UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Implicit counselling theories : an exploratory study Long, Herbert Gerald 1982

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A8 L66.pdf [ 3.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054317.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054317-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054317-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054317-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054317-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054317-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054317-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054317-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054317.ris

Full Text

IMPLICIT COUNSELLING THEORIES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY by HERBERT GERALD LONG B.A. , B. Comm., Univers i ty of Saskatchewan, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Counsell ing Psychology) We accept th is thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J u l y , 1982 (c) Herbert Gerald Long, 1982 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Counselling Psychology The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date August 17th, 19S2 ABSTRACT This exploratory study of c l i n i c a l judgement used a variant of Kelly's (1955) repertory grid methodology to examine and describe the relationship between the implicit personality theories and strategies or policies of counselling action toward clients. A relationship termed "implicit counselling theory" within this study. Six male and fourteen female counselling students rated each of ten clients they had seen on a 5- point scale on each of ten personality and ten counselling action constructs. For each subject, the realation-ship between ratings on each pair of personality and counselling action constructs were computed using a Pearson r correlation and tested for significance. To examine the interrelationships between constructs across subjects, a variance-in-common score was computed for each sub-ject and then an average variance-in-common computed for the twenty sub-jects on each pair of constructs. The strongest relationships across subjects were indicated in the area of implicit personality theories (that i s , the relationship between client personality constructs). Somewhat weaker relationships were indicated relative to the relationships between counselling action con-structs. Although some commonalities were evident in the relationships between personality and counselling action constructs, the overall trend was toward considerable variations in these relationships. General agreement on these relationships across subjects was restricted to the relationship between client personality characteristics and activity and directiveness on the part of counsellor subjects. The results suggest-ing several, rather than any single implicit counselling theory. - i i i -The study i n d i c a t e d that i m p l i c i t c o u n s e l l i n g t h e o r i e s may have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the nature of the c o u n s e l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p , i n t e r -ventions and atmosphere. The importance of c o u n s e l l o r s becoming more aware of t h e i r i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y and c o u n s e l l i n g t h e o r i e s was sugges-ted by the r e s u l t s of the study. - i v -TABLE OF CONTENTS Page T i t l e Page i Abstract i i Table of Contents iv List of Tables v Acknowledgement vi Dedication v i i CHAPTER I SCOPE OF THE STUDY 1 Background and Introduction 1 Purpose 6 CHAPTER II RELATED STUDIES AND RATIONALE 7 CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 13 Subjects 13 Instruments 13 Data Collection and Procedures 17 CHAPTER IV RESULTS 19 Personality Construct Relations 20 Counselling Action Construct Relations 25 Personality and Counselling Action Construct Relations 28 Individual Implicit Counselling Theory 35 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 38 Limitations 38 Implications 39 Uses and Application 43 Recommendations for Further Research 43 Summary & Conclusion 44 BIBLIOGRAPHY 46 APPENDIX A 48 APPENDIX B 50 APPENDIX C 54 - V -L I S T OF TABLES Page Table 1 Average Interrelationships Between Personality Constructs 21 Table 2 Significant Relationships Between Personality Constructs 23 Table 3 Minimum and Maximum Variance-in-Common Scores Betwen Personality Constructs 24 Table 4 Average Interrelationships Between Counselling Action Constructs 26 Table 5 Significant Relationships Between Counselling Action Constructs 27 Table 6 Minimum and Maximum Variance-in-Common Scores Between Counselling Action Constructs 29 Table 7 Average Interrelationships Between Personality and Counselling Action Constructs 30 Table 8 Minimum and Maximum Variance-in-Common Scores Between Personality and Counselling Action Constructs 32 Table 9 Significant Relationships Between Personality and Counselling Action Constructs 34 Table 10 Significant Relationships Between Personality and Counselling Constructs for Individual Constructs 36 - v i -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I want to extend my deepest a p p r e c i a t i o n to my Advisor, Dr. Larry Cochran, f o r h i s i n s i g h t , guidance and t i r e l e s s e f f o r t s i n helping b r i n g t h i s t h e s i s to f r u i t i o n . I wish to thank my Committee members, Dr. Bob Armstrong and Dr. Oohn Banmen f o r t h e i r p o s i t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s and co-operatin which were very much appreciated. I want to e s p e c i a l l y thank my wife Lynn, who r e a l l y made completion of t h i s t h e s i s p o s s i b l e through her never ending support and understanding. - v i i -DEDICATION To my parents, Herbert and Marsha Long, who have given so much and asked f o r so l i t t l e . CHAPTER I SCOPE OF THE STUDY Background and Introduction Counsellors are called upon to assess or make judgements about the personality, behaviors and situations of clients on a daily basis. Generally speaking, counselling psychology has shifted away from the psychometric diagnostic assessment and categorization associated with the medical model toward more "humanistic" and informal approaches to psychological assessment and understanding of clients. In training and practice within the counselling model (see Egan, 1975), emphasis is placed on the counsellor-client relationship and the counsellor's under-standing of the client as a "whole person" rather than as a diagnostic label. This shift in emphasis has several important c l i n i c a l and research implications. It has for the most part removed the formal structure for c l i n i c a l judgements by counsellors. At the same time, i t has largely removed the discontinuity between assessment and counselling act i v i t i e s . It can be suggested that within the counselling context, c l i n i c a l judgement has become less of an apparent objective or scien-t i f i c activity. Rather, i t can be described as the ways in which we go about understanding others, concerned with how we form impressions and make judgements about them, processes that occur in daily l i f e as well as in c l i n i c a l work (Sundberg and Tyler, 1962). Though there are important differences which will be noted at a later point, this essen-t i a l unity between the c l i n i c a l and social judgement processes has been noted by major theorists in the area of c l i n i c a l judgement (Bieri, - 2 -Atkins, Briar, Leaman, Miller and Tripodi, 1966; Sarbin, Taft and Bailey, 1960). Clin i c a l and social judgements both take place within inter-personal contexts. The counsellor, like the layman, is required to pro-cess and give meaning to an extensive array of interpersonal informa-tion. An important question in both contexts i s : how does one person come to understand, form unified impressions, and make judgements about other persons? At the same time, the question arises as to how essen-t i a l l y the same observations will lead to the formation of very differ-ent impressions of the same person. One only has to think of the diver-sity of impressions expressed by counsellors in a case conference f o l -lowing observation of the same counselling session. Answers to the questions posed could contribute to our understanding of the c l i n i c a l judgement process. Though there are no definitive answers to these questions, there are conceptualizations and research methodologies that can be drawn from personality and social judgement theory and research that "may help us learn more about the c l i n i c a l judgement process. A conceptualization that is particularly useful for our purposes is that of "implicit personality theory". This term was originally applied (Bruner and Tagiuri, 1954) to the notion that each person sees certain personality traits as being related and other traits as un-related, which leads to extended inferences about the whole person based on expected relationships. The term is now used to refer more generally to the concept of an individual's cognitive structure for forming imp-ressions of other persons (Wegner & Vallacher, 1977). Put very simply, this conceptualization suggests that each person builds their own unique - 3 -theory of what other people are lik e . Implicit personality theories may be thought of as relatively stable schemes of expectations and anticipa-tions about others which are gradually built up by both direct and vicarious experiences. It allows an individual to compare and contrast and to describe and predict the behavior of others. It is through implicit personality theories that individuals give meaning or under-' stand and make judgements about others. Research has suggested that the individual's implicit personality theories serve several functions in aiding in the formation of unified impressions of others. These include the selection, generation, organi-zation and combination of interpersonal information (Wegner and Vallacher). Bieri et a l . (1966) have suggested that the individual's " c l i n i c a l theories", in large part implicit, serve similar functions relative to judgements in the c l i n i c a l setting. Application of the con-cept of implicit personality theory to the c l i n i c a l setting is not a novel suggestion, however, i t has had relatively limited application in the research. Several different multidimensional methodologies have been used to model and study the content and structure of the implicit personality theories of clinicians. Using a semantic differential approach, Korman (1960) compared and contrasted the implicit personality theories of a sample of psychiatrists, psychiatric social workers and c l i n i c a l psycho-logists; McPherson and Walton (1970) used a variant of Kelly's (1955) grid to study psychiatrist's perceptions of group therapy. A similar methodology has been used by Agnew and Bannister (1972) to compare psychiatrist's judgements of their clients on the basis of "lay - k -p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t s " and " p s y c h i a t r i c c o n s t r u c t s " . The major f o -cus, however, i n a p p l i c a t i o n of the i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y theory or cog-n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e concept and methodology to c l i n i c a l judgement has been i n the area of accuracy of c l i n i c a l judgement, p a r t i c u l a r l y the re-l a t i o n s h i p between c o g n i t i v e complexity and accuracy of c l i n i c a l judge-ment (see B i e r i et a l . (1966) f o r a review). This paper proposes that the concept and methodologies used f o r studying i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i e s or i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s can u s e f u l l y be ap p l i e d to the study of c l i n i c a l judgement w i t h i n the c o u n s e l l i n g context. From t h i s perspective c o u n s e l l o r s can be seen as making judgements or gaining an understanding of t h e i r c l i -ents on the basis of t h e i r i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i e s . This notion seems to f i t w e l l with the "humanistic" approach to p s y c h o l o g i c a l assessment emphasized w i t h i n the c o u n s e l l i n g model. Fundamental to studying c l i n i c a l judgement w i t h i n the c o u n s e l l i n g context i s a r e c o g n i t i o n that the c o u n s e l l o r i s making judgements or at-tempting to gain an understanding of c l i e n t s that i s r e l a t e d to the c o u n s e l l i n g process and s t r a t e g i e s . Not only i s t h i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between c l i n i c a l and s o c i a l judgements, but i t also suggests c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s i n much of the c l i n i c a l judgement research to date. Through emphasis on the accuracy of c l i n i c a l judgements the c r i t i c a l r e -l a t i o n s h i p between the judgements or impressions of c l i e n t s formed by c o u n s e l l o r s and t h e i r s t r a t e g i e s or p o l i c i e s of c o u n s e l l i n g a c t i o n toward c l i e n t s , has l a r g e l y been ignored. While emphasis on accuracy of c l i n i c a l judgement i s necessary and d e s i r a b l e , i t seems secondary to the c o u n s e l l o r ' s e s t a b l i s h i n g a coherent, f u n c t i o n a l understanding of the - 5 -c l i e n t which w i l l allow the c o u n s e l l o r to engage h i m s e l f / h e r s e l f mean-i n g f u l l y with the c l i e n t (Green and Cochran, 1978). R e f l e c t i n g the nature of c l i n i c a l judgement i n the c o u n s e l l i n g s e t t i n g t h i s paper pro-poses a study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i e s of c o u n s e l l o r s and t h e i r s t r a t e g i e s or patterns of c o u n s e l l i n g a c t i o n s toward c l i e n t s . While t h i s study has chosen to emphasize e x p l o r a t i o n of the r o l e of " i m p l i c i t " rather than " e x p l i c i t " p e r s o n a l i t y and c o u n s e l l i n g t h e o r i e s i n the c l i n i c a l s e t t i n g , t h i s should not be taken as a f a i l u r e to recognize the important r o l e the l a t t e r may play. There are a m u l t i -p l i c i t y of i n t e g r a t e d p e r s o n a l i t y and c o u n s e l l i n g t h e o r i e s which an ex-perienced c o u n s e l l o r might draw upon i n d i v i d u a l l y or i n concert as a ba s i s f o r h i s or her c l i n i c a l judgements and c o u n s e l l i n g s t r a t e g i e s . The emphasis here on i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i e s and t h e i r r e -l a t i o n s h i p to c o u n s e l l i n g s t r a t e g i e s i s a conscious choice based on sev e r a l f a c t o r s . In la r g e p a r t , c o u n s e l l o r s i n t r a i n i n g and those gain-ing t h e i r i n i t i a l p r o f e s s i o n a l experience tend to approach c l i n i c a l judgements and c o u n s e l l i n g from an a t h e o r e t i c a l or at most, a loose e c l e c t i c p e r s p e c t i v e . This has l e d to the suggestion here that a p a r a l -l e l may be drawn between the i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i e s of these c o u n s e l l o r s and t h e i r c l i n i c a l judgements and c o u n s e l l i n g s t r a t e g i e s . These i m p l i c i t c o u n s e l l i n g t h e o r i e s may very w e l l become more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to e x p l i c i t t h e o r i e s as c o u n s e l l o r s gain f u r t h e r experience and t r a i n i n g . E x p l o r a t i o n of the r o l e of i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i e s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to c o u n s e l l i n g a c t i o n s i s c l e a r l y of i n t e r e s t r e l a t i v e to c o u n s e l l o r s i n e a r l y stages of t r a i n i n g and p r o f e s s i o n a l development.This i n t e r e s t u n d e r l i e s the present study. - 6 -Purpose of the Study As indicated above, previous research in c l i n i c a l judgement has generally focused on the accuracy of c l i n i c a l judgements or has been limited to the impressions of clients formed by clinicians. This study proposes to extend and take new directions in the study of c l i n i c a l judgement on an exploratory and descriptive basis. This study assumes than an individual's implicit personality theory provides a basis for the establishment of strategies or policies of action toward others (Cochran, 1981). This study will describe how the construing of clients in terms of personality characteristics sig-nals different strategies or policies of counselling action. For example, what implications does construing a client as assertive have for counselling actions such as reflection and confrontation? The study also proposes to describe separately the ways in which counsellors construe clients in terms of personality characteristics and the ways in which they construe their counselling actions toward clients. In short, the study will examine and describe what might be termed the "implicit counselling theories" of counsellors. - 7 -CHAPTER I I RELATED STUDIES AND RATIONALE As indicated earlier, the number of studies directly related to that proposed is very limited. One of the reasons i s that a primary emphasis in c l i n i c a l judgement research has been on examining individual differences relating to c l i n i c a l accuracy, usually of diagnostic judge-ments. A wide variety of variables such as level of experience, theor-etical committment, professional a f f i l i a t i o n and cognitive complexity have been considered as possible sources of individual differences in accuracy and ability in making c l i n i c a l judgements. (See Taft, 1955; and Weiss, 1963 for reviews). Generally, there has been a lack of systematic conceptualization in the area of accuracy of c l i n i c a l judge-ments and the results have been spotty and inconsistent (Bieri et a l . , 1966) Apart from the limitations of a variety of methodogical problems and a lack of generalizability of results, several other factors limit application of the c l i n i c a l accuracy research to study of c l i n i c a l judgement within the counselling context. Given the informal nature of assessment within the counselling context, a strong emphasis on accuracy of diagnostic judgements loses relevance. Functionally, this emphasis reflects a discontinuity between c l i n i c a l judgement and counselling strategies, rather than recognizing the essential unity of these acti-v i t i e s as emphasized within the counselling model. For example, a study of psychiatrists (Bannister et a l . , 1964) provided evidence of a possible failure of agreement on the part of psychiatrists as to the - 8 -implications of diagnostic labels. The study showed that there was l i t t l e concensus as to what treatments were implied by different diagnostic labels. At the same time, there has been very l i t t l e study of how well accuracy of c l i n i c a l judgement correlates with therapeutic a b i l i t y . There has been some suggestion that the correlation is low (Sundberg and Tyler). The limitations noted above suggest the need for extension of the study of c l i n i c a l judgement to the exploration of the relationship between c l i n i c a l judgements and counselling actions. There have been a variety of studies of the relationship between such factors as counsellor attitudes and feeling to judgements of clients. An example of such research is a study in which Sharf and Bishop (1979) investigated the relationship of the feelings of nine in-take counsellors in a University Counselling Centre to other judgements they made about 507 clients. The study showed through correlation ana-lysi s that counsellor's liking of clients related significantly "to the counsellor's perception of the motivation of clients (r = 0.34), the realism of the clients stated goals and the physical appearance (r = 0.32) of clients" (p.268). Similarly, Wallach and Strupp (1960) studied the relationship between the attitudes of a sample of 82 medical psychotherapists toward patients and a variety of c l i n i c a l judgements. Two groups of therapists were provided with written case studies of a male and female patient in which a single variable, level of patient motivation for therapy, was systematically varied. Review of the case studies was followed by com-pletion of a questionnaire which elicit e d responses related to c l i n i c a l impressions and judgements. Though the study reflects a diagonistic - 9 -emphasis and the results are open to question due to a variety of methodological weakenesses, the results are of some interest.The study found that the therapists perception of the client's level of motivation was related significantly to the indicated warmth or positive attitudes of the therapists toward clients. A positive therapist attitude was in turn related significantly to more favourable ratings of the patients on characteristics such as level of social adjustment and insight, more favourable estimates of the prognosis with or without treatment, a greater willingness to accept the patient for treatment and a greater ease of empathising with the patient. In addition to suggesting somewhat of a "halo effect" in c l i n i c a l judgements these studies suggest the possible impact of variables such as counsellor/therapist feelings and attitudes on c l i n i c a l judgements. Though the effect of these variables on the counselling process can only be inferred, i t seems inconceivable that the clinicians' impressions of clients such as those described would not effect the relationship and actions of the clinician toward the client. A counsellor's liking or disliking of a client, for example, could be expected to have a wide range of implications in terms of the counselling process. Although the nature of the relationship between implicit person-a l i t y theories and policies of action have not been studied within the context of c l i n i c a l judgement or counselling, they have been studied within a broader social context. Two studies by Cochran (1978, 1981) have directly addressed aspects of this question and have provided strong evidence demonstrating an orderly relationship between implicit personality theories and the definition of social situations in the - 10 -f i r s t study and policies of action toward others in the second. The 1981 study will be reviewed f i r s t and in some detail as i t is the most directly related to the current study. Cochran (1981) used a variant of Kelly's grid methodology to study the relationship between two construct subsystems, one for con-struing people and the other for construing policies of action toward them. A major assumption of the study was that both a personal con-struct system and policies of action can be modelled using a principal-components analysis of grids. In this way the question of how implicit personality theory is involved in the definition of policies of action can be reduced to the relations between the grids. The subjects in the study, 28 university students, rated 12 per-sonal acquaintances on six constructs of personality and six constructs of action that had been e l i c i t e d . A principal-components analysis which clusters constructs into common themes or domains of meaning, the f i r s t being the most central and sequentially more peripheral, was conducted separately on the two grids completed by each of the subjects. For each subject individually, the orderings of people on the f i r s t three person-al i t y components were correlated with the action components and uni-formly strong relationships were found between the central personality component and central action component for every subject but one. A correlated t_ test of the difference between the average variance in the f i r s t and second personality components accounted for by the three com-ponents of action was significant rt - 9.77, df - 27; JD < 0.01), also suggesting that central components of personality have stronger be-havioral implications than peripheral patterns. - 11 -Although the evidence is correlational and the study dealt with reported policies of action rather than actions themselves, the study does suggest an orderly relationship between construing others and acting toward them. The results indicated that a policy of action will be predictable from a pattern of construing to the extent that the con-structs involved are central. Returning to the original question, the study can be seen as demonstrating an orderly relationship between im-p l i c i t personality theories and policies of action toward others in a general and transituational context. In 1978, Cochran made similar assumptions and used a similar methodology as that of the 1981 study to examine the relationship bet-ween two construct subsystems, one for construing people and the other for construing concrete social situations. In that study two groups of ten paid university students rated 12 acquaintances on 16 provided bi-polar personality constructs such as tense/easygoing, intelligent/ unintelligent and separately on 10 dimensions related to one of two problematic social situations. Analysis of the grids in a manner simi-lar to that described earlier yielded similar evidence, in this case, for an orderly relationship between implicit personality theories and the definitions of two social situations. As Cochran (1978) noted, "while subjects varied in their organizations of implicit personality theory and also varied considerably in their definitions of social situ-ations, the way people were construed manifested strong and orderly re-lationships with the way situations were defined" (p. 739). In summary, this review suggests that our understanding of c l i n i -cal judgement within the counselling context has in part been limited - 12 -through research emphasis on accuracy of c l i n i c a l judgement. It has been suggested that in addition to other limitations, this has resulted in the relationship between c l i n i c a l judgements and counselling strate-gies or policies of action being largely ignored. The two studies carried out by Cochran (1978, 1981) provided strong evidence for an orderly relationship between implicit personality theories and both policies of action and definition of social situations. These studies provide an underlying rationale for proposing that similar relationships may be manifested between the implicit personality theories and stra-tegies or policies of counselling actions toward clients. This paper proposes an exploratory study following a methodology similar to that used by Cochran, (1978, 1981) to examine and describe, primarily, the relationship between implicit personality theories and policies of coun-selling action of counselling students. - 13 -CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Subjects The subjects for the study were six male and fourteen female graduate students registered in programmes offered by the Department of Counselling Psychology in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia. The average age of the subjects was thirty-three years of age. The mean number of years of counselling experience was two years, which included experience prior to and during training within the Counselling Psychology programmes. This was considered to be a sufficent level of counselling experience for purposes of the study. Instruments Repertory G r i d . A variant of Kelly's (1955) repertory grid methodology was used in the study. The "repertory grid technique i s basically a method of quantifying and st a t i s t i c a l l y analyzing relationships between the categories used by a subject" (Adams-Webber, 1979, p. 20). It has been defined by Bannister and Mair (1968) as "any form of sorting task which allows for the assessment of relationships between constructs and which yields these primary data in grid form" (p. 136). Repertory grid methodology is well established and has been applied to the study of an extensive array of matters of interest both within and outside of the c l i n i c a l context (see Slater, 1976 for a review). The r e l i a b i l i t y and validity of the repertory grid methodology have been tested in a wide range of studies and applications. Fransella - n -and Bannister (1977) report that studies of the r e l i a b i l i t y of construct relations tend to f a l l within the range of 0.60 to 0.80. Mair (1966) used a dictionary to select synonyms and antonyms. A dictionary provides a normative index of commonly agreed relations. In that study, correlations among constructs closely reflected normative meanings, indicating that construct relations are valid indications of common meanings. Bannister (1960) found strong agreement between ex-p l i c i t estimates of construct relations and relations derived from grids. That i s , constructs that were said to be closely related tended to manifest strong relations on a grid. Constructs that were said to be unrelated tended to manifest weak or negligible relations on a grid. The above and other studies (see Bannister and Mair, 1968) suggest that the r e l i a b i l i t y and validity of the repertory grid methodology are ade-quate for purposes of this study. A typical procedure using the repertory grid is to have subjects rate elements, usually people, on a number of bipolar constructs (e.g. friendly/unfriendly), which may be elicit e d from the subject or provided by the investigator. The responses are then recorded in a grid which is a two way table with a column for each element and a row for each con-struct, the entry in any c e l l showing how the construct applies to the element concerned. In each subject's grid, the interrelationship bet-ween constructs can then be analyzed using a variety of s t a t i s t i c a l techniques. There are then three major components to the repertory grid methodology - elements, constructs and a rating scale. Each of these components will be discussed separately. - 15 -Elements. The elements rated in this study were clients that each of the subjects had seen in counselling. An underlying assumption of the grid methodology is that the sample of elements are an adequate repre-sentation of the total population of interest in the subject's "world" (Bannister and Mair). In attempting to f u l f i l l this assumption, each subject was requested to identify 10 clients on the basis of the follow-ing descriptions: - 2 clients you worked well with - 2 clients you didn't work well with - 2 clients you fel t you really understood - 2 clients you had d i f f i c u l t y understanding - 1 client you liked the most - 1 client you liked the least. Constructs. There were two construct subsystems of particular interest in the study. One for construing clients that can be termed the person-ality construct subsystem and the other for construing policies of action toward clients which can be termed the counselling action con-struct subsystem. Though these constructs might have been elicit e d from subjects, the desire to examine the interrelationships between con-structs on a group basis precluded this approach. As an alternative, the constructs used in the study were drawn on an intuitive basis from a review of descriptions in Egan (1975 a&b), which is the primary coun-sellor training model at the University of British Columbia. These descriptions were then checked for • adequacy in discussion with counselling psychology students. - 16 -The p e r s o n a l i t y and c o u n s e l l i n g a c t i o n c o n s t r u c t s chosen were as-sumed to be re p r e s e n t a t i v e of the p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions and c o u n s e l l i n g techniques which subjects have been t r a i n e d to use i n assessing and i n working with c l i e n t s i n c o u n s e l l i n g . On t h i s b a s i s , the f o l l o w i n g con-s t r u c t s were chosen f o r use i n the study: P e r s o n a l i t y Constructs a s s e r t i v e / e a s i l y l e d i n t e l l e c t u a l i z i n g , / i n touch with f e e l i n g s r e s i s t a n t to f e e l i n g s r e s p o n s i b l e / i r r e s p o n s i b l e self-assured/apprehensive w e l l motivated/lacking motivation clear-headed/confused s e l f i n s i g h t f u l / u n i n s i g h t f u l goal oriented/aimless relaxed/tense more l i k e a b l e / l e s s l i k e a b l e Counselling Action Constructs more r e f l e c t i v e / l e s s r e f l e c t i v e more c o n f r o n t i v e / l e s s c o n f r o n t i v e more empathic/less empathic more focused on f e e l i n g s / l e s s focused on f e e l i n g s more emphasis on a c t i o n / l e s s emphasis on a c t i o n more i n t e r p r e t i v e / l e s s i n t e r p r e t i v e - 17 -more active/less active (wait for initiatives (take initiatives) to arise from client) more self-disclosure/less self-disclosure more directive/less directive more open and genuine/less open and genuine Rating Scale and Forms. The subjects were requested to rate each client on each of the personality and counselling action constructs on the basis of a 5-point rating scale using the following format: tense relaxed Subjects were requested to circ l e the dot which best represented their perceptions of or actions toward a client. For example, on the above construct, circli n g the f i r s t or second dot on the le f t would indicate that the client was very or somewhat tense respectively. Circling the f i r s t or second dot on the right would indicate that the client was very or somewhat relaxed respectively. Circling the centre dot would indicate that the client was neither one way nor the other. Moving from l e f t to right the dots correspond to ratings of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 res-pectively. A sample of the two-part rating form which each subject used for rating each client is contained in Appendix A. Data C o l l e c t i o n and Procedures Data were collected primarily on a group basis from two groups, each containing approximately one-half of the subjects. Also, data were collected from two subjects on an individual basis. Following a brief general introduction to the study (Appendix B), each subject was asked - 18 -to complete a form requesting biographical information as follows: age, sex, programme registration, and number of years of counselling experience. The names (i n i t i a l s ) of ten clients corresponding to the descrip-tions noted earlier were then elicited from and recorded by each subject on a provided form. The subjects were then provided with forms l i s t i n g the personal-ity and counselling action constructs in the same format as contained in Appendix A. Each subject was provided with one rating form for each client to be rated. Standard instructions were read and the subjects were guided through the rating of the f i r s t client on the twenty con-structs (Appendix B). The subjects were then requested to rate each of the remaining clients on their own. The introduction and administration took between forty-five and sixty minutes to complete. - 19 -CHAPTER IV RESULTS The ratings of clients by each subject were cast in grid form. This yielded two grids for each subject, a client personality grid and a counselling action grid. Reference can be made to Appendix C which con-tains the completed grids of two subjects in the study. As the same elements (i.e. clients), were rated by each subject on each of the per-sonality and counselling action constructs, the relationship between these constructs for each subject can be inferred from the correlations between constructs. For each subject the ratings on each pair of personality and counselling action constructs were correlated using a Pearson r correla-tion. This analysis yielded 3 correlation matrices for each subject personality x personality, counselling action x counselling action, and personality x counselling action. For examining individual implicit counselling theories, each of these correlations were tested for signi-ficance. Given the exploratory nature of the study a level of signi-ficance of p < 0.10 was adopted. To examine the interrelationships between constructs across sub-jects, a variance-in-common score was computed for each subject by squaring the absolute value (maintaining sign) of each correlation and multiplying i t by 100. The average variance-in-common score and stand-ard deviation were then computed for the twenty subjects on each pair of personality, counselling action, and personality/counselling action con-structs. As indicated by Cochran (1978, p. 739), "while the average - 20 -variance-in-common score indicates the degree of relationship between [constructs] the standard deviation can be used as a rough index of the uniformity of that relationship. For example, a small standard deviat-ion indicates uniformity, whereas a large standard deviation indicates a lack of uniformity." Each of the average variance-in-common scores were then tested for significance using the t test formula of mean minus zero divided by the standard error of the mean. Again, a level of sign i f i c -ance of JJ < 0.10 was accepted. The results to be described in the following section are based on these analyses. Primary emphasis will be placed on an examination of the results across subjects. There were three primary areas of interest in this study, the re-lationship between personality constructs and between those constructs and counselling actions. Also of interest were the relationships bet-ween counselling action constructs. The results in each of these areas will be reviewed separately. Personality Construct Relationships The concept of "implicity personality theories" was reviewed in Chapter I. Implicit personality theories can be inferred from the strength of relationship between constructs. In this case, the strength of relationship between personality constructs across the twenty sub-jects represented by average variance-in-common scores. The average variance-in-common scores for each pair of personality constructs are reported in Table 1. Examination of Table 1 suggests moderate to strong degrees of re-lationship in meaning between personality constructs across subjects. - 21 -TABLE 1 Average I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s Between P e r s o n a l i t y Constructs CO 60 co T3 d 60 a) •H C r-i el li on >•> cu cu •H —^ T—I CU *-— 4-J I—I •H M-l 3 —^ CO rd cu ' — <U > — - 4-1 <U CU CU ca 4-1 O i—i cu 4-1 •i-4 • U i-l CU CO l—l r-l CU •1-1 4-1 CU •O CU > ca 4 J cu rd 3 4-) d 3^ 1-1 •H !-i •1-1 > o -a 60 M-l d cu ca ca 4-> CO 3 CO •H s ca •i-l 4-1 CU 4-1 cu CU > rd a •1-1 d CO d 4 J CU CO ,d •rH ^ \ •H o cfl co o CO CU o 60 -d CU d 60 u CO T3 •H •1-1 4-1 3 4-1 d n) rd e Pi CO •i-l -r-l o co CU T—1 1-1 r-l o CO o CO 1 CU •H n 3 1 CO 1 CU X CU 4-1 •H ft cu M-l r-i r - l A! cfl m M-l d 1-1 l—l ca CU CD CO CO CO u 1-1 ft l—l CJ CU C r-l -i-l ca B l—l n CO co a CU a) U CU ft CU Cfl i—i o cu d o •r-l Ol o CU ca •H r-l •H co ca o o co 3 60 cfl u e r-l A s s e r t i v e / e a s i l y l e d -2 S.D. 32 i n touch with f e e l i n g s / r e s i s t a n t to f e e l i n g s S.D. r e s p o n s i b l e / i r r e s p o n s i b l e S.D. s e l f - a s s u r e d / apprehensive S.D. w e l l motivated/ l a c k i n g motivation S.D. clear-headed/confused S.D. s e l f - i n s i g h t f u l / u n i n s i g h t f u l S.D. g o a l - o r i e n t e d / a i m l e s s S.D. relaxed/tense S.D. more l i k e a b l e / l e s s l i k e a b l e S.D. 4 5 C 16 C 2 6 C 18 C 2 3 C 21° 2 29 22 26 18 23 31 15 1 4 0 6 1 1 1 b 17 C 20 28 13 17 15 23 16 2 5 c 5 1 c 38 C 34 C 50 c 2 12 C 33 30 25 23 31 25 18 2 2 C 36 C 26 C 32 C 31° 9 b 29 30 28 26 31 18 36 C 28 C 57 C 7 13 C 20 30 31 22 17 4 7 C 48° 1 7 b 12 b 24 21 29 20 41° 14 b 2 2 C 26 24 23 10 C 12 C 15 16 12 b 21 Note. Decimals are rounded o f f to present whole numbers, a - £ < 0.10 b - p < 0.05 c - p < 0.01 - 22 -The strongest and positive relationships were found between perceiving a client as well motivated and goal oriented, followed by responsible and well motivated and clear-headed and goal-oriented. These relationships are generally in directions that would be expected. For example, a client who is perceived to be responsible rather than irresponsible i s also likely to be perceived as well motivated, goal-oriented, clear-headed, self-insightful, self-assured and more likeable. Similar rela-tionships can be seen, for example, with the construct self-assured/ apprehensive, in Table 2 which l i s t s the relationship between constructs for a l l significant personality constructs. It is interesting to note from Tables 1 and 2 that the rather global characteristic, more likeable, relates positively at a low, how-ever significant level to a l l other personality constructs with the ex-ception of assertive/easily led. This does suggest somewhat of a "halo effect". While the construct relationships do suggest a certain common-alit y in the implicit personality theories of the subjects, a quite wide variation is evidenced by the relatively high standard deviations of many of the average variance-in-common scores. This variation i s also reflected in Table 3 which contains the ranges of variance-in-common scores for each pair of constructs. As an example, although the constructs assertive/easily led and self-assured/apprehensive had an average variance-in-common score of 45, they had a standard deviation of 30 with a range between -5 and 88 in variance-in-common. Although a client perceived as assertive i s quite likely to also be perceived as self-assured, the strength of this rela-tionship varies considerably between subjects. - 23 -TABLE 2 Significant Relationships Between Personality Constructs Assertive in touch with feelings responsible self-assured self-assured** clear-headed** goal-oriented** relaxed** responsible** well-motivated** more likeable** relaxed* well motivated** goal-oriented** clear-headed** self-insightful** self-assured** more likeable** clear-headed** goal-oriented** relaxed** well motivated** more likeable* well motivated clear-headed self-insightful goal-oriented relaxed goal oriented** clear-headed** self-insightful** more likeable** goal oriented** self-insightful** relaxed* more likeable** goal oriented** more likeable** relaxed* more likeable** relaxed** more likeable** * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 24 -TABLE 3 Minimum and Maximum Variance-in-Common Scores  Between Personality Constructs CO 60 CO T3 3 60 OJ ' H S .—I r-l - H CU r-l !>, 0) CD a o i-4 4-H CU —_ 4-> 1—1 •r-l <4-l ni 3 —^ CO rC cu —. cu > <+H cu CU CU ca +J o —. r-4 CU 4-1 •rH T) 4-1 i-4 CU co 1—1 r-l a) •H 4-J CU rO cu > cfl 4J CU J2 3 4-1 3 rO — r-4 •r-4 u • 1-1 > O -3 60 14-4 3 cu IT) ca cu 4-1 rO CO 3 CO •H B cd •H 4-1 cu J-l CU CU > r3 3 •H C CO 3 4J cu T) co ,3 •H — •H u cd CD o CO CU O 60 ,3 CU 3 60 l-l co •rH •rH 4J 3 4-1 s a. ca .3 E s I co • H T-I O co CU 1—1 r-4 rH O CO o co 1 CU •H rH 3 1 co 1 CU X cu 4-1 •rH CU M—1 rH i—i cS CH 4-4 3 r-4 1—1 ca CU co CO CO CO u i—l fx i—i O 0) 3 i-l T H cd E i—i u CO CO c CU CU u CU (X CU ca i—i O CU 3 O •H cu o cu n) •H u •H co 1-4 o o co 3 60 cd 1-4 B i-H Assertive/easily led -58 -34 -5 -23 -10 - 3 - 1 -17 -19 76 58 88 72 79 53 62 79 46 in touch with feelings/ resistant to feelings -50 -40 -46 -30 -44 -36 -25 - 3 37 44 79 31 35 37 79 53 responsible/ irresponsible -29 0 0 4 -55 -12 92 90 77 90 69 55 well motivated/ lacking motivation -46 - 2 - 7 - 5 - 5 - 9 77 88 88 86 88 48 clear-headed/confused - 4 -46 -12 -35 -13 79 79 96 59 45 self-insightful/ uninsightful 11 7 -21 -22 94 77 83 61 goal-oriented/aimless 6 -18 - 9 90 71 72 relaxed/tense - 5 -15 45 58 more likeable/less likeable -36 46 Note. Decimals are rounded off to present whole numbers. - 25 -These r e s u l t s do support the concept of i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i e s which suggests that while there i s some degree of commonality of meaning i n the perceptions of the p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of others, there are al s o considerable i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the organ-i z a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y theory. Counselling Action Construct Relationships The average variance-in-common scores f o r each p a i r of coun-s e l l i n g a c t i o n c o n s t r u c t s i s reported i n Table 4. Generally the r e s u l t s r e f l e c t moderately strong r e l a t i o n s h i p s between co n s t r u c t s and a smaller number of s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s than evidenced with p e r s o n a l i t y c o n s t r u c t s . The strongest r e l a t i o n s h i p , as might be expected, was between the c o u n s e l l o r being more a c t i v e and more d i r e c t i v e . This was followed by the r e l a t i o n s h i p between being more empathic and more focused on f e e l i n g s and between p l a c i n g more emphasis on a c t i o n and the c o u n s e l l o r being more a c t i v e . Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t are the trends that seem to be r e f l e c t e d i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c o u n s e l l i n g a c t i o n c o n s t r u c t s reported i n Table 5. These r e l a t i o n s h i p s do appear to r e f l e c t the " c l i e n t centered" approach to c o u n s e l l i n g emphasized w i t h i n the t r a i n i n g of the s u b j e c t s . For example, being empathic, which i s seen as very important w i t h i n the " c l i e n t centered" c o u n s e l l i n g context, can be seen to r e l a t e s i g n i -f i c a n t l y across subjects to being more focused on f e e l i n g s , more open and genuine, more s e l f d i s c l o s i n g , l e s s d i r e c t i v e and p l a c i n g l e s s emphasis on a c t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , being more r e f l e c t i v e r e l a t e s s i g n i -f i c a n t l y across subjects to c o u n s e l l i n g a c t i o n s such as being more - 26 -TABLE 4 Average I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Counselling Action Constructs a) c > C o > • H o •rH 4-1 u co 4-1 G • H 13 •r-l o O Xi cu CO CU U 4-1 CO cd r - l M-l cd 3 r C M-l c ft o ft CU O B O B U o cu <4-l CU cn cn co co co cn cn co co co co <D cu cu cu 60 cu i—i i - l l —l i—i c i—i C , — •r-l — o CU CU o r - l a) • H u u u CD 4 J o o o o CU o a 6 6 s B M-l B cd CU > •r-l 4-1 CU CU > u • H C ft 4 J ca r-l > 1 o a) • H M-l CU c 4-1 4-1 r - l r-4 cu C O CU • H ft •r-l ca co cu T3 o CO co CO r-4 co co CO CO co 3 co co cu CU cu co CU CU CU r-4 r-4 l —l lo i —l r-4 c • H CU CU cu o CU CU 3 u r-4 M co r-l n C Q o o •1-1 o o cu B B B T3 B B 60 More/less r e f l e c t i v e - 8 32 C 30 C -20 C 2 -14 4 -15 a 16 b S.D. 21 29 31 26 29 37 20 32 27 more/less confrontive - 6 a 3 22 C 7 14 b 5 a 17° 6 S.D. 14 19 25 26 24 11 25 18 more/less empathic 42 C -12 C - 3 -10 9 b -15 C 32 C S.D. 33 18 31 28 19 23 26 more/less focused on f e e l i n g s -12 b 1 - 9 15° -11 a 21 C S.D. 22 26 28 23 25 25 More/less emphasis on action 5 36 C - 2 31 C - 2 S.D. 29 34 13 28 15 more/less i n t e r p r e t i v e 7 0 13 - 1 S.D. 29 20 34 15 more/less active 6 a 55 C 1 S.D. 14 32 18 more/less s e l f -d isclosure 3 21 S.D. 17 22 more/less d i r e c t i v e 3 S.D. 23 more/less open and genuine S.D. Note. Decimals are rounded off to present whole numbers, a - £ < 0.10 b - £ < 0.05 c - p < 0.01 - 27 -empathic, more focused on feelings, placing less emphasis on action, being more open and genuine and less directive. It is also interesting to note the significant positive relationship between more self-disclosure and being more open and genuine. TABLE 5 Significant Relationships Between Counselling Action Constructs more reflective more confrontive more empathic more focused on feelings more active more self-disclosure more empathic*** more focused on feelings*** less emphasis on action*** more open and genuine** less directive* more emphasis on action*** more directive*** more active** more self-disclosure* less empathic* more focused on feelings*** more open and genuine*** more self-disclosure*** less directive*** less emphasis on action** more open and genuine*** more self-disclosure*** less emphasis on action** less directive* more directive*** more self-disclosure* more open and genuine*** *p < 0.10 **p < 0.05 ***p < 0.01 Also worth noting are the significant relationships between being - 28 -more confrontive and placing more emphasis on action, more directive, more active, more self-disclosure and less empathic. In general terms the relationships between counselling constructs would seem to suggest that the subjects generally may approach their counselling from a "client centered" perspective with emphasis on fa c i -l i t a t i v e factors such as empathy and openness and genuineness and a deemphasis of activity and action in favour of more reflection and more focus on feelings. This point w i l l be discussed further in examining the relationship between personality and counselling action constructs. It should be noted however, that the relationships between coun-selling action constructs were also subject to wide variations. This can be seen by reference to the standard deviations of average variance-in-common scores in Table 4 and the ranges of variance-in-common scores for each pair of counselling action constructs contained in Table 6. This would suggest that there would be significant dif-ferences in the way in which the subjects would combine and use the various counselling interventions and techniques contained in the study. P e r s o n a l i t y and Counselling Action Construct Relationships The relationship between perceived personality characteristics and counselling actions was of particular interest in this study. These relationships can be seen in Table 7 which contains the average variance-in-common scores between each pair of personality and counsel-ling action constructs. For example, across subjects, when a client is perceived as more likeable the counsellor subjects see themselves as being more open and genuine, more empathic, more focused on feelings, more self-disclosing, less directive and more reflective. - 29 -TABLE 6 Minimum and Maximum Variance-In Common Scores Between Counselling Action Constructs CU CU 3 > CU > s O •r-4 > • H o 4-1 CU •r-l 4-1 CJ CO CU > 4J s •r-l TJ •r-l U •i-l O o CU CO ft CU 4-1 0) rH 4-1 co cd !-i > 1 O r-l 4-1 nJ 3 rC CU •rH 4-1 CU 4-1 s ft CJ ft 4-1 4-1 i—l M CU o a o B s • CJ CU • H r-l CJ CU 4-1 cu •I—I cd CO cu T3 CO CO CO CO CD CD CO CD n CD CO CO CO CO CD CD CD CO CO 3 CO CU CU cu cu 60 CU CU CU CU CD CU r-l I—I r-4 I—l 3 •r-l r-l on r-l I—I i—l lo r-4 CU CU CU (U r-l CU •H cu CU CU o CU U r-l r-4 u CU r-4 4-1 u !-4 u CD 1-1 O o O o CU O O o o o • H o a e a B 4-1 a cd a a a XI a T3 3 cd 3 <u ft o CD CO CU CU r-l 3 . H CU 3 W 3 o CU B 60 More/less reflective more/less con^rontive more/less empathic more/less focused on feelings More/less emphasis on action more/less interpretive more/less active more/less self-disclosure more/less directive more/less open and genuine -55 34 -19 90 -38 22 -20 -66 -49 88 32 64 -71 -41 50 44 -28 - 8 48 66 -28 -26 -13 79 64 30 1 _64 -71 -76 -32 100 15 66 53 58 -76 -59 10 76 -34 71 -69 -15 52 69 -40 92 -38 31 -40 -59 67 36 -18 41 -77 -14 37 81 -30 61 -66 18 -14 77 -37 36 -34 40 0 86 -72 - 5 38 69 -31 34 -45 -34 79 19 - 7 -38 96 44 -10 77 -45 79 Note. Decimals are rounded off to present whole numbers. - 30 -TABLE 7 Average I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s Between P e r s o n a l i t y and C o u n s e l l i n g A c t i o n Constructs CU c CU > C o > o •rH 4-1 o co 4J fi •r-l TJ •r-l CJ o CU co CU S-I 4-J CO rt i—l M-l ctj 3 -C <J—1 c ft o ft CU o B o B u o CU 4-1 CU co co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 03 CU CU CU CU 00 cu r-4 r-4 1—1 rH C I—I c — . —, •H s. o CU CU CU CU i -H CU • H u S-I S-I S-I CU u 4-J o o O o CU o o e a B E M-l B ct) cu > 4- 1 CU CU > T3 5- i 'i-t C3 ft CU 4-1 CTj M > I O CU -r-l M-l CU C 4-1 4-J i—l U CU C U CU -rl ft • i-l ctj co TJ o cu co co co S-i co co co co co 3 co co CU CU CU CO cu cu (U r-4 r-4 r-4 O r-4 r-l C CU CU CU CJ cu cu 3 i-l i-l U CO !-4 i-4 rj o O O H o O CU S B S T J B B oo A s s e r t i v e / e a s i l y l e d S.D. -12 b 25 8 27 - 6 23 - 5 23 - 7 18 - 2 12 -15 C 16 0 17 -14 C 18 - 3 22 i n touch with f e e l i n g s / r e s i s t a n t to f e e l i n g s S.D. 13 b 22 -12 b 20 13 b 21 8 26 1 17 - 6 15 - 3 25 4 13 - 5 21 10 b 18 r e s p o n s i b l e / i r r e s p o n s i b l e S.D. 0 21 2 26 0 16 3 20 - 5 19 - 4 13 -17 C 23 3 23 -16° 20 2 21 s e l f - a s s u r e d / apprehensive S.D. - 2 24 7 a 19 - 9 a 23 - 6 23 - 2 26 - 1 9 -15 C 20 - 5 20 - 8 25 - 6 25 w e l l motivated/ l a c k i n g motivation S.D. 2 17 1 22 2 16 8 a 20 - 6 a 17 - 1 15 -11 b 23 3 16 -16 C 22 2 18 clear-headed/confused S.D. - 5 17 5 16 - 5 15 - 1 21 - 1 28 - 4 22 -14 b 22 7 21 -19 C 20 - 3 24 s e l f - i n s i g h t f u l / u n i n s i g h t f u l S.D. 3 24 7 19 4 21 5 19 - 6 21 - 1 22 -17 C 23 3 22 -22 C 21 6 27 g o a l - o r i e n t e d / a i m l e s s S.D. - 2 18 5 a 11 - 4 20 2 25 1 15 - 4 18 -14 b 27 1 24 -15 b 28 0 22 relaxed/tense S.D. 2 27 - 3 20 2 20 1 25 - 4 31 3 21 - 8 26 - 3 18 - 7 26 6 16 more l i k e a b l e / l e s s l i k e a b l e S.D. 9 a 20 - 1 12 2 7 C 28 15 C 19 - 3 18 - 2 18 - 1 16 14 C 20 1 1 b 21 2 7 C 29 Note. Decimals are rounded o f f to present whole numbers, a - p < 0.10 b - £ < 0.05 c - p < 0.01 - 31 -Though there are a number of significant relationships evidenced in Table 7, the strength of the relationships between the majority of the personality and counselling action constructs tends to be quite low. In part, this relates to the relatively high degree of bidirect-ionality of the relationships between constructs (that i s , low means and high standard deviations). For example, while the relationship between the constructs goal-oriented/aimless and more active/less active had a significant mean variance-in-common score of -1A-, i t had a standard de-viation of 26. This, in conjunction with the variance-in-common scores ranging between -90 and 37 as contained in Table 8, suggest that the re-lationship between these two constructs was highly negative for some subjects and quite highly positive for others. An examination of Tables 7 and 8 will confirm similar relation-ships and extreme ranges in variance-in-common scores for the relation-ship between personality and counselling action constructs. In point of fact, i t would appear that in relation to client personality character-i s t i c s there are only two counselling action constructs upon which there seems to be general agreement, those being more active/less active and more directive/less directive. The above factors suggest that there is a wide variation and limited commonality in the implicit counselling theories of the sub-jects. The results suggest that the subjects are interpreting the use of the various counselling interventions in quite different ways, at least in terms of their relationship to the client personality charac-te r i s t i c s employed in the study. This is not to suggest that there are no commonalities between the implicity counselling theories of the subjects. The significant - 32 -TABLE 8 Minimum and Maximum Variance-In Common Scores Between Personality  and Counselling Action Constructs CU cu a > CU > C o •H > •H o 4-1 CU •r-l 4-1 CJ co CU > T3 •u c • H T3 •r-l S-i •T-4 C o o cu co ft CU 4-1 et! cu S-4 4-1 CO cfl u > 1 O r-l M-l cfl 3 rC CU • H m CU C m ft CJ ft 4-) 4-J i—i r4 CU <u o a O B d a <u •rH ft CJ cu Ct-4 cu •H CO O CO CO CO CO co CO CO co CJ rJ CO CO co CO CO CO CO CO CO co CO 3 CO co cu CU cu CU 60 cu CU CU <u CO CU cu cu r-l 1—1 1—1 r-4 C i—i C 1—1 1-4 r-4 O 1—1 1—1 c ' —^ • H ~— o —^ —^ i—i •r-l cu cu CU cu i—l CU •T-I CU CU CU CJ CU cu 3 u u u u CU rJ 4-1 U r4 u CO u u d o o o o cu O CJ O O o •1-1 o o CU B s B B <4-l B CO a B B - a B S 60 Assertive/easily led -69 20 -45 62 -56 58 -61 37 -61 25 -34 16 -42 12 -28 42 -45 18 -42 42 in touch with feelings/-28 resistant to feelings 56 -62 18 -18 67 -72 67 -27 44 -30 18 -50 40 -21 30 -46 36 -12 59 responsible/ irresponsible -40 34 -62 61 -28 31 -48 48 -61 29 -40 13 -59 29 -46 61 -48 24 -40 69 self-assured/ apprehensive -42 40 -27 49 -62 31 -44 41 -61 52 -29 20 -67 20 -28 66 -67 64 -55 64 well motivated/ lacking motivation -42 58 -48 44 -27 45 -25 46 -64 19 -38 37 -53 40 -38 32 -55 29 -42 42 clear-headed/confused -34 22 -36 45 -45 18 -53 45 -67 66 -58 36 -55 19 -23 56 -62 3 -62 42 self-insightful/ uninsightful -62 44 -42 48 -62 41 -48 46 -71 19 -30 66 -71 13 -48 74 -67 3 -48 74 goal-oriented/aimless -38 50 -14 31 -59 26 -53 48 -24 38 -38 34 -90 37 -50 79 -55 71 -40 69 relaxed/tense -58 45 -45 37 -25 69 -66 53 -88 56 -41 56 -56 52 -52 26 -53 69 - 7 64 more likeable/less likeable -42 53 -27 23 - 5 71 - 8 69 -37 34 -49 29 -45 44 -24 49 -64 10 -10 85 Note. Decimals are rounded off to present whole numbers. - 33 -r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p e r s o n a l i t y and c o u n s e l l i n g a c t i o n c o n s t r u c t s are l i s t e d i n Table 9. An examination of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n d i c a t e d i n Table 9 seems to r e f l e c t an underlying trend toward c o u n s e l l o r involvement or a c t i v i t y or l a c k thereof dependent upon the l e v e l of " h e a l t h " of the c l i e n t . For example, drawing from Table 9, i t can be seen that the more r e s p o n s i b l e , motivated and goal o r i e n t e d a c l i e n t i s percieved r e l a t e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the student c o u n s e l l o r s seeing themselves as being l e s s a c t i v e and l e s s d i r e c t i v e . At the same time, the data i n Table 9 would seem to suggest that f a c t o r s such as empathy and genuineness and openness con-sid e r e d to be important i n f a c i l i t a t i n g c o u n s e l l i n g do not r e l a t e s i g n i -f i c a n t l y to any c l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s where an a c t i o n o r i e n t a t i o n might be expected. They do however, r e l a t e p o s i t i v e l y to the degree to which a c l i e n t i s perceived to be i n touch with f e e l i n g s or more l i k e a b l e . The extreme v a r i a t i o n s and low l e v e l s of r e l a t i o n s h i p between many of the p e r s o n a l i t y and c o u n s e l l i n g a c t i o n c o n s t r u c t s suggest that g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s must be drawn c a r e f u l l y and t e n t a t i v e l y . The data do however seem to support the apparent " c l i e n t centered" c o u n s e l l i n g pers-p e c t i v e of the subjects noted e a r l i e r . I t would appear that the i m p l i -c i t c o u n s e l l i n g theory across subjects would emphasize f a c i l i t a t i o n r a t h e r than a c t i v i t y or d i r e c t i o n on the part of the c o u n s e l l o r s u b j e c t s . I t would also seem to suggest that considerable r e l i a n c e f o r i n i t i t i a t i v e and a c t i o n i s placed on the c l i e n t w i t h i n the c o u n s e l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p , an emphasis which tends to increase the more p o s i t i v e l y a c l i e n t i s construed. - 34 -TABLE 9 Significant Relationships Between Personality and Counselling Action Constructs Personality of Client Counsellor Action assertive less active*** less directive*** less reflective** in touch with feelings more empathic** more reflective** more open and genuine** less confrontive** responsible less active*** less directive*** self-assured less active*** less empathic* more confrontive* well motivated less directive*** less active** more focused on feelings* less emphasis on action* clear-headed less directive** less active* self-insightful less directive*** less active*** goal oriented less directive** less active** more confrontive* more likeable more open and genuine*** more empathic*** more focused on feelings*^ more self-disclosure*** less directive** more reflective* *p < 0.10 **p < 0.05 ***£ < 0.01 - 35 -Individual I m p l i c i t Counselling Theory The wide variation in the organization and content of the impli-ci t counselling theories of subjects has been referred to earlier. Per-haps then i t would be useful in concluding this chapter to briefly ex-emplify and contrast the individual implicit counselling theories of several subjects in the study. The significant relationships between personality and counselling action constructs for three subjects are listed in Table 10. The results reported in Table 10 suggest that these counsellors are likely to attend to a differing number and variety of client person-ality characteristics. These varying perceptions have quite different implications for counselling actions. For example, while the client perceptions of subject 9 are likely to lead to changes in terms of factors which f a c i l i t a t e the counselling relationship (e.g. empathy, openness and genuiness), those of subject 19 are more likely to lead to changes in the level of activity or directiveness on the part of the subject. Actions somewhat more closely aligned to the counselling pro-cess than relationship. Perhaps the most striking of the three implicit counselling theories is that of subject 9. As evidenced in Table 10, for that sub-ject, a relatively small number of client personality characteristics relate to counselling actions that could significantly change the nature of the counselling relationship and atmosphere. In that subject's im-p l i c i t counselling theory, two personality characteristics - assertive-ness and self-assurance relate to lower levels of empathy. - 36 -TABLE 10 Significant Relationships Between Personality and Counselling Constructs for Individual Subjects Subject 9 Subject 3 Subject 19 Personality assertive self-assured more likeable self-insightful relaxed in touch with feelings clear-headed assertive self-assured relaxed goal-oriented responsible clear-headed Counselling Action more confrontive** less empathic* less reflective* less open and genuine* less empathic** more empathic** more empathic* less active** more reflective* less interpretive less reflective** less confrontive* less reflective* less reflective* less active* less directive* less active* less directive* more focussed on feelings* Note: The relationships reported are based on the Pearson r correlations of personality and counselling action constructs for each subject individually. *£ < 0.05 **p < 0.01 - 37 -Overall this would appear to suggest a somewhat defensive posture toward clients perceived to possess what would in general terms be considered positive attributes. This can be contrasted with subject 3 who in per-ceiving a client in generally positive terms (e.g. more likeable and self-insightful) is likely to be more empathic. It is also interesting to note that while perceiving a client as assertive rather than easily led is likely to result in subject 9 being more confrontive, a similar perception is likely to result in subject 19 being less confrontive. These generalizations and comparisons must of course be consi-dered carefully and tentatively. These individual implicit counselling theories have been exemplified simply to point out the differences in their content and organization. The implicit counselling theories of other subjects are equally as varied. What seems particularly important to note is the possibility that the differing implicit counselling theories of these student counsellors appear to have very different implications for the counselling relationship, process and atmosphere. - 38 -CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION This study was concerned with the relationships between perceived client personality characteristics and the policies of counselling actions of the subjects. Although some commonalities were evidenced, the overall trend was toward considerable variation in the implicit per-sonality and counselling theories of the subjects. The only apparent general agreement among subjects involved the relationship between c l i -ent personality characteristics and activity and directiveness. L i m i t a t i o n s There are several factors which limit the generalizability of these results and suggest that the findings must be interpreted care-fu l l y and tentatively. The subject group was limited in number, with twenty subjects participating in the study. The subjects were counsell-ing psychology students, with relatively limited counselling experi-ence. It is possible that a number of the clients rated by the coun-sellor students were only seen for a very limited number of sessions. This could result in process goals being given greater emphasis than outcome goals in terms of those clients. In a sense, the study repre-sents a case study of students within the Counselling Psychology programmes in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia and the results may only be generalizable to that group. Also, the results are limited to the ten personality and ten counselling action constructs used in the study. Providing a differing variety or number of constructs could eventuate in significantly - 39 -different results. This could also be true i f constructs were elicited from subjects rather than provided as was the case in this study. A further limitation is that in a study such as this which relies upon multiple correlations, a certain number of significant correlations could be expected by chance. These relationships are not identifiable and are indeterminate in number. They do, however, represent a limi-tation which must be considered in interpreting the results of the study. Implications Though there was some evidence of a "client-centered" counselling perspective, i t seems quite clear from the results that there are several implicit counselling theories rather than any single theory being adopted by the subjects. Overall trends and commonalities in im-p l i c i t counselling theories were neither strong nor pervasive. General agreement on the relationship between client personality characteristics and counselling actions was restricted to the roles of activity and directiveness on the part of the counsellor. This seems to suggest that the subjects have assimilated their counselling training and experience in very different ways. To an extent, the results seem to highlight the difference bet-ween counselling skill-building and use of those s k i l l s . For example, the results seem to suggest an emphasis on factors which f a c i l i t a t e counselling such as being empathic and open and genuine. It is clear that while a student may become very proficient at these s k i l l s , gaining an understanding of how those s k i l l s may interact with - 40 -d i f f e r e n t c l i e n t s and when they should be modified i n d i f f e r i n g coun-s e l l i n g s i t u a t i o n s represents another l e v e l of experience. In p a r t , t h i s r e l a t e s to the symmetry between c o u n s e l l o r and c l i e n t . The i m p l i -c i t c o u n s e l l i n g theory i n d i c a t e d i n the study would suggest a p o s s i b l e l a c k of symmetry i n the c o u n s e l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the s u b j e c t s . For example, the negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as r e s p o n s i b l e , s e l f - a s s u r e d and g o a l - o r i e n t e d and c o u n s e l l o r a c t i v i t y and d i r e c t i v e n e s s . The r e s u l t s would lead one to wonder what d i r e c t i o n c o u n s e l l i n g might take based on the i m p l i c i t c o u n s e l l i n g theory evidenced i n the study. Though most c o u n s e l l i n g models would suggest a movement from process goals to outcome goals (see Egan, 1975a), i t i s not c l e a r that t h i s would be the d i r e c t i o n of c o u n s e l l i n g based on the study r e s u l t s . Rather than a movement from empathy and i n s i g h t to a c t i o n , they suggest a continued focus on f e e l i n g s and encouragement of greater s e l f - i n s i g h t . These points are not meant as c r i t i c i s m s , but rather as an i n d i -c a t i o n t h a t , to a l a r g e extent, the r e s u l t s do r e f l e c t the r e a l i t y of the c o u n s e l l i n g s k i l l l e v e l s that might be expected given the l e v e l of t r a i n i n g and experience reached by the s u b j e c t s . At the same time, these r e s u l t s do have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the t r a i n i n g programme completed by the student c o u n s e l l o r s . They suggest the p o s s i b i l i t y that there may be an overemphasis on process goals w i t h i n t h e i r t r a i n i n g . Con-c u r r e n t l y , i t would appear that there may be i n s u f f i c e n t emphasis placed on the a c t i o n phase of c o u n s e l l i n g . They do suggest that there may be a need f o r greater concentration on a c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s and techniques with-i n the t r a i n i n g programme. An emphasis which could p o t e n t i a l l y a s s i s t - 41 -the c o u n s e l l i n g students i n moving f u r t h e r beyond process goals and more e f f e c t i v e l y toward outcome goals with t h e i r c l i e n t s . A f u r t h e r i m p l i c a t i o n of the study r e l a t e s to the r o l e that " l i k e a b l e n e s s " may play i n c l i n i c a l judgement. This construct r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y and p o s i t i v e l y to a l l other p e r s o n a l i t y c o n s t r u c t s with only one exception, suggesting that c l i e n t a t t r a c t i v e n e s s could play an important part i n the c l i n i c a l judgements of the subjects and as eviden-ced, t h e i r i m p l i c i t c o u n s e l l i n g t h e o r i e s . This suggests somewhat of a "halo e f f e c t " i n c l i n i c a l judgements and c o u n s e l l i n g a c t i o n s . Most imp o r t a n t l y , the r e s u l t s point out the d i f f i c u l t y i n drawing a d i s t i n c t -i o n or separating the i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i e s r e f l e c t e d i n every-day s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s from c l i n i c a l judgements and assessment w i t h i n the c o u n s e l l i n g context. A number of questions upon which i t i s only p o s s i b l e to speculate were r a i s e d by the study. F i r s t , there i s a question as to what type of c l i e n t would receive the most s k i l l e d performance and a t t e n t i o n . There i s some suggestion from the study that t h i s i s l i k e l y to be the l e s s "healthy" c l i e n t . This i s understandable to a c e r t a i n extent. For ex-ample, i t could be expected that there would be a lower expectation and r e l i a n c e on c l i e n t i n i t i a t i v e s from an apprehensive and confused c l i e n t than one that i s clear-headed and s e l f - a s s u r e d . The q u i t e h i g h l y negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o u n s e l l o r a c t i v i t y and d i r e c t i v e n e s s and what would g e n e r a l l y be considered p o s i t i v e c l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , how-ever, i s somewhat s u r p r i s i n g . The apparent lack of symmetry i n the c o u n s e l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p i n d i c a t e d by those r e s u l t s leads one to wonder - 42 -what the counselling experience might be like for the "healthy" clients who are predominant in the practice of counselling psychology. The im-p l i c i t counselling theory reflected here would suggest that a "healthy" client might become somewhat frustrated by the lack of action within the counselling experience, or receive less of the counselling s k i l l s these students have tried to cultivate. Similarly, there is a question as to what type of counsellor would work best with what type of client. There is evidence that in interaction, the particular personality characteristics of a particular client would lead to quite different counselling relationships, techni-ques, and atmosphere dependent upon the implicit counselling theory of the counsellor. For example, i t is clear from the implicity counselling theory of Subject 9 reviewed in Chapter IV, that the subject would not likely work well with a client that was assertive and self-assured. At the same time, given their implicit counselling theories, other subjects may work well with a client having those personality characteristics and not with others. Following from these results, i t would seem important that counsellors become more aware of their own implicit personality and counselling theories. A final question relates to the source and justification of im-p l i c i t counselling theories. One source may be explicit counselling theories. Counsellors in training are generally exposed to a variety of counselling and psychotherapeutic theoretical perspectives. While they generally take a somewhat atheoretical approach to their counselling, i t would seem that various aspects of existing theories may be assimilated into their implicit counselling theories. For example, the somewhat - 43 -"client-centered" counselling perspective was noted in the study. Im-p l i c i t counselling theories no doubt reflect the personal philosophies of individual counsellors as well. Another source or justification of implicit counselling theories may be cultural stereotypes or norms. For example, being more open and genuine or self-disclosing tends to occur with people who are more likeable. No doubt these only represent some of the sources of justification for implicit counselling theories. Uses and A p p l i c a t i o n The methodology and analytic techniques employed in this study have serveral possible uses. In the f i r s t instance, completion of the instruments used can provide an excellent basis for review of counsel-ling experiences from the perspective of both client personality char-acteristics and interventions. As noted earlier, the results of the study would suggest that i t i s very important that counsellors become more aware of their implicit personality and counselling theories. Providing feedback directed to-ward heightening that awareness is a primary application of the metho-dology and techniques employed in this study. Similarly, they could make a contribution to counsellor training and supervision through heightening the awareness of c l i n i c a l supervisors as to the implicit theories being used by counselling students. Recommendations f o r Further Research There are several directions in which further research in this area could make a useful contribution. One direction would be a longi-tudinal study of counselling psychology students using similar - 44 -instruments and methodology. A useful addition, would be a variety of outcome measures such as more/less successful which could be related to the implicit counselling theories of the subjects. Such a study, taking measurements at several points during the training of a specific group of counselling students would overcome the essentially static nature of the present study. A study of that nature could provide insight into the changes in implicit theories as training proceeds as well as an indication of student progress. Coupled with differing counsellor training models, this methodology could also make a contribution to counselling programme evaluation. An interesting research direction which might be taken with this methodology is the exploration of the change process in counselling. In that instance, the measures could for example be completed by a counsel-lor after each of say ten counselling sessions with the same client. The research might provide some insight into changes in counsellor per-ceptions of client personality characteristics as well as progressive changes in the counselling techniques and strategies employed. A study of experienced counsellors who presumably approach their counselling and therapy from more explicit theoretical perspectives could contribute to our understanding through a comparison of the in-fluence and application of explict and implicit personality and counsel-ling theories within the counselling context. Summary and Conclusion This exploratory study of c l i n i c a l judgement used a variant of Kelly's (1955) repertory grid methodology to examine and describe the - 45 -r e l a t i o n s h i p between the i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i e s and p o l i c i e s of c o u n s e l l i n g a c t i o n toward c l i e n t s of twenty c o u n s e l l i n g student sub-j e c t s , a r e l a t i o n s h i p termed i m p l i c i t c o u n s e l l i n g theory w i t h i n t h i s study. The strongest r e l a t i o n s h i p s across subjects were i n d i c a t e d i n the area of i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r i e s (that i s , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l i e n t p e r s o n a l i t y c o n s t r u c t s ) . Somewhat weaker r e l a t i o n s h i p s were i n -di c a t e d r e l a t i v e to the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c o u n s e l l i n g a c t i o n con-s t r u c t s . Although some commonalities were evident i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p e r s o n a l i t y and c o u n s e l l i n g a c t i o n c o n s t r u c t s , the o v e r a l l trend was toward considerable v a r i a t i o n s i n these r e l a t i o n s h i p s . General agreement on these r e l a t i o n s h i p s across subjects was r e s t r i c t e d to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l i e n t p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a c t i v i t y and d i r e c t i v e n e s s on the part of c o u n s e l l o r s u b j e c t s . The r e s u l t s sug-g e s t i n g s e v e r a l , rather than any s i n g l e i m p l i c i t c o u n s e l l i n g theory. The study i n d i c a t e d that i m p l i c i t c o u n s e l l i n g t h e o r i e s may have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the nature of the c o u n s e l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p , i n t e r -ventions and atmosphere. The importance of c o u n s e l l o r s becoming more aware of t h e i r i m p l i c i t p e r s o n a l i t y and c o u n s e l l i n g t h e o r i e s was sug-gested by the r e s u l t s of the study. - 46 -BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams-Webber, J . Personal c o n s t r u c t theory. Toronto: Wiley & Sons, 1979. Agnew, J . , and Bannister, D. P s y c h i a t r i c diagnosis as a ps e u d o - s p e c i a l i s t language. B r i t i s h Journal of Medical Psychology, 1972-73, 45-46, 69-73. Ban n i s t e r , D. Conceptual S t r u c t u r e i n thought disordered s c h i z o p h r e n i c s . Journal of Mental Science, 1960, 106, 1230-1249. B a n n i s t e r , D. and Mair, J . The e v a l u a t i o n of personal c o n s t r u c t s . New York: Academic Press, 1968. Ban n i s t e r , D., Salmon, P., and Leiberman, D. Diagnosis-treatment r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n p s y c h i a t r y . B r i t i s h Journal of P s y c h i a t r y , 1964, 110, 726-732. B i e r i , J . , A t k i n s , A., B r i a r , S., Leaman, R., M i l l e r , H., and T r i p o d i , T. C l i n i c a l and s o c i a l judgement: The d i s c r i m i n a t i o n of behavioral  i n f o r m a t i o n . Huntington, N.Y.: Kr i e g e r Press, 1966. Bruner, 3., and T a g i u r i , R. The perception of people. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of s o c i a l psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Cochran, L. Construct Systems and the d e f i n i t i o n of s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1978, 36(7), 733-740. Cochran, L. Construing and a c t i n g toward others. Journal of S o c i a l  Behavior and P e r s o n a l i t y , 1981, 9 0 ) , 37-40. Cook, M. P e r c e i v i n g others. New York: Methuen, 1979. Cro c k e t t , W. Co g n i t i v e complexity and impression formation. In B.A. Maher (Ed.) Progress i n experimental p e r s o n a l i t y research ( V o l . 2 ) . New York: Academic Press, 1965. Egan, G. The s k i l l e d h elper: A model f o r systematic helping and  i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i n g . Monterey, Ca.: Brooks/Cole, 1975a. Egan, G. Ex e r c i s e s i n helping s k i l l s . Monterey, Ca.: Brooks Cole, 1975b. F r a n s e l l a , F. (Ed.). P e r s o n a l i t y . New York: Methuen, 1981. F r a n s e l l a , F., and Bannister, D. A manual f o r rep e r t o r y g r i d technique. New York: Academic Press, 1977. Green, G., and Cochran, L. Meaningfulness of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and i n f l u e n c e upon impression formation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural  Science, 1978, 10(4), 339-49. - 47 -Kelly, G. The psychology of personal constructs. New York: W.W. Norton, 1955. Korman, M. Implicit personality theories of clinicians as defined by semantic structures. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24(2), 180-186. Landfield, A., and Leitner, L. (Eds.). Personal construct psychology. Toronto: Wiley & Sons, 1980. Mair, J. Prediction of grid scores. British Journal of Psychology, 1966, 57, 187-192. Mancuso, J. (Ed.). Readings for a cognitive theory of personality. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970. McPherson, M. and Walton, H. The dimensions of psychotherapy group interaction: An analysis of clinicians' constructs. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 1970, 43, 281-289. Sarbin, T., Taft, R., and Bailey, D. Cli n i c a l inference and cognitive  theory. New York: Holt-Rinehart, 1960~7 Sharf, R., and Bishop, J. Counselors feelings toward clients as related to intake judgements and outcome variables. Journal of Counselling  Psychology, 1979, 26(3), 267-269. Slater, P. (Ed.). Explorations of intrapersonal space (Vol. 1). Toronto: Wiley & Sons, 1976. Sundberg, N., and Tyler, L. Cli n i c a l psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1962. Taft, R. The ability to judge people. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 1-23. Tagiuri, R. Person perception. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed.), (Vol. 3). Don Mills, Ont.: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1969. Wallach, S., and Strupp, H. Psychotherapists' c l i n i c a l judgements and attitudes toward patients. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24(4), 316-323. Wegner, D., and Vallacher, R. Implicit psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Weiss, H. Effect of professional training and amount and accuracy of information on behavioural prediction. Journal of Consulting  Psychology, 1963, 27, 257-62. - 48 -APPENDIX A SAMPLE RATING FORM Part A For each description i n Part A c i r c l e the dot which best describes your perceptions of t h i s c l i e n t . For example would you describe t h i s c l i e n t as assertive or e a s i l y l e d . assertive i n t e l l e c t u a l i z i n g r e s i s t a n t to fe e l i n g s responsible self-assured well motivated clear-headed s e l f - i n s i g h t f u l goal-oriented relaxed more l i k e a b l e CU u ca f cu a o CO U O C a) U cu cu !5 -C 4J 4-1 CU •H cu a fi -i-l ca CU a o co U CU > e a s i l y led in touch with f e e l i i r r e s p o n s i b l e apprehensive lacking motivation confused un i n s i g h t f u l aimless tense less l i k e a b l e - 49 -Appendix A Cont'd Part B For each description in Part B circle the dot which best describes your actions toward this client in counselling. For example, were you more reflective or less reflective. more reflective more confrontive more empathic more focused on feelings more emphasis on action more interpretive more active (take initiatives) more self-disclosure more directive more open and genuine u cu > u cu a o CO 0 cu cu 4-1 CU r D c 4-1 ca •§ cu a o CO (-4 cu > less reflective less confrontive less empathic less focused on feelings less emphasis on action less interpretive less active (wait for initiatives to arise from client) less self-disclosure less directive less open and genuine - 50 -APPENDIX B My name is Oerry Long, and I am a graduate student completing my M.A. in Counselling Psychology at the University of British Columbia. This study is an investigation into counsellor perceptions and actions toward clients. The data being collected may help us learn more about the c l i n i c a l judgement and counselling processes. Although I would very much appreciate your co-operation, I want you to be aware that participation in this study is on a voluntary basis and you may refuse to answer any questions or withdraw at any time. Should you choose not to participate, i t will in no way influence your final standing in this course. Alternatively, should you be willing to participate, completion of the forms will be assumed to be your consent to do so. A l l data required w i l l be gathered today, which i s expected to take approximately 45 to 60 minutes. While I will not be asking you to identify yourself, I w i l l be asking for brief biographical information. I will then be asking you to think of 10 clients you have worked with in counselling. Following that, I will be asking you to rate each of those clients in terms of personality characteristics and your actions toward them in counselling. The results will be reported on an individual and group basis. If you would like to know more about the results of the study, please contact me later in the summer and I will t e l l you about them. I thank you for your participation. - 51 -APPENDIX B (cont'd) Constructs  Personality Now, I would like you to turn to the next page, headed Part A, where you will find a l i s t i n g of a number of characteristics which might be used to describe a client. I would like you to think of the f i r s t client that you identified earlier. The one whose i n i t i a l s you placed beside numer 1. I am going to ask you to describe your perceptions of this client by circlin g the dot which best describes him or her in terms of each of the characteris-tics l i s t e d . Let me just give an example starting with assertive/easily led. If you see this client as being very assertive you would circ l e the f i r s t dot on the l e f t ; i f this client was somewhat assertive you would cir c l e the second dot on the l e f t . If you see this client as being very easily led you would circle the f i r s t dot on the right; somewhat easily led you would circle the second dot from the right. If you see the client as neither assertive or easily led, you would circle the middle dot. Any questions on that? Would you then circle the dot that best describes this client in terms of assertive/easily led. Now, on the same basis I would like you to consider this client in terms of the next description. Circle the dot that best describes this client in terms intellectualizing, resistant to feelings in touch with feelings. Could you then continue to describe this client on the - 52 -same basis on each of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s u n t i l you reach the end of Part A - more l i k e a b l e / l e s s l i k e a b l e . Take the time you need. We'll proceed to Part B when everyone has completed Part A. Counselling Action Now, please turn to the next page headed Part B. I would l i k e you to continue t h i n k i n g about the same c l i e n t and your experience i n c o u n s e l l i n g him or her. In Part B I am going to ask you to c i r c l e the dot which best d e s c r i b e s your a c t i o n s toward t h i s c l i e n t i n c o u n s e l l i n g . Perhaps I can i l l u s t r a t e with an example. I know that i n my own c o u n s e l l i n g I use a v a r i e t y of approaches. For example, i n working with d i f f e r e n t c l i e n t s I use d i f f e r i n g amounts of r e f l e c t i o n . I have some idea of a norm i n terms of the amount of r e f l e c t i o n I use. With some c l i e n t s I may use very much more r e f l e c t i o n than that norm and i n that case, I would c i r c l e the f i r s t dot on the l e f t , sometimes I use somewhat more r e f l e c t i o n than my norm, i n which case I would c i r c l e the second dot from the l e f t . With some c l i e n t s I use r e f l e c t i o n very much l e s s and I would c i r c l e the f i r s t dot on the r i g h t . In the case where my use of r e f l e c t i o n was somewhat l e s s than the norm I would c i r c l e the second dot from the r i g h t . Where I f e l t that my use of r e f l e c t i o n was about at the norm I would c i r c l e the middle dot. What I am t r y i n g to do i s simply to describe how I act toward d i f f e r e n t c l i e n t s . Any questions on that? Then I would l i k e you to consider your act i o n s toward t h i s f i r s t c l i e n t i n a s i m i l a r way and c i r c l e the dot - 53 -which best describes your actions in terms of each of those li s t e d . Take the time you need to complete this part. We'll proceed to the next part when everyone has completed this one. Now, I would like you to turn to the next page, again headed Part A, with the same l i s t of ways in which a client might be described. I would like you to now think of the second client you identified earlier. On this page I would like you to describe your perceptions of the second client by circling the dot which best describes him or her for each of the descriptions. Similarly, I would like you to use Part B to describe your actions in counselling the second client by circlin g the appropriate dot for each of the counselling actions l i s t e d . Could you then continue on and describe the characteristics and your actions toward each of the clients until you have completed Part A & B for each of the remaining 8 clients that you identified. Any questions? Could I then ask you to proceed. Take a l l the time you need and when you are finished please wait for a moment until everyone has completed their descriptions. Thank you. - 54 -APPENDIX C EXAMPLE OF PERSONALITY AND COUNSELLING ACTION GRIDS The following are examples of the personality and counselling action grids completed by two subjects in the study. Clients are represented by columns and constructs by rows, with their intersection representing the rating of each client on each construct. Subject 8  Perso n a l i t y Grid C l i e n t s Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 assertive 2 4 5 1 4 1 5 5 2 5 easily led intellectualizing, 4 resistant to feelings 4 1 4 3 2 2 3 1 4 in touch with feelings responsible 4 5 4 3 4 4 5 5 3 5 irresponsible self-assured 2 4 3 1 4 2 5 5 2 5 apprehensive well motivated 4 5 3 4 3 4 5 5 2 5 lacking motivation clear headed 2 5 3 1 3 2 4 5 2 2 confused self-insightful 3 4 4 1 3 2 2 4 2 5 uninsightful goal-oriented 4 5 3 2 4 3 5 5 2 4 aimless relaxed 4 2 1 1 4 2 2 4 2 4 tense more likeable 5 5 3 3 4 4 2 4 3 5 less likeable 55 Appendix C cont'd Counselling Action Grid C l i e n t s Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 more reflective 4 2 5 3 5 2 3 5 less reflective more confrontive 3 3 2 5 3 2 3 5 less confrontive more empathic 4 5 5 3 5 3 3 5 5 less empathic more focused on 4 feelings 5 3 5 3 3 5 5 less focused on feelings more emphasis on 4 action 3 3 5 2 3 less emphasis on action more interpretive 2 2 1 1 k 2 2 1 1 less interpretive more active 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 less active more self-disclosure 2 5 2 5 2 3 2 3 3 less self-disclosure more directive 4 i\ 3 3 3 3 3 2 less directive more open and it-genuine 5 3 5 5 2 3 5 5 less open and genuine Appendix C (cont'd) Subject 16  Perso n a l i t y Grid C l i e n t s Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 assertive 3 3 5 3 4 2 5 4 4 1 easily led intellectualizing, 4 resistant to feelings 2 1 4 2 3 3 2 2 4 in touch with feelings responsible 4 2 5 2 3 4 2 2 3 5 irresponsible self-assured 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 1 apprehensive well motivated 3 2 5 1 3 3 2 2 2 4 lacking motivation clear headed 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 4 confused self-insightful 2 1 2 2 3 3 4 3 4 5 uninsightful goal-oriented 2 3 5 1 3 3 5 4 3 5 aimless relaxed 2 1 2 2 2 2 4 2 1 tense more likeable 4 4 1 3 3 2 2 3 4 4 less likeable Counselling Action Grid C l i e n t s Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 more reflective 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 2 5 less reflective more confrontive 1 3 1 4 4 3 5 3 2 1 less confrontive more empathic 5 5 2 4 3 3 4 3 5 4 less empathic more focused on it-feelings 4 1 4 2 3 3 4 5 5 less focused on feelings more interpretive 3 2 2 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 less interpretive more active it- 4 4 4 2 2 5 4 2 3 less active more self-disclosure 2 5 2 4 4 2 3 2 4 5 less self-disclosui more directive it- 4 4 5 2 4 5 4 2 4 less directive more open and 5 genuine 5 2 4 3 3 3 2 5 4 less open and genuine 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054317/manifest

Comment

Related Items