 1980;Gazda et al, 1977;Goud, 1975;Hardey & Nadig, 1978;Haynes & Avery, 1970;Kalafat, Boroto, & France, 1979;Long, Paradise, & Coleman, 1978;Meade, 1979), and while it can be argued that human relations training is valuable for preservice teachers (Gazda et al, 1977;Sears, 1980), it seems critical that a closer examination of human relations training for preservice teachers be made.…”

“…In spite of the widespread use of such models, significant questions about the use and value of many of these models have been raised. Many of these questions relate to the acquisition and retention of the human relations skills (Bath & Calhoun, 1977;Blume, 1978;Butler & Hansen, 1973;Calia, 1974;Gormally & Hill, 1974;Haase, DiMattia, & Guttman, 1972;Lambert, DeJulio, & Stein, 1978;McCarthy, Danish & D'Augelli, 1977;Sprinthall, 1977). Other issues are that not all individuals respond equally well to training (Mahon & Altman, 1977) and that training does not frequently generalize to nontraining settings (Haynes & Avery, 1979;Mahon & Altman, 1977).…”

“…Much attention, however, has been given to the specific skills included in human relations training, to the training process itself, and to training effectiveness and outcome (Calia, 1974;Carkhuff, 1969Carkhuff, , 1972cCarkhuff et al, 1979;Gladstein, 1977;Lambert & DeJulio, 1977;Meade, 1979). In contrast, little if any attention has been given to the trainee (Carkhuff, 1969;Egan, 1982).…”

Interpersonal Relations: Some Suggestions for Theory Development

“…Although many studies have appeared in the literature that purport to be investigations of these two beliefs, reviewers of this literature, for the most part, have been disappointed with the usefulness of the findings (Calia, 1974; Ford, 1979;Garfield, 1977;Marsden, 1971; Matarazzo, 1979). A common conclusion of these reviewers is that the studies are not testing theory.…”