Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An action-project investigation of young adult clients' self-efficacy within individual counselling process Penner, Carey Grayson 2011

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2011_fall_penner_carey.pdf [ 2MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0103336.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0103336-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0103336-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0103336-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0103336-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0103336-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0103336-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0103336-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0103336.ris

Full Text

AN ACTION-PROJECT INVESTIGATION OF YOUNG ADULT CLIENTS‘ SELF-EFFICACY WITHIN INDIVIDUAL COUNSELLING PROCESS by Carey Grayson Penner B.A., Trinity Western University, 1990 M.S., Western Washington University, 1994  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Counselling Psychology)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) May 2011 © Carey Grayson Penner, 2011  ii Abstract This study aimed to describe dynamic interactive manifestations of client self-efficacy within the individual counselling process of young adult clients and professional counsellors. The study reanalyzed data obtained from a previous action-project investigation of 12 counsellor-client dyads who met for up to four sessions to address issues related to the client‘s transition to adulthood. Reanalysis followed a cumulative case study approach (Stake, 2000) and adapted the qualitative analysis procedures of the action-project method (Young, Valach, & Domene, 2005). Two research questions, ―How is client self-efficacy manifest in counselling process?‖ and ―How are perceptions of clients‘ capabilities constructed within the individual and joint action of individual counselling sessions?‖ guided the reanalysis of six target cases. The within case portion of the analysis yielded detailed descriptions of clients‘ self-efficacy beliefs as well as the joint action processes that constructed them. The findings for each case were reduced to a set of assertions and were then compared and contrasted in the cross case analyses. This analytic process generated the following seven summary assertions pertaining to these participants‘ experiences: 1) perceptions of the clients‘ capabilities were embedded throughout all phases of the counselling process including exploration, problem definition, intervention, client change, consolidation of change, and termination; 2) clients‘ efficacious and inefficacious self-evaluations varied with regards to emotional intensity and importance to the counselling process; 3) clients‘ perceptions of self-efficacy regarding basic tasks of counselling were closely tied to the client-counsellor relationship; 4) counsellor and client‘s exploratory joint action helped construct perceptions of capability; 5) the counsellors' use of efficacy questions was accompanied by efficacy construction; 6) significant extratherapy events were incorporated into the joint action that constructed perceptions of the clients‘ capabilities; 7) efficacy construction was observed in powerful parallel processes that aligned clients‘ in-session action with highly important relational goals. These findings are forwarded as knowledge that is close to these  iii participants‘ experience. Though the study‘s research design precludes causal statements or definitive generalizations, the knowledge generated from the participants‘ experience prompts theoretical reflection, invites subsequent research, and may be useful to practitioners seeking to facilitate efficacy construction in their clients.  iv Preface The research reported in this study was approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board according to certificate number B06-0674. This study was part of a larger study on counselling for the transition to adulthood for which Richard Young was the principal investigator and Sheila Marshall was the co-investigator. At various times the research assistants made significant contributions to the collection and analysis of data: Kristen Foulkes, Carla Haber, Celine S. M. Lee, Carey Penner, Hajara Rostram. For the purposes of the study reported in this dissertation, additional data were collected and a different analysis was undertaken.  v Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... v List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... x Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Counselling Process ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 The relationship between counselling process and counselling outcomes ....... 3 1.1.2 Understanding therapeutic change processes .................................................... 4 1.2 Self-Efficacy ................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.1 Self-efficacy beliefs ................................................................................................ 6 1.2.2 Self-efficacy mechanism ....................................................................................... 6 1.2.3 Self-efficacy research ............................................................................................ 8 1.2.4 Career related self-efficacy .................................................................................. 9 1.3 Contextual Action Theory and the Action Project Method .................................... 10 1.4 Statement of Purpose and Research Questions ........................................................ 11 Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Counselling Process .................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 A historical account of the counselling process literature ............................... 13 2.1.2 Methodological options....................................................................................... 17 2.1.3 Career counselling process ................................................................................. 20 2.2 Social Cognitive Theory ............................................................................................. 21 2.2.1 Conceptualizing self-efficacy within social cognitive theory ........................... 23 2.2.1.1 Emergent interactive human agency ............................................................. 24 2.2.1.2 Triadic reciprocal determinism ..................................................................... 25 2.2.1.2 A computational model of human functioning............................................. 26 2.2.1.2.1 Sources of self-efficacy .............................................................................. 27 2.2.1.2.2 Generality principle .................................................................................. 29 2.2.1.2.3 Mediating processes .................................................................................. 32 2.2.1.2.4 Self-efficacy effects .................................................................................... 34 2.2.2 Self-efficacy research .......................................................................................... 34 2.2.2.1 Self-efficacy scales ........................................................................................... 36 2.2.2.2 Seminal self-efficacy research and the microanalytic method .................... 37 2.2.2.3 Self-efficacy expectations and therapeutic change....................................... 40 2.2.2.3.1 Anxiety ....................................................................................................... 41 2.2.2.3.2 Depression .................................................................................................. 45 2.2.2.3.3 Disordered eating ...................................................................................... 46 2.2.2.3.4 Substance abuse ........................................................................................ 47 2.2.2.3.5 Additional research ................................................................................... 50 2.2.3 Philosophical cornerstones of social cognitive theory...................................... 52 2.3 Career Related Self-Efficacy ...................................................................................... 54 2.3.1 Career related self-efficacy scales...................................................................... 55 2.3.1.1 Self-efficacy for educational requirements and occupational tasks ........... 56 2.3.1.2 Self-efficacy and career interest .................................................................... 57 2.3.1.3 Self-efficacy and career process ..................................................................... 58  vi 2.3.2 Social cognitive career theory ............................................................................ 59 2.4 The Contextual Action Theory Framework ............................................................. 61 2.4.1 Conceptual foundations ...................................................................................... 62 2.4.2 Philosophical footings ......................................................................................... 66 2.4.3 Rationale for using the action-project method ................................................. 69 2.4.3.1 Based upon an agentic understanding of human action ............................. 70 2.4.3.2 Capable of describing internal processes ...................................................... 71 2.4.3.3 Accounts for a dynamic bidirectional model of influence ........................... 72 2.4.3.4 Provides a fully contextualized perspective .................................................. 74 2.4.4 An action theoretical perspective on self-efficacy ............................................ 75 Chapter 3: Method ...................................................................................................................... 79 3.1 Initial Study ................................................................................................................. 79 3.1.1 Recruitment ......................................................................................................... 80 3.1.1.1 Young adults .................................................................................................... 81 3.1.1.2 Counsellors ...................................................................................................... 82 3.1.2 Data collection ..................................................................................................... 82 3.1.3 Data analysis ........................................................................................................ 85 3.2 Current Study.............................................................................................................. 88 3.2.1 Pre-analysis design stage .................................................................................... 88 3.2.1.1 Decision to reanalyze ...................................................................................... 89 3.2.1.2 Added data collection protocol ...................................................................... 90 3.2.1.3 Methodological decisions ................................................................................ 91 3.2.1.3.1 Action-project rationale ........................................................................... 91 3.2.1.3.2 Case study approach ................................................................................. 92 3.2.1.3.3 Case selection ............................................................................................. 92 3.2.2 Analysis ................................................................................................................ 93 3.2.2.1 Coding stage .................................................................................................... 94 3.2.2.1.1 Development of the initial codes and coding guidelines ........................ 94 3.2.2.1.2 Coding iterations ....................................................................................... 97 3.2.2.1.3 Final coding system and quality checks ................................................ 100 3.2.2.2 Within case analysis stage ............................................................................ 101 3.2.2.3 Cross case analysis stage .............................................................................. 102 Chapter 4: Findings .................................................................................................................. 103 4.1 Within Case Analyses ............................................................................................... 103 4.1.1 Dyad 1 ................................................................................................................ 104 4.1.1.1 Session one ..................................................................................................... 105 4.1.1.2 Session two ..................................................................................................... 108 4.1.1.3 Session three .................................................................................................. 116 4.1.1.4 Session four .................................................................................................... 121 4.1.1.5 Assertions ....................................................................................................... 126 4.1.2 Dyad 2 ................................................................................................................ 126 4.1.2.1 Session one ..................................................................................................... 127 4.1.2.2 Session two ..................................................................................................... 135 4.1.2.3 Assertions ....................................................................................................... 142 4.1.3 Dyad 3 ................................................................................................................ 143 4.1.3.1 Session one ..................................................................................................... 144 4.1.3.2 Session two ..................................................................................................... 151 4.1.3.3 Session three .................................................................................................. 159 4.1.3.4 Assertions ....................................................................................................... 169  vii 4.1.4 Dyad 4 ................................................................................................................ 169 4.1.4.1 Session one ..................................................................................................... 170 4.1.4.2 Session two ..................................................................................................... 176 4.1.4.3 Session three .................................................................................................. 183 4.1.4.4 Session four .................................................................................................... 189 4.1.4.5 Assertions ....................................................................................................... 194 4.1.5 Dyad ................................................................................................................... 195 4.1.5.1 Session one ..................................................................................................... 196 4.1.5.2 Session two ..................................................................................................... 204 4.1.5.3 Session three .................................................................................................. 209 4.1.5.4 Session four .................................................................................................... 217 4.1.5.5 Assertions ....................................................................................................... 221 4.1.6 Dyad 6 ................................................................................................................ 221 4.1.6.1 Session one ..................................................................................................... 222 4.1.6.2 Session two ..................................................................................................... 230 4.1.6.3 Session three .................................................................................................. 244 4.1.6.4 Session four .................................................................................................... 254 4.1.6.5 Assertions ....................................................................................................... 261 4.2 Cross Case Analyses ................................................................................................. 262 4.2.1 Manifestation of client self-efficacy ................................................................. 262 4.2.2 Constructions of clients’ capabilities............................................................... 264 Chapter 5: Discussion ............................................................................................................... 268 5.1 Situating the Study.................................................................................................... 268 5.2 Methodological Contribution................................................................................... 269 5.3 Implications of the Major Findings ......................................................................... 273 5.3.1 Manifestations of client self-efficacy ............................................................... 273 5.3.1.1 Implications for theory ................................................................................. 273 5.3.1.2 Implications for practice .............................................................................. 275 5.3.2 Self-efficacy construction ................................................................................. 277 5.3.2.1 Implications for theory ................................................................................. 277 5.3.2.2 Implications for practice .............................................................................. 280 5.4 Limitations ................................................................................................................. 284 5.4.1 Self-efficacy construction ................................................................................. 284 5.4.2 Transferability of the findings ......................................................................... 285 5.5 Future Research ........................................................................................................ 287 5.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 288 References .................................................................................................................................. 290 Appendix A: Recruitment Poster ............................................................................................ 317 Appendix B: Online Posting ..................................................................................................... 318 Appendix C: Adolescent Screening Interview ........................................................................ 319 Appendix D: Counsellor Screening Interview ........................................................................ 321 Appendix E: Master Code List for the Initial Study ............................................................. 323 Appendix F: Youth Response Sheet ........................................................................................ 328 Appendix G: Final Coding System Guidelines ....................................................................... 329  viii List of Tables Table 1 Table 2  Characteristics of the Initial Study‘s Data Set....................................................... 80 Characteristics of the Current Study‘s Data Set ................................................... 93  ix List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3  A Three Dimensional Depiction of Action............................................................ 64 Self-Efficacy within Social Cognitive Theory ......................................................76 Self-Efficacy within an Action Theoretical Perspective ....................................... 76  x Acknowledgements I thank professors and mentors from earlier stages in my academic journey for their roles in cultivating interests, building capacity, and developing confidence related to my educational goals. I express gratitude to the faculty and my fellow students at UBC for their encouragement and inspiration during this stage of my academic journey. I acknowledge and thank the team of researchers who helped collect and analyze data for my project. I offer specific thanks to Dr. Richard Young for his significant contributions to all phases of my project, from its conception to its completion; for supporting my autonomy and for providing timely direction. I thank Dr. Beth Haverkamp and Dr. Bruno Zumbo for believing in my project and for asking incisive questions that further strengthened it. I acknowledge and thank Columbia Bible College for providing financial support over an extended study leave. I also thank my colleagues for their expressions of interest and encouragement. I express gratitude to my parents for providing a foundation of support and encouragement over many years. Finally, I reserve my deepest expression of gratitude to Sharon for her sacrificial partnership in this project and her enduring partnership in all aspects of life.  xi Dedication  To Sharon, Riley, and Sydney  1 Chapter 1: Introduction The question of how people change is a longstanding question and a current concern for counselling and psychotherapy process research. Self-efficacy research establishes self-efficacy as a useful construct for understanding therapeutic change (Bandura, 1997). This dissertation, completed as part of a doctoral program in Counselling Psychology, responds to three needs in the counselling process and self-efficacy literatures. First, counselling process researchers have become increasingly focussed on understanding change processes and recognise the need for research that identifies change processes and describes them over time (Pachankis & Goldfried, 2007). Second, though early self-efficacy research forwarded self-efficacy as a primary mechanism of therapeutic change (Bandura, 1977a) and subsequent research identifies client‘s sense of self-efficacy as a governing factor of counselling process (Tschacher, Baur, & Grawe, 2000), counselling process research has not provided rich, thick descriptions of client selfefficacy within and across individual counselling sessions. Finally, social cognitive theory posits a dynamic interactive self-efficacy belief system but the extant self-efficacy research has isolated individual self-efficacy beliefs, relied on static measurement techniques, and neglected contextual influences. Contextual action theory serves as the guiding theoretical framework for the dissertation (Valach, Young, & Lynam, 2002). It conceptualizes human experience as goaldirected action and provides a contextualist lens and a qualitative method of inquiry, the actionproject method (Young, et al., 2005), which are useful for describing self-efficacy as a dynamic interactive change process of counselling. 1.1  Counselling Process Counselling process research is an essential enterprise of counselling psychology, one  that increases knowledge of individual counselling thereby providing opportunities for  2 improving practice. Efforts to research the complex dynamics and multifaceted happenings of individual counselling sessions contribute incrementally to the goals of describing and explaining change mechanisms occurring within individual counselling. Previous research provides a richly detailed depiction of numerous aspects of counselling process (see Hill & Williams, 2000 for a review). Nonetheless, the complexity of human functioning and intricacy of human interaction provide innumerable challenges and opportunities for counselling process researchers. The discovery and ongoing elaboration of counselling processes remains a significant goal for counselling psychology. In its broadest sense counselling process, also referred to as therapy or psychotherapy process, involves everything that goes on within counselling sessions or ―what happens in psychotherapy sessions‖(Hill & Lambert, 2004, p. 84). Hill and Williams‘ (2000, p. 670) more descriptive and oft cited definition describes counselling process as the ―overt and covert thoughts, feelings, and behaviours of both clients and therapists during therapy sessions.‖ Their description of process proceeds to distinguish it from other variables that are important to individual counselling, things such as input variables, extratherapy events, and counselling outcomes. Input variables encompass all that has shaped and influenced counsellors and clients prior to the beginning of counselling whereas extratherapy events references all of the noncounselling experiences occurring after the commencement of counselling. The specific variables of interest to counselling process researchers are those variables that influence, positively or negatively, counselling processes occurring within the session and the session‘s outcomes. Counselling outcomes refers to all of the effects of counselling.  3 1.1.1 The relationship between counselling process and counselling outcomes The relationship between counselling process and counselling outcomes is complex and ultimately somewhat obscure. Orlinsky and his colleagues articulated an intricate, highly detailed generic model of psychotherapy as a way of distinguishing and integrating input, process, and outcome variables (Orlinsky, Grawe, & Parks, 1994; Orlinsky, Rennestad, & Willutzki, 2004). In terms of the process-outcome distinction, this model specifies ―in-session impacts‖ as change that occurs during a session and distinguishes it from ―postsession impact.‖ Others have used the phrases little o‘s and big O‘s to distinguish between in-session impacts and postsession outcomes (Greenberg & Pinsof, 1986). In-session impacts or small outcomes are considered part of counselling process and include both positive and negative impacts occurring during a counselling session (i.e., insight vs. confusion, relief vs. distress, self-efficacy vs. dependence, etc.) where as postsession impact refers to outcomes that are evidenced outside of the counselling relationship (i.e., changes in symptoms, personal adaptation, communication skills, etc) (Orlinsky, et al., 2004). Although in-session impacts are considered to be a part of counselling process, these internal changes processes are also recognized as valuable outcomes of therapeutic intervention and are often conceptualized as such within outcomes research (Orlinsky, et al., 2004). In many regards it is the goals and objectives of the researcher and the resultant research design that determine whether internal change processes are viewed as a process or an outcome. Researchers treat variables as outcome variables when they view them as the end goal of therapeutic intervention, measure them at the conclusion of counselling, and compared participants‘ scores across different intervention conditions. Researchers interested in counselling processes may study in-session changes that are facilitated by therapeutic  4 intervention but they conceptualize the in-session change as a change that produces some other definable outcome. Furthermore, although process researchers study psychological processes that contribute to outcomes, they are focused on describing and understanding psychological processes. They may omit outcome measures in their designs, are more likely to investigate variables across time, and may employ qualitative procedures that produce rich descriptions of change processes. 1.1.2 Understanding therapeutic change processes Though interest in therapeutic change is as old as the first efforts to help people change, Hans Eysenck‘s (1952) negative evaluation of psychotherapy‘s effects helped transform this interest into a formal research agenda. The Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures (1995) represents a more recent impetus for research aimed at understanding therapeutic change processes. The Task Force, which reviewed the existing outcomes research according to a strict set of research standards and listed treatments according to their demonstrated effectiveness in treating specific disorders, precipitated what has been referred to as a great debate (Wampold, 2001) and a culture war (Messer, 2004). The debate is over methodological and interpretive differences regarding therapeutic change research. Though the debate, which ―taps into broad worldviews in matters psychological that divide many applied psychologists‖ (Messer, 2004, p. 581), remains unresolved, it has generated renewed interest in understanding change processes. The question of ―Does therapy work?‖ has given way to the question, ―How does therapy work?‖ The goal of understanding how therapy works brings a joint focus on outcome and process. The combined emphasis on process and outcome is evident in Castonguay and Beutler‘s (2006) Principles of therapeutic change that work. The task force that produced this edited book  5 reviewed the existing process-outcome research and sought to identify and describe common principles of change relevant to dysphoric, anxiety, personality, and substance use disorders. The search for principles of change is ongoing and is seen as a potentially unifying endeavor for psychotherapy research (Goldfried & Burum, 2007). Principles of therapeutic change that work precipitated a special issue of Clinical Psychology Review entitled ―New approaches to the study of change in cognitive behavioral therapies.‖ Though the articles in this issue addressed a range of clinical topics and utilized a variety of methodological approaches, they were unified in seeking to identify underlying mechanisms of change. Pachankis and Goldfried‘s (2007) closed the issue with an article focused on future process research. They declare that, ―The overarching goal of process research in general and the methods described in this issue is to identify mechanisms of change‖ (Pachankis & Goldfried, 2007, p. 762). 1.2  Self-Efficacy It was over thirty years ago that Albert Bandura (1977a) forwarded self-efficacy as a  primary mechanism of therapeutic change and the core construct needed for a unifying theory of behavioural change. This bold assertion was quickly followed by empirical and conceptual support that situated self-efficacy as an important person factor within triadic reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1978) and the key mechanism in human agency (Bandura, 1982). Social cognitive theory emerged as the aforementioned unifying theory of behavioral change (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy became social cognitive theory‘s most widely research construct and the point of entry into understanding human agency (Bandura, 1997). Yet despite Bandura‘s early assertion, the rapid evolution of social cognitive theory, and the proliferation of self-efficacy research, there is need for counselling process research that describes self-efficacy as a common change process of individual counselling. This dissertation responds to that need.  6 1.2.1 Self-efficacy beliefs Social cognitive theory defines self-efficacy as the ability to exercise control over human functioning. This fundamental human capacity is operationalized as perceptions of self-efficacy commonly labeled as self-efficacy beliefs or self-efficacy expectancies. By definition, ―perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one‘s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments‖ (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Perceived self-efficacy is a judgment of capability that is understood according to a behavioural referent. It is not a global trait or a general disposition that extends to all areas of life but is a specific belief regarding a specific capability; people have beliefs about whether or not they can perform a given behavioural task. Social cognitive theory does, however, conceptualize individuals as possessing a dynamically organized belief structure with self-efficacy beliefs for all areas of human function. This theoretical tenet suggests that individuals in counselling will have self-efficacy beliefs regarding any and all issues that they hope to address in their counselling sessions. The tenet is important to Bandura‘s assertion that the self-efficacy mechanism is the underlying process of therapeutic change (Bandura, 1977a). This tenet is also important for the argument forwarded here, namely that the self-efficacy functions as an underlying change process within individual counselling. 1.2.2 Self-efficacy mechanism Social cognitive theory provides a detailed framework for understanding the role of selfefficacy beliefs in human experience (Bandura, 1986, 1999, 2001). Bandura uses the phrase selfefficacy mechanism to reference the mediating role that self-efficacy beliefs serve within human experience (Bandura, 1982; Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Bandura, Cervone, Higgins, & Kruglanski, 2000; Bandura & Schwarzer, 1992). The theory and the associated empirical  7 research describe the mediating role in connection to a range of other constructs including basic human capabilities (i.e., symbolizing, vicarious, forethought, self-regulatory, & self-reflective), antecedent experience (sources of self-efficacy), internal processes (i.e., selection, motivational, affective, and cognitive), and contextual factors, and confer self-efficacy beliefs a causal role for all human behaviour. Self-efficacy research demonstrates predictive and causal relationships between perceived self-efficacy and human behaviour. The strength and level of one‘s self-efficacy beliefs function as causal determinants of whether one will attempt a particular behavioral enactment as well as the strength, persistence, and quality of one‘s behavioural response; selfefficacious thought leads strong, persistent, and high quality responses (summarized in Bandura, 1997). The research demonstrating these causal relationships encompasses a variety of task domains including coping behaviour in relation to feared objects (Bandura, Reese, & Adams, 1982), problem solving (Cervone, 1989; Cervone & Peake, 1986; Jacobs, Prentice-Dunn, & Rogers, 1984), muscular endurance (Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979), and control of physiological activity using biofeedback (Holroyd & et al., 1984). Research supporting a predictive role for self-efficacy for self-efficacy beliefs expands this list to include numerous additional human functions such as non-avoidant participatory behaviour (Ozer & Bandura, 1990), decision making (Bandura & Jourden, 1991), physical exercise (Dzewaltowski, 1989), dental hygiene (McCaul, O'Neill, & Glasgow, 1988), academic achievement (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984; Siegel, Galassi, & Ware, 1985), and occupational preferences (Wheeler, 1983). In addition to highlighting the influence that self-efficacy beliefs have on all human behaviour, the phrase self-efficacy mechanism also emphasizes their position relative to other social cognitive theory constructs. It is an economical way of referencing the role and function of  8 self-efficacy beliefs in human experience and a clear acknowledgement of the dynamic interactive system within which they function. The mediating role of the self-efficacy mechanism makes it a suitable target for a counselling process study aimed at describing change processes. The dynamic interactive system within which it functions establishes stringent methodological and conceptual requirements for researchers who aim to describe self-efficacy as a change process of individual counselling. 1.2.3 Self-efficacy research The vast majority of self-efficacy research operationalizes self-efficacy using one or more self-efficacy scales. These self-report inventories list behavioural tasks specific to particular domains of function and ask respondents to rate how confident they are in their ability to complete each task. Respondents‘ total scores represent the strength of their self-efficacy beliefs for the domain of function in question at the time of measurement. Change in selfefficacy beliefs is established by comparing scores across two or more time periods. Though this static measurement approach is suitable for establishing the occurrence of change over a period of time, it is not amenable for research that seeks to describe self-efficacy as a dynamic interactive change process. The approach also appears to be somewhat inconsistent with the dynamic non-linear computational model of human functioning that social cognitive theory embeds self-efficacy beliefs within (Bandura, 2001). Self-efficacy changes occurring as the result of counselling occur within and across individual counselling sessions and thus should be evident in the moment by moment interactions of clients and counsellors. What is needed is a measurement approach capable of capturing the moment by moment action of individual counselling sessions.  9 Self-efficacy research also faces methodological challenges related to the contextual influences enfolding human experience. Social cognitive theory roots human functioning within social systems and asserts that human experience is ―socially interdependent, richly contextualized, and conditionally orchestrated within the dynamics of various societal subsystems and their complex interplay (Bandura, 2001, p. 5). Though self-efficacy beliefs are key determinants of self-influence, they are also embedded within a rich set of social systems. Bandura (2001) concedes the shortcomings of current research approaches and calls for a more comprehensive approach that is capable of integrating personal and social foci. This methodological challenge is particularly pertinent to research that aims to describe self-efficacy as a dynamic interactive change process of individual counselling. 1.2.4 Career related self-efficacy The proliferation of self-efficacy research is such that this rather straightforward construct drives innumerable research programs relevant to a seemingly endless array of subjects within psychology including such diverse subjects as internet use (Chu, 2010), nursing (Lee & Ko, 2010), teaching (Klassen & Chiu, 2010), fruit and vegetable consumption (Richert et al., 2010), child protection service (Chen & Scannapieco, 2010), investing (Forbes & Kara, 2010), condom use (Maticka-Tyndale & Tenkorang, 2010), and diabetes management (Schokker et al., 2010). Although the self-efficacy literature within vocational psychology represents but one subset of this large body of research it is a significant one for several reasons. First of all, vocational psychology has been, and continues to be, a fruitful domain for self-efficacy research and the large body of career related self-efficacy research contributes to the validation of the social cognitive theory. Secondly, career related self-efficacy research has spawned a subsidiary theoretical work aptly named social cognitive career theory. Finally, the vast collection of career  10 related self-efficacy scales that have been developed focus on career development tasks (i.e., exploration & decision making) that are highly pertinent to young adults who are transitioning to adulthood. 1.3  Contextual Action Theory and the Action Project Method Contextual action theory (Valach, Young, et al., 2002) has emerged as a valuable  framework useful for conceptualizing all manner of human experience. Though its development and application has been somewhat eclectic spanning diverse disciplines such as nursing, psychiatry, social work, and psychology, its main application has been within vocational psychology. This core area of psychology is enriched by the unique perspectives and methodology offered by the contextual action theory framework and the action-project method. The theoretical framework, in turn, has enjoyed the solid grounding and fertile soil provided by vocational psychology. Career development and the transition to adulthood have been particularly valuable subjects of inquiry for action theory as is evidenced by a growing literature that seeks to describe the transition to adulthood as goal directed joint action (Young et al., 1999; Young, Lynam, et al., 2001; Young et al., 2006; Young, Valach, et al., 2001; Young et al., 1997). My research harnesses this synergy and extends the action theory framework to encompass additional areas of vocational psychology, namely career related self-efficacy. Contextual action theory conceptualizes human experience as intentional goal-directed action and seeks to understand human behaviour according to the intentional framework of individual and joint actors (Valach, Young, et al., 2002; Young, et al., 2005). Intentions and goals are a primary focus of the framework and method (Young, et al., 2005). They serve an integrative function for a three dimensional model of action and provide a foundation for understanding human experience as processes occurring across time. The intentional framework  11 of two or more actors also serves as a basis for identifying shared meanings that contextualize human experience. These two characteristics, the capacity to describe human experience as a process occurring over time and the capacity to contextualize human experience according to a rich set of shared meanings, address critical limitations of previous self-efficacy research. They also make the action-project method particularly useful for research aimed at describing client self-efficacy as a dynamic interactive process of individual counselling. 1.4  Statement of Purpose and Research Questions The current study responds to the need for new knowledge on therapeutic change  processes. It extends previous research by describing dynamic manifestations of client selfefficacy within the counselling process of young adult clients and professional counsellors. This aim was achieved through the use of an established qualitative research method and by answering two research questions. The first question asked, ―How is client self-efficacy manifest in counselling process?‖ The second question was, ―How are perceptions of clients‘ capabilities constructed within the individual and joint action of individual counselling sessions?‖  12 Chapter 2: Literature Review The rationale for investigating self-efficacy within general counselling process goes beyond Bandura‘s (1977a) early declaration and encompasses a complex array of empirical, conceptual, methodological, and philosophical arguments. These arguments, which draw from several distinct yet related areas of psychology, are developed and articulated throughout this chapter; the presentation of these arguments occurs in four separate sections. The first section outlines the counselling process literature to which this study will speak. The second section summarizes social cognitive theory, including its constructs, conceptual model, methodological strategy, foundational research, and philosophical commitments. The third section examines a more focal extension of social cognitive theory, namely social cognitive career theory and the career related self-efficacy research. The final section describes contextual action theory and articulates my rationale for using the action-project method to describe client self-efficacy as intentional, goal-directed action. 2.1  Counselling Process To investigate self-efficacy within counselling process one must comprehend previous  attempts to understand and describe counselling process. This is no small task given the scope and depth of the counselling process literature, a multifarious literature that spans more than 50 years and includes numerous specific lines of inquiry. Those who attempt to summarize the individual counselling process literature must choose between a cursory overview of the major lines of research or a detailed account of past and present findings, an account that would require copious pages. Perhaps this is why the latest edition of the Handbook of counseling psychology by Brown and Lent (2008) broke from the precedent established by previous editions and provided neither type of summary. Instead, the editors offer a number of more focused chapters  13 that summarize specific lines of research within the broader category. I‘ve chosen to anchor my dissertation in a concise overview of the individual counselling process literature. Having defined counselling process in the first chapter and distinguished it from counselling outcomes, this chapter provides a historical context that identifies several important lines of research within the counselling process literature and discusses the current state of counselling process research along with some contemporary methodological options available to counselling process researchers. I end my coverage of the counselling process literature with a brief discussion of career counselling process research, an emerging specialty of the broader category that is particularly relevant to my project. 2.1.1 A historical account of the counselling process literature Although the historical context of counselling process research is important, a systematic and full account of the history of process research is well beyond the scope of this paper. Hill and Corbett (1993) provide a detailed account of this history paying particular attention to the contributions of counselling psychologists. Orlinsky et al (2004) provide a shorter albeit more current account of the historical context of counselling process research, an account that is more focused on contributions from clinical psychology and that is followed by a detailed summary of counselling process findings. Both sources inform the presentation that follows. Hill and William‘s (2000) summative presentation on ―The process of individual therapy‖ illuminates a useful framework for understanding the findings that have emerged from this body of research. My brief review aims to provide a historical context useful for understanding current counselling process research while also identifying specific research pertinent to the current study. Orlinsky et al (2004) divide the history of counselling process research into four main phases. They label the first phase as a preparatory period where the main struggle and  14 accomplishment entailed establishing a role for scientific research. This important period, which ran from the 1920‘s to the 1950‘s, led the way to the second phase (50‘s and 60‘s), a phase that is noteworthy for two significant methodological innovations. The first innovation involved the widespread use of audio recording equipment in counselling process research. Although Carl Rogers was an important pioneer in this area, Hill and Corbett (1993) credit his Ohio State University predecessor, Frank Robinson, with the first counselling process research program. Nonetheless Rogers‘ (1957) seminal counselling process article entitled, ―The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality changed,‖ inspired and continues to inspire significant counselling process research. The other counselling process innovation to gain popularity during this period was a shift to include participant observations such as rating scales and questionnaires. Interestingly, both the use of electronic recording equipment and a prizing of participants‘ phenomenal experience are important aspects of the action-project method that I used in my research. Orlinsky et al (2004) describe the third phase (c. 1970-1985) as a period of widespread growth, one which saw the differentiation and organization of various lines of counselling process research. Hill and Corbett (1993) identify the Rogers‘ inspired skills training line of research as being foundational to current understandings of counselling process. Of the three skills training models that they identify the interpersonal process recall model (Kagan, 1975; Kagan, Krathwohl, & Miller, 1963) is of particular significance to the current study. The interpersonal process recall model is particularly important because of the video assisted recall procedure that Kagan used to access participants‘ thoughts and emotions. This valuable procedure was adapted in subsequent counselling process research aimed at understanding counsellor intentions and client reactions (Hill, Helms, Spiegel, & Tichenor, 1988;  15 Hill, O'Grady, Balenger, & Busse, 1994; Hill, Thompson, & Corbett, 1992; Thompson & Hill, 1991) and served as a strategic methodological tool for the cognitive mediational paradigm forwarded by Jack Martin and his colleagues (Martin, Martin, Meyer, & Slemon, 1986; Martin, Martin, & Slemon, 1989). Martin (1984) identifies video assisted recall as a tool that provides improved access to participants‘ cognitive processes, access that is superior to indirect measures of cognitive processes like ―Bandura‘s self-efficacy scales‖ (p. 559). I share Martin‘s conviction regarding the advantages of a video assisted recall procedure and used the self-confrontation procedure of the action-project method to identify and describe clients‘ self-efficacy beliefs. The third phase of process research also saw increased interest in and expanded application of Bordin‘s (1979) conceptualization of the working alliance. Bordin‘s classic definition, which identifies three key aspects of the working alliance including 1) agreement between the client and counsellor on the goals of counselling goals; 2) agreement on the tasks of counselling; and 3) the quality of bond between counsellor and client, is highly pertinent to my proposal. This definition is important to the current study because the action theoretical framework that guides the study conceptualizes human experience in terms of mutual goals and joint actions and provides a method that is capable of describing the joint-projects that emerge in counsellor and client interactions. Rice and Greenberg‘s (1984) task analysis represents an important methodological development of the third phase of counselling process research. This mixed method is highly structured and provides an intensive set of data analysis procedures that help researchers specify and track important process events over time (Greenberg, 2007). More specifically, it helps counselling process researchers investigate the ―key, critical, decisive, or auspicious moments‖ that lead to psychological change (Hill & Williams, 2000, p. 694). It also provides researchers  16 with a rational-empirical method useful for developing and testing models that fit with what counsellors do in their practices. In fact, task analysis and other events oriented research have led to important knowledge generation regarding things like problematic reaction points, insight, creation of meaning, dream interpretation, and metaphors (Hill & Williams, 2000). Orlinsky et al (2004) express some uncertainty regarding the fourth and current stage of counselling process research; they indicate that its temporal closeness obscured their view and prevented them from making definitive statements regarding its characteristics. They do, however, identify a number of key descriptors for this time period including consolidation, standardization, elaboration, critique, innovation, and controversy. Consolidation, standardization, and elaboration are descriptors that attest to the sizeable accumulation of counselling process research observed during this phase. Established lines of research grew and developed in this time period as did the methods used to support them. Hill and Williams (2000) well organized review of counselling process research provides an excellent taxonomy of the various lines of research as well as the basic findings. Although my study does not aim to address a specific line of research in the counselling process literature there are several areas for which my findings may be relevant. The aforementioned alliance research is pertinent given its emphasis on mutual goals and common tasks. Research regarding interpersonal complementarity and relational control is similarly relevant. Finally, there are lines of research aimed at the covert processes of clients and of counsellors. These areas are relevant given that self-efficacy beliefs function as covert processes and the action-project method contains procedures designed to access participants‘ internal processes. Of the other descriptors used to describe the most recent period of counselling process research, innovation and controversy are of particular interest. Innovation refers to the  17 development and the ―progressively greater acceptance of qualitative research‖ (Orlinsky, et al., 2004, p. 309). Hill and Williams (2000) echo this important observation, as do I. The increasing acceptance and valuing of qualitative research is important given that that my qualitative study investigated a widely research construct, one fully embedded within quantitative research methodology and the postpositivist paradigm. I anticipate that a qualitative investigation rooted within a constructivist paradigm may meet with some resistance in the wider academic community but will also generate valuable findings that open the door for meaningful dialogue (Martin & Sugarman, 1997, 2000). Fittingly, the word controversy references the empirically supported treatment movement along with its emphatic reliance on outcome research employing randomized clinical trials (Chambless & Ollendick, 2001; Chambless et al., 1996). This kind of strict reliance on narrowly conceived research evidence provides little basis for a qualitative counselling process study. In contrast to these narrow parameters, my study finds support in the evidence based practice approach (Messer, 2004), an approach that welcomes a wider range of evidence including qualitative process research. My study is also highly congruent with my strong commitment to an agentic view of persons and my desire to generate knowledge that will help clients experience personal agency within and outside of counselling sessions. 2.1.2 Methodological options Methodological pluralism represents a vital outcome of the last phase of counselling process research. This critical outcome has emerged despite palpable pressure to adopt a single gold standard for counselling research (Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures, 1995). Ironically, I believe the movement toward highly controlled experimental designs has revealed the importance and indispensable value of process research that is closer to the lived experience of participants and more reflective of counselling process‘  18 complexity as well as the intricacy of human interaction. It would seem that the age old tension between internal and external validity continues to push researchers to increasingly sophisticated methodologies. Consequently, counselling process researchers are faced with a variety of methodological alternatives from which to choose. This includes advanced quantitative statistical procedures reflective of the postpositivist perspective as well as innovative qualitative procedures that fall within a range of philosophical positions including the postpositivism, constructivism-interpretivism, and critical-ideological perspectives. Hill and Corbett‘s (2000) review of individual counselling process research identifies a number of advanced analytic approaches useful for analyzing counselling process data. This includes sequential analyses, time-series analyses, multilevel modeling (i.e., hierarchical linear modeling), and structural equation modeling. Although the mathematical machinery of these approaches is diverse each approach is valuable for understanding intricate relationships among numerous variables as measured across time. They are also similar in their ability to connect counselling processes to counselling outcomes. Alan Kazdin (2006, 2007) advocates for psychotherapy research that more adequately connects counselling processes to counselling outcomes. More specifically, he calls for psychotherapy research that illuminates the mechanisms and mediators of therapeutic change while lamenting their absence in the literature. As with Hill and Williams (2000), he advocates for the use of advanced statistical approaches such as multiple regression based techniques, path analysis, structural equation modeling, and bootstrap methods. His impassioned plea also specifies important design issues like random assignment, multiple waves of data collection, multivariate approaches, and so forth. Laurenceau, Hayes, and Feldman (2007) echo Kazdin‘s call for multiple waves of data and for statistical procedures that model growth over time. While  19 in some regard these methodological alternatives are well suited for a counselling process investigation of the self-efficacy mechanism, there are significant conceptual issues that this kind of approach may have difficulty contending with. I address the conceptual issues in the subsequent section of this chapter dealing with social cognitive theory. Suffice to say now that the conceptual issues pose prohibitive methodological challenges for the types of quantitative investigations that Kazdin advocates for. Fortunately, ―qualitative research can provide a finegrained analysis by intensively evaluating the richness and details of the process, including who changes and how change unfolds, and who does not change and what might be operative there‖ (Kazdin, 2007, p. 20). I concur with Kazdin‘s elucidation of the positive merits of qualitative research and have responded with a study that describes self-efficacy in the counselling process of young adult-counsellor dyads. Hill and Williams (2000) also identify some promising qualitative research methods useful for investigating counselling process. These include grounded theory, phenomenology, comprehensive process analysis, and consensual qualitative research. The stated advantages of these qualitative approaches involve their capacity to describe counselling process in terms of its rich detail, the inner experiences of participants, its context, and the specific sequences occurring within sessions. Hill and Williams‘ exemplars are Rennie‘s (1994) grounded theory study of clients‘ deference, Bachelor‘s (1995) phenomenological analysis of clients‘ perceptions of the therapeutic alliance, Elliott et al.‘s (1994) comprehensive process analysis of insight events, and Knox et al.‘s (1997) consensual qualitative research study of clients‘ perceptions of therapist self-disclosure. The current trend in North American qualitative counselling process research is toward employing consensual qualitative research (i.e., Burkard, Knox, Groen, Perez, & Hess, 2006; Gazzola & Stalikas, 2004; Gray, Ladany, Walker, & Ancis, 2001; Knox, Burkard,  20 Johnson, Suzuki, & Ponterotto, 2003). Though not found within these lists, the action-project method possesses the advantages identified above and is forwarded as a qualitative method particularly valuable for counselling process research (Young, et al., 2005). That the actionproject method and the contextual action theory framework are highly amendable to career issues (Young & Valach, 2004; Young, Valach, & Collin, 1996, 2002) make the method particularly well suited for describing the self-efficacy of young adults seeking help with their transition to adulthood. 2.1.3 Career counselling process In 1993, Hill and Corbett‘s review of counselling process research noted a dearth of career counselling process research. Ten years later two leading counselling process researchers draw a similar conclusion asserting that, ―remarkably little is known about what underlying processes and mechanisms lead to effective change in career counseling‖ (Heppner & Heppner, 2003, p. 429). Recent reviews published in Career Development Quarterly highlight the importance of career counselling process studies while also commenting on their absence in the literature (Dagley & Salter, 2004; Guindon & Richmond, 2005). The latest Annual Review of Psychology article summarizing vocational research says little to indicate that the status of counselling process has changed (Fouad, 2007). All told, there is a great need for career counselling process research. Whiston and Rahardja (2008) provide the most current summary of career counselling process and outcome research. Unfortunately, their review of process research is decidedly outcome oriented in its focus as is evidenced in the following main heading, ―What processes produce the best results?‖ (p. 450). What follows this heading is a description of five critical ingredients whose effects are supported by three published meta-analyses (Brown & Ryan  21 Krane, 2000; Brown et al., 2003; Healy, 2001). The critical ingredients include the use of written exercises, the provision of individualized interpretation and feedback, the presentation of occupational information, modeling, and efforts to build rapport. That these counsellor initiated interventions are effective tools and that outcome oriented process research is valuable are not the issues. The issue is that the authors‘ review fails to uncover career counselling process research that is, well, more process oriented; attention to rapport building is the lone exception of their list. This general failure would appear to be reflective of the literature that they review. It is also consistent with one of Heppner and Heppner‘s (2003) explanations regarding the scarcity of career counselling process research, namely that many perceive career counselling to be void of process. I contend, as do Heppner and Heppner, that career counselling involves important processes worth describing and that rich descriptions of career counselling processes constitute valuable knowledge useful for career counselling practitioners. It is with this in mind that I described self-efficacy in the process of individual counselling, a particular application of individual counselling that is akin to broad based career counselling because it is focused on the transitional issues of young adults. 2.2  Social Cognitive Theory Albert Bandura‘s articulation of social cognitive theory is not the only one presented  within the psychological literature; Julian Rotter (1954) and Walter Mischel (1973) have each offered alternative theories (Maddux, 1994). Bandura‘s formulation has, however, risen in prominence to the point where it has become somewhat synonymous with the more general label. As the name indicates, social cognitive theory draws from two foundational areas of psychology. The dual focus on social and cognitive factors is useful for conceptualizing  22 counselling process in that it encompasses both the interpersonal and intrapersonal aspects of counselling process. The social aspect of Bandura‘s framework grew out of the classic Bobo doll studies on observational learning (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961, 1963a, 1963b). Based upon these findings and subsequent research Bandura provided a social learning analysis of aggression (Bandura, 1973), and highlighted the importance of vicarious processes in behaviour modification practices (Bandura, 1969). His research and theorizing regarding vicarious process led to the development of social learning theory (Bandura, 1977b) and the articulation of triadic reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1978), both of which endorse an important causal role for social factors. This theoretical development yielded social cognitive theory, a theory that embeds self-efficacy within a socially interdependent and richly contextualized model of human functioning (Bandura, 1999, 2001). The Bobo doll studies also allowed Bandura to break open the black box of radical behaviourism and to incorporate cognitive variables into his theorizing and research. Selfefficacy emerged as an important cognitive construct (Bandura, 1977a, 1982) and social learning theory (Bandura, 1977b) quickly evolved into social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). The computational model of human functioning became a central feature of the theory and the microanalytic research model provided a methodological strategy for understanding the human condition. Social cognitive theory became focused on the relationship between input and output variables as well as the mediating role of specific cognitive factors, most notably self-efficacy beliefs. Thus, social cognitive theory also embeds self-efficacy within a within a dynamically organized computational model of human functioning, a distinctly agentic model (Bandura,  23 2001). The computational and agentic aspects of the model are described in detail in subsequent sections of this review of social cognitive theory. 2.2.1 Conceptualizing self-efficacy within social cognitive theory Social cognitive theory provides a rich and elaborate theoretical framework for envisioning self-efficacy within counselling process. The framework ascribes self-efficacy as a central role in all areas of human functioning including that occurring within counselling. The centrality of self-efficacy in human experience is reflected in over 40 years of research and theoretical evolution. This vast literature is united by its singular operational strategy, that of assessing self-efficacy beliefs in connection to antecedent, concurrent, and resultant conditions and events. Consequently, social cognitive theory‘s development and substantiation are inextricably connected to the operationalization of self-efficacy and the proliferation of selfefficacy scales, an activity that has extended the self-efficacy to innumerable domains of human function. The inseparability of social cognitive theory and self-efficacy research is clearly stated in Bandura‘s (2006b) Guide for creating self-efficacy scales where he states, ―The construct of self-efficacy is embedded in a theory that explains a network of relationships among various factors.... Construct validation is an ongoing process in which both the validity of the postulated causal structure in the conceptual scheme and the self-efficacy measures are being assessed‖ (p. 319). As stated within the introductory chapter, social cognitive theory defines self-efficacy as the ability to exercise control over human functioning. Self-efficacy beliefs refer to the specific perceptions people have regarding their capability to exercise control of their functions. Social cognitive theory conceptualizes self-efficacy beliefs, also referred to as self-efficacy percepts or self efficacy expectancies, in reference to particular domains of function and specific behavioural  24 enactments. People hold individual self-efficacy beliefs for all behaviour that they enact or consider enacting. The composite of one‘s self-efficacy beliefs functions as a dynamically organized self-efficacy belief structure. The dynamically organized self-efficacy belief structure serves a mediating role between environmental inputs and behavioural outputs and is the key component of the dynamically interactive computation model of human functioning ascribed by social cognitive theory. Emergent interactive agency and triadic reciprocal determinism represent the primary theoretical statements that define this model. As such they provide a theoretical structure within which to understand the role and function of self-efficacy. 2.2.1.1  Emergent interactive human agency Emergent interactive agency is an elaborate construct, rich with meaning, and inseparable  from the theory‘s assumptive foundation. Simply put, agents act on the world around them. In Bandura‘s (2001) words, ―to be an agent is to intentionally make things happen by one‘s actions‖ (p. 2). Agents are self-regulators capable of intentional action; they are people who exercise selfinfluence. That said, emergent interactive human agency espouses a particular form of selfinfluence ―where persons are neither autonomous agents nor simply mechanical conveyers of animating environmental influences‖ (Bandura, 1989, p. 1175). The words emergent and interactive qualify the meaning of self-influence so as to distinguish it from other forms, most notably mechanical agency and autonomous agency. In contrast to mechanical agency, emergent interactive agency posits the capacity for genuine self-influence, self-influence that is not reducible to a complex set of antecedent events or a current neurophysiological state (Bandura, 1989). Thus, although SCT takes a non-dualistic stance on the relationship between neural events and thought process, it does not reduce  25 cognitive experience to an epiphenomenal status whereby it is completely determined by brain function. Instead, cognitive processes in general, and self-efficacy beliefs more specifically, are viewed as emergent properties that are qualitatively different from the constituent elements that give rise to them, namely the physical properties of the body (Bandura, 2001). Consequently, human thought processes are ascribed generative, creative, proactive, and self-influencing capabilities and do not operate according to mechanical agency where thought is fully explained by neural events. Social cognitive theory also rejects autonomous agency whereby self-influence is seen as being free of other sources of influence. Sperry‘s (1993) upward and downward causation is drawn upon to describe the complex and dynamic interaction of cognitive events and sensory stimulation that gives rise to the neurophysiological properties of the brain and the equally important agentic properties of the person (Bandura, 1999). Upward causation refers to the causal influence of the environment as it is detected through sensory processes and directed toward the brain. Downward causation refers to the various ways in which one regulates action and thought cognitively. In this way social cognitive theory advocates for interactive emergent agency whereby self-influence occurs in the context of other influences. 2.2.1.2  Triadic reciprocal determinism Triadic reciprocal determinism is the principle used to understand the complex  interaction of influences that converge upon human experience. The principle posits three categories of influence including person factors, environmental factors, and behavior and casts them in an interdependent causal system characterized by bidirectional influence (Bandura, 1997). Person factors are inclusive of every aspect of the person including biological, cognitive, and affective domains. Environmental factors are seen in an equally inclusive manner and  26 include imposed, selected, and constructed environments (Bandura, 1999). Manifest behavior represents the third class of influence in this interdependent causal structure and encompasses everything a person does. Triadic reciprocal determinism asserts bidirectional influence between all three factors. Individuals exert a causal influence on their environments while remaining causally influenced by their environments. Individuals are agentic in their actions and in turn they are shaped by the behaviours they enact. Finally, although contexts are shaped and determined by the behaviour of agents, contexts also elicit behaviour. All told, triadic reciprocal determinism provides a conceptual scheme useful for specifying the form of self-influence forwarded by emergent interactive agency. Social cognitive theory regards personal agency as the essence of humanness, a state or condition that is intrinsic to being human (Bandura, 2001). The theory elevates the role of person factors within the triadic system and identifies self-efficacy as the central explanatory mechanism within this system. Personal agency involves exercising control over one‘s cognitive function, making choices, acting with intention, and determining outcomes (Bandura, 1989). Self-efficacy beliefs function as person factors and have a determinative influence on these two other factors. They are the primary mechanism of self-influence and are referred to as the central feature of human agency (Bandura, 1989, 1997, 2001). They are also subject to the behavioural and environmental influences identified within the triadic system and are therefore at the centre of the theory‘s agentic model of human functioning. 2.2.1.2  A computational model of human functioning Though social cognitive theory holds to an agentic view of persons, it also locates self-  efficacy within a dynamically organized computational model of human functioning (Bandura,  27 2001). In keeping with a computational model, social cognitive theory specifies a set of inputs, mediating process, and outputs that are intricately tied to the development and operation of selfefficacy beliefs. These important theoretical postulates enhance the theoretical framework and provide additional support for conceptualizing self-efficacy within counselling process. I describe these postulates in order to place self-efficacy within its theoretical context and to provide additional rationale for this project. I then turn my attention to the research program and philosophical assumptions upon which the theory rests. 2.2.1.2.1 Sources of self-efficacy Social cognitive theory research establishes four main inputs for its computational model. The inputs, which are conceptualized in reference to self-efficacy beliefs, include four specific sources of self-efficacious thought: enactive mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states (Bandura, 1977a, 1986, 1997; Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977). The first three sources, mastery experience, vicarious experience, and verbal persuasion, increase perceptions of capability. People who execute specific behaviours or watch others enact them experience an increase in their self-efficacy towards those same behaviours. Similarly, verbal persuasion or encouragement regarding one‘s ability to perform a task also increases self-efficacious thought. In contrast to the three positive sources, physiological arousal diminishes perceptions of capability. Of the four sources of self-efficacy, mastery experience produces stronger, more generalized self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997; Bandura, et al., 1977; Biran & Wilson, 1981; Feltz, Landers, & Raeder, 1979; Gist, 1989; Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen, 1989). The four sources of self-efficacy and the generality of self-efficacy are particularly useful for conceptualizing self-efficacy within counselling process. The four sources are important in  28 that they are easily envisioned as elemental components of individual counselling. For example, interventions variously labeled role play, behavioural rehearsal, enactment, and simulation provide clients with mastery experiences relevant to a wide range of skills (i.e., communication, emotional self-regulation, etc.). If the counsellor models the behaviour, which is often the case, these interventions also provide vicarious experiences for the client. Mastery and vicarious learning experiences are not, however, limited to formal role play interventions but are built into the interpersonal and intrapersonal experiences occurring within counselling. The interpersonal interactions occurring between counsellors and clients are replete with mastery and vicarious experiences that are highly relevant to clients‘ abilities to function in interpersonal relationships. Counselling is first and foremost an interpersonal relationship. Research provides clear support for the therapeutic significance of the counsellor-client relationship (Lambert & Barley, 2002). In terms of self-efficacy beliefs, the counsellor-client relationship often leads to new relational patterns for the client, patterns that facilitate the development of interpersonal skills. These mastery and vicarious experiences are important sources of self-efficacy and lend themselves to efficacy enhancement in the interpersonal sphere. The same argument can be made for the intrapersonal sphere. Counsellors provide support (encouragement/verbal persuasion) and help their clients‘ self-regulate (mastery experience and physiological arousal) while talking about and processing emotionally laden experiences. Consequently, clients learn emotional self-regulation as they process difficult emotional experiences with their counsellors and more importantly they experience increased confidence in their ability to self-regulate. All told, a therapeutic experience of this sort combines three sources of self-efficacy thereby, facilitating efficacy enhancing change.  29 I would suggest that verbal persuasion is the source of self-efficacy that is most elemental to counselling process. Counselling is a dialogical activity and counsellor support is a basic ingredient of counselling, it is a fundamental orientation that is implicit to the counsellor role. Counsellors‘ believe that positive change is possible and offer their services to facilitate client change. For their part, clients seek out and enter counselling relationships hoping that positive change will occur. Informed consent formalizes these expectations thereby making the implicit explicit. The process of goal setting provides increased focus and translates a general expectation into more specific outcomes. For example, a counsellor and client dyad might agree on helping increase the client‘s capacities to identify, label, and regulate emotional experience. The work that comes after goal setting can be conceptualized as an ongoing expression of the counsellor‘s belief in the client‘s ability to enact these changes. I would also assert that the degree to which the client experiences that encouragement represents the degree to which this source of selfefficacy is realized. Although social cognitive theory would predict that verbal support for highly specific goals will be more efficacy enhancing than support for more diffuse goals, the theory also acknowledges generality to self-efficacy beliefs. 2.2.1.2.2 Generality principle The generality principle is important for understanding the acquisition of self-efficacy and is vitally important to the argument forwarded in this research. As has already been stated, self-efficacy beliefs pertain to specific behavioural enactments. Consequently, the sources of self-efficacy also function with a good degree of specificity. For example, clients struggling with career indecision are likely to have numerous self-efficacy beliefs including those relevant to their capacities to gather accurate career information, satisfying particular program requirements, articulate their interests and values, and integrate all the information that informs their decision.  30 The generality principle acknowledges that while efficacy beliefs are specific to particular behavioural enactments, efficacy enhancement can also have a more generalized effect. In other words efficacy beliefs can transfer across activities and settings (Bandura, 1997). The transfer of efficacy beliefs occurs as a result of a number of processes. For example, self-efficacy beliefs transfer across activities when the different activities are governed by similar subskills. Alternately, the codevelopment of dissimilar skills can also produce generality of self-efficacy beliefs. Self-regulatory skills are particularly important to the generality of self-efficacy. These skills play a superordinate role in guiding humans toward more proficient action and are thus integral to innumerable areas of function. In Bandura‘s (1997) words, ―these include generic skills for diagnosing task demands, constructing and evaluating alternative courses of action, setting proximal goals to guide one‘s efforts, and creating self-incentives to sustain engagement in taxing activities and to manage stress and debilitating intrusive thoughts‖ (p. 51). In short, one uses these skills to navigate the basic and not so basic challenges that life brings. By helping clients face life challenges, counsellors help clients acquire and develop these generic selfregulation skills. Social cognitive theory predicts that skill development (mastery experience) will be accompanied by increased perceptions of self-regulatory efficacy. Coping skills represent another highly transferable skill set that is particularly relevant to counselling. Just as self-regulatory skills are used to respond effectively to life‘s challenges, coping skills are needed when life‘s challenges pose some kind of threat to the person. Coping skills enable clients to master their faculties in the face of the anxiety and stress that accompanies a range of psychological and physical threats to one‘s person. Consequently, the acquisition of coping skills has a widespread positive effect on one‘s personal efficacy (Bandura, 1997). The  31 foundational self-efficacy research with snake phobic participants provides clear evidence regarding the efficacy enhancing effect of learning generalizable coping skills (Bandura, et al., 1977; Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells, 1980; Bandura, Jeffery, & Gajdos, 1975). In simple terms, successful coping in an area produces a general confidence in one‘s ability to cope that transfers to other areas of function. These basic processes, similar subskills, codevelopment of dissimilar skills, selfregulatory skills, and coping skills, provide an evidentiary base for the generality of self-efficacy beliefs. In doing so, they also provide a strong rationale for investigating self-efficacy change as a process of individual counselling. This rationale is further strengthened by an additional observation related to the generality of efficacy beliefs, an observation made in the foundational self-efficacy research (Bandura, et al., 1975). In Bandura (1997) words, ―powerful mastery experiences that provide striking testimony to one‘s capacity to effect personal changes can also produce a transformational restructuring of efficacy beliefs that is manifested across diverse realms of functioning. Such personal triumphs serve as transforming experiences. What generalizes is the belief that one can mobilize whatever effort it takes to succeed in different undertakings‖ (p. 53). These statements regarding the generality of self-efficacy beliefs are particularly important because they are based upon observed changes that could not be accounted for by a gradient of stimulus generalization. Success in handling snakes was simply too far removed from things like reduced social timidity and increased self-expressiveness to be explained by stimulus generalization. Yet these later changes were observed outcomes in the snake phobic participants whose snake handling self-efficacy was raised through a guided mastery protocol (Bandura, et al., 1977; Bandura, et al., 1980; Bandura, et al., 1975). The change  32 in one area had a transformational effect that produced general increases in the participants‘ efficacy beliefs for other areas of function. 2.2.1.2.3 Mediating processes Social cognitive theory also specifies a number of mediating processes that embed selfefficacy within a dynamic, non-linear computational model of human functioning and are useful for conceptualizing self-efficacy within the process of individual counselling. In essence, the mediating processes describe the computational systems through which self-efficacy beliefs are expressed. The processes are organized according to four main types: cognitive, motivational, affective, and selective. Cognitive processes represent the first class of mediating processes and are inclusive of two main processes, cognitive constructions and inferential thinking (Bandura, 1997). Cognitive constructions refer to the products of human thought and attest to the important mediating role cognition plays in action. Cognitive constructions are understood as guides for human action and provide a conceptual basis for how self-efficacy beliefs influence human action. Inferential thinking refers to the human capacity to anticipate and make predictions. This capacity is foundational for self-efficacy in that it enables humans to assess their capability to perform specific behavioural enactments. Interferential thinking is also central to another key social cognitive construct, outcome expectancy. This additional construct moves beyond predictions of capability and refers to anticipations related to the consequences of various courses of action. Motivational processes are a second class of mediating processes used to understand the role of self-efficacy beliefs. According to Bandura (1997) motivational processes are important because they allow for self-influence and purposive action. Self-efficacy operates within the three main theories of cognitive motivation: attribution theory (Weiner, 1985), expectancy-value  33 theory (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Atkinson, 1964; Rotter, 1982; Vroom, 1964), and goal theory (Locke & Latham, 1990). In turn, these motivational theories help to describe how perceptions of capability lead to varying levels of motivation. Social cognitive theory specifies a reciprocal but asymmetric relationship between selfefficacy beliefs and affective states. The self-efficacy mechanism is the stronger source variable and is highly important in the self-regulation of affective states. Perceptions of capability related to thought, action, and affect influence affective experience. This is particularly evident in the self-efficacy research on anxiety (see Bandura, 1997 for a review). For example, research demonstrates that efficacy beliefs related to coping behaviours are negatively related to the experience of anxiety. Similarly relationships have been found between anxiety and thought related self-efficacy and affective control efficacy. Though less extensive in scope, the selfefficacy literature on depression demonstrates how perceptions of capability relevant to thought, action, and affect play a causal role in the experience of depressed affect (Bandura, 1997). Selection processes represent the final mediating process specified within social cognitive theory‘s computational model of human functioning (Bandura, 1997). The capacity to choose environments and activities is central to the self-influence posited by emergent interactive agency. Perceived self-efficacy is an important determinant of the choices people make. People with higher levels of self-efficacy choose more challenging activities and environments (Bandura, 1997). They also demonstrate higher levels of persistence in the face of difficulty (Bandura, 1997). The influence of self-efficacy though selective processes has been studied extensively within the career development literature and will be addressed more thoroughly within the next section of this chapter.  34 2.2.1.2.4 Self-efficacy effects The mediating processes bring self-efficacy beliefs to the doorstep of action, the end product or outcome of the computational model. In some regards the mediating processes represent a level of outcome. This is particularly true for the affective and selection processes, each of which includes observable products. However, true outcomes in social cognitive theory‘s computational model must be stated in behavioural terms. Thus, one‘s choice to pursue a particular course of action only becomes an output when the individual‘s manifest behaviour reveals the choice that preceded it. Social cognitive theory specifies several types of outputs: approach, avoidance, persistence, and performance (Bandura, 1997). The first three behavioural categories flow directly from the selection processes identified above and are closely tied to the self-influence assumed within the model. Performance references the quality of the behavioural output and is also expressed in terms of effective functioning. Research on a wide range of topics clearly demonstrates that high levels of self-efficacy lead to approach behaviour, persistent efforts, and better performance (see Bandura, 1997 for a review) 2.2.2 Self-efficacy research I have already made several comments regarding the scope and magnitude of the selfefficacy literature as well as the foundational research that initiated this substantial literature. A full review of this literature is well beyond the scope of the current project. Indeed Bandura‘s (1997) thirteen year old summative effort required more than 500 pages to encapsulate 20 years of empirical research. This seminal work also precipitated a second wave of self-efficacy research that effected an exponential increase to what was already a massive literature. The scope of the second wave can be observed via a PsychINFO search with self-efficacy as the  35 subject. A search constrained to the years 1998 and 2009 reveals 7148 entries. A similar search of the first six months of 2010 yields an additional 331 entries. This newer literature is important for two main reasons. First, it extends this valuable construct to a myriad of new domains. This is particularly important because it demonstrates that self-efficacy is applicable to a wide range of human functioning domains including such things as fruit and vegetable consumption (Richert, et al., 2010), financial investing (Forbes & Kara, 2010), nursing performance (Lee & Ko, 2010), blogging (Liu & Chang, 2010), parenting (Pierce et al., 2010), self-care after receiving a kidney transplant (Weng, Dai, Huang, & Chiang, 2010), prosociality (Caprara, Alessandri, Di Giunta, Panerai, & Eisenberg, 2010), and so forth. Indeed, it would appear that estimates of capability have utility for virtually any area of human function and are therefore highly relevant to any and all issues that clients bring to counselling. The newer literature is also important because it further strengthens and validates the role and function of self-efficacy as conceptualized within social cognitive theory. Although the second reason is worth mentioning because of the context it provides, I do not attempt to review the research that would bring credibility to this claim. I do, however, describe the foundational research upon which the self-efficacy mechanism was developed as well as the research that explores the role of self-efficacy within counselling. My description begins with an examination of the basic principles used to develop self-efficacy scales. I then describe Bandura‘s foundational research and the basic methodological framework employed in the vast majority of self-efficacy research, the current project excluded. I end the section on selfefficacy research with a review of the literature that investigates the role of self-efficacy expectations within counselling process.  36 2.2.2.1  Self-efficacy scales There are two measurement guides useful for developing self-efficacy scales consistent  with social cognitive theory‘s conceptualization (Bandura, 2006a; Lent & Brown, 2006). These guides require a thorough conceptual analysis of the domain of function that a researcher is interested in. This involves identifying the domain of function (i.e., mathematics, career decision making) as well as the specific behaviour (tasks) required for effective action. Researchers use the conceptual analysis to produce a hierarchy of tasks that move up along a continuum of difficulty. Respondents indicate their level of self-efficacy with yes or no responses to the hierarchy of tasks. The most difficult task that they indicate they can do represents their level of self-efficacy. The hierarchy of activities provided by self-efficacy scales also provides important information regarding the generality of respondents‘ self-efficacy. Some people judge themselves efficacious for a wide range of activities and situations whereas other people‘s perceptions of self-efficacy are limited to a more narrow range. In assessing self-efficacy in connection to specific activities and situations self-efficacy scales provide an estimate of the generality of respondents‘ self-efficacy; broader ranges of activities and situations indicates greater generality of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). That said, self-efficacy scales differ with regards to their level of specificity (Lent & Brown, 2006). Less specific scales provide more information regarding the generality dimension of self-efficacy whereas highly specific scales provide more precise information regarding the level of self-efficacy. In addition to level and generality, the guides also address strength of self-efficacy. Strength of self-efficacy is a confidence rating connected to a particular activity. Respondents indicate the strength of their self-efficacy beliefs by rating how confident they are in their ability  37 to do each activity. The ratings are typically based upon an eleven point scale that moves from ―cannot do at all‖ to ―moderately certain can do‖ (midpoint) to ―highly certain can do‖ (Bandura, 2006a, p. 312). What is important to note here is that strength of self-efficacy is a confidence rating aimed at what a respondent believes he/she can do. Self-efficacy is a belief regarding one‘s capability and is conceptually distinct from statements regarding past experience and future intention. Perceptions of capability are also distinguished from predictions of an activity‘s outcome which is a distinct construct that social cognitive theory labels outcome expectancies (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Bandura, et al., 1977). Level and strength of self-efficacy have emerged as the most important and commonly used aspects of self-efficacy scale development. Although generality of self-efficacy remains conceptually important to the theoretical framework, level and strength of self-efficacy provide the type of focus and specificity that is most useful for predicting behavioural performances. The utility of these two indices of self-efficacy, level and strength, is evident in the following account of the foundational self-efficacy research. 2.2.2.2  Seminal self-efficacy research and the microanalytic method Self-efficacy theory was identified and developed within a series of studies with snake  phobic participants (Bandura, 1977a; Bandura & Adams, 1977; Bandura, et al., 1977; Bandura, et al., 1980; Bandura, et al., 1975). In fact, the ―initial investigations into the causal contribution of efficacy beliefs to human adaptation and change was an unintended outgrowth of a different line of research‖ (Bandura, 1997, p. 53). More specifically, the beneficial therapeutic effects observed in participant modeling studies led Bandura to consider that self-efficacy might be an underlying mechanism of the change he observed. He and his colleagues acted on this  38 serendipitous finding with a series of studies designed to investigate the efficacy enhancing potential of mastery-based treatment. The first of these studies sought to determine whether self-directed participation would enhance the therapeutic changes produced by participant modeling (Bandura, et al., 1975). Thirty snake phobic participants were matched in triads according to measures of pretreatment avoidance and were then randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions, participant modeling, self-directed performance, and varied self-directed performance. All three treatment conditions began with the participant modeling intervention. This involved having research participants watch a model and then enact a graduated series of intimidating performances with a live boa constrictor. Trained therapists used response induction aids to eliminate the participants‘ defensive behaviour and successfully guided all of the participants through a preestablished hierarchy of intimidating performances. This was the end of treatment for the participant modeling group. The self-directed performance participants went on to reenact the hierarchy of intimidating performances without the assistance of the therapist. The varied self-directed performance condition incorporated an additional snake in the self-directed experience. Treatment effects were assessed using a variety of dependent variables that included pre and post treatment measures of approach behaviour, fear arousal accompanying approach, fear of snake encounters, self-competency in coping with snakes, personal potency, and fear proneness. All three treatment groups experienced improved functioning at the post treatment and follow-up phases (1 month). The self-directed performance conditions (varied and unvaried) produced enhanced treatment outcomes when compared with the participant modeling condition. Although the benefits of a self-directed experience were not universal across all of the dependent measures  39 they were highly consistent. The differences were consistently maintained at the follow-up phase. There were no consistent differences between the two self-directed groups. These positive findings led to more research with snake phobic participants (Bandura, 1977a; Bandura & Adams, 1977; Bandura, et al., 1977; Bandura, et al., 1980). Although Bandura and his colleagues based their work on the initial study, they also introduced some vitally important conceptual and methodological refinements. More specifically, they changed the treatment conditions to include a no treatment condition, a modeling condition, and a participant modeling condition. They also replaced the measures of self-competency and personal potency with a self-efficacy scale that assessed level and strength of self-efficacy beliefs. Finally, they introduced a microanalytic approach whereby multiple input, mediatory, and output variables were isolated and analyzed according to their relationships with each other. The studies continued to employ multiwave designs that included pre treatment, post treatment, and followup data collection points. Although the simple difference score continued to serve as a measure of change for many of the analyses, subsequent studies also employed residual change scores. The first published article with these conceptual and methodological refinements established the inputs and outputs associated with the self-efficacy mechanism (Bandura, et al., 1977). It also championed self-efficacy as a common mechanism of behavioural change. The findings of this three wave multi-measure experimental study (n = 33) are as follows. The participant modeling group‘s post treatment increases in level and strength of self-efficacy were significantly higher than those of the modeling and no treatment groups. Similarly, the modeling group‘s post treatment self-efficacy gains were significantly higher than those of the no treatment group. The same patterns were observed at the 1 month follow-up wave. The article also reports superior post treatment improvements in approach behaviour and fear arousal for the  40 participant modeling group when compared to the other two groups. This advantage persisted during the follow-up wave. Similarly, the modeling group‘s approach behaviour and fear arousal scores were significantly more improved at post treatment and follow-up than those of the no treatment group. The authors conducted a microanalysis of self-efficacy ratings (level and strength) and task performance in order to provide more substantive evidence regarding the congruence between the two (Bandura, et al., 1977). This analysis involved linking individual participant‘s self-efficacy ratings to the corresponding approach behaviours observed at each wave of the study. The degree of congruence between efficacy belief and performance accomplishment (observed approach behaviour) was used to establish a predictive relationship between judgments of efficacy and task performance. This analysis, which was conducted across the hierarchy of intimidating behaviours, yielded a congruence rate of 89% for the participant modeling group and 86% for the modeling group. In short, level of self-efficacy was an excellent predictor of approach behaviour. A similar analysis compared the participants‘ strength of selfefficacy ratings with their performance accomplishments. The degree of correspondence was ―virtually identical‖ (Bandura, et al., p. 133). 2.2.2.3  Self-efficacy expectations and therapeutic change Bandura reasserted his initial claim that the self-efficacy mechanism was central to  therapeutic change (1977a) twenty years later in a chapter aimed at articulating the role of selfefficacy in clinical functioning (1997). The chapter provides extensive conceptual arguments regarding the role of self-efficacy expectations in mediating functioning in a range of clinical areas including anxiety, depression, disordered eating, and substance abuse. It also summarized the extant research supporting the role and function of self-efficacy beliefs in these areas. The  41 chapter encompassed a wide range of research evidence including research that shows how perceived inefficacy leads to dysfunction and perceived efficacy contributes to adaptive functioning, research that demonstrates how guided mastery, modeling, and verbal persuasion increase self-efficacy beliefs, and research that assessed self-efficacy changes occurring during the course of one or more counselling sessions for a range of issues including anxiety, depression, disordered eating, and substance abuse. The third line of research is important to this dissertation because it establishes that self-efficacy expectations change as a result of counselling and that this change is relevant to a range of therapeutic issues. The following sections review key works noted in Bandura‘s (1997) summary as well as research published after his summary. The review establishes that self-efficacy expectations are pertinent to therapeutic change but does not attempt to provide a detailed or exhaustive model of change for the various counselling issues discussed. The first four sections address specific areas of clinical work identified in Bandura‘s summary and the fifth section reports on an exploratory study that identifies self-efficacy change as a significant change process of individual counselling. 2.2.2.3.1 Anxiety The literature on self-efficacy change in relation to counselling for anxiety includes the seminal research with snake phobic participants described above. It also encompasses additional research on specific phobias (Biran & Wilson, 1981; Stidwill, 1994; Williams, Dooseman, & Kleifield, 1984; Williams, Turner, & Peer, 1985) and research related to panic and agoraphobia (Borden, Clum, & Salmon, 1991; Bouchard et al., 1996; Williams & Falbo, 1996; Williams, Kinney, & Falbo, 1989). Foundational findings are described below and are followed by a description of more recent research.  42 Several studies demonstrated that guided mastery techniques raise phobic participants‘ self-efficacy beliefs and improve their behavioural functioning (Biran & Wilson, 1981; Williams, et al., 1984; Williams, et al., 1985). Biran and Wilson (1981) observed significant positive correlations between participants‘ self-efficacy ratings and their approach behaviour. They also found that a guided mastery technique increased participants‘ level and strength of self-efficacy significantly more than a cognitive restructuring intervention. Williams and his colleagues found that perceived self-efficacy increased with a guided mastery technique and was a better predictor of therapeutic outcome than various self-report measures including anxiety arousal, anticipated anxiety, and perceived danger (Williams, et al., 1985) as well as anxiety, exposure duration, and performance level during treatment (Williams, et al., 1984). A guided mastery procedure produced better behavioural outcomes and raised participants‘ self-efficacy beliefs significantly higher than a performance desensitization intervention (Williams, et al., 1985) and an exposure procedure (Williams, et al., 1984). The researchers concluded that their results supported the hypothesis that perceptions of self-efficacy mediate therapeutically induced behavioural change. Williams, Kinney, and Faldo (1989) investigated the mediating role of self-efficacy beliefs within agoraphobic participants with multiple specific fears. They employed a control condition along with a staggered treatment approach to selectively treat target phobias while leaving other phobias untreated. The treatment consisted of a guided mastery technique adapted to the target phobia. They found that the treated phobias were associated with statistically greater improvements than the untreated phobias. Similarly, the transfer phobias, untreated phobias of treated participants, improved more than phobias of the untreated control participants. The researchers analysis of participants‘ perceived self-efficacy ratings revealed that perceived self-  43 efficacy predicted treatment and transfer effects after controlling for other explanatory variables including previous behaviour, anticipated anxiety, anticipated panic, perceived danger, and subjective anxiety. Their analysis also revealed that these other predictors became nonsignificant when perceived self-efficacy was held constant. The researchers concluded that coping self-efficacy played a mediating role in the participants‘ agoraphobic symptoms. Other researchers have explored the role perceived self-efficacy plays in agoraphobic fear and panic attacks. Borden, Clum, and Salmon (1991) observed coping self-efficacy increases from pretreatment to posttreatment and found that cognitive-behavioural treatment and panic education raised participants‘ coping self-efficacy equally. Both posttreatment follow-up measurement periods yielded higher levels of coping self-efficacy than the pretreatment measurement. The researchers also used cross-panel analyses to calculate Pearson correlations that examined the relationship between coping self-efficacy and catastrophic thoughts and between coping efficacy and panic symptoms across nine data collection periods. The pattern of correlation coefficients indicated that reductions in catastrophic thoughts were preceded by increases in coping self-efficacy. These results were interpreted as support for a mediating role for coping self-efficacy. Bouchard et al (1996) studied clinical, cognitive, and behavioural changes across 5 data point in 28 participants with a diagnosis of panic disorder and agoraphobia. Participants were randomly assigned to an exposure treatment or a cognitive restructuring treatment. They found that treated participants demonstrated statistically significant increases in self-efficacy to control a panic attack from pretreatment to posttreatment. Both treatment conditions exhibited main effects for time of measurement when considering all 5 time periods. These changes were associated with improvements on a range of other indices.  44 Williams and Falbo (1996) studied the comparative effectiveness of cognitive therapy and performance-based exposure in the treatment of panic attacks. They randomly assigned participants to a cognitive treatment, performance-based exposure treatment, a combined treatment, or a control group. They measured participants‘ agoraphobic self-efficacy and panic coping efficacy according to three time periods, pre, post, and follow-up. The three treatment groups exhibited statistically significant increases in self-efficacy from pre to post treatment. These improvements were accompanied by improvements on a range of other self-report measures. Planned comparisons revealed that the treated participants reported greater increases in agoraphobic self-efficacy and panic coping self-efficacy when compared with the control group. The performance-based exposure treatment group exhibited a greater increase in panic coping self-efficacy when compared with the cognitive treatment group. There were no statistically significant differences between the combined group and the two individual treatment groups. Increases in agoraphobic and panic coping self-efficacy were associated with improvements in the other self-report measures. More recently, Casey, Oei, and Newcombe (2005) used a time period analysis to investigate changes in positive and negative cognitions in participants receiving cognitivebehavioural therapy for panic disorder. They found that changes in panic self-efficacy helped predicted rapid symptom relief. More specifically, increases in panic self-efficacy across four assessment points were accompanied by a significant reduction in panic severity. Bouchard et al (2007) employed a multivariate time series analysis to examine the temporal relationship between perceived self-efficacy to control a panic attack and panic apprehension in 12 participants receiving cognitive restructuring or exposure treatments for panic disorder with agoraphobia. The participants recorded their perceptions of self-efficacy and  45 their panic apprehension in daily diaries over a 30-week time period that included pretreatment, treatment, and post-treatment self-monitoring periods. The multivariate time series analysis revealed a lagged relationship between strength of self-efficacy beliefs and level of panic apprehension in 4 of the 5 cognitive restructuring participants and 5 of the 7 exposure participants. This pattern showed that increases in perceived self-efficacy to control a panic attack preceded decreases in level of panic apprehension for 9 of the 12 participants. 2.2.2.3.2 Depression There is limited research investigating self-efficacy change in relation to counselling for depression. Yusaf and Kavanagh (1990) compared participants receiving cognitive-behavioural treatment for depression with those on a waiting list for treatment for depression. They measured the participants‘ perceived self-efficacy for a set of skills associated with improved mood and found that increases in self-efficacy were associated with improvements in Beck Depression Inventory scores in the treated participants. They also found that self-efficacy for assertiveness predicted depression scores at follow-up. More recently, Jarrett, Vittengle, Doyle, and Clark (2007) examined cognitive changes in 156 participants receiving cognitive therapy for recurrent major depressive disorder. The participants‘ scores on a measure of general self-efficacy increased from pretreatment to posttreatment. They also found that a statistically significant difference in posttreatment selfefficacy scores when they compared the self-efficacy scores of participants who were responsive to the therapy with those who continued to meet the criteria for major depressive disorder. The non depressed participant‘s self-efficacy scores were higher. Other researchers have investigated self-efficacy changes in participants receiving group therapy for depressive symptoms. Kavanagh and Wilson (1989) found that participants increased  46 in perceived self-efficacy to control mood after receiving cognitive group therapy for depression. They also found that increases in self-efficacy was positively correlated with improvements in depressed mood and that post-treatment self-efficacy scores were predictive of remission 12 months following treatment. Backenstrass et al (2006) used a general self-efficacy scale to investigate self-efficacy changes in 51 participants receiving group cognitive-behavioural therapy for depression. They found that participants‘ pretreatment self-efficacy scores were negatively correlated with their pretreatment depression scores. Though they found a statistically significant increase in self-efficacy from pretreatment to posttreatment, the Pearson correlation coefficient for the residual change scores on depression and self-efficacy was non-significant. 2.2.2.3.3 Disordered eating Previous research has explored the role of self-efficacy beliefs in participants who receive treatment for eating related issues. Leon and Rosenthal (1984) investigated the role of selfefficacy in participants in a weight reduction program. They found that pretreatment personal self-efficacy scores predicted weight loss at 8 months following treatment. Bernier and Avard (1986) found that participants‘ posttreatment weight loss self-efficacy expectations predicted weight loss at 6-weeks and 6-months follow treatment for weight loss. Others have observed pretreatment to posttreatment increases in weight loss self-efficacy expectations in participants who completed a weight management program (Clark, Abrams, Niaura, Eaton, & Rossi, 1991). The role of self-efficacy expectations has also been investigated in those receiving treatment for bulimia. Schneider, O‘Leary, and Agras (1987) found that participants‘ selfregulatory self-efficacy expectations increased after receiving cognitive-behavioural treatment for bulimia. They also found that increases in self-regulatory self-efficacy were associated with decreases in vomiting frequency. Willson, Rossiter, Kleifield and Lindholm (1986) found that  47 bulimic participants‘ who received cognitive restructuring plus exposure and vomit prevention treatment reported greater increases in eating self-efficacy expectations than those who received cognitive restructuring without exposure and vomit prevention. They also found a statistically significant difference in eating self-efficacy expectations when they compared those who responded to treatment with those who did not. Participants who had stopped binging at 6 and 12 months following treatment had higher eating self-efficacy expectations than those who continued to binge. In a more recent investigation, researchers explored the possible mediating role of eatingbehaviour self-efficacy expectations in participants receiving cognitive-behavioural therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy for bulimia nervosa (Wilson, Fairburn, Agras, Walsh, & Kraemer, 2002). They found that mid-treatment measures of eating-behaviour self-efficacy were significantly associated with posttreatment outcomes in both treatment groups. 2.2.2.3.4 Substance abuse There is considerable research exploring the relationship between self-efficacy expectations and the treatment of substance related issues. This literature includes research regarding the role of self-efficacy expectations in those receiving counselling for alcohol (Burling, Reilly, Moltzen, & Ziff, 1989; Kavanagh et al., 2006; Kavanagh & Sitharthan, 1996, 1999; Maisto, McKay, & O'Farrell, 1998; Sitharthan & Kavanagh, 1990; Sitharthan, Kavanagh, & Sayer, 1996; Sitharthan, Sitharthan, & Kavanagh, 2001; Solomon & Annis, 1990), opiate (Gossop, Green, Phillips, & Bradley, 1990; Reilly et al., 1995), cocaine (Rounds-Bryant, Flynn, & Craighead, 1997), and marijuana (Stephens, Wertz, & Roffman, 1995) use. The literature also includes research on the role of self-efficacy expectations in participants who are enrolled in smoking cessation programs (Baer, Holt, & Lichtenstein, 1986; Condiotte & Lichtenstein, 1981;  48 Dornelas, Sampson, Gray, Waters, & Thompson, 2000; Karatay, Kublay, & Emiroglu, 2010; McIntyre, Lichtenstein, & Mermelstein, 1983; Patten et al., 2008). What follows is a brief summary of the literatures on the role of clients‘ self-efficacy expectations when undergoing treatment for cigarette smoking or alcohol abuse. The first study on smoking cessation and self-efficacy expectations (Condiotte & Lichtenstein, 1981) utilized the microanalysis procedures employed to study self-efficacy expectations and the treatment of snake phobia. They found that participants‘ posttreatment selfefficacy expectations were highly predictive of their relapse; lower self-efficacy expectations predicted higher relapse. They also observed a high correspondence between situation specific inefficacy expectations and the situations in which they first relapsed. McIntyre et al (1983) built upon this initial research and found that treated smoker‘s end of treatment self-efficacy scores were significantly correlated with smoking status at 3 months and 6 months following the end of treatment; lower levels of self-efficacy was predictive of relapse. Baer, Hold, and Lichtenstein (1986) also found that participants‘ posttreatment self-efficacy expectations regarding their ability to resist smoking was a statistically significant predictor of relapse. More recent research has investigated the self-efficacy relapse relationship with specific populations. One group of researchers studied the relationship in a group of participants hospitalized with acute myocardinal infarction (Dornelas, et al., 2000). They found that intervention and self efficacy were independent predictors smoking status at 6-month and 1-year follow-up and that combination of low self-efficacy and no intervention yielded a 93% relapse rate at the 1-year follow-up. Patten et al (2008) investigated pre to post treatment changes in adolescents‘ abstinence self-efficacy expectations. They found that a combination of motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioural techniques yielded a statistically significant  49 increase in the participants‘ self-efficacy expectations. Karatay, Kublay, and Emiroglu (2010) studied the effects of motivational interviewing on a sample of pregnant smokers. The participants receiving the intervention decreased their initial smoking rate and reported an increased in smoking self-efficacy expectations. There were also statistically significant smoking self-efficacy beliefs across smoking status at 3-months follow-up. The mean smoking selfefficacy score was lowest for those who continued smoking, highest for those who had stopped, and in between for those who had reduced their smoking rate. The early positive findings regarding the relationship between smoking cessation and smoking self-efficacy expectations prompted other researchers to explore the relationship between alcohol abuse and self-efficacy expectations. Burling et al (1989) found that inpatients‘ perceived self-efficacy to avoid drug and alcohol abuse increased significantly over the course of treatment. They found that abstainers experienced a greater increase in perceived efficacy from intake to the end of treatment when compared to those who relapsed. They also found that the abstainers mean level of perceived self-efficacy was significantly higher at 6-months follow-up. Similarly, Sitharthan and Kavanagh (1990) found that the posttreatment self-efficacy scores of participants in a controlled drinking programme significantly predicted alcohol consumption at 6-months follow-up. Higher levels of controlled drinking self-efficacy were associated with lower levels of alcohol consumption. Sitharthan and his colleagues also observed pretreatment to posttreatment changes in perceived self-efficacy to control drinking in a sample of low dependent problem drinkers (Sitharthan, et al., 1996) and in a sample of nondependent problem drinkers (Sitharthan, Sitharthan, Hough, & Kavanagh, 1997). Kavanagh et al (2006) studied perceived self-efficacy to control excessive consumption in participants who met that criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence and who drank in response  50 to negative emotional states. The participants‘, who received 8 weekly sessions of individual counselling, were assessed at baseline, posttreatment, 6- months follow-up, and 12-months follow-up. Analyses of the difference scores revealed significant improvements in all of the measures including weekly alcohol consumption, depression, and perceived self-efficacy to control excessive consumption. They also observed a slight linear decrease in perceived selfefficacy from posttreatment to 12-months follow-up. Both baseline and posttreatment perceived self-efficacy predicted alcohol consumption at 12-months follow-up. 2.2.2.3.5 Additional research Tschacher, Baur, and Grawe (2000) employed a multi-stage analytic process to identify process variables, explore temporal sequences and interconnections, and examine processoutcome relationships in a sample of 91 client-counsellor dyads engaged in counselling for a variety of issues including adjustment disorders, anxiety and phobic disorders, eating disorders, and relationship issues. They conducted a principle component analysis on client and therapist session reports and identified four counselling process factors including one labeled ―patient‘s sense of self-efficacy/morale‖ (p. 301). They used time series models to examine temporal patterns among the four counselling process factors and found that the patient‘s sense of selfefficacy/morale was significantly related with the other three factors. More specifically, the patient‘s sense of self-efficacy/morale at t-1 predicted variations of the other three factors at t-2. Finally, they used multiple regression analyses to examine relationships between the parameters of the time series models (counselling process dynamics) and five outcome clusters derived from a principle component analysis of the clients‘ pre and post treatment responses on five self-report inventories. All of the parameters that represented influences upon the self-efficacy factor were significant predictors of a particular outcome cluster. Overall the parameters encompassing the  51 self-efficacy factor explained more outcome variance than those parameters that did not include the self-efficacy factor. They offered the following summary of their analyses: The patient‘s sense of self-efficacy governed therapy process; good outcome was achieved when all process factors facilitated the growth of the patient‘s sense of selfefficacy. Thus, the patient‘s sense of self-efficacy appeared to be the pivotal change mechanism in the majority of therapy cases. (Tschacher, et al., 2000, p. 306) The Tschacher et al (2000) findings are highly pertinent to the present study. This exploratory research identified self-efficacy within counselling process and found that changes to self-efficacy were the most significant predictors of therapeutic outcome. Their data source encompassed a variety of counselling issues and several different models of counselling (cognitive-behavioural, client-centred, and several based upon based on schema concept). These qualities increase the generalizabilty of their findings, thereby providing support for a study that describes self-efficacy as a common change process of individual counselling. In summary, self-efficacy researchers typically measure participants‘ self-efficacy beliefs by creating self-efficacy scales that reference specific behaviours deemed important to a particular sphere of function. This research strategy provides researchers with the means to isolate expectations of self-efficacy relevant to their particular research interests. The strategy allows researchers to study highly subscribed sets of self-efficacy beliefs but does not lend itself to a counselling process study that describes self-efficacy as a common change process within individual counselling. The dynamic self-efficacy belief system asserted by social cognitive theory specifies innumerable self-efficacy beliefs. The extant literature supports the wide applicability self-efficacy and demonstrates its relevance to all manner of human experience. The dynamic interactive nature of individual counselling is such that a series of sessions address a  52 range of issues and encompass numerous diverse self-efficacy beliefs. Tschacher et al (2000) provided support for the role of self-efficacy expectations as a common change process of individual counselling. The current study uses the action-project method of contextual action theory to provide in-depth descriptions of self-efficacy expectations within individual counselling process. I address the action-project method in the last section of this chapter and in the chapter that follows. For now I describe the philosophical foundations of social cognitive theory. 2.2.3 Philosophical cornerstones of social cognitive theory Bandura acknowledges a position of ontological, epistemological, and methodological nonreductionism and asserts that cognitive processes, self-efficacy beliefs included, are not fully explained by neurophysiological processes (Bandura, 1991). That said, he also espouses non dualistic assumptions and recognizes the neurophysiological foundation of all human experience. These important philosophical positions find direct expression within social cognitive theory‘s twin concepts of emergent interactive agency and triadic reciprocal determinism. Consequently, my depiction of social cognitive theory has already alluded to or specifically addressed some of its key positions. My goal here is to highlight and extrapolate assumptions implied by these concepts and to consider their implications for the conceptual and methodological approaches taken in this study. Emergent interactive agency provides clear expression of a non dualistic position on the relationship between psychological experience and the biological brain. Thought is embodied in brain function but thought and other psychological experience can not be reduced or fully explained by the physical properties of the brain. Thought is emergent, it possesses real distinct properties that can not be known via the neurological functioning of the brain. Psychological and  53 social explanations are not be subsumed by biological explanations. Bandura (2008) credits these emergent properties to the complex architecture of the brain, its rich interconnected multileveled hierarchical construction. Bandura‘s non dualist position extends to several other important issues important to human agency. More specifically, he maintains non dualistic positions on the self as agent and object, the self-system as structure and process, and the person environment relationship (Bandura, 1999). These vital non dualisms express the full meaning of reciprocal determinism. Consequently, the actions of an agentic actor are not separate from self-referent thoughts labeled self-efficacy beliefs. Similarly, the dynamically organized self-efficacy belief structure functions as a dynamic process, not a static or fixed entity. Finally, social cognitive theory contextualizes people within a network of sociostructural influences. In Bandura‘s (2008) words, Social cognitive theory rejects a duality of human agency and a social structure as a reified entity disembodied from individuals. Social systems are the product of human activity. The authorized rules and practices of social systems, in turn, influence human development and functioning. However, in the dynamic interplay within the societal rule structures, there is a lot of personal variation in the interpretation, adoption, enforcement, circumvention, and opposition to societal prescriptions and sanctions (Burns & Dietz, 1992). (p. 96) The explanation for these non dualist positions rests in the four core properties of agency that social cognitive theory ascribes to the human condition, properties made possible because of the human brain. More specifically, the symbolic, forethought, self-reactive, and self-reflective properties equip humans with the ability to construct symbolic representations of the world, act with intentionality, adjust or self-regulate, and reflect on all the self-referent thoughts that  54 accompany experience. It is this richly endowed conception of the human condition that allows for self-influence amidst an inseparable myriad of other influences. ―In keeping with the model of triadic reciprocal determination, an enduring personhood is the product of a complex interplay of personal construal processes, agentically constructed continuity, and influences from the social reality in which one lives‖ (Bandura, 2008, p. 92). This decidedly constructivist perspective on the human condition is not reflected in social cognitive theory‘s methodological strategies. Instead, Bandura‘s search for causal explanations and his commitment to discovering lawful relationships among variables are more congruent with positivist and postpositivist assumptions (Ponterotto, 2005). His dedication and commitment to the microanalytic model has produced an enormous body of research in support of the self-efficacy mechanism and he is equally expectant that a suitable macroanalytic approach that will help researchers discover causal mechanisms that connect sociostructural factors to human behaviour (Bandura, 2001). Thus, he envisions a comprehensive theory that will ―merge the analytic dualism by integrating personal and social foci of causation within a unified causal structure‖ (Bandura, 2001, p. 5). Although social cognitive career theory provides slightly more emphasis on contextual variables it generally carries on in the methodological tradition of its parent theory. 2.3  Career Related Self-Efficacy The relevance and importance of the career related self-efficacy research is such that I  must provide something of an overview. I do, however, limit my overview for several reasons. First of all, I have already grounded my study in a thorough and detailed review of social cognitive theory. A similar grounding in social cognitive career theory would be redundant given that authors of this theory explicitly acknowledge their theory to be a domain specific extension  55 of the parent theory (Lent & Brown, 1996; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2002). Secondly, career related self-efficacy research and social cognitive career theory have expanded to the point where they are well represented within large scale reviews of vocational psychology and career development (i.e., Dagley & Salter, 2004; Fouad, 2007; Guindon & Richmond, 2005; Swanson & Gore, 2000). An extensive review of this literature is simply beyond the scope of the paper. Finally, although my project aims to describe the selfefficacy beliefs of young adult clients in counselling, I will not administer any of the many career related self-efficacy scales published in this literature. Consequently, my review is limited to a brief historically situated description of the more established career related self-efficacy measures and a short explanation of the unique contributions and emphases that social cognitive career theory makes. 2.3.1 Career related self-efficacy scales Any overview of career related self-efficacy research must begin with Betz and Hackett‘s seminal works (Betz & Hackett, 1981; Hackett & Betz, 1981). These groundbreaking articles demonstrated that self-efficacy, as conceptualized within social cognitive theory, is a valuable construct useful for explaining differences in the educational and occupational choices women and men make. Their seminal works included a theoretical article that explains women‘s career development in terms of self-efficacy beliefs (Hackett & Betz, 1981). The article asserts that females and males experience different socialization experiences in many career related areas. More specifically, availability and access to the four sources of self-efficacy is significantly lower for females than it is for men. The result is that females experience lower levels of career related self-efficacy, an experience which negatively impacts their career decisions and achievements. The authors‘ other seminal work was an empirical article designed to investigate  56 the role of self-efficacy beliefs in women‘s career development (Betz & Hackett, 1981). They found that the female participants had lower self-efficacy expectations for traditionally male occupations than did the male participants. They also found that the women‘s perceptions of capability in nontraditional occupations predicted their interest in working in nontraditional occupations. These key articles precipitated a flood of research and theorizing, a flood that has resulted in the proliferation of career related self-efficacy measures and the emergence of social cognitive career theory as an integrative theory within vocational psychology (Lent & Brown, 1996; Lent, et al., 1994; Lent, et al., 2002). Although social cognitive career theory provides an integrative framework for understanding the role of career related self-efficacy beliefs in academic and occupational choice, the decision making process, job search activities, and overall career development, the proliferation of career related self-efficacy measures has created a rather confusing landscape. What follows is a brief description of the more established career related self-efficacy measures. 2.3.1.1  Self-efficacy for educational requirements and occupational tasks The early articles on career related self-efficacy were based on Betz and Hackett‘s work  (Betz & Hackett, 1981; Hackett & Betz, 1981) and were similarly focused on the educational requirements and occupational tasks relevant to specific careers. Betz and Hackett‘s initial study operationalized participants‘ self-efficacy beliefs according to 10 traditionally female occupations and 10 traditionally male occupations. Lent, Brown, and Larkin (1984) adapted this work to develop self-efficacy scales for the educational requirements of and job duties performed in 15 traditionally male occupations in the science and engineering fields. These same researchers also developed a scale for measuring participants‘ self-efficacy beliefs for specific  57 academic milestones (e.g., ―complete the mathematics requirements for most engineering majors‖) related to science and engineering majors (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1986, p. 266). The Career Self-Efficacy Scale was developed in order to further explore the relationships between self-efficacy, gender, socioeconomic status, race, and career interest regarding 15 different occupations that included gender-dominated and non-gender-dominated occupations (Rotberg, Brown, & Ware, 1987). Two versions, a long and short version, of the Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale were developed as broader measures of job related selfefficacy (Osipow & Temple, 1996; Osipow, Temple, & Rooney, 1993). These scales were designed to assess self-efficacy beliefs relevant to occupational tasks of 66 different work groups classified within the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. All told, the assessment of self-efficacy beliefs related to educational requirements and occupational tasks is a valuable application of self-efficacy theory, an application that has advanced research in vocational psychology. 2.3.1.2  Self-efficacy and career interest The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and career interests is another important  area of research within vocational psychology. The Skills Confidence Inventory was developed in order to measure self-efficacy beliefs relevant to John Holland‘s six general occupational themes and is available as a supplementary scale of the Strong Interest Inventory (Betz, Harmon, & Borgen, 1996; Harmon et al., 1996). When used in conjunction with the other scales of the Strong Interest Inventory, the Skills Confidence Inventory can help career counsellors identify and intervene in places where clients have high levels of interest but low levels of confidence (self-efficacy). The Expanded Skills Confidence Inventory provides a more focused indicator of career related self-efficacy measuring self-efficacy beliefs relevant to the 17 Basic Interest Scales of the Strong Interest Inventory (Betz et al., 2003; Paulsen & Betz, 2004). As with the Skills  58 Confidence Inventory, the Expanded Skills Confidence Inventory provides career counsellors with valuable information regarding low efficacy high interest combinations. These measures are also useful tools for researchers who seek to further an understanding of the role of self-efficacy beliefs in career development. 2.3.1.3  Self-efficacy and career process The Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale is another self-efficacy measure useful  for practitioners and researchers alike (Luzzo, 1993; Taylor & Betz, 1983). In fact, Taylor and Betz developed the Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale to help in the understanding and treatment of career indecision. Unlike the previous self-efficacy measures which focus on specific content areas, the Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale measures self-efficacy beliefs relevant to a process, more specifically the process of making career decisions, and therefore falls into a general category that Lent and Brown (2006) label process efficacy. In more specific terms, the long and short versions of the Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale purport to measure people‘s perceptions of capability relative to the tasks required for making career decisions (Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996; Betz & Luzzo, 1996). Research with these instruments establishes that perceived inefficacy related to the tasks of career decision-making is highly predictive of career indecision (see Betz & Luzzo, 1996 for a review). Similar to the Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale, there are two other career related self-efficacy scales, the Career Search Self-Efficacy scale and the Job Seeking SelfEfficacy scale, that focus on career-related processes rather than specific content areas of career. Solberg and his colleagues developed the Career Search Self-Efficacy scale to measure selfefficacy expectations specific to the skills and competencies necessary for carrying out career search activities (Solberg et al., 1994). More recently, Strauser and Berven (2006) developed the  59 Job Seeking Self-Efficacy scale in order to measure perceived self-efficacy in job-seeking activities. Although these measures focus on career related process and thus differ from the preceding measures, they are similar in that they pertain to the self-efficacy beliefs of career counselling consumers. 2.3.2 Social cognitive career theory Career related self-efficacy research preceded social cognitive career theory by more than 12 years. The interim period witnessed the development of numerous career related self-efficacy scales that elevated the self-efficacy construct within the vocational literature. The application of self-efficacy to the career domain was so successful that one might say that a specific social cognitive career theory was unnecessary. In fact, Nancy Betz, a prolific career related selfefficacy researcher and a co-author to the first career related self-efficacy articles, has and continues to base her work in ―Bandura‘s self-efficacy theory‖ (Betz, 1992, p. 63; 2007, p. 403; Betz & Luzzo, 1996, p. 413). Nonetheless, Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994) saw fit to articulate social cognitive career theory as an integrative framework capable of complementing and establishing conceptual links with other career models. The various articulations of social cognitive career theory are very clearly anchored within the parent theory (Lent, 2005; Lent & Brown, 1996; Lent, et al., 1994; Lent, et al., 2002). This anchoring includes the conceptual model and its philosophical underpinnings; emergent interactive agency, triadic reciprocal determinism, and self-efficacy are central features. The authors, however, recognized the distinct characteristics of the career domain and thus sought an expression that might uniquely fit this domain. In the authors‘ words, ―we tried to adapt, elaborate, and extend those aspects of Bandura‘s theory that seemed most relevant to the processes of interest formation, career selection, and performance‖ (Lent, et al., 2002, p. 258).  60 Freed from having to establish foundational assumptions and concepts, the authors adapted Bandura‘s core concepts and established a theory of career development comprised of three interconnecting models. Social cognitive career theory‘s interconnecting models encompass and seek to explain three important career constructs, namely interests, choice, and performance. The authors depict each model graphically as a flow chart and combine them into one large figure which stands as a pictorial depiction of the entire theory (Lent, et al., 1994). The figures are complete with directional arrows and stands as visual representation of the dynamically organized computational model of human functioning that Bandura (2001) theorized, albeit a model focused on career functioning. Core social cognitive theory constructs such as self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and personal goals serve as explanatory variables in these models. Directional arrows signifying causal relationships connect these variables to the models‘ defining career constructs (i.e., selfefficacy connects to interests and goals connect to choice). The sources of self-efficacy and the effects of self-efficacy inform many of the propositions and hypotheses found in the theory. The theoretical framework and its figurative representation posit 12 general propositions along with 43 specific hypotheses, over half of which identify self-efficacy as a key variable. The testability of the model has prompted a significant amount of research and two separate meta-analytic reviews provide strong support for many of the models‘ specific hypotheses (Lent, et al., 1994; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Narrative reviews of career related self-efficacy research provide additional support for the theory (Bandura, 1997; Hackett, 1995; Swanson & Gore, 2000). The overwhelming majority of the research generated by social cognitive theory focuses on self-efficacy. ―In sharp contrast to the growing body of evidence supporting the sources of  61 self-efficacy beliefs, empirical support for the sources of career-related outcome expectancies is lacking‖ (Swanson & Gore, 2000, p. 246). These authors go on to suggest that the paucity of outcome expectancy research is partially due to a lack of quality outcome expectancy measures. They also identify this as valuable area for future research. Interestingly, Swanson and Gore‘s review does not identify personal goals as an area requiring additional research despite the fact that social cognitive theory identifies personal goals as one of three important explanatory variables. Closer examination of the hypotheses posited by social cognitive career theory reveal that goals serve a mediating role in the hypotheses. The position of goals in the model, toward the output end of most of the arrows, clearly depicts this. It is also somewhat reflective of the ―inputlinear throughput-output model‖ that Bandura (2001, p. 2) abandoned in favour of a ―more dynamically organized computational model(s).‖ Social cognitive career theory ascribes a causal role to personal goals yet hypothesizes them as direct consequences of self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, and interests. Previous research has followed this research agenda whole heartedly. The current project deviates from this agenda and takes an action theoretical perspective on selfefficacy, a perspective that ascribes goals a more important role in all human experience. 2.4  The Contextual Action Theory Framework The emergence and growth of a contextual action theory of career (Young & Valach,  2004; Young, et al., 1996, 2002) is an example of the usefulness of constructivist explanations of career. While constructivism represents an emerging and growing paradigm within counselling psychology as a whole, it is particularly useful for generating knowledge regarding vocational behaviour and career development (Young & Collin, 2004). Constructivism is somewhat of a generic label that encompasses a range of epistemological and ontological positions along with a  62 slightly more differentiated set of labels, namely constructivism and social constructionism (Young & Collin, 2004). While there are important distinctions within these positions, collectively they represent a movement away from postpositivism and toward constructed views of knowledge generation and a more contextualized understanding of the nature of things (Ponterotto, 2005). The constructivisms, collectively and individually, have generated new conceptualizations of career thereby offering new perspectives useful for rethinking longstanding constructs like self-efficacy (Subich, 2001). They also provide a range of research methodologies that are useful for describing self-efficacy beliefs in a manner that fits social cognitive theory‘s conceptualization of emergent interactive agency. The action-project method of contextual action theory is particularly capable for this task. I first describe the theoretical framework along with its unique ontological and epistemological perspectives and then provide a more specific rationale regarding the method‘s specific usefulness for my project. 2.4.1 Conceptual foundations Fittingly, action is the core construct of contextual action theory and the main unit of analysis in the action-project method. Action theory understands action in terms of goals and intentions (Valach, Young, et al., 2002; Young, et al., 2005). Aside from basic reflexes and the responses of the autonomic nervous system, behaviour is held to be purposeful, to be ―about something‖ (Valach & Young, 2004). Therefore most human behaviour is intentional, goaldirected action. Put another way, the forward looking orientation of intention is fully embodied and made real within an individual‘s manifest behaviour. This, however, represents but one of three perspectives of action. Thoughts and emotions are equally important aspects of action in that they are internal steering processes in service of action‘s intentionality (Valach, Young, et al., 2002; Young, et al., 2005). Thus, contextual action theory posits an agentic view of persons  63 where manifest behaviour is wedded to internal processes via action‘s intentionality (Young & Collin, 2004). Action is not, however, the activity of isolated agents. People act together within the context of shared meanings. Social meaning permeates action just as action constructs social meaning; action theory weaves them together so that they are inextricably connected. In this way the third perspective on action, social meaning, embeds action within a contextualized view of human experience so that society‘s meaning is made real in the actions of its members (Young, et al., 1996, 2002). Intentionality serves to integrate the perspectives of manifest behaviour, internal processes, and social meaning so as to maintain a holistic view of action and an agentic view of the human condition. The action theory framework identifies cognitions like self-efficacy beliefs as internal steering processes in service of an intentional agent. However, action theory also embeds self-efficacy within manifest behaviour and in relation to shared meanings. In this regard, action is the unit of analysis or the emergent outcome of manifest behaviour, internal processes, and social meaning. Nonetheless, these three perspectives constitute specific processes of action and serve as valuable vantage points on the emergent outcome. In addition to three perspectives on action, contextual action theory also specifies four systems of action and three levels of action organization to provide a three dimensional (see Figure 1) conceptualization of action (Valach, Young, et al., 2002; Young, et al., 2005). As with the three perspectives on action, intentionality is integral to the integration of the action systems and the levels of action organization. The four action systems, individual action, joint action, project, and career, are critical for understanding the temporal dimension of action. In terms of timeframe, action and joint action refer to distinct performances that reflect intention but are also  64 bound in time (Young, et al., 2005). Actions, however, join together over time and coalesce into larger units of meaning based upon the goals that they construct. These larger units, labeled projects, extend action across the temporal dimension and serve as a valuable heuristic for action-project research (Young & Valach, 2004; Young, et al., 2005). Projects aggregate across time and according to an integrative goal that is highly significant to an individual‘s life, a goal that is evident in the career it constructs. In keeping action as the unit of analysis, the four systems of action allow for a rich depiction of self-efficacy beliefs that spans the temporal dimension to encompass beliefs in relation to a range of proximal intentions and distal goals. The notion of joint action (Valach, Young, et al., 2002; Young & Valach, 2004; Young, et al., 2005) means that self-efficacy beliefs are portrayed in relation to shared intentions and meanings. Figure 1. A Three Dimensional Depiction of Action  Perspectives on Action  s tem s y  Career  st ife n a n M tio ac  al s l ia ing rn sse c e t So ean In oce m pr  nS Project tio c A Joint action  Levels of Action Organization  Individual action Goals Action steps/ Functions Action elements (Young, Valach, Valach, & Domene, Domene, 2005, p. 216)  Figure 1. A three dimensional depiction of action. Adapted from ―The three-dimensional conceptual framework for the analysis of action: Perspectives, levels, and systems‖ by R. A. Young, L. Valach, and A. Collin (1996). A contextual explanation of career. In. D. Brown, L., Brooks & Associates, Career choice and development (3rd ed., p. 489). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Copyright 1996 by Wiley. Reproduced with permission from Wiley.  65 The three levels of action organization extend human intentionality to encompass action elements, action steps, and goals (Valach, Young, et al., 2002; Young, et al., 2005). They are also key processes useful for describing action across time. Action elements are the smallest units of action and capture the moment by moment form of human experience. These discrete acts embody the intentionality of the actor and sequences of action elements emerge as functional steps. Finally, the functional steps join together according to the actor‘s intentional framework and thereby construct one or more identifiable goals. The levels of action organization allow for a detailed analysis (Young, et al., 2005) of self-efficacy beliefs. Consider the following example. Self-efficacy beliefs are recognizable at the elemental level and are identified in specific client utterances that describe, evaluate, or in some way comment on the client‘s capabilities. This would include a declaration of inefficacy such as, ―I‘m not very good at math.‖ Though identified as an efficacy relevant statement, the utterance is not an isolated act. Rather it occurs within a sequence of utterances that constitute a functional step. For example, a statement like ―I‘m not very good at math‖ might be part of a sequence that describes the difficulty the client is experiencing at school. This functional step might also be part of a larger goal, which is to decide whether or not to change programs. In this simple example, a single statement of inefficacy is examined across time and in connection with the client‘s intentional framework. Action theory provides a conceptual framework and a method of inquiry, the action-project method, capable of identifying and integrating the composite of efficacy relevant utterances occurring within an individual counselling session and across a series of sessions. In this way, it is well suited for a study that aims to describe client self-efficacy within counselling process.  66 2.4.2 Philosophical footings The action theory literature, unlike the social cognitive theory literature, makes common use of philosophical terminology. This may be due to the theory‘s position within the family of constructivisms. In fact, this kind of family membership almost requires the explicit use of terms like teleological, ontological and epistemological. Theories that occupy positions under the familiar confines of positivism and postpositivism can rely on the dominant discourse of academia to bring their readers alongside. Theories that occupy less familiar philosophical ground fall under greater scrutiny and thus must account for themselves. Contextual action theory‘s position within the family of constructivisms is somewhat unique. In fact, ―action theory has its own epistemological and ontological assumptions‖ (Young, et al., 2005, p. 215). This, in part, is due to the forward looking, teleological stance action theory adopts in explaining human experience. Action theory uses intentionality as an integrative principle and thereby accounts for the processes of action. Although the goals of action account for what is enacted, the framework and the method are also amenable to functional and causal explanations of action (Valach, Young, et al., 2002; Young, et al., 2005). The causal and functional levels of explanation are referenced in the levels of action organization (action elements and functional steps) of the framework and are taken into account during the coding (elements, causal level) and annotation (functional steps, functional level) procedures of the action method. The emphasis, however, is clearly on the goals of action. The emphasis is related to the theories decided focus on cultural, social, and psychological worlds (Young & Valach, 2004). In contrast, action theory acknowledges but does not attend to the physical and biological worlds.  67 Action theory‘s epistemological and ontological assumptions flow out of its emphasis on goals and its focus on cultural, social, and psychological phenomena. In terms of epistemological assumptions, action theory assumes that knowledge is constructed, not discovered (Young & Valach, 2004). More specifically, humans construct knowledge through intentional, goaldirected action. Knowledge construction occurs in a forward acting or prospective manner as well as in a reflective or retrospective manner. In the theorists‘ words, ―We recognize that people—actors, participants, observers, and bystanders alike—make connections among their goal-directed actions, not only retrospectively but also prospectively. Indeed, our actions arise— are constructed and understood—out of this retrospective and prospective meaning making‖ (Young & Valach, 2004, p. 502). In terms of prospective processes, goals and intentions are known in their enactment; identity is constructed one act at a time. These prospective processes account for the immediate here and now construction that occurs with individual and joint action. The retrospective aspect of knowledge construction tends to involve the longer systems of action. In looking back over longer periods of action people make sense of what they have done; they construct projects and careers as well as the goals that integrate this action. The epistemological assumptions of action theory assert that actors construct knowledge of their cultural, social, and psychological worlds. Action theory‘s basic ontological assumption takes things a step further and asserts that action also makes things real. In simple terms, ―We posit that the cultural, social, and psychological worlds are constructed and co-constructed through individual and joint action, project, and career‖ (Young & Valach, 2004, p. 505). In acting, actors embody their intentions and in acting together, actors co-construct their social context. Intentions are made real in action; they are embodied in the observable actions of real people. Actors also construct social meaning after the fact or based on their reflections on  68 observed action. They construct understandings of their own intentions as well as the intentions of others. All of the above rests upon a fundamental ontological assumption, an assumption that places intentionality at the centre of all human experience. Action theory‘s most basic ontological assumption is that humans instinctively ask and answer the question, ―What is this (action) about?‖ (Young & Valach, 2004, p. 505). In other words, they seek to understand what it means to be in this world. This occurs simultaneous to their being and acting in the world; humans act and in doing so fuse intention into existence. Furthermore, their reflective constructions of intentionality are enacted in subsequent action. In this way, intentionality becomes manifest in the back and forth hermeneutic like operation of action, most notably joint action. It is the jointness of action‘s operation that brings action theory into the realm of social constructionism. The basic question, ―What is this action about?‖ extends to all action, including the action of others. Social meaning is paramount because most human experience involves either the actual presence or the psychological presence of other actors. People act in concert with each other thereby weaving their action with the action of others. The inseparability of this process attests to the pervasive influence of the context within which actors act and thus positions action theory toward the social constructionist side of the family of constructivisms. That said, action theory espouses a distinct version of constructivism, one that transcends a number of problems that surround social constructionism. Action theory incorporates a real external world into its logic and provides a basis for human agency, both of which are problematic with social constructionist positions.  69 Action theory does not reduce human experience to the larger discourses of a disembodied society nor does it diminish the realness of human‘s physical existence. In fact, it is the action of real actors that makes social meaning real. Human action is constitutive of the social meaning within which actors act. ―In action theory, it is less a case of the social context serving to construct individual behavior as it is the individual in co-action with others constituting himself or herself socially as well as constituting the social context through goaldirected participation‖ (Young & Valach, 2004, p. 511). This critical distinction fits with my personal views. It is also essential to my project because it forms the basis for a truly agentic perspective on the human condition. Action is embodied intentionality and is thereby an expression of human agency. Human actors enact action. They express their intentions in their moment by moment action. The accumulation of their action constructs projects that they experience as meaningful. In turn the projects coalesce into careers that define their lives. ―Agency as we conceptualize it in action theory is not based on the cognitive/rational, rather it is founded on our embodiment in the existential realities of our lives. As human beings, our bodies are instruments of action that enable the realization of agency.‖ (Young & Valach, 2004, p. 509). Action theory extends an agentic conceptualization of the human condition, a conceptualization that will allow me to describe self-efficacy in the process of individual counselling. 2.4.3 Rationale for using the action-project method The action-project method of contextual action theory is well suited for describing selfefficacy changes occurring within individual counselling. To date, the action-project method has been applied to investigate a variety of human experiences including health (Young, Lynam, et al., 2001; Young et al., 2000), suicide (Valach, Michel, Young, & Dey, 2002), and career  70 development (Young, et al., 1999; Young, Paseluikho, & Valach, 1997; Young, Valach, et al., 1997). These applications demonstrate the method‘s versatility as well as its usefulness for providing thick rich descriptions of participants‘ experiences. More specifically, they also establish the method‘s capacity to take an action theoretical perspective of complex phenomena from an abstract conceptualization to data saturated descriptions of participants manifest behaviour, internal processes, and social meaning. The action-project method is especially well suited for research in counselling psychology (Young, et al., 2005). In addition to providing rich descriptions close to human experience, the action-project method offers systematic and thorough data collection and analysis procedures. The method‘s capacities to access internal process and to encompass the temporal dimension make it particularly useful for counselling process research. The general suitability of the action-project method for counselling research is echoed by its specific utility for my project. More specifically, the action-project method provides an effective methodological and conceptual scheme, one capable of subsuming the agentic, internal, bidirectional, and contextual aspects of self-efficacy. 2.4.3.1  Based upon an agentic understanding of human action The commitment to an agentic depiction of human action is an essential staring point for  studying self-efficacy within counselling process. Like social cognitive theory, the action-project method of contextual action theory is rooted in and committed to an agentic understanding of the human condition (Valach, Young, et al., 2002; Young, et al., 2005). This core philosophical, theoretical, and methodological commitment is realized in the framework‘s conceptualization of action where action is defined as intentional goal-directed behaviour (Valach, Young, et al., 2002). In fact, it the intentionality of action that, in part, confers agentic capabilities to the human  71 condition (Young & Valach, 2004). Thus, action theory posits an agentic view of persons where manifest behaviour and social meaning are wed with internal processes via action‘s intentionality (Young & Collin, 2004). People enact their intentions thereby exercising self-influence or personal agency. Consequently, the action-project method‘s data collection and analytic procedures are designed to identify and describe the goals and intentions that organize participants‘ action as well as the projects their joint action constructs. 2.4.3.2  Capable of describing internal processes The action-project method is also well equipped for identifying and describing internal  processes like self-efficacy beliefs. In fact, internal steering processes serve as one of three essential perspectives necessary for describing action; manifest behaviour and social meaning make up the other two perspectives (Young, et al., 2005). It is the self-confrontation procedure of the action-project method that provides researchers with access to the thoughts and feelings that help to steer human behaviour. This innovative procedure uses video playback as a stimulus and has research participants report the very thoughts and feelings experienced in their action. This crucial viewpoint into participant‘s internal processes is vital to describing self-efficacy in the underlying process of individual counselling. A preexisting methodological impediment to the current project is the strict reliance on self-efficacy scales that pervades and dominates self-efficacy research. Given the specificity of these scales and the diversity inherent in people‘s self-efficacy belief structures, there is no combination of scales capable of measuring the self-efficacy beliefs relevant to a particular group of research participants. The self-confrontation procedure of the action-project method transcends this impediment by facilitating a manner of access capable of capturing the self-  72 efficacy beliefs pertinent to a group of research participants engaged in counselling for their own personal issues. 2.4.3.3  Accounts for a dynamic bidirectional model of influence The ability to contend with the temporal dimension is another important methodological  advantage of the action-project method. The triadic reciprocal model of influence posited by social cognitive theory depicts self-efficacy as a dynamic interactive mechanism amidst numerous other influences. Bandura (1997) recognizes the methodological complexities that go along with triadic reciprocal determinism and posits a time lag operation in order to justify the use of the microanalytic research model that has been used to investigate self-efficacy. The time lag operation asserts that self-efficacy beliefs persist in time and that their existence can be measured at one point in time and their effects later on in time. However, the time lag operation signifies a simple linear approach to research. The issue here is not whether self-efficacy beliefs exert some kind of enduring influence over time but rather how the time lag operation approach confines self-efficacy research in ways that are inconsistent with the theory‘s depiction of the human condition, a depiction that Bandura (2001) describes as follows. The linear model was, in turn, supplanted by more dynamically organized computational models that perform multiple operations simultaneously and interactively to mimic better how the human brain works. In this model, environmental input activates a multifaceted dynamic throughput that produces the output. These dynamic models include multilevel neural networks with intentional functions lodged in a subpersonal executive network operating without any consciousness via lower subsystems.... The personal level involves phenomenal consciousness and the purposive use of information and self-regulative means to make desired things happen. (p. 2)  73 Advanced statistical procedures such as structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling represent one way to liberate self-efficacy from a simple linear model of human functioning. Indeed their use in self-efficacy research is increasing and is generating new knowledge regarding specific domains of function (i.e., Hongyun, Qingmao, & Lei, 2004; Lubbers, Loughlin, & Zweig, 2005; Nauta, Kahn, Angell, & Cantarelli, 2002). The action-project method provides another means for depicting the self-efficacy mechanism in its conceptual fullness. I would argue that the action-project method provides an approach that is more congruent with the philosophical and theoretical model within which self-efficacy resides. The action-project method does not, however, lend itself to the kinds of causal claims that are typically made with self-efficacy research. Nonetheless, the action-project method‘s data collection and analytic procedures are capable of describing self-efficacy as an interactive temporally situated process. The procedures situate perceptions of self-efficacy as internal processes of action, processes that are inextricably joined with manifest behaviour and social meaning. These processes exist across a short term temporal dimension that is organized within an intentional framework encompassing the basic elements, functional steps, and goals of action (Valach, Young, et al., 2002; Young, et al., 2005). This organization provides a basis for observing the short term interactive effects of individual self-efficacy beliefs. The action-project method also embeds self-efficacy beliefs within increasingly longer time frames labeled action, project, and career (Valach, Young, et al., 2002; Young, et al., 2005). It is within these systems of action that the long term properties of selfefficacious thought become more apparent.  74 2.4.3.4  Provides a fully contextualized perspective The action-project method offers a contextualized perspective on self-efficacy and  provides a means for observing self-efficacy within the interactive dialogue of counsellor client dyads. It contextualizes self-efficacy within the communicative events of a counselling session, the rich network of social meaning within which they occur, and the goals or intention to which they are directed (Young, et al., 2002). These methodological accomplishments are particularly valuable given that social cognitive theory roots human functioning within social systems and locates personal agency ―within a network of sociostructural influences‖ (Bandura, 2001, p. 5). In fact, Bandura calls for a macroanalytic approach to research that is capable of comprehending and integrating the sociostructural factors that converge upon human experience (Bandura, 2001). His emphasis on integration is consistent with his adherence to a non dualistic view of the person environment interaction where there is a dynamic interplay that occurs between the individual and social spheres (Bandura, 1999). Contextual action theory echoes and extends this kind of non dualism. Action theory draws from Pepper‘s (1942) theorizing and advances an understanding of contextualism where every act takes place within a context and is indistinguishable from the context, the two are woven together as in a tapestry (Young, et al., 2002). The particular tapestry forwarded by action theory encompasses three levels of action organization, four action systems, and three perspectives on action. In all of this, action is central; it is the unit of analysis through which the action-project method provides a rich, thick description of participants‘ experiences. Nonetheless, the goals of action and the shared meanings that help guide action are particularly important aspects of the contextualist perspective forwarded within action theory. Goals are intrinsic to every act and function to connect action together over short intervals  75 (action organization) and longer intervals (action systems) as discussed above. Goals anchor action to the present situation but also weave them together with past and future actions. ―Our actions arise – are constructed and understood – out of the retrospective and prospective meaning making‖ (Valach & Young, 2004, p. 75). Together social meaning, in conjunction with internal processes, steers and regulates action. This steering function describes one of the aspects of action‘s social embeddedness. The jointness of action, two or more people acting in ways that construct common goals, also embeds action in social meaning. The action-project method captures the jointness by investigating dyads who are involved in a common activity and thereby provides a means for contextualizing clients‘ self-efficacy beliefs within the counselling process. 2.4.4 An action theoretical perspective on self-efficacy The above rationale provides the beginning sketches of the action theoretical perspective on self-efficacy that I use in describing self-efficacy within counselling process. Figures 2 and 3 provide graphic depictions that extend these sketches. The figures provide a synthesis of the literature but are not forward as an explanatory model self-efficacy. I explain the figures in the following paragraphs and provide a summary of the action theoretical perspective on selfefficacy that I bring to my study.  76 Figure 2. Self-Efficacy within Social Cognitive Theory  Methodology  Theory  Emergent Interactive Agency Self-influence Forethought Triadic Reciprocal Determinism Bidirectional influence Non dualistic environment-person relationship  Sources of SE (Behaviour T1)  Self-efficacy beliefs* (Person Factor T2)  Effects of SE (Behaviour T3)  S o c i o s t r u c t u r a l C o n t e x t (Environmental factors)  (*assessed through self-efficacy scales)  Figure 3. Self-Efficacy within an Action Theoretical Perspective  Sources of self-efficacy  Manifest behaviour*  Self-efficacy beliefs  Effects of self-efficacy  Internal processes*  Manifest Behaviour*  S  o  c  i  a  l  M  e  a  C o n t e x t  n  teps al S n o i nct  l on E Acti  A  … …… … * ts  i  ……  n  …  g  .G ……  u …. F  oals  Goals… Projects… Career  S o c i o s t r u c t u r a l  n eme  c  t  i  o  n  (* indicators of self-efficacy beliefs)  The key assumptive features of self-efficacy are identified within the large arrow shown at the top of figure 2. Emergent interactive agency and triadic reciprocal determinism  77 conceptualize self-efficacy as a key mechanism of self-influence and set it within a non dualistic environment-person relationship. The large arrow points to the bottom half of the first figure which depicts the methodological approach typically used within self-efficacy research. The main features of the approach include discrete measurement periods over time and the use of one or more self-efficacy scales. The figure also locates fundamental findings (i.e., the sources and effects of self-efficacy) within the methodology approach. The time lag assumption is evident in that mastery experience (behaviour) at T1 causes changes to self-efficacy beliefs (person factor) measured at T2 and self-efficacy beliefs (person factor) measured at T2 have a causal effect on behaviour (approach, avoidance, persistence, and performance) measured at T3. The full length of the time line demonstrates the pattern of causal relationships observed between behaviour and person factors. The dotted bidirectional arrows going between the sociostructural context (environmental factors) and each of the time periods represents the other bidirectional influence posited within triadic reciprocal determinism. I‘ve used light gray dotted lines to acknowledge that the standard methodological approach falls short of the theoretical assertion. Figure 3 depicts self-efficacy according to an action theoretical perspective. It encompasses aspects of the first figure along with social cognitive theory terminology (i.e., sources of self-efficacy, self-efficacy beliefs, effects of self-efficacy, and sociostructural context) in order to demonstrate that an action theoretical perspective has the capacity to subsume current knowledge of self-efficacy within a methodological framework that is capable of contextualizing client self-efficacy and describing it as a dynamic interactive process. The large rectangle labeled action represents the basic unit of analysis prescribed by the action theory framework. The arrowed line travelling across the top of this figure is representative of the temporal dimension and the causal relationships observed in self-efficacy  78 research. It also represents the teleological explanation forwarded within contextual action theory, namely that human behaviour and internal processes can be understood in light of the actor‘s goals. The dashed lines that form the various rectangles of the figure are highly significant in that they encompass the different dimensions of action (i.e., the perspectives on action, the action systems, and the levels of action organization) without breaking the unit of analysis. The asterisks highlight how the action-project method‘s numerous data sources are able to identify client self-efficacy beliefs as they are manifest across the temporal dimension of individual counselling sessions. In keeping with the action theoretical perspective and the teleological explanation noted above, an action theoretical perspective on client self-efficacy understands the manifestations of client self-efficacy in light of clients‘ goals and client and counsellors‘ joint goals.  79 Chapter 3: Method The purpose of this study was to describe dynamic interactive manifestations of client self-efficacy within the counselling process of young adult clients and professional counsellors. This aim was pursued via two research questions, ―How is client self-efficacy manifest in counselling process?‖ and ―How are perceptions of clients‘ capabilities constructed within the individual and joint action of individual counselling sessions?‖ These questions were derived from an action theoretical perspective of self-efficacy and were answered in a collective case study that reanalyzed six cases generated for a separate action-project study. The constructivistinterpretivist paradigm (Ponterotto, 2005) served as a philosophical and conceptual guide for all aspects of the current study, including the choice of the action-project method, the generation of the study‘s research questions, the decision to reanalyze data from another action-project study, the adoption of a collective case approach, and the analysis procedures described in this chapter. The chapter utilizes two short phrases designed to bring clarity to the research activities described therein. The phrase current study refers to specific activities I enacted in an effort to answer this dissertation‘s two research questions. In contrast, the phrase initial study refers to the research activities of the action-project study that I reanalysed in the current study. What follows is a preliminary section describing key aspects of initial study’s methods and a subsequent section that outlines the details of the current study’s methodology. 3.1  Initial Study The initial study sought to investigate how counsellors‘ and young adults‘ actions in  counselling help young adults‘ transition to adulthood. The action-project method guided each step of the initial study including those relevant to the current study, namely the recruitment, data collection, and analysis procedures.  80 3.1.1 Recruitment The initial study’s sample consisted of 12 counsellor-client dyads. This included 12 different clients and 8 different counsellors; four counsellors served as participants for two separate dyads. Table 1 depicts the composition of the twelve dyads. What follows is a more detailed description of the sampling procedures used to recruit each type of participant. Table 1 Characteristics of the Initial Study’s Data Set ______________________________________________________________________________ Total Analyzed Role in Data Selected for Dyad Client Counsellor Sessionsa Sessionsb Collectionc Reanalysis ______________________________________________________________________________ 601 female, 21 femaled 4 4 no yes 602 female, 21 female 2 2 yes yes d 603 male female 2 0 no no 604 female, 20 femalee 3 3 yes yes 605 female, 19 female 4 4 no yes 606 female, 21 femalef 4 4 no yes 607 female, 20 female 4 2 yes no e 608 female female 3 0 yes no 609 female, 21 femalef 4 4 no yes 610 female femaleg 2 0 no no 611 male femaleg 4 0 yes no 612 female female 1 0 no no ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: a - Indicates the total number of counselling sessions for each dyad b - Indicates the number of sessions analyzed in the initial study c - Indicates whether or not the author of the dissertation participated in the dyad‘s data collection activities d - Participated in dyads 601 and 603 e - Participated in dyads 604 and 608 f - Participated in dyads 606 and 609 g - Participated in dyads 610 and 611  81 3.1.1.1  Young adults The young adult participants were recruited using two strategies, paper posters and an  online posting. Research assistants placed paper posters (see Appendix A) in a variety locations including university campuses, community centres, coffee shops, and counselling centres. This initial strategy proved ineffective and the research team added a second strategy, use of an online posting (see Appendix B) on the Vancouver site of craigslist. The use of the volunteer section of craigslist, a community moderated online site comprised of local classifieds and forums, proved to be more effective. Potential young adult participants initiated contact with the research team via email and telephone. Research assistants responded to participant inquires and conducted screening interviews (see Appendix C). They used email to send interview notes to the rest of the research team and team members reviewed the interview notes according to the inclusion criteria. The team used consensus to establish suitability and pre-assigned research assistant pairs placed suitable participants into counsellor-client dyads. The inclusion criteria for young adult participants consisted of a number of personal and situational characteristics. In terms of personal characteristics the initial study limited participation to young adults aged 19 to 21. This narrow age range was used because the investigators‘ research questions targeted the transition to adulthood; it was assumed that participants in this age range would be actively involved in this transition. The screening interview assessed for the presence of a transitional issue. Participation was limited to those not currently receiving counselling. Those who self-identified as having a severe psychological disorder (i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc.) or substance abuse issues were also  82 considered unsuitable for the initial study. Participation was also limited according to schedule availability. 3.1.1.2  Counsellors The initial study’s research team employed a combination of convenience and  opportunistic sampling procedures to recruit counsellor participants. The research team identified local counselling agencies and counsellors from published lists of a number of professional counselling organizations. The team created a mailing list and sent out information letters. Interested counsellors contacted the research team and underwent a screening interview (Appendix D) and an orientation meeting. The inclusion criteria included graduation from a recognized master‘s level counselling program, two years of subsequent experiences, and specific experience working with late adolescent or young adult clients. The lead investigator held an orientation meeting with pre-screened counsellors, received their informed consent, and invited them to participate in up to two counsellor-client dyads. The counsellors received $85 for each counselling session and $45 for each self-confrontation interview. Research team members invited counsellor participants to inform colleagues who might be interested in participating in the study. Interested counsellors contacted the team and underwent a screening interview and orientation meeting. A registered psychologist who was completely independent of the study was paid to provide supervision to the counsellors on a basis of requests from the counsellors. 3.1.2 Data collection The initial study was guided by data collection strategies specified for using the actionproject method to conduct research in counselling (Young, et al., 2005). The data collection activities included: prescreening interviews, video recorded counselling sessions, audio recorded follow-up interviews after each counselling session, and a member check in between the first and  83 second counselling sessions of each dyad. Additional details of the data collection activities and the nature of the data generated by these activities is expanded upon below. The screening interviews (see Appendices F & G) constituted the first data collection activity of the initial study. This first wave of data collection provided the research team with some basic demographic information on all of the participants as well as a specific indication of the young adult participants‘ transitional issues and the counsellor participants‘ theoretical orientation. The research team assigned suitable participants to counsellor-client dyads after the screening interviews were completed. The research team made these assignments as suitable participants presented themselves. The assignment process proceeded according the counsellors‘ and clients‘ time availability as well as the team‘s ability to form research assistant pairs that could accommodate these time parameters. Aside from schedule coordination difficulties the largest hurdle in forming dyads involved finding and screening client participants. A total of seven research assistants were used to gather data, two of whom, the current author included, joined the team prior to data collection and remained as a part of the team through to the end of the analysis. The counselling sessions took place within specially equipped rooms located on a university campus. The assigned research assistants set up the appropriate audio visual equipment, a digital video camera and a digital audio recorder prior to the arrival of the participants. The research assistants obtained informed consent from the client participant 15 minutes prior to the first scheduled counselling session. Counsellors provided informed consent during a special orientation meeting that took place separate from the counselling session. This  84 secondary screening procedure ensured that the counsellor participants understood their ethical responsibilities as professional counsellors. The research assistants introduced themselves to the research participants and the client and counsellor to each other just prior to the beginning of the first session. After these introductions and an opportunity for questions, the participants proceeded with the first counselling session while the research assistants observed the session via the use of a television monitor. At the session‘s end the counsellor and client scheduled the next counselling session and the research assistants confirmed their availability. The dyads‘ audio recorded sessions were professionally transcribed for future analyses. Immediately following the session the research assistants invited the participants to take a brief break while they set up the equipment for the self-confrontation procedure. After the break the research assistants were paired off with a different member of the dyad and guided that participant through the self-confrontation procedure. The research assistants maintained these pairings for the duration of the dyad‘s sessions. The self-confrontation procedure is a special video prompted recall interview designed to elicit information regarding the participants‘ internal processes. Though it bears some resemblance to Kagan‘s (1963) interpersonal process recall procedure, it is a distinct research protocol of the action-project method and is directly tied to action theory‘s conceptualization of action (Valach, Young, et al., 2002). Its use in this study was confined to randomly pre-selected 15-minute segments of the counselling session. The participants were blind to this selection until the commencement of the self-confrontation procedure. During the self-confrontation procedure research assistants played a 1-minute segment of video footage to the participants and then asked them to describe what they were thinking and feeling during that moment of the counselling  85 session. Research assistants used reflective listening skills to help the participants describe their thoughts and feelings. Research assistants proceeded to the next minute of the session once participants indicated that there were no additional thoughts or feelings to describe. The procedure was repeated until the full 15-minute segment of the counselling session was covered. The self-confrontation procedure marked the end of each session‘s data collection procedures for the initial study. These data collection procedures repeated for up to 4 counselling sessions. Some dyads, however, ended prior to the completion of 4 sessions. The client participants initiated termination in each of these cases. Some provided reasons for their decision while others simply failed to show up for subsequent sessions. The initial study’s data collection activities yielded a total of 37 sessions. Table 1 outlines the number of sessions per dyad along with the composition of each dyad. The recorded counselling sessions and self-confrontations were transcribed by a professional transcriptionist and subsequently corrected with the original recordings by a member of the research team. 3.1.3 Data analysis The initial study’s stated goal was to describe how counsellors and young adults in counselling act together to assist the young adult with issues related to the transition to adulthood (R. A. Young, personal communication, September 19, 2006). The following research questions expand upon this goal and provide context for understanding the data analysis procedures described below. The questions are: 1a) Can we describe counselling as joint action? 1b) If so, what does it look like? 2a) What are the transitional projects that are jointly constructed by counsellors and clients in counselling? 2b) How are the projects jointly constructed by counsellors and clients in counselling? (R. A. Young, personal communication June 10, 2008).  86 The researchers answered these questions by following the analytic procedures of the actionproject method. Data analysis for the initial study followed the action-project method‘s prototypical procedures (Young, et al., 2005). This includes intensive, team based within-case and cross-case analysis procedures. The within-case analysis sought answers for the research questions for each individual dyad whereas the cross-case analysis explored commonalities and distinctions across the dyads. The following provides brief descriptions of each of these procedures. The first stage of the within-case analysis was conducted by research assistant pairs. The pairs executed a detailed coding and annotation process for each session before producing a summary description of the dyad‘s joint action. The session summary included a brief narrative summary along with supporting quotations from the counselling session and both selfconfrontations. It also included an annotated summary that identified the participants‘ individual goals and functional steps as well as the dyad‘s joint goal(s) and the project(s). The research team reviewed and discussed the session summary and the research assistants modified the summary based upon the team‘s input. The within case analysis concluded with a summary report of the entire case. This report integrated the session summaries and highlighted the participants‘ individual goals and functional steps as well as the joint goals represented in the dyad‘s action and the project(s) constructed in this action. Once again research assistants produced the case summary and the team provides additional input. The research assistants followed a lengthy and intensive data analysis process for each session in order to produce these summaries. The process was iterative incorporating both ―topdown‖ and ―bottom-up‖ procedures (Young, et al., 2005). The research assistants used HyperRESEARCH (Hesse-Biber, Kinder, & Dupuis, 2006), a qualitative data analysis software  87 package, to carry out the procedures and to organize the output. They began their analysis by checking and correcting transcripts of the counselling session and the self-confrontation interviews. They continued their analysis of a session by viewing the video taped session and by reading the self-confrontation transcripts. In doing so they gained a sense of the overall social meaning that contextualizes the dyad‘s action and ―the intentional framework, or overall goal of the entire sequence of action‖ (Young, et al., p. 220). The research assistants brought this understanding of the dyad‘s intentional framework to the detailed coding and annotating work of the ―bottom-up‖ procedures. These procedures called for a minute by minute analysis where the research assistants used a set of established codes (see Appendix E) to code the individual action elements of the participants‘ observed behaviour. After coding a minute the research assistants annotated the segment by summarizing the action elements and by inferring functional steps and goals for each participant as well as the dyad‘s joint goals. The self-confrontation data from each participant was particularly valuable in this process in that it described the participants‘ internal processes. All told these analytic procedures ensured that all three perspectives on action, manifest behaviour, social meaning, and internal processes, were used to describe the participants‘ joint action. The initial stage of the cross-case analysis occurred as research assistant pairs brought dyad summaries forward for discussion at team meetings. The team discussion observed and highlighted emerging consistencies amongst the dyad summaries as well as unique distinctions between them. This initial stage continued as new dyad summaries were generated. Once all of the dyad summaries were completed, the primary researchers conducted an intensive. A number of factors combined to produce tangible limitations for the initial study’s analyses. These factors included the size of the data set (approximately 120 hours of transcribed  88 data), the time demands required for the within case analysis, and budget limitations of the supporting grant. The tangible limitations of these factors were that 6 of the 12 dyads (21 of 37 sessions) were fully analyzed according to the methods described above. Of the 16 sessions from the remaining six dyads, 7 were submitted to the within-case analyses and described within a session summary. The remaining 9 sessions were reviewed in light of the projects generated by the detailed analysis of the 33 sessions; consistencies and discrepancies were noted as they were observed. Table 1 summarizes the scope of the initial study’s analyzes relative to the data that was collected. 3.2  Current Study The current study aimed to describe dynamic interactive manifestations of client self-  efficacy within counselling process and asked two research questions. The first question asked how is client self-efficacy manifest in counselling process. The second question asked how are perceptions of capability or inability constructed within the individual and joint action of counselling sessions. The current study answered these questions within a reanalysis that encompassed four specific stages including a pre-analysis design stage and three stages of analysis. The subsequent text provides detailed descriptions and explanations of the same activities. 3.2.1 Pre-analysis design stage The first stage encompassed the researcher‘s decision to answer his research questions through a reanalysis, the subsequent decision to develop an additional data collection protocol specific to these research questions, and a set of methodological decisions regarding the reanalysis. What follows is a brief account of the rationale supporting this set of interconnected decisions.  89 3.2.1.1  Decision to reanalyze The initial study’s conceptual grounding and methodological design offered a strong  foundation for a reanalysis. As noted in the previous chapter, contextual action theory offers a conceptual framework designed for studying dynamic processes including those embedded within counselling process. This fit well with the study‘s aim of describing dynamic manifestations of client self-efficacy within counselling process. The initial study’s proposed application of the action-project method specified a rich data set to support the specific purpose of the reanalysis. The initial study’s counsellor recruitment strategies and selection criteria were suitable for the reanalysis proposed in the current study. In fact, a sample of counsellors with diverse theoretical orientations was deemed useful to the current study in that observations were more likely to be supported as a general counselling process and less likely to be confined to a particular orientation. This offered increased transferability for the findings of the current study. The target client participant also fit well with the current study‘s purpose. The transition to adulthood is enacted through numerous decisions encompassing various interrelated domains including relational, educational, vocational, lifestyle, and so forth. As noted in the previous chapter, perceived inefficacy related to educational requirements, occupational tasks, career interests, and career decision-making are closely tied to the process of career decision making as well as the particular career decisions people make. Consequently, the initial study’s focus on young adult clients and professional counsellors addressing transitional issues within counselling provided an excellent vantage point for observing client self-efficacy. From an efficiency perspective, the decision to reanalyze allowed the researcher to advance his research interests upon his entry into the doctoral program. As a research assistant for the initial study, the decision to reanalyze also afforded him valuable learning opportunities,  90 namely the opportunity to develop expertise in the action-project method and the opportunity to acquire intimate knowledge of the rich data set. In addition to these personal efficiencies the decision to reanalyze also offered increased value to the grant money supporting the initial study. 3.2.1.2  Added data collection protocol Active involvement at the pre-data collection phase of the initial study also provided the  researcher with an opportunity to develop a specific data collection protocol to help answer the research questions of the current study. The added protocol consisted of a Youth Response Sheet (YRS; see Appendix F), a short open-ended questionnaire that was administered to client participants each session after they had completed the initial study’s data collection protocols. This specially designed questionnaire asked clients to identify three timeframes of action related to their transition to adulthood. The timeframes, labelled ―things that you are currently doing‖, ―next steps (within the year)‖, and ―mid range goals (1-4 years)‖, correspond to the three action systems, action, project, and career, conceptualized with contextual action theory. The YRS also asked clients to rate each action, project, or career that they identified according to the confidence they felt regarding their ability to complete each action, project, and career. The open-ended nature of the YRS allowed participants to identify action they deemed pertinent to their transition to adulthood. The rating provided an indication of clients‘ perceptions of capability at that moment in time and supplemented the data gathered within the counselling sessions and self-confrontations. The addition of the YRS was the only data collection modification imposed by the current study. Its inclusion at the end of each data collection period facilitated fluid movement through the initial study’s data collection protocols while also providing supplemental data for the current study.  91 3.2.1.3  Methodological decisions Three macro-level methodological decisions organized and shaped the reanalysis. The  first organizing decision was to adapt action-project analysis strategies to the current project. The second involved the decision to adopt a collective case approach for the reanalysis. The third involved the decision to select a subset of cases from the initial data set. The rationale for each decision is described below. 3.2.1.3.1 Action-project rationale The decision to adapt action-project methods for the reanalysis involved two important factors, the composition of the original dataset and the specific research questions asked in the current study. The action-project method requires data collection procedures that include all three perspectives on action (manifest action, social meaning, and internal processes) (Young, et al., 2005). The data collection procedures of the initial study were consistent with this requirement and generated a rich dataset inclusive of all three perspectives on action and amenable to an action-project reanalysis. The main purpose and resulting research questions of the current study were derived from an action theoretical perspective of self-efficacy and thus were well suited an adaptation of the action-project analysis procedures. As noted in the previous chapter, the action-project method is highly amenable to a study of client self-efficacy and offers a methodology that addresses important limitations of previous research. Finally, the method‘s attentiveness to standards of quality and trustworthiness offered a strong platform from which to conduct a reanalysis.  92 3.2.1.3.2 Case study approach Robert Stake (2000) identifies case study as one of the most common ways to conduct qualitative research. He describes case study as an approach that defines what will be studied, an approach that is not confined to any particular method. This conceptualization allows researchers to define their case(s) in a manner that suits their research questions and to distinguish the phenomenon of interest from the particular case(s) being studied. This particular type of case study, called the collective case study (Stake, 2000), was deemed useful for the current study in that it enabled the researcher to conduct intensive, iterative analyses on a limited number of cases and to use the analyses to describe perceptions of client self-efficacy as they were constructed within the counselling process. All told the decision to use a collective case study approach provided focus and organization to the analyses described in the analysis section. 3.2.1.3.3 Case selection The reanalysis was limited to 6 of the 12 cases that formed the initial study’s data set. The purpose in choosing a smaller subset of the total dataset was to facilitate a more focussed and detailed set of analyses for the current study. Limiting the data set to six cases allowed the researcher to conduct the kind of in-depth analyses needed to answer the research questions. The inclusion of 6 allowed for meaningful cross case analyses and enhanced the transferability of the findings. Although the case selection process encompassed several considerations, it was ultimately determined by the decision to incorporate a portion of the initial study’s analyses (i.e., the action elements, functional steps, individual goals, and joint goals) in the current study‘s analytic procedures (described in the subsequent section). The purpose in using these portions of the initial study’s analyses was to incorporate additional perspectives on the participants‘ social  93 meanings and intentional frameworks thereby strengthening the quality and trustworthiness of the research (Morrow, 2005). At the time of the current study only 6 of the 12 cases were fully analyzed in the initial study (see Table 1). A convenience sampling strategy was employed and these cases became the default cases for the current study. It is important to note that the current author participated in the data collection activities of 2 of the 6 cases chosen for the current study (see Table 2) and that this was within the limits established in the pre-analysis design stage of the current study. Table 2 Characteristics of the Current Study’s Data Set ______________________________________________________________________________ Counselling Role in Data Dyad Client Counsellor Sessions Collectiona ______________________________________________________________________________ 1 female, 21 female 4 no 2 female, 21 female 2 yes 3 female, 20 female 3 yes 4 female, 19 female 4 no 5 female, 21 femaleb 4 no b 6 female, 21 female 4 no ______________________________________________________________________________ Notes: a - Indicates whether or not the author of the dissertation participated in the dyad‘s data collection activities b - Participated in dyads 5 and 6  3.2.2 Analysis The data analysis procedures occurred in three distinct stages. The first stage involved a rigorous coding process of the transcribed data sources designed to identify efficacy relevant action. The coding process was followed by the within case analyses which consisted of detailed analyses of 6 of the 12 cases. Finally, the findings of all of the case were compared with each  94 other in the cross case analyses. The remainder of the chapter expands upon this outline and provides detailed descriptions of each stage. 3.2.2.1  Coding stage The goal of the coding phase of the analysis was to identify all of the efficacy relevant  action evident in the transcribed data. In this way the coding activities sought a partial answer to the first research question, ―how is client self-efficacy manifest in counselling process?‖ The task of identifying client self-efficacy in the counselling process was carried out as a dynamic coconstructive process that combined the researcher‘s knowledge of self-efficacy research and theory with the joint action of the research participants. What follows is detailed description of the dynamic iterative process taken to identify efficacy relevant action within the data set. 3.2.2.1.1 Development of the initial codes and coding guidelines The first step in this process involved the generation of an initial set of codes and coding guidelines with which to identifying efficacy relevant utterances (perceptions regarding the client‘s capabilities) in the session and self-confrontation transcripts. Bauer and Bonanno‘s (2001) coding guidelines and procedures served as the starting point for the first iteration of codes. Their system helped establish conceptual congruity for the current study‘s codes and is briefly described below. Bauer and Bonanno‘s (2001) system involved a number of decision points. Their first decision point was to determine if a particular utterance was self-descriptive. First-person pronouns such as I, we, me, my, or our signalled an utterance as self-descriptive. The next decision in their system was to determine if the self-description involved an efficacy relevant self-evaluation. Self-descriptions that were positive or negative in valence, referenced a specific behaviour (not a personal quality or characteristic), and incorporated one of a number of  95 keywords that qualified the behaviour as an ability were considered efficacy relevant selfevaluations. The keywords included the primary indicators of can (cannot), capable (incapable), and able (unable) as well as secondary keywords such as could, couldn‘t, strength, weakness, and control. They also included a number of exclusionary criteria in their system; abilities that were deemed impossible, undesirable, or not especially useful (ordinary) were not coded as efficacy relevant. Bauer and Bonanno‘s application of this coding system established that specific aspects of participants‘ internal belief systems, their self-efficacy beliefs, could be identified via an analysis of a transcribed data source. I adapted Bauer and Bonanno‘s (2001) coding system prior to the first iteration of coding. The first adaptation involved expanding the guidelines to encompass counsellor utterances that referenced the clients‘ abilities. This adaptation was deemed necessary given the research questions and methodological framework of the current study. This decision encompasses two key assumptions, namely that perceptions of client self-efficacy are potentially visible in the counsellor‘s action (dialogue) and that efficacy construction can be described as a joint action process involving the action of both client and counsellor. Although the counsellors‘ utterances were not treated as direct indicators of the clients‘ self-efficacy beliefs, they were deemed important because of their interconnections with the surrounding action. For example, a counsellor might paraphrase a client‘s efficacious or inefficacious self-evaluation thereby noting and highlighting a client‘s expressed self-efficacy belief. Similarly, the counsellor might offer a statement or question pertaining to a client‘s ability thereby soliciting an efficacious or inefficacious self-evaluation from the client. Consequently, the counsellors‘ evaluations of the clients‘ capabilities were identified as action that was pertinent to the clients‘ self-efficacy beliefs but not as direct indicators of the clients‘ beliefs.  96 The second adaptation involved expanding the criteria to include evaluations of perceived difficulty. Bauer and Bonanno (2001) identified their system as being conservative and suggested that future coding systems could be expanded to include statements that referred to the degree of difficulty of a particular behaviour. The decision to expand the coding system was made in order to capture all possible efficacy relevant utterances within the first stage of analysis. The third adaptation was to expand the coding system to include efficacy relevant questions. This adaptation was made after the researcher piloted the existing codes on a session transcript and 2 self-confrontation transcripts. The interactive nature of the counselling process quickly revealed that questions of efficacy were part of the dialogue. For example a counsellor might ask a client, ―Are you able to make choices or are you just following whatever life presents?‖ Although questions like this are not evaluations of the clients‘ capabilities, they direct clients to reflect on their capabilities, a process analogous to perceiving. Clients‘ responses to efficacy questions become self-evaluations of the capability or palpable indicators of their selfefficacy beliefs. These three adaptations yielded an initial coding system consisting of the following twelve codes: 1) efficacious self-evaluation; 2) inefficacious self-evaluation; 3) efficacious otherevaluation; 4) inefficacious other-evaluation; 5) difficulty hard (client statement); 6) difficulty easy (client statement); 7) difficulty hard (counsellor statement); 8) difficulty easy (counsellor statement); 9) efficacy question; 10) possible efficacy (client statement); 11) possible efficacy (counsellor statement); 12) can-could no-efficacy. The last three codes were used to identify and note utterances that matched certain aspects of the coding system (i.e., a signifying keyword, a reference to difficulty, etc.) but for some reason (i.e., there was no apparent skill, the behaviour  97 was considered impossible, etc.) were excluded as an efficacy relevant utterance or were. The can-could no-efficacy code was used in incidences where the utterance clearly did not pertain to perceptions of the client‘s capabilities. The possible code was used in incidences where the utterance might pertain to the client‘s capabilities but the utterance failed to meet the criteria specified within the coding guidelines. The initial coding system formed the basis for the final coding system. Codes applied to portions of the session transcripts identified specific action elements as efficacy relevant utterances. The action elements corresponded to the narrative units that Bauer and Bonnano‘s (2001) system analysed. Codes applied of the self-confrontation transcripts identified efficacy relevant thoughts within the participants‘ internal process. The coding of clients‘ self-confrontation transcripts represented an important extension to Bauer and Bonnano‘s procedures (2001), one that provided a more direct method for identifying clients‘ self-efficacy beliefs. 3.2.2.1.2 Coding iterations What followed was an iterative coding process whereby the researcher applied the existing coding system to the session and self-confrontation transcripts while at the same time reflected on how the dyads‘ action constructed perceptions of client capability and incapability. The researcher‘s attentiveness to the dyad‘s efficacy constructions encompassed an integrated consideration of all three perspectives on action (manifest behaviour, internal processes, and social meaning) as seen in the video footage of the counselling sessions, the transcript of the counselling session and the transcripts of both self-confrontations. The researcher also consulted the action elements, functional steps, client goals, counsellor goals, and joint goals generated in  98 the initial study’s analyses. This procedure helped ground the coding process in a contextualized view of the participants‘ dialogue. A contextualized approach to coding represented an important enhancement of Bauer and Bonanno‘s (2001) analysis procedures. Their original guidelines incorporated exclusionary criteria designed to rule out participant utterances where the ability in question was deemed impossible, undesirable, or ordinary but their analysis procedures were conducted upon discrete narrative units and did not involve a systematic process for incorporating the context and meaning that surrounded the narrative units. In contrast, the action project method used in the current study allowed the researcher to understand each action element within the context and meaning of an entire counselling session. This understanding of the context and meaning of participants‘ action provided an enriched perspective on the participants‘ action and helped clarify whether or not particular utterances were efficacy relevant. For example, the client utterance, ―I can‘t talk anymore‖ might not be considered efficacy relevant within Bauer and Bonanno‘s system. A literal understanding of the phrase ―can‘t talk‖ could lead a researcher could conclude that speaking is an ordinary ability and that the utterance does not denote perceived inability. In contrast, the action project method‘s data analysis procedures embed this short action element within the context and meaning of the whole session. The context and meaning surrounding this particular example indicates that the client is unable to talk with her stepmother in situations where she is crying because of what her stepmother has communicated to her. Hence, the perceived inability is contextualized as the inability to regulate her emotions and communicate with her stepmother when her stepmother is accusing her of wrong doing. Similarly, though the counsellor utterance, ―What would be possible for you to talk to her at all – just talk?‖ does not fit Bauer and Bonnano‘s (1991) criteria, a look at the action  99 surrounding the utterances reveals that it is efficacy relevant. The counsellor‘s comments in the self-confrontation data interview reveals that she was asking the client, ―What can you do different?‖ A look at the counsellor‘s previous statement, ―And could you do that with your stepmother as well?‖ illustrates that she is asking the client to consider what she is able to do in that situation. Furthermore, this single utterance comes in the context of a conversation that is focussed on the client‘s perceived inability to talk with her father and stepmother. The tangible result of incorporating all three perspectives on action was a series of modifications to the initial coding system. The Bauer and Bonanno (2001) coding system and the researcher‘s familiarity with self-efficacy theory and research functioned as checks designed to circumscribe the phenomenon of interest to perceptions of client capability and to maintained conceptual congruity. The researcher practiced reflexivity throughout this process and chronicled his observations with written and electronic notations. Two software packages supported the iterative coding process. HyperRESEARCH (Hesse-Biber, et al., 2006), a qualitative data analysis software package, served as the vehicle for identifying efficacy relevant action with the session and self-confrontation transcripts. The researcher also created Excel worksheets and entered the coded sections of all of the transcripts within a column of the worksheet. The researcher also identified a specific domain of function and a specific behavioural task for each utterance and entered these in adjacent columns of the worksheet; these entries helped ensure that the coded elements were consistent with SCT‘s conceptualization of self-efficacy beliefs. The worksheet also included the portions of the intial study’s analysis referred to above. More specifically, the worksheet included columns that contained the action elements, functional steps, client goals, counsellor goals, and joint goals corresponding to the minute where the efficacy relevant utterance was taken from. All of this  100 information, the domains, the behavioural tasks, the action elements, the functional steps, the client goals, the counsellor goals, and the joint goals, were available to help determine whether a particular utterance was efficacy relevant. This information was also used to establish the final set of coding guidelines. The use of the can-could no-efficacy code and two possible efficacy codes (client and counsellor) provided the researcher with mechanisms for keeping potential efficacy utterances under consideration during the iterative process. It also provided a way of recoding segments out of the category of ―efficacy relevant‖ into a non-efficacy or possible efficacy code. 3.2.2.1.3 Final coding system and quality checks The iterative coding process continued until the researcher constructed a final coding system (see Appendix G), one that fit the participants‘ efficacy relevant action and maintained conceptual congruity as outlined above. The final coding system is highly similar to Bauer and Bonnano‘s (1991) system. The major differences include the adaptations described above (i.e., the inclusion of counsellor utterances, the use of difficulty references, and the inclusion of efficacy questions) and increased attentiveness to the social meaning that contextualized the utterances. The final coding system served as a standard for checking all of the coded data. First, the researcher checked all coded sections against the coding system to ensure consistency. The system was then given to an independent reviewer who possessed a master‘s degree in Library Science and was provided with a 1.5 hour training session related to self-efficacy theory and the coding guidelines developed in this study. The reviewer checked each coded utterance for consistency with the final coding system. Finally, the researcher and reviewer employed a consensus model to resolve the 12 discrepancies arising out of their individual applications of the  101 coding system. The rigor of the iterative coding process, the reflexivity practices of the researcher, and the subsequent independent review process contributed to the credibility of the analysis. 3.2.2.2  Within case analysis stage The second stage of analysis involved a detailed within case examination of all of the  efficacy relevant action identified during the first stage of analysis. The process involved three different steps. In the first step of the within case analysis the researcher reviewed the Excel worksheets produced for the iterative coding process. The Excel worksheets enabled the researcher to use the action elements, functional steps, individual goals, and joint goals of the initial study’s analyses to contextualize each utterance. The process proceeded on an utterance by utterance, session by session, and case by case basis. Utterances observed in the session transcript were understood as action elements that combined with other action elements to construct functional steps, goals, and projects of the dyad‘s sessions. The particular social meanings observed via the session and self-confrontation recordings and transcripts was also instructive in the review process. These meanings were incorporative of researcher‘s understanding of the dyad‘s action as well as the action elements, functional steps, client goals, counsellor goals, and joint goals observed in the initial study’s analyses. Utterances observed in the self-confrontation transcripts were understood as indicators of the participants‘ internal steering processes. The researcher used a separate column of the Excel worksheet to annotate his observations and interpretations and create an audit trail of his analysis. The second step of the within case analyses involved the generation of 21 session summaries. This process entailed a second review of each worksheet (session, client self-  102 confrontation, and counsellor-self confrontation), a review of the corresponding Youth Response Sheet data, and a review of the initial study’s session summary. As with the first review, the researcher sought to describe the efficacy relevant utterances as action elements or internal processes embedded within an intentional joint action framework. The researcher generated a narrative summary of his observations and interpretations along with supporting quotes from the session and self-confrontation transcripts. The narrative summaries also included descriptive statistics for all of the codes and summative information regarding the domains of function and behavioural tasks identified in the Excel worksheets. These summaries comprised an additional part of the study‘s audit trail. The final step of the within case analysis was to produce a single page case summary for each of the dyads. Salient points were extracted from each session summary and denoted within the corresponding column of a four column document. This handwritten summary provided a visible record of how client self-efficacy was manifest and constructed within and across sessions. 3.2.2.3  Cross case analysis stage The cross case analyses provided opportunities to compare and contrast findings  generated within each case. The research questions anchored this process and guided the researcher in the identification of similarities and differences related to the manifestation and construction of client self-efficacy. The case summaries offered a quick overview of the selfefficacy manifestations and the constructive processes observed within and across individual dyads. The narrative session summaries provided depth and clarity to the observations and interpretations emerging from the case summaries.  103 Chapter 4: Findings This chapter reports on the findings of the two research questions asked in the study. First of all, the study sought to answer the question, ―How is client self-efficacy manifest in counselling process?‖ Secondly, the study aimed to answer the question, ―How are perceptions of clients‘ capabilities constructed within the individual and joint action of individual counselling sessions?‖ Findings are presented in two main sections, within case analysis and cross case analyses. 4.1  Within Case Analyses The within case analyses provide detailed descriptions of the participants‘ joint action.  They are presented according to dyad and session. The presentation is supported by numerous illustrative segments from the session transcripts and self-confrontation interviews of the participants. The source (S = session; CLSC = client self-confrontation; CRSC = counsellor selfconfrontation) and temporal location (M = minute) are noted to help readers locate each segment. The prefix efficacy relevant is used to denote coded segments of transcripts and is followed by various words such as utterance and dialogue. The coded elements are in bold print to assist readers in identifying them and in seeing how these utterances connect to the dyads‘ joint action. Each dyad‘s within case analysis ends with a summary of the assertions observed in the case. As stated above, the presentation of with case analyses incorporates numerous quotes from the session and self-confrontation transcripts. These rich thick descriptions of the participants‘ joint action serve two purposes. First it provides readers with the capacity to check the coding for consistency with the coding guidelines described in the previous chapter. This was deemed important given that the current study utilized and forwarded a distinct methodological approach for investigating self-efficacy within counselling process. Readers who choose to  104 review the findings in this manner are understood to be answering the question, ―Does the dialogue reflect perceptions of the clients‘ capabilities?‖ or ―Does the dialogue pertain to the clients‘ self-efficacy beliefs?‖ Although this level of transparency was deemed important, it is not the main purpose for providing such an extensive set of quotations. The main purpose for incorporating such rich thick descriptions of the participants‘ joint action is to provide a fully contextualized depiction of clients‘ self-efficacy beliefs, one that answers the research questions that guided the study‘s data collection and analysis procedures. Readers are invited to evaluate the degree to which the coding system was applied consistently with guidelines described in the method section but are also reminded that this read of the cross-case analyses serves a different purpose and does not answer the study‘s two research questions. Consequently, readers are also encouraged to read the within case analyses with the two research questions in mind, ―How is client self-efficacy manifest in counselling process?‖ and ―How are perceptions of clients‘ capabilities constructed within the individual and joint action of individual counselling sessions?‖ 4.1.1 Dyad 1 This dyad consisted of a white 21-year-old female client and a white female counsellor with 7 years of experience. The dyad met for 4 sessions, the maximum allowable within the parameters of the initial study. Their conversation addressed a range of topics including past and present school experiences, work, and interpersonal relationships but was primarily focussed on the client‘s family relationships, particularly those with her father, stepmother, mother, and grandmother. In this way, the client‘s initial presenting issue, career indecision, gave way to a series of sessions that addressed the client‘s family relationships. The dyad‘s efficacy relevant dialogue followed this pattern and was largely focussed on the client‘s relational projects. The  105 joint action of the sessions explored the client‘s capacity to communicate openly with her father, stepmother, mother, and grandmother. More specifically, their joint action explored specific intrapersonal and interpersonal capabilities such as emotional regulation, emotional selfdisclosure, and assertiveness. The client described significant positive change in her relationships with her father and stepmother, change recognized and observed in terms of increased selfefficacy. In this way, the dyad serves as one of two exemplars of efficacy construction. 4.1.1.1  Session one This dyad‘s first session focussed on exploring the client‘s story and covered a variety of  domains of function including educational, occupational, and relational. Efficacy relevant utterances were observed in the client‘s construction of her story. For example, she said ―it was hard leaving them [cough cough] but so that was school‖ (S1; M12; Clnt66) in describing a past school experience and said, ―I know that I can make some money there and I know that I can be really good at it‖ (S1; M41; Clnt232) in constructing a specific occupational option. In addition to these isolated efficacy relevant utterances, the following exchange of efficacy relevant utterances were embedded within the exploration of the client‘s story. S1; M42 Cllr240: How did you look at change? Is it um difficult for you? Is it hard to end something? Clnt240: Change? No Cllr241: So when you feel like – I am about to end something – a relationship or change career or change something… Clnt241: No problem – that’s fine – I like it – I like starting new things yeah – I mean I don‘t like hurting anybody. The general exploration of the client‘s story evolved into an exploration of the client‘s family relationships. This exploration included a number of efficacy relevant utterances. The first set of efficacy relevant utterances occurred midway through the session. Here the client used a  106 range of efficacious and inefficacious evaluations to describe communicative patterns within her family. S1; M29 Clnt167: Yes some – to some degree – I mean Jim is – the one thing that I can I can share with Jim that I can’t share with either of my parents – well my dad are starting to get there – but I have now – I, I‘m on to my second relationship with a much older man. Cllr168: uh hm Clnt168: and I can talk to Jim about it and I can’t talk to my parents about it. Three quarters of the way through the session the client used an efficacious and an inefficacious evaluation to extend the exploration of family relationships to include her relationship with her stepmother. S1; M45-46 Clnt258: Um she is having a very deleterious effect on my relationship with my father and she and I don‘t talk anymore – I really, really dislike her um yeah I lived with them for 6 months between finishing school in New Mexico and going back to New Mexico and it was – it was just terrible – it was just a really, really hard time for me um and I’m - I’m now – now beginning to recover some confidence and some self-esteem that I had a tough time – I was feeling pretty bad about myself living there um… Cllr259: What happened? Clnt259: Um she has a very specific idea of what it means to be in a family and it sometimes felt like what it was like for her to be in a family was that everyone does whatever they can at all times to accommodate her um and she has expectations that fluctuate on a minute by minute basis and it felt like you were expected to know those at all times and ah it got to the point where I explained to her – I said Karen I feel like no matter what I do here I‘m in trouble – you know I know you want us keeping our shoes – you don‘t like us having our shoes in front of the doorway but if I put them in here – I just got in trouble for putting them in the closet where they‘re supposed to go because they were wet – like it just felt like expectations were changing all the time and I’m – I’m really used to doing things right – and I’m really used to people being happy with me and being able to understand what people want and being able to fulfill that. This was followed by more exploration of the stepmother relationship. The dyad‘s joint action encompasses a number of efficacy relevant utterances and questions. S1; M49 Cllr267: It must be hard for you?  107 Clnt267: Yeah you know what? It’s really hard – um last Christmas – we normally spent Boxing Days – my brothers and I go and have Christmas with my mom and Boxing Day with my dad and this last Christmas um we went over on Boxing Day morning and um Karen and her son Michael – my half brother – left …. So we just were there with my dad and it was really awkward because he felt bad for her feeling like she had to leave her own home in order for us to be there. Cllr268: yeah. Clnt268: And I felt bad for feeling like I caused that and I didn‘t get to see my half brother um… Cllr269: Do you think you can change this? Do you think? Clnt269: I don't know. Cllr270: You can do something, could be done? The segment demonstrated how the client struggled in her relationship with her stepmother. It also revealed that she questioned her ability to address this problem situation. The counsellor‘s self-confrontation included efficacy relevant utterances focused on the client‘s problem situation. Some of these utterances reflected the perceived inefficacy that the client expressed in relation to family communication. S1; CRSC; M11 Clr70: but then that‘s like um I was thinking about how hard it must be for you to to – looking for some guidance RA82: hm finding the guidance Clr71: and - and needing that Res83: uh hm Clr72: but so afraid of being judged or criticized RA84: uh hm Clr73: that ah you can’t talk to your parents about it and um her younger brother and she trusted him and she - she – yeah she can trust him with this issue but it sounds like she needs more than that – just to talk to that her brother Res85: yeah – it‘s kind of a strength that that wasn‘t quite enough – it was great but the loss around not being able to talk to her parents Other efficacy relevant utterances in the counsellor‘s self-confrontation interview provided insight into the counsellor‘s intervention strategies. S1; CRSC; M9 Clr51: um because at the at the previous um moment she was talking about the guidance and telling her what to do and not to do um I wanted to take her back to the time when her parents divorced and she wanted them back um before the age of 9 she had a life and she had a nanny and she was spoiled and she didn‘t have to do any of these things that  108 she had to do and then after the divorce her life changed dramatically and I wanted to bring her back to the times so if you look at yourself and if you see your choices or if you’re put into a situation um how would you make choices – are you able to make choices or are you just following whatever life presents and you find yourself in a situation – are you just doing it or are you – like I wanted to see how she relates to that time Here the counsellor posed an efficacy question for the client. It was evident that she believed the client was capable of choice and aimed to help the client come to that realization. All told the exploration of the client‘s story gradually moved from a general, unfocussed discussion that encompassed several different domains to a more focused conversation about the client‘s relationship with her stepmother. Efficacy relevant utterances were manifest throughout the joint action that explored these aspects of the client‘s story. There was also a noticeable increase in the intensity as the exploration and the efficacy relevant utterances moved to the client‘s relationship with her stepmother. 4.1.1.2  Session two The exploration activities of the first session resumed in the second session. This joint  action culminated in the identification of a problem that the counsellor and client agreed to address in their work together. The joint action process that identified the problem of concern was constructed out of a number of efficacy relevant utterances and questions spanning the first half of the session. S2; M4 20Clnt: I don‘t know. I feel, I feel really frustrated with that situation and I feel like it‘s unfair and I feel upset with my step-mother. I feel upset with my dad and I feel like I don’t have any control over the situation or any say. Like my input doesn‘t really matter. 22Clnt: and I wish that my dad and I could talk about my step-mother and I wish there wasn‘t so many things that we had to do at Christmas. 23Cllr: Yeah, ummm. So when you look at your wishes what is it that you see that you can control or it’s beyond your control?  109 S2; M25 100Cllr: Well that sounds like, because, because she‘s there and you can‘t have the relationship with your dad…. 100Clnt: Yeah 101Cllr: …that you want. 101Clnt: Yeah that‘s the only thing about it that I wish were different. But I don‘t, but at the same time, as I say, I have no desire to, you know…I am reluctant to-to fix things with her, to the degree that it would be necessary or if, for me to be comfortable there… 101.3Clnt: and he would like us to be in a place where he feels he can talk about that and like I‘m not going to get really upset and I would like that too because I don’t like thinking that my dad and I have things we can’t talk about, 101.3Cllr: Umm hmm. 101.4Clnt: cause it used to be that we could talk about anything. Ummm. The joint action that established the client‘s problem included examples a specific intervention strategy that the counsellor employed throughout the session. The strategy involved efficacy questions that asked the client to consider what she was able to do in regards to the problem situations that she described. Here are some examples of the joint action sequences that construct the counsellor‘s intervention strategy. S2; M25 97Cllr: Yeah. Ummm, do you think that your relationship with your dad umm, is kind of ummm, yeah, influencing what you have with your stepmother as well? 97Clnt: Yes. 98Cllr: Do you believe that you can control your stepmother? 98Clnt: No. 99Cllr: Ummm, what can you do about that? What can you do about having a good relationship with your stepmother and with your dad and kind of— S2; M31-32 112Cllr: Yeah. Ummm. I was just wondering if you would go to ummm, no actually, if you call your dad umm and if you would say that ―I think I need to talk to you about this relationship.‖ Umm How would it be comfortable—would it be comfortable for you to say that? 112Clnt: For me and my dad to have that conversation? 113Cllr: No, just for you to say that ―I would like to talk to you about this stress that I am experiencing because of this relationship‖. Would you be able to do that? S2; M33 115Cllr: Umm, And could you do that with your step-mother as well?  110 S2; M33 116Cllr: What would be possible for you to talk to her at all—just talk? The counsellor described the thoughts and intentions behind this strategy during her selfconfrontation interview. S2; CRSC; M2 7Cllr: It‘s um—yeah it‘s—it‘s her story of what people are expecting from her and she‘s willing to go or not go to do that. It‘s the frustration that she knows that‘s expected from her to do that, but that she doesn‘t want to do it. She doesn‘t want to apologize and I was thinking about how can this be different. How,…what can you do different? I guess I was just checking out that solution of ―Should she apologize?‖ But what do you want to do? Yeah it‘s—it‘s her—her story about how she sees the world and people around her. S2; CRSC; M2 15Cllr: Uh-huh, yeah and at the same time, like her, her perception of, her, like her behavior. Like how she‘s coping with the whole situation, her perception of the conflict in her family, what’s happening and-and her own feelings. She’s—she’s— she has a lot of feelings she’s unable, about her feelings, she’s showing her feelings and talking about her feelings. So it—yeah and so to get at it right, I-I want to put this person together and-and find out where is the right way. What is the good way to interfere and challenge her a little bit, but I-I realized at the beginning of the session she‘s very intelligent—but she‘s taking so much on. She‘s, she wants to make her mom happy. She wants to make her dad happy. She‘s still angry at her step-mom that she doesn‘t want to make her happy but she sees that the conflict between her and her step-mother is an obstacle in her relationship with her dad and she‘s so stuck because of her feelings of anger and everything. And yeah it‘s, that‘s my goal, kind of moving her into…  These joint action sequences led to homework that the client agreed to work on between the two sessions. The homework assignment involved writing a letter to her stepmother and was designed to help the client find a means whereby she was able to communicate to her stepmother. S2; M45-46 147Cllr: Would it be possible for you to write a letter to her? 147Clnt: Uh-huh. 148Cllr: and just in a letter, say to her that this is what you feel.. 148Clnt: Uh-huh 149Cllr: and this is what you would like to change because you both love your dad and ummm this is what you‘re willing to do. Umm, yeah, and then, instead of blaming her  111 just talk about your part, like what are you willing to do, what are you willing to change ummm and what would be your hope at the end. Would you be willing to do that? 149Clnt: Yeah, that‘d be great 150Cllr: Uh-huh, because sometimes it’s a lot easier to communicate through a letter and it, it‘s like a safe position, for you two. 150Clnt: Well, I mean there‘s, as I say like, communicating face to face with her. As soon as she gets into the, the blaming me, or that kind of thing, I start crying and that‘s it. The conversation is over. I can’t talk anymore. The analyses for this case identified self-efficacy relevant utterances across all four sessions. These utterances pertain to a variety of domains of function and reference numerous specific behavioural enactments. As illustrated in the section on session one, the exploratory joint action of the dyad served to focus the conversation (and the accompanying efficacy relevant utterances) within a particular domain of function, family relationships/communication, and to specific behavioural enactments within that domain, namely open communication with the client‘s father and stepmother. Put another way, varied and peripheral efficacy relevant utterances gradually gave way to efficacy relevant utterances more directly related to the problem situation that the client and counsellor were constructing through their joint action. Session two contained a set of specific efficacy relevant joint action sequences that stood apart from other efficacy relevant action identified within the dyad‘s work together. These emotionally charged joint action sequences explored perceptions of incapability pertinent to an important client project; the client experienced the perceptions as barriers to her goals. The joint action sequences served to explore the client‘s perceived lack of capability and challenge her to articulate efficacious alternatives. The sequences were important for the client self-efficacy constructed across the four counselling sessions. The dialogue of session two that helped construct the client‘s problem coincided with an observable increase in client emotionality. The pace of the joint action also slowed down to signal a significant therapeutic moment. The following joint action sequences taken from  112 midway through session two are noted for their heightened emotionality and slower pace. The sequence of action encompassed the problem identification sequences and the efficacy question sequences that were highlighted earlier in this section of the analyses. What is important to note here is the level of emotionality. Although less evident in the transcript data, the video footage revealed emotionality in the client‘s voice as she indicated that she and her dad were not able to talk openly about her stepmother. Her emotionality increased as she talked about needing to apologize to her stepmother and became visible evident as tears. S2; M25-26 100Cllr: Well that sounds like, because, because she‘s there and you can‘t have the relationship with your dad…. 100Clnt: Yeah 101Cllr: …that you want. 101Clnt: Yeah that‘s the only thing about it that I wish were different. But I don‘t, but at the same time, as I say, I have no desire to, you know…I am reluctant to-to fix things with her, to the degree that it would be necessary or if, for me to be comfortable there… 101.1Cllr: Umm hmm. 101.1Clnt: and help that part of my, my relationship with my dad. He‘s, we—we‘ve talked about it a little bit the last time he came out, maybe in October, and he said that it bothers him that when he comes out and when we talk he, there‘s a big part of his life that he feels like he can‘t talk about, which is my step-mother 101.2Cllr: Umm hmm. 101.3Clnt: and he would like us to be in a place where he feels he can talk about that and like I‘m not going to get really upset and I would like that too because I don’t like thinking that my dad and I have things we can’t talk about, 101.3Cllr: Umm hmm. 101.4Clnt: cause it used to be that we could talk about anything. Ummm. 102Cllr: Do you see any hope that it will happen again? 102Clnt: Ummm, I think in order for my step-mother to want to talk to me anymore, she needs me to apologize ummm and I don‘t really want to do that. 103Cllr: What, what would it do to you if you would apologize? 102.1Clnt: Ummm [client becomes tearful] 103.1Cllr: Do you… 103Clnt: Reinforce her dominance and reinforce that I had done things wrong, 103.2Cllr: Umm hmm. 103.1Clnt: which has been what our whole relationship is about. The second sequence of emotionally charged slow paced joint action presented here occurred a minute following the sequence outlined above. The joint action that connected the  113 two sequences was consistent with what preceded and followed it thereby making this one long sequence of emotional charged, slow paced joint action. The sequence below was particularly interesting because it illustrated how the client‘s emotionality was entwined with perceived inefficacy. It was also important because of the counsellor‘s response. The counsellor accurately reflected the client‘s experience and then tentatively asked the client efficacy questions that challenged her to consider what she could do about her situation. S2; M31 109Clnt: I don‘t know. I have no idea. I don't know. I see very few gains out of having any relationship with her so I am willing to put forward very little. 109.1Cllr: Umm hmm 109.1Clnt: Well, because there‘s a very vulnerable place for me. [tearful] I don’t know. I mean if I could just know what, what it was that she needed in order for us to have a relationship. If I knew all of it then I could decide whether it was worth it for me. 110Cllr: Have you ever asked her? 110Clnt: No. We don‘t talk. Period. 111Cllr: But would you be willing to? 110.1Clnt: Ummm… 111.1Cllr: It sounds like this relationship with your dad is very important to you and it sounds like that you‘re stuck with a lot of feelings of hurt and anger and frustration, and ummm you‘re ummm, you‘re looking for ummm something but you don‘t know how to get it and this woman is an obstacle to get that, to get what you want. It‘s an, it‘s an important relationship and it just doesn‘t, you just don‘t know how to get that, to get that back—is it? 111Clnt: Yeah, that‘s right. 112Cllr: Yeah. Ummm. I was just wondering if you would go to ummm, no actually, if you call your dad umm and if you would say that ―I think I need to talk to you about this relationship.‖ Umm How would it be comfortable—would it be comfortable for you to say that? 112Clnt: For me and my dad to have that conversation? 113Cllr: No, just for you to say that ―I would like to talk to you about this stress that I am experiencing because of this relationship‖. Would you be able to do that? 113Clnt: Sure. 114Cllr: and then do you think he would be open for that? 114Clnt: Yeah, yeah. 115Cllr: Umm, And could you do that with your stepmother as well? 115Clnt: I don’t know  114 The efficacy questions represented an intentional intervention strategy for the counsellor. Her self-confrontation interview showed how she targeted the client‘s inefficacy beliefs and asked efficacy questions that challenged her to consider what she could do in her situation. S2; CRSC; M8 57Cllr: Right, yeah, yeah, where she, just find that spot where she would not say ―I don’t know‖ or-or ―I can, I can do something‖ or challenge her a little bit and see some direction that she’s willing to do, and yeah she sees herself in a very, it‘s a very rigid position like she puts herself into this box. ―I can’t do anything about my stepmom. S2; CRSC; M12 84Cllr: I guess [unclear] really [unclear] her to—yeah—see something—just to summarize it—just to say it in a different way and she did it—just to—and I was kind of guiding her that how would you say that—like I like the first part about your feelings— and then this is—how can you change it because if you blame—that’s going to distance you from these people—so change it—how can you change it—how can you say it in a different way—to make it work—yeah—she was struggling with that—I-I saw her hurt The emotional charged slow paced sequences appeared to be pivotal in the construction of client self-efficacy observed within this case. As noted earlier in the section, this joint action was particularly pertinent in the construction of the problem that the dyad addresses in the counselling sessions. The sequences also signalled a change in the counselling process, one where the joint action shifted from being a discussion of something that occurred outside of the session to a more fully engaged conversation in service of the client‘s family relationship project. In the engaged conversation the client‘s perceived inefficacy appeared to be directly experienced in her ―in-session‖ action. Put another way, the client‘s ―in-session‖ action became so aligned with her family relationship project that the perceived inefficacy shifted from verbal utterance (action element) to internal steering process, a process that threatened the intentions she has regarding her father.  115 S2; CLSC; M10 67Clnt: Just, just upset, just—when—when (counsellor‘s name) asked me how I wish I could speak with my step-mother. Like I think about that all the time and I think, I just wish that I could communicate differently or I just wished I was expressing myself better and so that particular thing about how I wish I could express myself with her, I feel that one particularly strongly you know, even more than how I wish she would react and that kind of stuff, how I wish I could express myself, because I wish I could stand up for myself better. The emotionally charged slow paced sequences also offered the client an opportunity to express thoughts and feelings she had for her stepmother while experiencing the very emotions that appeared to impede her communicative ability. In this regard, the client‘s in session experience encompassed intrapersonal processes that mirrored those that she experienced with her stepmother. This parallel process experience appeared to support efficacy construction in a manner that was very similar to the mastery experience demonstrated in previous self-efficacy research (Note: The phrase parallel process is used to denote the replication of specific intrapersonal processes without evoking specific psychoanalytic meanings often associated with the phrase). The following sequence from the client‘s self-confrontation illustrated how the client found it easy to talk with the counsellor and wished for an analogous experience with her stepmother. S2; CLSC; M14 90Clnt: Yeah, and it was, it was nice to say things without being interrupted or without having to preempt somebody else‘s reaction. So at this time, I told you earlier that I wish Ellie could be my spokesperson talking to my stepmother, in this situation I wish (counsellor‘s name) were my stepmother and that she really…. 95RA: Yeah. 91Clnt: …was like that, if only my stepmother listens like this. 96 RA: Yeah, you felt quite warm towards her. The emotionally charged slow paced sequences provided opportunities for the counsellor to express understanding of the client‘s relational goals as well as the inefficacy she experienced in relation to those goals. The client experienced this as validation and experienced efficacy in  116 relation to the tasks of counselling. ―She was listening and really, kind of validating what I was saying and I didn‘t feel defensive about it so I could just go for it.‖ (S2; CLSC; M1). The counsellor efficacy questions invited an alternative construction of the inefficacy expressed by the client. Although the client‘s verbal responses to the efficacy questions indicated mixed efficacy, they appeared to help the client assume a more efficacious stance in her relationship with her stepmother. Her self-confrontation interview demonstrated the subtle shift that occurred as she interacted with the counsellor S2; CLSC; M4 33Clnt: So I felt like what (counsellor‘s name) was asking me was, I felt like what we were moving towards was, ―Would you be willing to discuss this with your stepmother?‖, that thing, we were looking at pieces of how we might get towards me feeling okay about that and so when she was asking me about whether I would feel okay about ask…, talking to my dad about my relationship with him, how I would feel about that, yeah that’s manageable, I thought that was fair and I could, I could do that and I’ll feel comfortable doing that and I thought that was a very good place to start. 34 RA: So you felt like you were moving towards… 34Clnt: Yeah. 35RA: …something workable. 35Clnt: Yes. 36RA: Okay, and were you having any particular feelings about the question? 36Clnt: No, I felt like that was something that was manageable and a realistic thing to ask and not quite so overwhelming as sitting down talking to my step-mother. 37RA: So it was like a baby step…. 37Clnt: Yeah. 38RA: …that was workable. 38Clnt: Yes. The client‘s comments indicated that the counsellor had helped her consider small steps that she could take in the process of acting more efficaciously. In this way the joint action that explored the client‘s inefficacy experientially also helped move her toward more efficacious action. 4.1.1.3  Session three The client wrote a letter to her stepmother between sessions. She also visited and stayed  with her father and stepmother in the time between the sessions; she gave her stepmother the  117 letter just prior to leaving. The client‘s account of the events occurring between the counselling sessions described meaningful changes in her relationship with her father and positive movement in her relationship with her stepmother. She began her account by signalling a global change in the first minute of the session. S3; M1 3Cllr: How was your holiday? 2Clnt: It was [sigh] great – it was really great … everything about it was – it was – I‘ve never had a holiday like that with my family. 4Cllr: Oh good … great. 3Clnt: Yeah and… 5Cllr: How did it happen? What did you – do to make it great? In the 4 minutes that followed this declaration she and the counsellor explored an important conversation that she had with her father. Their joint action detailed how she initiated a conversation with her father and openly expressed some of her feelings about their relationship including her desire to talk more openly to him about her stepmother. This account was punctuated with an efficacious self-evaluation that stood in contrast to the problem identified in the previous session. S3; M5 16Cllr: So how do you feel about him now? 15Clnt: Oh…. Like everything is better and we can talk more about things that we weren’t talking about like my stepmother and… anyway I just feel so much better and he feels more comfortable now – like I found out the two times he cancelled on coming to see me he was feeling really anxious because he has been feeling like he can‘t talk to me about things. The first five minutes provided insight into the efficacy construction processes of this case. It showed that the client acted differently with her father. She initiated a conversation and openly expressed her feelings. This action was consistent with the intentional state that she described and explored with the counsellor in the first two sessions. It was, however, in contrast with the inefficacious self-evaluations that she made during the first two sessions. The client‘s  118 out of session action was in keeping with the efficacy questions the counsellor asked in the second session. These questions invited the client to consider what she could do. The client responded to the questions by doing something different. The first five minutes also revealed an important change in the counsellor-client relationship. The client noted the change during her self-confrontation interview. S3; CLSC; M2 12Clnt: no—but you know what‘s really interesting—I don‘t—it—a difference that I noticed between—a couple of sessions ago—like our first session and now—I don't' think about why she‘s asking me questions—well I didn‘t today anyway—I just—it was easy to answer them because I didn’t have to think—why does she want to know this or how am I supposed to answer this—I could just answer—that felt really cool The client described herself as feeling less defensive in this session. She said that she stopped thinking about the counsellor‘s questions and simply answered them. She indicated that ―it was easy‖ and that she ―could just answer‖ the questions. In other words, she experienced increased efficacy in relation to a basic task of counselling. This increase in self-efficacy coincided with the self-efficacy gains the client reported in relation to her father and stepmother. The subsequent joint action of this session explored the efficacy construction process signalled in the first five minutes of the session. The conversation described the two important experiences, writing the letter to her stepmother and talking openly with her father, that were part of the change in self-efficacy experienced by the client. S3; M8-9 44Clnt: And um before all of this – before I went home um I wrote my letter to my stepmother. 46Cllr: Yes. 45Clnt: Like we talked about. 47Cllr: Uh hm. 46Clnt: And I was already feeling good about that before I went home and then … it was funny because I was expecting this to be more difficult than my dad. 48Cllr: To write the letter? 47Clnt: Well … just everything. 49Cllr: Yes.  119 48Clnt: Um and just thought having that con… – well I told you last time when you said – well what would happen if you had this conversation? And you expressed to him that you were hurt? I imagined oh that was an easy conversation – no problem but it ended up being really hard and a really long serious conversation and there was a lot involved you know because my dad and I had never been upset with each other – we just … we just haven‘t done it before. S3; M11 63Cllr: But how was it like for you to write the letter? 62Clnt: It was hard – it was so hard. Although these specific enactment experiences were described as difficult, the juxtaposition of the evaluations of difficulty and the successful enactment of the difficult behaviour supported efficacy construction. In essence, the client described herself as being able to execute some very difficult behaviour. The client‘s successful enactment of the difficult behaviour was accompanied by strong positive feelings. S3; M13-14 81Cllr: So it was just fluent. 80Clnt: Uh hm yeah … and it‘s clear and I got to explain everything that I wanted to without being interrupted and …. 82Cllr: What was the feeling inside? How did you feel when the, after the letter was finished and you‘re … was it like… 81Clnt: You know what? It was the most amazing thing – I thought once I give this to her and once we start talking I‘ll feel so much better but really? Writing it… that‘s it … like when I printed this off before I even gave it to her I felt so much better already. S3; M16 91Clnt: But she was saying that if I wanted to be with my dad I was welcome there. 93Cllr: So what was your impression? 92Clnt: You know like I – I can‘t even tell you how good that felt – um I didn‘t even have to ask. I was just welcome there …. And when I got there ah we didn‘t really – we didn‘t talk a lot but it was so warm and we had meals together and …. The positive affect the client described stood in sharp contrast to the negative affect she displayed when she described her inefficacy in session two.  120 The counsellor and client used efficacy relevant utterances to further explore the change in affect the client had experienced. 113Cllr: At this time do you feel more in control with your feelings or you feel less angry or you just feel control of … your anger? 112Clnt: You know it‘s not - it‘s not – it doesn’t really feel under control right? It just feels like all of a sudden I had all this tight anger and it‘s just – it‘s just gone – like it‘s just flowing away and it doesn‘t even feel like a choice that I‘ve made to not be upset or not be angry um which is not very reassuring – I would like it to be just a choice and I can decide to use it this way or use it this way um because then I would feel like when we have a conversation like it’s my choice how I react. 114Cllr: Uh hm. 113Clnt: But it still doesn’t really feel like that and I know it’s like my choice to let her upset me or not but um that kind of feeling of anger coming into you and getting defensive and emotional and crying um …. I don't know how to control that yet … 115Cllr: Uh hm. 114Clnt: And… 116Cllr: But you took control over the circumstances that caused… 115Clnt: I guess so 117Cllr: your feeling. Although the counsellor directed the client toward an efficacious self-evaluation of her emotional regulation capabilities, the client‘s efficacy construction was limited to the communicative abilities that she had enacted with her father and stepmother. She described herself as being more capable of open communication but continued to locate control of her emotions within the environment. The client and counsellor‘s dialogue helped consolidate the increased self-efficacy the client described in relation to her father and stepmother. Though this was seen in different parts of the session, it was particularly evident in the following 2 minute segment. Here the counsellor asked the client about her goals for the session. The client responded by indicating that she did not expect to experience change so quickly. The counsellor followed this with a lengthy set of utterances that began and ended with efficacious evaluations that extended the change into the  121 future. The client accepted the counsellor‘s efficacious evaluations and offered her perspective on how this would help her deal with future conflict. S3; M37 200Cllr: Did you…. You were talking about ah the connection, ah, when you were talking about your dad – that assumption about being able in a ah …. Ah … and so [sigh]… um I was just wondering about um the decision that you‘re going to or - or you can make about that connection – with – your step mother and another thing you had conflicts and – seeing them separate like – oh I have – like over generalizing like the way your dad did? … um …. And how you‘re going to see the conflicts in the future in – like relationships – if it will happen … it‘s - it‘s something that there‘s a high possibility it will happen – it might not happen but there is a chance – like it‘s just – you can‘t – it‘s hard to go through life without having any conflict with anybody and if you leave if you take the risk – if you take challenges you‘re going to… 198Clnt: Yeah. 201Cllr: Face difficult times and – and so that‘s a good thing because otherwise there would be sort of flat when nothing happens but it sounds like you’d like to - to fi – to see yourself in a way that – oh I can manage this challenge – I can work through a conflict and um so how is it going to be in the future for you if you find yourself in …? 198Clnt: Yeah. 199Clnt: Well … 202Cllr: In situations like that? 200Clnt: Do you know? I mean I guess the more we go through the – your approach changes right? Um … like the conflict I had last fall with my teacher I still don‘t know how I could have made that better um … so if I came up with that – a similar situation to that I still – I still don‘t know – except for if I’m in a position where I have more confidence or where I can speak up for myself more … I assume that will make a difference um but in general the way I hope to deal with conflicts it’s like you say to treat them as individual things and not like part of a - a general problem [chuckle] that I have with people. This sequence showed that perceptions of the client‘s capabilities were embedded within the conversation that described the change that she identified. These efficacy relevant utterances served as indicators of the self-efficacy construction that occurred within the dialogue of the session as well as that which occurred between the sessions. 4.1.1.4  Session four There was a noticeable shift in the subject matter in the fourth session. The conversation  remained focused on the client‘s family relationships but shifted from her father and stepmother  122 to her grandmother and mother. This transition was consistent with the efficacy construction described in joint action of the first three sessions. Having addressed one set of relational concerns the dyad turned their attention to new relational issues. Similar to the previous problem situation, the problem with the client‘s grandmother was addressed using efficacy relevant utterances. S4; M11 55Cllr: uh hm … um … I just wonder … how would it – how would it look like for you if you, if you take control of the situation. If you don‘t allow her to, um engage into or start going into the negativity. You start it – you start with a positive and you can start it in - in lots of different ways – maybe a letter, a phone call… 66Cllr: And so instead of agreeing with her how can you change the direction of the… 66.1Clnt: I don’t know. 66.1Cllr: …situation? S4; M14-15 68.2Cllr: … very generous). Maybe you have memories that you sh – that you can share with her and remind her how wonderful she is. 69Clnt: Yeah. 69Cllr: …and how much you appreciate. Maybe you can search your memories and look into what was a good time for you with her and just instead of allowing her to go into the negative direction and be in control of the situation, you prepare yourself – and it’s not easy. It‘s not going to happen right away… S4; M23 92Clnt: I‘m sure it is um … but I feel like I don‘t really want to know those stories 91.1Cllr: Um hmm. 92.1Clnt: … it - it upsets me and I also feel like I can’t – it’s beyond me to help her or to say anything useful. I don't know. I really don‘t know how – what to say um .. 92Cllr: Well you can‘t really help her because it‘s the past. 93Clnt: Yeah. 93Cllr: and you cannot help her with the past. It happened – it‘s … it‘s gone. 94Clnt: Right. 94Cllr: Umm but what you can help her with is to focus on that ―Well grandma but it’s so great that you’re here and you must be so strong‖ 94.1Clnt: Yeah. 94.1Cllr: ….and help her focus on how she survived 94.2Clnt: Yeah.  123 Later in the session the conversation shifted to difficulties the client experienced with her mother. The counsellor used an efficacy question to help the client consider how she might also act more assertively with her mother. S4; M39 159Cllr: Hm … How can you see yourself being more assertive with your mom and taking – take control of the situation?. How can you see that happen? Similar to previous sessions the counsellor challenged the client to consider what she was capable of. She also challenged the client to act more efficaciously. She described her intentions in the self-confrontation interview. S4; CRSC; M4 33Cllr: And so whenever she puts up a wall and describes her relationship. . . a kind of distance with her family. . . I wanted to keep it in my mind that. . . she does want connection and so how can I challenge her. . . how can I move her around and help her to. . . see what can you do but not always expecting others to be in charge of your situation but what can you do about it. . . and I guess that was just in the back of my head that if this doesn’t work I’m at the end.. Although the counsellor employed a similar intervention strategy, namely using efficacy questions to challenge the client to think about what she is capable of doing, the client responded somewhat differently. Consider the following two segments take from the client‘s selfconfrontation. S4; CLSC; M3 26Clnt: Um and…. And just kind of being able to see it a little from that point of view . . . that was another one of those moments when I thought ―oh yeah that’s new . . . that’s interesting too‖ um … but … then I did start to feel a little bit more frustration about it because when (counsellor‘s name) explains to me in a circumstance how I could talk to my mom and how I could say things to my mom, . . . my mom and I don’t have the kind of relationship where we talk like that and it makes my mom really uncomfortable to talk like that so I felt like ―okay … we really have to hurry through this part because this isn‘t rel . . . this isn‘t relevant . . . this isn‘t . . . this doesn‘t make sense in this context 29RA: Yeah, I’m not going to be able to apply this. 27Clnt: Yeah, so I felt myself wanting to cut her off more than last time.  124 S4; CLSC; M4 32Clnt: Um this was the point where I started to realize that if (counsellor‘s name) was going to kind of understand the circumstance we had a lot more to talk about than I had time to talk about … and …(pause) I guess I was feeling a little bit a kind of like resignation to the idea that we probably weren‘t going to get very far … on this. 34RA: That you weren’t going to be able to get her to understand. 33Clnt: No, and that I that I . . . like I wasn‘t going to take an awful lot away that was useful from this. Similar to previous sessions the client indicated mixed efficacy. She indicated that she was able to understand what the counsellor was suggesting. She also said that she could execute the behaviour suggested by the counsellor. She did, however, question the effectiveness of what the counsellor suggested. It was on this basis that she secretly rejected the counsellor‘s suggestion. The second self-confrontation excerpt demonstrated that the client experienced inefficacy in her attempts to communicate with the counsellor. Interestingly, her perceptions of incapability coincided with a lack of progress in this relationship issue. The counsellor and client continued to explore the problems the client experienced with her mother. Their joint action included a sequence of efficacy relevant utterances. S4; M59-62 262Clnt: But … at the same time I would like my relationship with my mom to be significant and meaningful. 263Cllr: Uh hm. 263Clnt: But I guess … it‘s just choices right? 264Cllr: It is and you can make it significant and meaningful um you just have to find levels of where is it going to be or - or a common interest or other things that you can connect on…. 264Clnt: Yeah. 265Cllr: to make it significant and meaningful and you can have really close relationships with her and not talk about your boyfriend if she doesn‘t – if she‘s negative. You can do that – that‘s … 265Clnt: That’s true … That’s true. 266Cllr: and talk to somebody you trust about your boyfriend who‘s going to not give you the negative reaction … Not to be so concerned. At the same time to think of, a, that you have a mom…. 266Clnt: Yeah 267Cllr: who‘s worried about you, who‘s very concerned about you and wants the best for you. It‘s a good thought to have in the back of your mind that ―I trust myself‖. ―I  125 know what I‘m doing with my relationship but it‘s good that you‘re concerned. That means that you care about me and I‘m not going to discuss any of my feelings with my relationship….‖ 267Clnt: (laughing) 268Cllr: with you and so that‘s it … 268Clnt: (laughing) Yeah. 269Cllr: Are you able to? 269Clnt: Yeah … maybe … Maybe – it’s worth a try I think. Yeah. 270Cllr: Yeah um … This would fit with this. (hands Client some papers). The counsellor offered efficacy questions and efficacious reframes in this sequence. The client responded with several efficacious self-evaluations as well as a mixed-efficacy response at the end of the sequence. Her mixed-efficacy response appeared to be half-hearted and similar to what she communicated within the self-confrontation segment shown above. Efficacy relevant utterances were part of the dyad‘s ending dialogue. This was particularly evident in the last two minutes of the session. Here the counsellor directed the client to articulate things she appreciated about herself. The client responded with several efficacious self-evaluations. S4; M62 274Clnt: Ah. Okay … Um …. It‘s…. I’m very good at finding opportunities where I can ah do something meaningful. Do meaningful work um and I don‘t, I don‘t settle for circumstances where I don‘t feel like I‘m doing something important. 275Cllr: Uh hm. 275Clnt: So I appreciate that I’m good at those, at finding those opportunities. Um, I’m very resourceful. I appreciate that I can, in any situation, make anything work. Ah and what else do I appreciate? …. Um I keep promises to myself. I appreciate that I‘m more and more and more I appreciate that, that I can make, tell - tell myself that I will do something or that something is important to me or that I will say something that I intend to say to someone and I and I follow through and I feel good about that too. This joint action represented the dyad‘s attempt to end the session focused on the client‘s perceived capabilities.  126 4.1.1.5  Assertions Efficacy relevant utterances were manifest within different facets of the counselling  process including exploration of the client‘s story, problem definition, intervention, client change experienced between sessions, consolidation of change, and termination. This pervasive manifestation of client self-efficacy also illustrated how this particular dyad constructed perceptions of client capability. More specifically, the constructive process involved: 1) open and detailed exploration of the client‘s experience including perceptions of capability and incapability; 2) the use of questions that orientated the client to consider things she can do; 3) a powerful parallel process experience; 4) the enactment of new behaviour in the client‘s out of session experience; 5) a detailed review of the extratherapy session change reported by the client; 6) ending dialogue oriented toward perceptions of the client‘s capabilities. 4.1.2 Dyad 2 This dyad consisted of a 21 year old female client of Asian decent and a white female counsellor. They met for 2 sessions but discontinued after the client did not return for the scheduled 3rd session. The client did not volunteer a reason for her discontinuation and the research team was unsuccessful in their subsequent efforts to contact her. The sessions addressed a number of the client‘s relationships including family relationships, personal friendships, and work relationships but were primarily focussed on the client‘s career concerns. Both sessions were aimed at helping the client find direction for her career. The first session involved an exploration of the client‘s past and current educational and work experiences. The second session centred on a lifeline exercise that the counsellor initiated. The dyad‘s efficacy relevant dialogue was primarily focussed on the domain of career and encompassed numerous specific behavioural tasks such as deciding upon two options, completing school work, exploring specific careers, and  127 making decisions. The joint action was replete with utterances that noted the client‘s inefficacy and thus constructed a strong inefficacy theme for the sessions. The inefficacy theme encompassed the client‘s in-session behaviour (i.e., communicating with the counsellor or identifying a specific past experience). In this way, the dyad serves as an exemplar of inefficacy construction. 4.1.2.1  Session one The client identified a specific problem, career indecision, in the second minute of the  first session. Client inefficacy was embedded within the client‘s description of her problem. S1; M2 Clnt: I find myself like—having a hard time even keeping a job because I know (unclear) I don‘t like doing that for the rest of my life Cllr: right Clnt: and doing temping (laughing) Cllr: you‘re temping Clnt: yeah—so I can like get to the (unclear) test sort of thing Cllr: okay Clnt: but I can’t figure out what to do and I’m torn between whether I should do something I really like or something that could me more financially, wise The client‘s initial declaration that, ―I can‘t figure out what to do‖ gave initial direction to the session and was explored further in the dyad‘s subsequent dialogue. Exploration of the client‘s indecision encompassed a range of topics including school and work experiences, hobbies and interests, family relationships, and personal friendships. The joint action that explored these topics included efficacy relevant utterances. The following sequence illustrated how the client‘s perceptions of self-efficacy were embedded within her understanding of a previous work experience. S1; M6 Clnt: yeah—the people make it an amazing job—I started work at McDonald‘s for a long time—that job actually got me out of my shell—I used to be really shy Cllr: yeah  128 Clnt: timid and then it’d be like—I can’t talk to anybody except my friends you know Cllr: yeah Clnt: but um that made me—loud (laughing) Cllr: wonderful Clnt: a lot louder than I usually am Cllr: (unclear) yeah—and how did it bring you out of your shell—what were—what was the feeling there—what were the aspects that made it Here the client described how a particular job h