|
University of California Grant Research Study (2003)
Reprinted from “Research at the Hoffman Institute,”
by Ron Meister, Ph.D., Administrative Research Director. © 2004
by the Hoffman Institute Foundation
In the summer of 1999, the preliminary research proposal was designed
and submitted by Drs.
Michael R. Levenson and Carolyn M. Aldwin, two widely published
researchers at the University of California at Davis, to the Human
Subjects Committee at the University of California at Davis. Grant
funds were received by the UCD Regents. The green light was given
to proceed with the research and the first confidential mailing
of future participants and control groups was sent out. The sample
pool of subjects included 142 individuals who were enrolled to participate
in the Hoffman Process, and a control group of 95 individuals who
were interested in taking the Hoffman Process but had no plans to
participate in the near future. Finally, 99 agreed to be in the
study, and 47 agreed to be the controls. The last data were gathered
in October of 2002. The analysis of the data was complete by the
spring of 2003 and Drs. Aldwin and Levenson presented their research
findings at the following professional conferences during that year:
The Society for Research in Adult Development, The Western Psychological
Conference, and the American Psychological Association National
Convention. A submission for publication of the study in a peer-reviewed
journal has been made.
What Were the Researchers Interested in Measuring?
The researchers measured three categories of variables:
(1) negative affect; (2) positive affect; and (3) health and well-being.
- Negative affect measures included testing
and reports on Depression, Anxiety, Interpersonal Sensitivity,
Hostility, and Obsessive-Compulsive.
- Positive affect measures included testing
on Empathy, Forgiveness, Emotional Intelligence, Mastery, Religious
Experience, and Life Satisfaction.
- Health and well-being measures included testing
of Physical Health Variables, Childhood Stress, and reports of
Physical and Emotional Abuse.
What Psychological Tests Were Used to Examine Negative Affect,
Positive Affect, and Health and Well-Being?
The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI, Beck, 1967; Beck, Steer &
Brown, 1996) was used to help determine the level or severity of
depressive reports. This tool is one of the most utilized research
and clinical tools to assess depression in the United States today.
The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI, Derogatis & Meliseratos, 1983)
was used to assess psychological symptoms including depression,
anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, and hostility.
The Fantasy-Empathy Scale (Stotland et al., 1978) is a well-known
scale to assess empathy. The Forgiveness Scale (Wade, 1989) was
used to determine how easily respondents were able to allow faults
and flaws in real life examples to adversely affect their judgment.
The Emotional Intelligence Scale (Schutte et al., 1998) assesses
the subject’s understanding of their own emotions and those
of others. The Mastery Scale (Ryff & Heincke, 1983) was used
to determine an individual’s sense of control. The Religious
Experiences Scale (Hills & Argyle, 1998) measures spiritual
experience, and is a non-denominational measure. The test items
focus on the frequency of specified affective and cognitive states.
Andrews & Withey, (1978) developed a test for Life Satisfaction,
with specific life domains and relationships including children,
jobs, marriage, friends, coworkers, parents, and siblings. Ware’s
(1993) short form version of the Medical Outcomes Study, the SF-36,
was administered to the participants. It included measures of Physical
and Emotional Functioning. Energy / Vitality, Mental Health and
Social Functioning were assessed. The Childhood Experiences Scale
(CES; Aldwin, Cupertino, Levenson, & Spiro 1998a,b) is a retrospective
assessment instrument that probes for information on relationships,
traumatic events, discipline, and achievement from ages 0 to 19.
What Kind of Analysis Was Used to Determine the Results of the
Study?
Without giving extensive details of the analysis used in this study,
we may say that the investigators used current and appropriate analytic
methods for these data. Repeated measures MANOVAs, Mauchley’s
test of sphericity, and the Huynh-Feldt F. were computed. A more
detailed description of the analysis can be found in the original
publication.
How Well Do Participants Do in the Short Term?
For the negative affect measures, prior to the Hoffman Quadrinity
Process, half of the participants were mildly to moderately depressed,
After the Process, none of the participants were depressed,
not even mildly. Negative affect symptoms such as depression, anxiety,
hostility, obsessive-compulsive as well as interpersonal sensitivity
decreased with statistical significance. The effect changes
ranged from 1.45 SD to ranges near the 1.0 SD marker for negative
affect symptoms.
Positive affect measures increased with statistical significance.
Participants of the HQP reported increases in life satisfaction,
mastery, empathy, forgiveness, forgiveness, emotional intelligence,
and spiritual experience. The effect changes ranged from
.30 SD for empathy to .83 SD for forgiveness.
All six of the general health and well-being variables also improved
with statistical significance. Respondents reported better
physical, emotional and social functioning, and their ratings of
their physical health, mental health, and energy increased significantly.
Mental health effect changes showed the highest increase.
The effect change size ranged from (1.23) to (.30).
How Well Did the participants Do One Year After the Process?
In terms of negative affect, the majority of the
improvements remained after one year. Depression reports rose but
the initial improvements remained at a statistically significant
level. Nine of the 54, or 17% of the participants, reported a mild
to moderate level of depression. In the control group, 31.2% showed
mild to moderate depression. Reductions in anxiety, interpersonal
sensitivity, and obsessive-compulsive subscales remained statistically
significant after one year. After one year, the hostility and somaticization
subscales still showed reductions, but did not show statistical
significance.
Positive affect measures remained statistically
significant after one year. The largest improvement was seen for
emotional intelligence in the first testing, which continued over
the course of one year. Other positive affect measures such as life
satisfaction, empathy, and spirituality showed a continue increase
at lower levels.
The Health and Well-Being scales all improved,
Five of the seven scales were significantly improved over the year.
The most significant increases were in general health and in the
energy / vitality scales.
How Do These Results of the HQP Compare to Other Kinds of Interventions?
The results that Levenson, Aldwin and Yancura submitted for publication
(2004) are robust and are helpful in coming to conclusions about
the efficacy of the Hoffman Process. For example, depression essentially
disappears a week after the Process. After one year, depression
is still significantly lower [(17%)] as compared to the control
group [(31.2%)]. Other negative symptoms, such as anxiety, interpersonal
sensitivity, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms also show significant
decreases in the short term and maintain those changes after one
year.
The 17% relapse rate for depression for the HQP participants is
low, as compared to other treatment modalities. The researchers
cite Gloaguen et al. (1998) as reporting relapse rates for antidepressant
therapy ranging from 18% to as high as 82%. Cognitive therapies
range from 12% to 46%. Therefore, in this author’s view, the
8-day personal growth program has an excellent side effect for alleviating
depression. Other unwanted negative symptoms such as anxiety, interpersonal
sensitivity, and obsessive-compulsive also show reduced symptomatology.
Importantly, it appears that the literature does not describe
any other programs or interventions that produce stronger and more
lasting reductions in unwanted negative symptoms. What makes this
study unique is that there are also simultaneous and lasting increases
in positive attributes such as emotional intelligence, spirituality,
forgiveness, empathy, and physical energy and vitality. Again,
there is no literature that describes any treatment or intervention
that has the combined effect of decreasing negative affect, while
increasing positive affect. Further research may clarify to what
degree other interventions would have similar results.
Concluding Remarks:
The Hoffman Quadrinity Process is a relatively short-term intervention,
taking eight days. When looking at mild to moderate depression,
it appears to produce at least as good or better results than other
programs, therapies or medications. In addition, positive long-lasting
benefits result, including increased emotional intelligence, spirituality,
forgiveness, empathy, and physical energy and vitality. These research
findings indicate that the overall changes available to a participant
are, by any standard, quite remarkable. Upon reflection of this
latest research, the Hoffman Process is, in this author’s
mind, a reasonable choice for the discriminating consumer. Participants
of the Process can reasonably expect good results, given this UCD
research.
People who are seeking to find a growth program that emphasizes
positive affect change, but wonder about its overall helpfulness,
may be encouraged to know that increases in forgiveness are associated
with better mental and physical health (Worthington et al., 2001).
Further study on the Hoffman Quadrinity Process can help determine
the relationship between positive changes experienced in the Process
and the impact on physical health, effective relationship styles,
the ability to self-motivate, and the ability to create and perform
optimally.
There is a continuing demand for programs that provide results
and for research that demonstrates that they work. Organizations
around the globe are experiencing these demands, and are increasingly
seeking interventions that are more evidence-based, having research
data to support their choices. The discussed research provides such
evidence for the Hoffman Quadrinity Process. Such research goes
beyond the testimonials of past participants or present advocates,
and has a life of its own.
– Ron Meister, Ph.D.
References
- Aldwin, C.M., Cupertino, A.P., Levenson, M.R., & Spiro,
A. III. (1998a). Childhood experiences and health outcomes in
later life. The Gerontologist (abstract), 38, 64.
- Aldwin, C.M., Levenson, M.R., Cupertino, A.P., & Spiro,
A. III. (August, 1998b). Personality, childhood experiences, and
drinking patterns in older men: Findings from the Normative Aging
Study. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of
Behavioral Medicine, Copenhagen. p. 82.
- Andrews, F.M., & Withey, S.B. (1976). Social indicators
of well-being: Americans’ perceptions of life quality. New
York: Plenum Press.
- Beck, A.T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental and theoretical
aspects. New York: Harper & Row.
- Beck, A.T., Steer, R.A., & Brown, G.K. (1996) BDI-II
Manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
- Derogatis, L.R. (1983). SCL.-90-R Revised Manual. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
- Gloaguen, V., Cottraux, J., Cucherat, M. & Blackburn, I.M.
(1998). A meta-analysis of the effects of cognitive therapy in
depressed patients. Journal of Affective Disorders. 49,
59-72.
- Hoffman, B. (1995) The negative love syndrome. San
Anselmo, CA: Hoffman, Institute.
- Ryff, C.D. & Heincke, C.K.E. (1983). Subjective organization
of personality in adulthood and aging. Journal of Personality
& Social Psychology, 44, 807-816.
- Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper,
J.T., Golden, C.J.; Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation
of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality &
Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.
- Stotland, Matthews, K.E., Sherman, S.E., Hanssom, R.V. &
Richardson, B.Z. (1978) Empathy, fantasy, and helping.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
- Wade, S.H. (1989). The development of a scale to measure forgiveness.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Pasadena: Fuller Graduate
School of Psychology.
- Ware, J.E. (1993). SF-36 Health Survey Manual: An interpretation
guide. Boston: New England Medical Center Health Institute.
Read
an interview with University of California researchers Michael Levenson,
Ph.D. and Carolyn Aldwin, Ph.D. »
|
|
