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

I M P L I C I T COUNSELLING THEORIES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY by  HERBERT GERALD LONG B . A . , B. Comm., U n i v e r s i t y 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 Counselling Psychology)  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J u l y , 1982  (c) Herbert Gerald Long, 1982  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree at the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may department or by h i s or her  be granted by  the head of  representatives.  my  It is  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my  permission.  Department of  Counselling Psychology  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  August 17th,  19S2  written  ABSTRACT This Kelly's  exploratory  (1955) repertory  study  of c l i n i c a l  judgement used a variant of  grid methodology to examine and describe the  relationship between the i m p l i c i t personality theories and strategies or p o l i c i e s of counselling  action toward c l i e n t s .  A relationship termed  " i m p l i c i t counselling theory" within this study. Six male and fourteen  female counselling students rated  each of  ten c l i e n t s 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  significance. across  subjects,  To  examine  a Pearson r correlation and tested f o r  the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  a variance-in-common score  constructs  was computed for each sub-  j e c t and then an average variance-in-common computed f o r the twenty subjects on each pair of constructs. The  strongest  relationships across subjects were indicated i n the  area of i m p l i c i t personality theories (that i s , the relationship between client  personality  constructs).  Somewhat  weaker  relationships  indicated r e l a t i v e to the relationships between counselling structs.  Although some commonalities were evident  were  action con-  i n the relationships  between personality and counselling action constructs, the o v e r a l l trend was  toward  considerable  variations  i n these  agreement on these relationships across  relationships.  subjects  was r e s t r i c t e d  General to the  relationship between c l i e n t personality 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 directiveness on the part of counsellor  subjects.  The results suggest-  ing several, rather than any single i m p l i c i t counselling theory.  - iii  -  The study i n d i c a t e d t h a t 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 significant ventions  and  have a  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 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 ted by the r e s u l t s of the s t u d y .  sugges-  -  iv  -  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page T i t l e Page  i  Abstract  i i  Table of Contents L i s t of Tables Acknowledgement Dedication  v vi vii  CHAPTER  CHAPTER  iv  I  II  SCOPE OF THE STUDY Background and Introduction Purpose  1 1 6  RELATED STUDIES AND RATIONALE  7  CHAPTER III  RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Subjects Instruments Data Collection and Procedures  13 13 13 17  CHAPTER  RESULTS Personality Construct Relations Counselling Action Construct Relations Personality and Counselling Action Construct Relations Individual Implicit Counselling Theory  19 20 25 28 35  SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Limitations Implications Uses and Application Recommendations for Further Research  38 38 39 43 43  Summary & Conclusion  44  CHAPTER  IV  V  BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C  46 48 50 54  -  V -  L I S T OF T A B L E S  Page Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4  Table 5 Table 6  Table 7 Table 8  Table 9 Table 10  Average Interrelationships Between Personality Constructs  21  Significant Relationships Between Personality Constructs  23  Minimum and Maximum Variance-in-Common Scores Betwen Personality Constructs  24  Average Interrelationships Between Counselling Action Constructs  26  S i g n i f i c a n t Relationships Between Counselling Action Constructs  27  Minimum and Maximum Variance-in-Common Scores Between Counselling Action Constructs  29  Average Interrelationships Between Personality and Counselling Action Constructs  30  Minimum and Maximum Variance-in-Common Scores Between Personality and Counselling Action Constructs  32  S i g n i f i c a n t Relationships Between Personality and Counselling Action Constructs  34  S i g n i f i c a n t Relationships Between Personality and Counselling Constructs for Individual Constructs  36  - v i-  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I want t o extend my deepest a p p r e c i a t i o n t o my A d v i s o r , Dr. L a r r y 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 h e l p i n g t h i s thesis to f r u i t i o n . Armstrong  and Dr. Oohn  co-operatin I  I wish t o thank my Committee members, Dr. Bob Banmen  for their  which were very much  want  to  bring  especially  positive  contributions  and  appreciated.  thank  my  wife  Lynn,  who  really  made  c o m p l e t i o n o f 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.  - vii -  DEDICATION  To my p a r e n t s , Herbert and Marsha Long, who have g i v e n 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 c a l l e d upon to assess or make judgements  about  the personality, behaviors and situations of c l i e n t s on a daily basis. Generally  speaking,  psychometric  counselling  diagnostic  assessment  the medical model toward psychological practice  psychology and  has  shifted away from  categorization  more "humanistic" and  associated  informal  assessment and understanding of c l i e n t s .  within  the  counselling  model  (see Egan,  the with  approaches  to  In training and  1975),  emphasis i s  placed on the counsellor-client relationship and the counsellor's understanding of the c l i e n t  as a "whole person" rather than as a diagnostic  label. This research  shift  in  implications.  emphasis It has  has  several  important  for the most part  structure for c l i n i c a l judgements by counsellors.  clinical  removed  the  and  formal  At the same time, i t  has largely removed the discontinuity between assessment and counselling activities. clinical  It can be suggested  judgement has  t i f i c activity. about  that  within  the counselling  become less of an apparent  Rather, i t can be described  understanding others,  concerned  objective  context, or scien-  as the ways in which we go  with how  we form  impressions  and  make judgements about them, processes that occur i n 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 w i l l be noted at a l a t e r point, this essent i a l unity between the c l i n i c a l noted  by  major  theorists  and social judgement processes has been  i n the  area  of  clinical  judgement  (Bieri,  - 2-  Atkins,  Briar,  Leaman, M i l l e r  and Tripodi,  1966; Sarbin,  Taft and  Bailey, 1960). Clinical  and s o c i a l  personal contexts.  judgements  both  take  place  within  inter-  The counsellor, l i k e the layman, i s required to pro-  cess and give meaning to an extensive array of interpersonal information.  An important  come to understand, other persons?  question in both contexts i s :  how does one person  form unified impressions, and make judgements about  At the same time, the question arises as to how essen-  t i a l l y the same observations w i l l lead to the formation of very d i f f e r ent impressions of the same person. sity  of impressions  lowing  observation  expressed  One only has to think of the diver-  by counsellors i n a case conference  fol-  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 d e f i n i t i v e  answers to these  questions, there are conceptualizations and research methodologies that can be drawn from personality and s o c i a l 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 i s p a r t i c u l a r l y useful for our purposes is  that of " i m p l i c i t  personality theory".  This  term  was  originally  applied (Bruner and Tagiuri, 1954) to the notion that each person certain  personality t r a i t s  as being  related  and other  traits  sees  as un-  related, which leads to extended inferences about the whole person based on expected relationships. to  the concept  The term i s now used to refer more generally  of an individual's cognitive structure f o r forming  ressions of other persons  (Wegner & Vallacher, 1977).  imp-  Put very simply,  this conceptualization suggests that each person builds their own unique  - 3-  theory of what other people are l i k e .  Implicit personality theories may  be thought of as r e l a t i v e l y stable schemes of expectations and anticipations  about  others  which  vicarious experiences. and  to describe  implicit  are gradually  up by both  direct and  I t allows an individual to compare and contrast  and predict  personality  built  the behavior  theories  that  stand and make judgements about  of others.  individuals give  I t i s through  meaning or under-'  others.  Research has suggested that the individual's i m p l i c i t theories  serve several  functions  impressions of others. zation  and  "clinical  Bieri  i n aiding in the formation of unified  These include the selection, generation, organi-  combination  Vallacher).  of  interpersonal  information  et a l . (1966) have suggested  theories",  in large  part  implicit,  of i m p l i c i t  personality  theory  that  serve  r e l a t i v e to judgements i n the c l i n i c a l s e t t i n g . cept  personality  (Wegner  and  the individual's similar  functions  Application of the con-  to the c l i n i c a l  setting i s not a  novel suggestion, however, i t has had r e l a t i v e l y limited application i n the  research. Several  different multidimensional methodologies have been used  to model and study the content and structure of the i m p l i c i t theories of c l i n i c i a n s . (1960) compared  personality  Using a semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l approach, Korman  and contrasted  the i m p l i c i t  personality  theories  of a  sample of p s y c h i a t r i s t s , psychiatric s o c i a l workers and c l i n i c a l psychologists; grid  McPherson and Walton  (1970) used a variant  of Kelly's  to study psychiatrist's perceptions of group therapy.  methodology  has been  psychiatrist's  used  judgements  by Agnew and Bannister of t h e i r  clients  on  (1955)  A similar  (1972) to compare the basis  of "lay  -  psychological cus,  -  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 -  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 t h e o r y or cog-  nitive in  constructs"  k  s t r u c t u r e concept and methodology t o c l i n i c a l  the area  of accuracy  of c l i n i c a l  judgement,  judgement has been  p a r t i c u l a r l y the r e -  l a t i o n s h i p between c o g n i t i v e c o m p l e x i t y and a c c u r a c y of c l i n i c a l ment (see B i e r i e t a l . (1966) f o r a This studying  implicit  structures within  paper proposes t h a t personality  review).  t h e concept and m e t h o d o l o g i e s used f o r theories  can u s e f u l l y be a p p l i e d  the c o u n s e l l i n g  context.  f i t well  with  the  interpersonal  cognitive  of c l i n i c a l  From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e  e n t s on the b a s i s of t h e i r i m p l i c i t to  or  t o t h e study  be seen as making judgements or g a i n i n g  seems  judge-  judgement  counsellors  can  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e i r  cli-  personality  "humanistic"  theories.  approach  to  This  notion  psychological  assessment emphasized w i t h i n t h e c o u n s e l l i n g model. Fundamental t o s t u d y i n g  clinical  judgement w i t h i n t h e c o u n s e l l i n g  c o n t e x t i s a r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t the c o u n s e l l o r tempting  t o gain  counselling difference  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  process  of c l i e n t s  and s t r a t e g i e s .  between c l i n i c a l  i s making judgements or a t that  Not o n l y  i s related  i s this  to the  a significant  and s o c i a l judgements, but i t a l s o  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 r e s e a r c h  Through emphasis on t h e accuracy of c l i n i c a l  judgements the c r i t i c a l r e -  lationship counsellors  between the judgements or i m p r e s s i o n s of c l i e n t s and  their  strategies  or  formed  p o l i c i e s of c o u n s e l l i n g  toward c l i e n t s , has l a r g e l y been i g n o r e d . clinical  to date.  by  action  While emphasis on accuracy of  judgement i s necessary and d e s i r a b l e , i t seems secondary t o t h e  counsellor's  e s t a b l i s h i n g a coherent,  functional  understanding  of t h e  - 5 -  client  which w i l l  ingfully  with  allow  the c o u n s e l l o r  the c l i e n t  (Green  t o engage h i m s e l f / h e r s e l f  and Cochran,  n a t u r e of c l i n i c a l  judgement i n t h e c o u n s e l l i n g  poses  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  a  study  theories  of  of c o u n s e l l o r s  a c t i o n s toward  between  1978).  mean-  R e f l e c t i n g the  s e t t i n g t h i s paper pro-  the i m p l i c i t  personality  and t h e i r s t r a t e g i e s or p a t t e r n s of c o u n s e l l i n g  clients.  W h i l e t h i s study has chosen t o emphasize e x p l o r a t i o n of t h e r o l e of  "implicit"  theories  rather  than  i n the c l i n i c a l  "explicit"  personality  of i n t e g r a t e d  perienced  might  draw upon  b a s i s f o r h i s o r her c l i n i c a l  to counselling  several factors. their  judgements  initial  may  be drawn  counsellors  professional  their  between  relative  choice  based  on  i n t r a i n i n g and those g a i n tend  an a t h e o r e t i c a l  the i m p l i c i t  counselling  Exploration  relationship  and t h e i r r e -  t o approach  clinical  or at most, a  loose  T h i s has l e d t o the s u g g e s t i o n here t h a t a p a r a l -  to e x p l i c i t theories  training.  i s a conscious  experience  from  and t h e i r c l i n i c a l  These i m p l i c i t related  strategies  and c o u n s e l l i n g  as a  judgements and c o u n s e l l i n g s t r a t e g i e s .  In large part, counsellors  e c l e c t i c perspective. lel  i n d i v i d u a l l y or i n c o n c e r t  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  lationship  ing  There are a m u l t i -  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-  counsellor  The  counselling  s e t t i n g , t h i s s h o u l d not be t a k e n as a f a i l u r e  t o r e c o g n i z e the i m p o r t a n t r o l e t h e l a t t e r may p l a y . plicity  and  to  to counsellors  personality  judgements  theories  theories  and c o u n s e l l i n g  may v e r y w e l l  as c o u n s e l l o r s  of t h e s e  strategies.  become more c l o s e l y  g a i n f u r t h e r e x p e r i e n c e and  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 counselling i n early  actions  stages  i s clearly  of t r a i n i n g and  development.This i n t e r e s t u n d e r l i e s t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y .  of  interest  professional  - 6 -  Purpose of the Study As generally  indicated above, previous research focused  on  the  accuracy of  in c l i n i c a l  clinical  judgement  judgements or  limited to the impressions of c l i e n t s formed by c l i n i c i a n s . proposes to extend  and  take new  judgement on an exploratory This  study  assumes  directions  in the  study  has  has been  This study of  clinical  and descriptive basis. than  an  individual's  implicit  personality  theory provides a basis for the establishment of strategies or p o l i c i e s of action toward others (Cochran, 1981). the nals  construing different  This study w i l l describe  of c l i e n t s in terms of personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s i g strategies  example, what implications  or  p o l i c i e s of  does construing  counselling a client  action.  proposes  to  describe  separately  the  For  as assertive have  for counselling actions such as r e f l e c t i o n and confrontation? also  how  ways in which  The  study  counsellors  construe c l i e n t s in terms of personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the ways in which they construe their counselling actions toward c l i e n t s .  In short,  the study w i l l examine and  "implicit  describe  counselling theories" of counsellors.  what might be termed the  - 7-  CHAPTER  II  RELATED S T U D I E S AND  RATIONALE  As indicated e a r l i e r , the number of studies d i r e c t l y related to that  proposed i s very l i m i t e d .  One of the reasons i s that a primary  emphasis i n c l i n i c a l judgement research  has been on examining individual  differences r e l a t i n g to c l i n i c a l accuracy, usually of diagnostic  judge-  ments.  theor-  A wide variety of variables such as l e v e l of experience,  etical  committment,  professional  affiliation  have been considered  as possible  accuracy and a b i l i t y  i n making c l i n i c a l  and  Weiss, 1963  systematic  for reviews).  conceptualization  and  cognitive  complexity  sources of i n d i v i d u a l differences i n judgements.  Generally,  there  (See Taft,  has been  a lack of  i n the area of accuracy of c l i n i c a l  ments and the results have been spotty  and inconsistent  1955;  (Bieri  judgeet a l . ,  1966) Apart from the l i m i t a t i o n s of a variety of methodogical problems and  a lack of g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of r e s u l t s , several other factors  application  of  the c l i n i c a l  accuracy  research  judgement within the counselling context.  to study  of  limit  clinical  Given the informal nature of  assessment within the counselling context, a strong emphasis on accuracy of diagnostic reflects  a  judgements loses relevance.  discontinuity  strategies, rather vities of  between  Functionally,  clinical  than recognizing  judgement  possible  failure  (Bannister of agreement  et  and  counselling  the essential unity of these  as emphasized within the counselling model.  psychiatrists  t h i s emphasis  a l . , 1964)  on the part  acti-  For example, a study  provided  evidence  of  a  of p s y c h i a t r i s t s as to the  - 8-  implications little  of diagnostic  concensus  labels.  as to what  diagnostic l a b e l s .  treatments  (Sundberg and T y l e r ) .  showed  that  implied  there  has been very l i t t l e  that  was  by d i f f e r e n t  judgement correlates with  There has been some suggestion  extension  were  At the same time, there  of how well accuracy of c l i n i c a l ability.  The study  study  therapeutic  the c o r r e l a t i o n i s low  The l i m i t a t i o n s noted above suggest the need f o r  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  clients.  as counsellor  attitudes  and feeling  An example of such research  i s a study  to judgements of i n which Sharf and  Bishop (1979) investigated the relationship of the feelings of nine i n take counsellors in a University Counselling Centre to other judgements they made about 507 c l i e n t s . lysis  that counsellor's l i k i n g  counsellor's realism  perception  of the c l i e n t s  The study showed through correlation anaof c l i e n t s related s i g n i f i c a n t l y "to the  of the motivation stated  goals  of c l i e n t s  (r = 0.34), the  and the physical appearance (r =  0.32) of c l i e n t s " (p.268). Similarly,  Wallach  and Strupp  (1960) studied  the relationship  between the attitudes of a sample of 82 medical psychotherapists patients and a variety of c l i n i c a l judgements. were provided  Two groups of therapists  with written case studies of a male and female patient i n  which a single variable, l e v e l of patient motivation systematically varied.  for therapy, was  Review of the case studies was followed  pletion of a questionnaire impressions  toward  which e l i c i t e d  and judgements.  by com-  responses related to c l i n i c a l  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 found that the therapists perception  study  of the c l i e n t ' s level of motivation  was related s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the indicated warmth or positive attitudes of the therapists toward c l i e n t s .  A positive therapist attitude was i n  turn related s i g n i f i c a n t l y to more favourable characteristics favourable greater  such  estimates  willingness  as l e v e l  of social  of the prognosis  ratings of the patients on  adjustment with  to accept the patient  and insight, more  or without  treatment,  a  for treatment and a greater  ease of empathising with the patient. In addition to suggesting somewhat of a "halo e f f e c t " i n 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 i n f e r r e d , i t seems inconceivable clients  such as those described  actions  of the c l i n i c i a n  disliking  of a c l i e n t ,  that the c l i n i c i a n s ' impressions of  would not effect the relationship and  toward the c l i e n t .  for example, could  A counsellor's  be expected  l i k i n g or  to have a wide  range of implications i n terms of the counselling process. Although the nature of the relationship between i m p l i c i t ality  theories  context within have strong  and p o l i c i e s of action have not been studied within the  of c l i n i c a l  judgement or counselling,  a broader social context. directly  addressed  aspects  Two studies of t h i s  evidence demonstrating an orderly  personality  person-  theories  they  have  been  studied  by Cochran (1978, 1981)  question  and have  provided  relationship between  implicit  and the d e f i n i t i o n of s o c i a l  situations  i n the  - 10 -  first 1981  study  and p o l i c i e s of action  study w i l l be reviewed f i r s t  d i r e c t l y related to the current Cochran study  (1981) used  the relationship  struing them.  toward others i n the second.  and i n some d e t a i l  The  as i t i s the most  study.  a variant  of Kelly's  between two construct  people and the other for construing  grid  methodology to  subsystems, one f o r conp o l i c i e s of action toward  A major assumption of the study was that  both a personal con-  struct system and p o l i c i e s of action can be modelled using a p r i n c i p a l components analysis of grids.  In t h i s way the question of how i m p l i c i t  personality  i n the d e f i n i t i o n of p o l i c i e s of action  theory i s involved  can be reduced to the relations between the grids. The sonal  subjects  i n the study, 28 university students, rated  acquaintances on six constructs  of action that had been e l i c i t e d . c l u s t e r s constructs  of personality  and six constructs  A principal-components analysis which  into common themes or domains of meaning, the f i r s t  being the most central and sequentially more peripheral, separately subject ality  12 per-  was conducted  on the two grids completed by each of the subjects.  For each  i n d i v i d u a l l y , the orderings of people on the f i r s t three personcomponents were correlated  formly strong component  with  the action  components and uni-  relationships were found between the central  and central  action  component  for every  subject  personality but one.  correlated t_ test of the difference between the average variance  A  i n the  f i r s t and second personality components accounted f o r by the three components of action was s i g n i f i c a n t rt - 9.77, df - 27; JD < 0.01), also suggesting  that  central  components  havioral implications than peripheral  of personality patterns.  have  stronger be-  - 11 -  Although the reported does  evidence i s c o r r e l a t i o n a l and  p o l i c i e s of action  suggest  an  orderly  acting toward them.  The  rather  relationship  study can plicit  between  of construing  are c e n t r a l .  construing  study  others  theories  Returning to the o r i g i n a l question,  and  and will  to the extent that the con-  be seen as demonstrating an orderly  personality  themselves, the  results indicated that a policy of action  be predictable from a pattern structs involved  than actions  the study dealt with  p o l i c i e s of  relationship between  action  the im-  toward others in a  general and transituational context. In  1978,  Cochran made similar  methodology as that of the 1981 ween two for  construct  construing  ten paid polar  subsystems, one  and  constructs separately  problematic s o c i a l situations. lar  to that  described  for  an  the  d e f i n i t i o n s of  orderly  "while subjects  earlier  varied  similar  on  In that study two  groups of  as  10  16 provided b i -  tense/easygoing,  dimensions  related  intelligent/  to  one  of  two  Analysis of the grids in a manner simiyielded  similar evidence, in this case,  social situations.  personality As  in their organizations  Cochran  theories  and  (1978) noted,  of i m p l i c i t  personality  i n their d e f i n i t i o n s of s o c i a l s i t u -  people were construed manifested strong  lationships with the way  a  the other  relationship between i m p l i c i t two  used  people and  12 acquaintances on  such  theory and also varied considerably ations, the way  for construing  concrete s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s .  personality  and  study to examine the relationship bet-  university students rated  unintelligent  assumptions  situations were defined"  (p.  and  orderly  re-  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  clinical  judgement.  It  been suggested that in addition to other l i m i t a t i o n s , this has in the relationship between c l i n i c a l gies  or  p o l i c i e s of  carried  out  by  orderly  relationship  action  Cochran  may  be  manifested  largely  ignored.  provided  implicit  The  strong  personality  two  studies  evidence  theories  d e f i n i t i o n of social s i t u a t i o n s .  for  and  an  both  These studies  rationale for proposing that similar relationships  between the  implicit  tegies or p o l i c i e s of counselling proposes an  resulted  judgements and counselling strate-  (1978, 1981)  between  p o l i c i e s of action and provide an underlying  being  has  exploratory  actions  study following  used by Cochran, (1978, 1981)  personality  theories  toward c l i e n t s .  and  stra-  This  paper  a methodology similar to  to examine and  describe,  primarily,  that the  relationship between i m p l i c i t personality theories and p o l i c i e s of couns e l l i n g action of counselling students.  - 13 -  CHAPTER I I I  RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY  Subjects  The  subjects  graduate students  for the study  were s i x male and fourteen  registered i n programmes offered by the Department of  Counselling Psychology i n the Faculty of Education British years  Columbia.  of age.  The average  Counselling  at the University of  age of the subjects  was thirty-three  The mean number of years of counselling experience was  two years, which included experience the  female  Psychology  prior to and during training within  programmes.  sufficent l e v e l of counselling experience  This  was considered  to be a  for purposes of the study.  Instruments  Repertory G r i d . was  used  A variant of Kelly's (1955) repertory grid methodology  i n the study.  The "repertory  method of quantifying and s t a t i s t i c a l l y the categories used by a subject" been defined by Bannister  grid  technique i s b a s i c a l l y a  analyzing relationships between  (Adams-Webber, 1979, p. 20).  I t has  and Mair (1968) as "any form of sorting task  which allows for the assessment of relationships between constructs and which yields these primary data i n grid form" (p. 136).  Repertory grid  methodology i s well established and has been applied to the study of an extensive  array of matters of interest both within  c l i n i c a l context The  and outside  of the  (see Slater, 1976 for a review).  reliability  and v a l i d i t y  of the repertory  grid  methodology  have been tested i n 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. dictionary provides a normative index of commonly agreed r e l a t i o n s . that  study,  correlations among constructs  closely  reflected  meanings, indicating that construct r e l a t i o n s are v a l i d common meanings.  Bannister of  (1960) found strong  construct  r e l a t i o n s and  A In  normative  indications of  agreement between  plicit  estimates  grids.  That i s , constructs that were said to be closely related tended  to manifest strong relations on a g r i d . unrelated  tended  to manifest  relations derived  ex-  Constructs that were said to be  weak or negligible  relations on  The above and other studies (see Bannister and Mair, 1968) the r e l i a b i l i t y  from  a grid.  suggest that  and v a l i d i t y of the repertory grid methodology are ade-  quate for purposes of this  study.  A t y p i c a l procedure using the repertory grid i s to have subjects rate elements, usually people,  on a number of bipolar constructs  f r i e n d l y / u n f r i e n d l y ) , which may  be e l i c i t e d  (e.g.  from the subject or provided  by the investigator. The responses are then recorded i n a grid which i s a two  way  table with a column for each element and a row  struct, the entry i n any element concerned. ween constructs  can  c e l l showing how  for each con-  the construct applies to the  In each subject's grid, the interrelationship then  be  analyzed  using  a variety of  bet-  statistical  techniques. There  are  then  three  major  components  methodology - elements, constructs and components w i l l be discussed separately.  a rating  to  the  scale.  repertory  grid  Each of  these  - 15 -  Elements.  The elements rated  the subjects  in this  had seen i n counselling.  grid methodology  An underlying  assumption of the  i s that the sample of elements are an adequate  sentation of the t o t a l population (Bannister  study were c l i e n t s that each of  and Mair).  of interest  repre-  i n the subject's "world"  In attempting to f u l f i l l  this  assumption, each  subject was requested to identify 10 c l i e n t s on the basis of the following descriptions: - 2 c l i e n t s you worked well with - 2 c l i e n t s you didn't work well with - 2 c l i e n t s you f e l t you r e a l l y understood - 2 c l i e n t s you had d i f f i c u l t y understanding - 1 c l i e n t you liked the most - 1 c l i e n t you liked the l e a s t . Constructs.  There were two construct subsystems of particular  i n the study. ality  One for construing c l i e n t s that can be termed the person-  construct  subsystem  action toward c l i e n t s struct subsystem. subjects,  interest  the  and  the  other  which can be termed  for construing  policies  of  the counselling action con-  Though these constructs might have been e l i c i t e d from  desire  to examine  the  i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  structs on a group basis precluded this  approach.  con-  As an a l t e r n a t i v e ,  the constructs used i n the study were drawn on an i n t u i t i v e basis from a review of descriptions in Egan (1975 sellor  training  descriptions  model  were  a&b), which  at the University  then  checked  counselling psychology students.  i s the primary coun-  of B r i t i s h  for • adequacy  in  Columbia. discussion  These with  - 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  action constructs  chosen were as-  sumed t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  of t h e p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions and c o u n s e l l i n g  t e c h n i q u e s which s u b j e c t s  have been t r a i n e d  working w i t h  clients i n counselling.  t o use i n a s s e s s 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 t h e s t u d y : Personality Constructs  assertive/easily led i n t e l l e c t u a l i z i n g , / i n touch w i t h  feelings  resistant to feelings responsible/irresponsible self-assured/apprehensive well motivated/lacking  motivation  clear-headed/confused self insightful/uninsightful 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  and i n  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  confrontive  more e m p a t h i c / l e s s empathic more focused on f e e l i n g s / l e s s f o c u s e d 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 i n i t i a t i v e s (take i n i t i a t i v e s ) to arise from c l i e n t ) more s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e / l e s s s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e more d i r e c t i v e / l e s s d i r e c t i v e more open and genuine/less open and genuine  R a t i n g S c a l e and Forms. on  each  The subjects were requested to rate each c l i e n t  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 c i r c l e the dot which best represented their perceptions of or actions toward  a client.  For example,  on the above  construct, c i r c l i n g the f i r s t or second dot on the l e f t would that the c l i e n t was very or somewhat tense respectively. first  or second dot on the right  would  very or somewhat relaxed respectively.  indicate Circling  that  was  the centre dot would Moving from  to right the dots correspond to ratings of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 res-  pectively. for  C i r c l i n g the  the c l i e n t  indicate that the c l i e n t was neither one way nor the other. left  indicate  A sample of the two-part rating form which each subject used  rating each c l i e n t i s contained i n Appendix A.  Data C o l l e c t i o n and P r o c e d u r e s  Data were collected primarily on a group basis from two groups, each containing approximately one-half of the subjects. collected from two subjects on an individual basis.  Also, data were  Following a brief  general introduction to the study (Appendix B), each subject was asked  - 18 -  to complete a form requesting biographical information as follows: sex,  programme  registration,  and  number  of  years  of  age,  counselling  experience. The names ( i n i t i a l s ) of ten c l i e n t s corresponding to the descriptions noted e a r l i e r were then e l i c i t e d 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 personali t y and counselling action constructs in the same format as contained i n Appendix  A.  Each  subject was provided with one rating  c l i e n t to be rated. were guided through  form for each  Standard instructions were read and the subjects the rating  structs (Appendix B).  of the f i r s t c l i e n t on the twenty  con-  The subjects were then requested to rate each of  the remaining c l i e n t s on their own.  The introduction and administration  took between f o r t y - f i v e and sixty minutes to complete.  - 19 -  CHAPTER IV RESULTS The ratings  of c l i e n t s  by each subject  were cast  i n grid  form.  This yielded two grids f o r each subject, a c l i e n t personality grid and a counselling action g r i d .  Reference can be made to Appendix C which con-  tains the completed grids of two subjects  i n the study.  elements ( i . e . c l i e n t s ) , were rated by each subject sonality  and counselling  these constructs  action  constructs,  f o r each subject  As the same  on each of the per-  the relationship  between  can be inferred from the correlations  between constructs. For  each  subject  the ratings  counselling action constructs tion.  This  analysis  yielded  on each  pair  of personality and  were correlated using a Pearson r correla3 correlation matrices for each  personality x personality, counselling x counselling  counselling  theories, each of these correlations were tested f o r s i g n i Given the exploratory  For examining  action, and  personality  ficance.  action.  action x counselling  subject  individual  implicit  nature of the study a level of s i g n i -  ficance of p < 0.10 was adopted. To examine the interrelationships between constructs jects,  a variance-in-common  score  was  squaring the absolute value (maintaining multiplying  i t by 100.  computed  f o r each  across subsubject  by  sign) of each correlation and  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 structs.  As indicated  by Cochran  action con-  (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 ion  of that relationship.  For example, a small standard deviat-  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 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c -  ance of JJ < 0.10 was accepted. The  results to be described i n the following section are based on  these analyses.  Primary emphasis w i l l  the results across  be placed  on an examination of  subjects.  There were three primary areas of interest i n t h i s study, the rel a t i o n s h i p between personality and  counselling  actions.  constructs  Chapter  I.  The results in each of these areas  separately.  P e r s o n a l i t y Construct  The  Relationships  concept of " i m p l i c i t y personality Implicit  personality  theories  strength of relationship between constructs. of relationship between personality jects  represented  theories" was reviewed i n can be inferred  from the  In t h i s case, the strength  constructs  by average variance-in-common  variance-in-common scores reported  constructs  Also of interest were the relationships bet-  ween counselling action constructs. w i l l be reviewed  and between those  across  the twenty sub-  scores.  f o r each pair of personality  The average constructs are  i n Table 1.  Examination of Table 1 suggests moderate to strong degrees of relationship  i n 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  >•>  cu  cu  T—I  •H CO ca CU  rd 4-1 •1-1  >  •H 4-1  r-l  CU CO co ca  Assertive/easily  led S.D.  i n touch w i t h f e e l i n g s / r e s i s t a n t to feelings S.D. responsible/ irresponsible S.D. self-assured/ apprehensive S.D. w e l l motivated/ lacking motivation S.D. clear-headed/confused S.D.  o 3 o  4-1  •Ha  *-—  CU M-l O 4-1  cu i—i  CU •O •H CO •1-1 d co o d o CO cu ft CO u a) U •H 1-1  4->  rd  on  li  a) r-i  CO 60 co d 60 •H C el  T3  Constructs  a  cfl 4-1  CO •H CO CU  -2 32  r-l  '— cu  3  CO CO CU n) rd  1 M-l 1-1  CU  CU  r-i  ft ft  co  ca  45 29  C  1 20 25 33  4-J  >  <U 4-1 •i-4 ca 4 J  > > o CO •H s d  CU !-i •1-1  4J  o  60 e •HPi r-l A! l—l CJ CU Cfl  16 22  C  4 28 c  —^  •H  I—I  4-1  •U  rd 60  cu  -a ca  CU -d CU CO n  3 m C CU i—i o o o cfl  26 26  —^  3  —-  C  0 13  •i-l  CO d  •i-l 1 M-l  r-l cu  CU 3 M-l d 4-1 CU ,d •rH 60 u CO o co -r-l 1 CO CU d 1-1 l—l i-l  4-)  18 18  C  6 17  ca  ca cu  ^ \  •H  T3  CU  CU •1-1  1-1  T—1  X  CU CD n CO o CU  cfl  u  23 23  C  21° 31  2 15  11 23  17 16  C  e  b  r-l  51 30  c  38 25  C  34 23  C  50 31  c  2 25  12 18  C  22 29  C  36 30  C  26 28  C  32 26  C  31° 31  9 18  b  36 20  C  28 30  C  57 31  C  7 22  13 17  C  47 24  C  48° 21  b  29  12 20  41° 26  14 24  b  22 23  C  10 15  C  12 16  C  12 21  b  S.D. goal-oriented/aimless S.D. relaxed/tense S.D. more l i k e a b l e / l e s s likeable S.D. Decimals a - £ < b - p < c - p <  ^3  cu 4-1  60  1 15  self-insightful/ uninsightful  Note.  CU  r-l  B o •r-l  ca  3  d  CU l—l  CO d  ca l—l Ol  -i-l  co  <U  are rounded o f f t o p r e s e n t whole numbers, 0.10 0.05 0.01  1 7  b  - 22 -  The strongest and positive relationships were found between perceiving a c l i e n t as well motivated and goal oriented, followed by responsible and well motivated and clear-headed are  generally  client also  i n directions that would  who i s perceived  likely  These relationships  be expected.  For example, a  to be responsible rather than irresponsible i s  to be perceived  headed, s e l f - i n s i g h t f u l , tionships  and goal-oriented.  as well  motivated, goal-oriented, c l e a r -  self-assured and more l i k e a b l e .  can be seen, for example, with  the construct  Similar r e l a self-assured/  apprehensive, i n Table 2 which l i s t s the relationship between constructs for a l l s i g n i f i c a n t personality constructs. It  i s interesting to note from Tables  1 and 2 that the rather  global c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , more likeable, relates p o s i t i v e l y at a low, however s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l to a l l other personality constructs with the exception of assertive/easily l e d .  This does suggest somewhat of a "halo  effect". While the construct  relationships do suggest a certain common-  a l i t y i n the i m p l i c i t personality theories of the subjects, a quite wide variation  i s evidenced  by the r e l a t i v e l y  high  standard  many of the average variance-in-common scores. reflected  i n Table  3 which contains  deviations of  This variation i s also  the ranges of variance-in-common  scores for each pair of constructs. As an example, although the constructs self-assured/apprehensive they had a standard variance-in-common.  assertive/easily led and  had an average variance-in-common score of 45,  deviation of 30 with a range between -5 and 88 i n Although a c l i e n t  l i k e l y to also be perceived  perceived  as assertive i s quite  as self-assured, the strength of this r e l a -  tionship varies considerably between subjects.  - 23 -  TABLE 2 Significant Relationships Between Personality Constructs  * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01  Assertive  self-assured** clear-headed** goal-oriented** relaxed** responsible** well-motivated**  in touch with feelings  more l i k e a b l e * * relaxed*  responsible  well motivated** goal-oriented** clear-headed** self-insightful** self-assured** more l i k e a b l e * *  self-assured  clear-headed** goal-oriented** relaxed** well motivated** more l i k e a b l e *  well motivated  goal oriented** clear-headed** self-insightful** more l i k e a b l e * *  clear-headed  goal oriented** self-insightful** relaxed* more l i k e a b l e * *  self-insightful  goal oriented** more l i k e a b l e * * relaxed*  goal-oriented  more l i k e a b l e * * relaxed**  relaxed  more l i k e a b l e * *  24 -  TABLE 3 Minimum and Maximum Variance-in-Common Scores Between Personality Constructs  T3  OJ .—I  !>,  i-4 •r-l CO ca a)  —  cu  > •4J H rH cu CO CO n)  Assertive/easily led in touch with feelings/ resistant to feelings responsible/ irresponsible well motivated/ lacking motivation clear-headed/confused self-insightful/ uninsightful  CO 60  3 'H r-l  CO  60  S  a o  -H  CU r-l 0) CD 4-H CU  —_  <4-l  rC +J o •H 4-J 4-1  r3 u 3  3 cd  4-1  O CO •rH CO c CU •H u 4-1  -58 76  cu  —. r-4 CU rO r-4 •r-4  rO •H CD s o CO CU  CO C o a. co CU u u •H  —. cu  CU  > 1-1  u • 3 CO CO 3 CO CU ca .3 1 CU M—1 rH i—l fx CU (X co  cu  4-1  1—1  4->  ni  >H •r  cfl 4J  —^  3  <+H  T) CU  -3 > O cd B •H 4J cu O 60 ,3 I E s •H rH cS i—i 0) i—i O CU ca i—i 1-4 o  4-1  i-4  •H  4-1  J2 3 60 14-4  T) CU  co ,3 3 60  co 3  •H  3  i-l CU  CH  O o  1  4-4  co  T-I  co 3  4-1  3 cu  •H l-l co O co 1 CU r-4  1—1  3 3  E O •H 60 cd  T H  cd  J-l  —  CU X  CU CU r-l rO  1—1 IT)  ca  1—1  r-4  CU CU •rH •rH  cu  CU co u CO o cu B i-H  ca  i—i 1-4  -34 58  -5 88  -23 72  -10 79  - 3 53  - 1 62  -17 79  -19 46  -50 37  -40 44  -46 79  -30 31  -44 35  -36 37  -25 79  - 3 53  -29 92  0 90  0 77  4 90  -55 69  -12 55  -46 77  - 2 88  - 7 88  - 5 86  - 5 88  - 9 48  - 4 79  -46 79  -12 96  -35 59  -13 45  11 94  7 77  -21 83  -22 61  6 90  -18 71  - 9 72  - 5 45  -15 58  goal-oriented/aimless relaxed/tense more l i k e a b l e / l e s s likeable  Note.  cu co 3 cu  CU  Decimals are rounded o f f to present whole numbers.  -36 46  - 25 -  These theories of  do  support  which suggests t h a t  meaning  others,  results  while  i n the perceptions  there  t h e concept there  of i m p l i c i t  i s some degree of commonality  of t h e p e r s o n a l i t y  are a l s o c o n s i d e r a b l e  personality  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  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  s e l l i n g action constructs Generally between  i s reported  the r e s u l t s  constructs  f o r each  moderately  number  more  empathic  was f o l l o w e d  and more focused  Of in  being more a c t i v e and  and between  placing  being more  b e i n g more a c t i v e .  p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t are t h e t r e n d s t h a t  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  T a b l e 5.  relationships  by t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  on f e e l i n g s  emphasis on a c t i o n and t h e c o u n s e l l o r  strong  The s t r o n g e s t r e l a t i o n s h i p ,  as might be e x p e c t e d , was between the c o u n s e l l o r This  o f coun-  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 e v i d e n c e d w i t h p e r s o n a l i t y c o n s t r u c t s .  more d i r e c t i v e .  pair  i n T a b l e 4.  reflect  and a s m a l l e r  scores  seem t o be r e f l e c t e d  action constructs  reported i n  These r e l a t i o n s h i p s do appear t o r e f l e c t the " c l i e n t  centered"  approach t o c o u n s e l l i n g emphasized w i t h i n t h e t r a i n i n g of t h e s u b j e c t s . For example, being empathic, which i s seen as v e r y i m p o r t a n t w i t h i n t h e "client ficantly and  centered"  counselling  across subjects  genuine,  more  emphasis on a c t i o n . ficantly  across  self  context,  t o being more focused disclosing, less  S i m i l a r l y , being  subjects  can be seen  signi-  on f e e l i n g s , more open  d i r e c t i v e and p l a c i n g  more  to counselling  to relate  reflective  actions  such  relates as b e i n g  less signimore  - 26 -  TABLE 4 Average I n t e r 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  4-1  4-1  G  CU r-l  M-l  CU  U  confrontive S.D.  more/less empathic S.D. more/less focused on f e e l i n g s S.D. M o r e / l e s s emphasis on action S.D. more/less i n t e r p r e t i v e S.D. more/less  Xi  4-1  cd  M-l  c O  ft  B  cn cn <D  cn cn cu  co co cu  i—i  i-l  6  more/less  O  U  cu  o  reflective S.D.  •H  o  u  o  u  l—l  CU  u o  o  o  o  u  s  6 - 8 21 -  B  a)  B CU co 60  c  •r-l  CU  r-l  ft  O  i—i  ft  CO cd rC  o  r-l  CD CU M-l  32 29  C  30 31  6 14  a  3 19 42 33  C  C  C — o a) • H  4-1  r-l  C  O ca  CU  u Q  4J  a  B  cd  >  4-1  r-4  CU  o  B  3 co  co co CU  co co CU  ft o  22 25  C  7 26  14 24  - 3 31  i—l  o  CU  o  •1-1  o  co  B  T3  4 20  CU  c  r-4  CU  •H 3  r-l  n C  B  B  -15 32  a  17° 25  o  cu 60  16 27  b  5 11  a  -10 28  9 19  b  -15 23  C  32 26  1 26  - 9 28  15° - 1 1 23 25  a  21 25  5 29  36 34  b  6 18 C  - 2 13  31 28  7  0  13  - 1  29  20  34  15  C  active  6 14  a  55 32  C  C  - 2 15  1 18  self-  disclosure S.D. more/less d i r e c t i v e S.D. more/less open and genuine S.D. Note.  cu  cu  M  r-4  S.D. more/less  r-4  l—l  -14 37  b  r-4  •H T3  CO co cu  r-4  2 29  -12 22  c  CU  CU co  co CO CU  C  C  ca  o  cu  -20 26  -12 18  C  4J  1  M-l  CO CO cu  i—i  B  >  •H •H  •r-l  co co cu  o  CU  CU  u  •r-l  <4-l  —  ,  >  •r-l 4-1  co  13 cu CO 3  co co cu  CU  c o  C  lo  >  •H  •rH  o  More/less  a) >  Action Constructs  Decimals a - £ < b - £ < c - p <  are rounded o f f to present whole numbers, 0.10 0.05 0.01  3 17  21 22 3 23  C  - 27 -  empathic,  more focused  on feelings,  placing  less  being more open and genuine and less d i r e c t i v e . to  note  the  significant  positive  emphasis  It i s also  relationship  on  action,  interesting  between  more  s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and being more open and genuine. TABLE 5 S i g n i f i c a n t Relationships Between Counselling Action Constructs  more r e f l e c t i v e  more more less more less  empathic*** focused on feelings*** emphasis on action*** open and genuine** directive*  more confrontive  more more more more less  emphasis on action*** directive*** active** self-disclosure* empathic*  more empathic  more more more less less  focused on feelings*** open and genuine*** self-disclosure*** directive*** emphasis on action**  more focused on feelings  more more less less  open and genuine*** self-disclosure*** emphasis on action** directive*  more active  more d i r e c t i v e * * * more s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e *  more s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e  more open and genuine***  *p < 0.10 **p < 0.05 ***p < 0.01 Also worth noting are the s i g n i f i c a n t relationships  between being  - 28 -  more confrontive  and placing more emphasis on action, more d i r e c t i v e ,  more active, more s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and less empathic. In general would  terms the relationships between counselling  seem to suggest  counselling litative  that  the subjects  generally  from a " c l i e n t centered" perspective  factors  such  may  constructs  approach t h e i r  with emphasis on f a c i -  as empathy and openness and genuineness  and a  deemphasis of a c t i v i t y and action i n favour of more r e f l e c t i o n and more focus on f e e l i n g s .  This point w i l l  be discussed  further i n examining  the relationship between personality and counselling action  constructs.  It should be noted however, that the relationships between counselling can  action constructs  be  seen  by  variance-in-common  were also subject  reference scores  to  the  i n Table  to wide variations.  standard  deviations  of  for each pair of counselling action constructs  in  This would suggest that  ferences  i n the way  there  i n which the subjects  The  relationship  between  would combine and use the  Action Construct  perceived  contained  would be s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -  various counselling interventions and techniques contained P e r s o n a l i t y and C o u n s e l l i n g  average  4 and the ranges of variance-in-  common scores Table 6.  i n the study.  Relationships  personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  and counselling actions was of p a r t i c u l a r interest i n t h i s study. relationships  can  be  seen  variance-in-common scores l i n g action constructs. perceived  This  i n Table  7  which  contains  These  the average  between each pair of personality and counselFor example, across  as more likeable the counsellor  subjects, when a c l i e n t i s subjects  see themselves as  being more open and genuine, more empathic, more focused on feelings, more s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g , less d i r e c t i v e and more r e f l e c t i v e .  - 29 -  TABLE 6 Minimum and Maximum Variance-In Common Scores Between Counselling Action Constructs  O 0)  o  r-l  4-1 CU  rH  4-1  4-1  s o  nJ  ft  a  CO CO  CO CO  CO CO cu  U  O  a  more/less interpretive  •r-l  CU  CU  More/less emphasis on action  s  CJ  r-l  more/less focused on feelings  CJ  r-l  CU  more/less empathic  4-1  CU  I—I  CU r-l  o  e -55 34  r-4  CU  >  3  O  s o  •r-4 4-1  CO  TJ CU co  3  CO cd rC  o  B cu  •I—I  CD CD CU  CD CD CU  CJ  CO CO CD cu 60 I—l  3  •r-l  r-l  •rH 4-1  s •  CU • H  -19 90  -20 88  -38 22  -28 48  r-l  cu  >  4-1  CJ cd  CU CO  CO CO  CU I—I  CU  4-1  1  i—l  cu  CD n CO 3 CU CD  i—l  CU  o  CD CO CU  r-4  CU 1-1  3  cd  3  <u  ft o  CD CO CU CU r-l 3 .H CU 3 W 3 o CU 60  -66 32  -49 64  -71 50  -41 44  -77 37  -14 81  - 8 66  -28 79  -26 64  -13 30  -30 61  -34 40  1 _64 100 15  -71 66  -76 53  -32 58  -66 18  -76 10  -59 76  -69 52  -15 69  -72 38  - 5 69  -34 71  -40 92  -38 31  -14 77  -31 34  -40 67  -59 36  -45 79  -34 19  -18 41  - 7 96  -38 44  -37 36  -10 77  a  B  r-4  O  a  4-1  O cd  a  o  a  more/less selfdisclosure  more/less d i r e c t i v e more/less open and genuine  Decimals are rounded off to present whole numbers.  u  O CU M •H T3  T3  !-4  u  more/less active  Note.  >  •i-l  u o  r-4  O  CU  4-1  (U r-l CU o CU 4-1  CU  ft  CU  !-i  ft  4-1  CU  CU  U  •r-l  lo  •H  4J  more/less con^rontive  >  >  •r-l  More/less r e f l e c t i v e  CU  on  CU  o  a  CD •H XI  o  a  B  0 86  -45 79  - 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 Action  >  > 4J  4-1  CJ CU  oS-I  •rH  c  co CO CU  co CO CU  CO CO CU  CO CO CU  r-4  CU  u o  led S.D.  -12 25  CU S-I  a  B  E  8 27  b  -12 20  i n touch w i t h 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 13 S.D. 22 responsible/ irresponsible  CU S-I  b  00  C  i-H CU CU  CU  M  > -r-l  CU 4-1  CO 03 cu I—I c s. CU • H 4-J  o  I M-l  • i-l  ctj  CU co  co co CU r-4  co co CU  co S-i co 3 CU CO  r-4  r-4  CU  CTj  O  C  CU  i—l  U  CU  T3  C3  4-1  4-J  C  BCU CO  CU >  'i-t  5-i  rt ft  •H  CU S-I  cu  O  U -rl  CU  TJ  o  co co cu  co co cu  ft  cu !-4  cu i-4  B  i-l  i-l  CU CJ U CO  S  B  STJ  B  - 5 23  - 7 18  - 2 12  -15 16  C  0 17  -14 18  13 21  8 26  1 17  - 6 15  - 3 25  4 13  - 5 21  10 18  3 20  - 5 19  -  4 13  -17 23  C  3 23  -16° 20  2 21  9 - 6 23 23  - 2 26  - 1  C  9  -15 20  - 5 20  - 8 25  - 6 25  6 - 1 17 15  -11 23  b  3 16  -16 22  C  2 18  o  b  B  O  OH  o  C  S.D.  - 2 24  7 19  S.D.  2 17  1 22  2 16  8 20  clear-headed/confused S.D.  - 5 17  5 16  - 5 15  - 1 21  - 1 28  -  4 22  -14 22  b  7 21  -19 20  C  3 24  7 19  4 21  5 19  - 6 21  - 1 22  -17 23  C  3 22  -22 21  C  S.D.  6 27  goal-oriented/aimless S.D.  - 2 18  5 11  - 4 20  2 25  1 15  - 4 18  -14 27  b  1 24  -15 28  b  0 22  S.D.  2 27  - 3 20  2 20  1 25  - 4 31  3 21  - 8 26  - 3 18  - 7 26  6 16  S.D.  9 20  - 1 12  27 28  - 3 18  - 2 18  - 1 16  14 20  11 21  27 29  self-insightful/ uninsightful  relaxed/tense more l i k e a b l e / l e s s likeable  Note.  Decimals a - p < b - £ < c - p <  a  a  -  a  C  15 19  a  C  -  a  are rounded o f f to p r e s e n t whole numbers, 0.10 0.05 0.01  C  b  oo  - 3 22  2 26  0 16  rj CU  O  0 21  w e l l motivated/ lacking motivation  3  - 6 23 b  a  C  M-l  O  o  S.D. self-assured/ apprehensive  (U  r-l  r-4  u o oct)  o  e  rH  1—1  —,  —.  ft  -C  CU  r-4  co  3  o o  B  4-1 CU  •r-l  u  ft  co  TJ  o o 4-1  <J—1 CU  >  o  CU CO  4-J ctj  M-l  i—l  Assertive/easily  •r-l  cu  c  C o  o  fi  Counselling  Constructs  CU CU  and  -  b  3 24  C  - 31 -  Though  there  are a number of s i g n i f i c a n t relationships evidenced  in Table 7, the strength the  personality  low.  and  of the relationships between  counselling  action  constructs  In part, this relates to the r e l a t i v e l y  high  i o n a l i t y of the relationships between constructs high standard deviations). the  constructs  the majority  tends to be  of  quite  degree of b i d i r e c t -  (that i s , low means and  For example, while the relationship between  goal-oriented/aimless  and more active/less active had a  s i g n i f i c a n t mean variance-in-common score of -1A-, i t had a standard dev i a t i o n of 26.  This, in conjunction  with the variance-in-common  ranging between -90 and 37 as contained lationship  between  these  two  scores  i n Table 8, suggest that the re-  constructs  was  highly  negative for some  An examination of Tables 7 and 8 w i l l confirm  similar r e l a t i o n -  ships and extreme ranges i n variance-in-common scores  for the r e l a t i o n -  subjects and quite highly positive for others.  ship between personality and counselling action constructs.  In point of  fact, i t would appear that i n r e l a t i o n to c l i e n t 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 d i r e c t i v e / l e s s d i r e c t i v e . The  above factors  suggest  limited  commonality  jects.  The results suggest that  of  the various  that  i n the i m p l i c i t  counselling  there  i s a wide  counselling  the subjects  interventions  theories  variation and of the sub-  are interpreting the use  i n quite  d i f f e r e n t ways, at  least i n terms of their relationship to the c l i e n t personality charact e r i s t i c s employed in the study. This the  i s not to suggest that  i m p l i c i t y counselling  theories  there  are no commonalities between  of the subjects.  The s i g n i f i c a n t  - 32 -  TABLE 8 Minimum and Maximum Variance-In Common Scores Between Personality and Counselling Action Constructs  CU  >  >  •H  •u  c o  •r-l  o  cu  r-l  m  <u  CO co cu r-l  '  cu  u o B  Assertive/easily led  cu 4-1 S-4  M-l  o  CJ CO CO CU  CJ  •H  4-1  cfl  ft a cu CO CO cu  1—1  1—1  cu  CU  u o  s  u o B  o  T3 cu  •r-l  ft  Ct-4  cu  u  ft  O  B  CO CO CO CU 60 C  •H  cu i—l  u o B  S-i  co cfl  rC  —^  >  •H 4-1 CU  co  CO 3 CJ  r-4  CU  a  C o  CU cu  <4-l  co  CO cu  C ~— o i—i  CU  4-)  d  •H CO CO CU 1—1  CU >  •T-4  CU >  •H  4-J a  r4 •rH  <u  CO  CU  CO  1-4  —^  O  O  a  i—i  <u  co  CJ B CO  U  CU  m  CJ  CU  O  O  co  CU  4-1  1  CO  CU •T-I rJ  4-1  CO r-4  rJ 3  O  —^ i—i  CU CJ u CO  CO CO CU  C  et! C  CU  ft O CO co cu  1—1  1—1  CU  cu  B  o •1-1 B -a  u o B  r4  T3  u o  S  cu  c  •r-l  3 d  CU  60  -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 l i k e a b l e / l e s s 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 o f f 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 l i s t e d i n Table  -  and  counselling  action constructs  are  9.  An e x a m i n a t i o n 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 t o r e f l e c t an u n d e r l y i n g lack  thereof  t r e n d toward c o u n s e l l o r  dependent upon the  example, drawing from T a b l e 9, m o t i v a t e d and to  the  less  goal oriented  student  directive.  suggest t h a t  counsellors At  the  level  of  involvement or a c t i v i t y  "health"  of  the  client.  i t can be seen t h a t the more  a c l i e n t i s percieved seeing  themselves as  same t i m e , t h e  relates being  For  responsible, significantly  less active  and  d a t a i n Table 9 would seem  f a c t o r s such as empathy and  genuineness and  or  to  openness con-  s i d e r e d t o be i m p o r t a n t 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 t o any be  expected.  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  They do  a c l i e n t i s perceived The many of  extreme  the  however, r e l a t e p o s i t i v e l y t o the degree t o which t o be i n touch w i t h f e e l i n g s or more l i k e a b l e .  variations  personality  generalizations  must be  and  and  low  counselling  l e v e l s of  relationship  action constructs  drawn c a r e f u l l y and  tentatively.  between  suggest The  data  however seem t o support the apparent " c l i e n t c e n t e r e d " c o u n s e l l i n g p e c t i v e of the s u b j e c t s cit  counselling  rather  than  subjects.  theory  activity  noted e a r l i e r . across or  I t would appear t h a t the  subjects  direction  on  would the  emphasize part  of  the  I t would a l s o seem to suggest t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e  inititiative  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  r e l a t i o n s h i p , an emphasis which tends t o i n c r e a s e c l i e n t i s construed.  that do  persimpli-  facilitation counsellor reliance for counselling  the more p o s i t i v e l y a  - 34 -  TABLE 9 S i g n i f i c a n t Relationships Between Personality and Counselling Action  *p < 0.10 **p < 0.05 ***£ < 0.01  Constructs  Personality of Client  Counsellor  Action  assertive  less active*** less d i r e c t i v e * * * less r e f l e c t i v e * *  in touch with feelings  more more more less  responsible  less active*** less d i r e c t i v e * * *  self-assured  less active*** less empathic* more confrontive*  well motivated  less less more less  clear-headed  less d i r e c t i v e * * less active*  self-insightful  less d i r e c t i v e * * * less active***  goal oriented  less d i r e c t i v e * * less active** more confrontive*  more likeable  more more more more less more  empathic** reflective** open and genuine** confrontive**  directive*** active** focused on feelings* emphasis on action*  open and genuine*** empathic*** focused on feelings*^ self-disclosure*** directive** reflective*  - 35 -  Individual I m p l i c i t Counselling  Theory  The wide variation i n the organization  and content of the impli-  c i t counselling theories of subjects has been referred to e a r l i e r . haps then i t would be useful i n concluding emplify  and  several  subjects  personality  contrast  t h i s chapter to b r i e f l y ex-  the individual i m p l i c i t  i n the study.  and counselling  Per-  counselling  theories  of  The s i g n i f i c a n t relationships between  action  constructs  for three  subjects  are  l i s t e d in Table 10. The results reported  i n Table 10 suggest that  these  counsellors  are l i k e l y to attend to a d i f f e r i n g number and variety of c l i e n t personality characteristics. implications perceptions factors  These varying  for counselling of subject  which  perceptions  actions.  9 are l i k e l y  facilitate  have quite d i f f e r e n t  For example, to lead  the counselling  while the c l i e n t  to changes  relationship  i n terms of  (e.g. empathy,  openness and genuiness), those of subject 19 are more l i k e l y to lead to changes  i n the l e v e l  subject.  Actions  of a c t i v i t y  or directiveness on the part  of the  somewhat more closely aligned to the counselling pro-  cess than r e l a t i o n s h i p . Perhaps  the most  striking  theories i s that of subject 9. ject, a r e l a t i v e l y  small  of  the  three  implicit  counselling  As evidenced i n Table 10, for that sub-  number of c l i e n t  personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  relate to counselling actions that could s i g n i f i c a n t l y change the nature of the counselling  relationship and atmosphere.  plicit  theory, two personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - assertive-  ness  counselling and  self-assurance  relate  to  lower  In that subject's  levels  of  im-  empathy.  - 36 -  TABLE 10 S i g n i f i c a n t Relationships Between Personality  and Counselling  Constructs f o r Individual  Subjects  Personality  Counselling Action  assertive  more less less less  self-assured  less empathic**  Subject 3  more likeable self-insightful relaxed in touch with feelings clear-headed  more more less more less  empathic** empathic* active** reflective* interpretive  Subject 19  assertive  less less less less less less less less more  reflective** confrontive* reflective* reflective* active* directive* active* directive* focussed on f e e l i n g s *  Subject 9  self-assured relaxed goal-oriented responsible clear-headed  confrontive** empathic* reflective* open and genuine*  Note: The relationships reported are based on the Pearson r c o r r e l a t i o n s of personality and counselling action constructs for each subject i n d i v i d u a l l y . *£ < 0.05 **p < 0.01  - 37 -  Overall this would appear to suggest a somewhat defensive posture toward c l i e n t s perceived  to possess what would in general  positive a t t r i b u t e s . ceiving  a client  This can be contrasted  i n generally  (e.g. more likeable and  s e l f - i n s i g h t f u l ) i s l i k e l y to be more empathic.  led  is likely  considered  with subject 3 who i n per-  positive terms  to note that while perceiving a c l i e n t  terms be  I t i s also interesting  as assertive rather than easily  to result i n subject 9 being more confrontive, a similar  perception i s l i k e l y to result i n subject 19 being less confrontive. These generalizations  and comparisons must of course be consi-  dered c a r e f u l l y and t e n t a t i v e l y . theories their  have been exemplified  These individual i m p l i c i t  simply  content and organization.  The i m p l i c i t  other subjects are equally as varied. to  note  theories  i s the p o s s i b i l i t y of these  student  that  to point  counselling  out the differences i n counselling  theories of  What seems p a r t i c u l a r l y important  the d i f f e r i n g  counsellors  appear  implicit  counselling  to have very d i f f e r e n t  implications for the counselling relationship, process and atmosphere.  - 38 -  CHAPTER V  SUMMARY AND This study was client  personality  actions  of  the  general  and  concerned with the relationships between perceived c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and  subjects.  the overall trend was sonality  DISCUSSION  the  policies  of  counselling  Although some commonalities were evidenced,  toward considerable  counselling  theories  agreement among subjects  variation in the i m p l i c i t per-  of the  subjects.  involved  The  only  apparent  the relationship between  ent personality 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  cli-  directiveness.  Limitations  There  are  several  these results and fully  and  factors which  suggest that  tentatively.  The  the  subject  limit  psychology  students,  with  g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of  findings must be group was  twenty subjects p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the study. ing  the  subjects were counsell-  limited counselling  ence.  It i s possible that a number of the c l i e n t s rated by  sellor  students were only  This  could  outcome goals sents  a  in terms of those c l i e n t s .  case  study  programmes in the  of  students  Faculty  of  Columbia and the results may Also,  the  or  number  of  given  sessions.  emphasis than  In a sense, the study  within  Education  greater  the at  Counselling  the  coun-  University  repre-  Psychology of  British  only be generalizable to that group.  results are  counselling action constructs variety  being  experi-  the  seen for a very limited number of  result in process goals  care-  limited in number, with  The  relatively  interpreted  limited to  the  ten  used in the study.  constructs  could  personality Providing  eventuate  in  and  ten  a differing  significantly  - 39 -  different results.  This could also be true i f constructs were e l i c i t e d  from subjects rather than provided  as was  the case i n t h i s study.  A further l i m i t a t i o n i s that in a study such as this which r e l i e s upon multiple correlations, a certain number of s i g n i f i c a n t correlations could and  be expected by chance.  These relationships are not  are indeterminate in number.  tation  which  must  be  They do,  considered  in  identifiable  however, represent  interpreting  the  a  limi-  results of  the  study. Implications Though there was perspective, several  i t seems  implicit  some evidence of a "client-centered" counselling quite  clear  counselling  theories  being adopted by the subjects. plicit  from  the  results  rather  than  Overall trends and  that  any  there  single  are  theory  commonalities in im-  counselling theories were neither strong nor pervasive.  General  agreement on the relationship between c l i e n t personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and  counselling  actions  was  r e s t r i c t e d to  directiveness on the part of the counsellor. the  subjects  the  roles  of  activity  and  This seems to suggest that  have assimilated their counselling training and  experience  in very d i f f e r e n t ways. To  an extent, the results seem to highlight the difference bet-  ween counselling the  skill-building  r e s u l t s seem to  counselling  suggest  use  understanding  of  of those s k i l l s .  emphasis on  such as being empathic and  that while a student may an  an  and  For example,  factors which  open and  genuine.  facilitate It i s clear  become very p r o f i c i e n t at these s k i l l s , how  those  skills  may  interact  gaining with  - 40  different selling  clients  and  when they  s i t u a t i o n s represents  -  should  another  be  modified  level  of  t h i s r e l a t e s t o the symmetry between c o u n s e l l o r cit  counselling  t h e o r y i n d i c a t e d i n the  in differing  experience. and  coun-  In  client.  part,  The  study would suggest a  implipossible  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 . example, the as  negative  responsible,  and  r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l i e n t  self-assured  and  goal-oriented  might  and  counsellor  activity  r e s u l t s would l e a d one  t o wonder what d i r e c t i o n c o u n s e l l i n g  based  counselling  take  study.  on  the  implicit  Though most c o u n s e l l i n g  models would  p r o c e s s g o a l s t o outcome g o a l s (see this  would be  the  d i r e c t i o n of c o u n s e l l i n g  a c o n t i n u e d f o c u s on f e e l i n g s and These p o i n t s cation  that,  to  a large  and  r e s u l t s do  by  the  the from  clear  that  the study r e s u l t s .  self-insight.  rather  reflect  the  expected g i v e n  subjects.  At  as an  reality  the  the  indi-  level  of of  same t i m e ,  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  overemphasis  on  They suggest the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e r e  process  goals  c u r r e n t l y , i t would appear t h a t t h e r e may on the a c t i o n phase of c o u n s e l l i n g . need f o r g r e a t e r c o n c e n t r a t i o n the  a movement  encouragement of g r e a t e r  the  reached  by the s t u d e n t c o u n s e l l o r s . an  based on  in  i n s i g h t t o a c t i o n , they suggest  l e v e l s t h a t might be  experience  these r e s u l t s do  extent,  evidenced  suggest  are not meant as c r i t i c i s m s , but  the c o u n s e l l i n g s k i l l training  theory  Egan, 1975a), i t i s not  Rather than a movement from empathy and  in  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such  directiveness. The  be  For  t r a i n i n g programme.  An  within  their  may  training.  Con-  be i n s u f f i c e n t emphasis  placed  They do suggest t h a t there may  on a c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s and emphasis which c o u l d  be  a  techniques with-  potentially assist  - 41  -  t h e c o u n s e l l i n g s t u d e n t s i n moving f u r t h e r beyond p r o c e s s g o a l s and more e f f e c t i v e l y toward outcome g o a l s w i t h t h e i r c l i e n t s . A  further  implication  " l i k e a b l e n e s s " may significantly only  one  and  play  of  the  in clinical  p o s i t i v e l y to  exception,  study  relates  judgement.  a l l other  to  This  the  construct  personality  "halo  effect"  importantly,  in  social  counselling  clinical  theories.  judgements  and  This  and  suggests somewhat of  counselling  actions.  c l i e n t would r e c e i v e some s u g g e s t i o n client.  ample, i t c o u l d  judgements and  F i r s t , there  the most s k i l l e d from the  This  study  that  be expected t h a t t h e r e  than  clear-headed  is  this  within  speculate  as t o what type of attention.  is likely  and  would be  to  be  what would g e n e r a l l y be c o n s i d e r e d i s somewhat s u r p r i s i n g .  There  the  less  For  ex-  a lower e x p e c t a t i o n  and  apprehensive and self-assured.  n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o u n s e l l o r  counselling  Most  assessment  i s understandable to a c e r t a i n extent.  i n i t i a t i v e s from an  that  i s a question performance and  r e l i a n c e on c l i e n t  ever,  a  context.  were r a i s e d by the s t u d y .  one  an  as e v i d e n -  A number of q u e s t i o n s upon which i t i s only p o s s i b l e t o  "healthy"  play  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-  i n t e r a c t i o n s from c l i n i c a l  the c o u n s e l l i n g  is  with  the r e s u l t s p o i n t 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 s e p a r a t i n g day  related  suggesting that c l i e n t a t t r a c t i v e n e s s could  their implicit  that  constructs  i m p o r t a n t p a r t i n the c l i n i c a l judgements of the s u b j e c t s ced,  role  activity  confused  The  and  quite  client highly  directiveness  and  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-  The  apparent  lack  of  symmetry  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 l e a d s  one  in  the  t o wonder  - 42 -  what the counselling experience might be l i k e for the "healthy"  clients  who are predominant i n the practice of counselling psychology.  The im-  plicit  counselling theory reflected here would suggest that a "healthy"  c l i e n t 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 t r i e d to c u l t i v a t e . Similarly, would work best  there  i s a question  as to what type  with what type of c l i e n t .  of counsellor  There i s evidence that i n  interaction, the particular personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a p a r t i c u l a r c l i e n t would lead to quite d i f f e r e n t counselling relationships, techniques, and atmosphere dependent upon the i m p l i c i t counselling theory of the counsellor.  For example, i t i s clear from the i m p l i c i t y counselling  theory of Subject 9 reviewed i n Chapter IV, that the subject would not l i k e l y work well with a c l i e n t that was assertive and self-assured. the same time, given their i m p l i c i t counselling theories, other  At  subjects  may work well with a c l i e n t having those personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and not with others.  Following  from these r e s u l t s , i t would seem important  that counsellors become more aware of their own i m p l i c i t personality and counselling  theories.  A f i n a l question plicit  counselling  theories. counselling  relates to the source and j u s t i f i c a t i o n of im-  theories.  Counsellors  One source may  be e x p l i c i t  counselling  i n training are generally exposed to a variety of  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 i m p l i c i t  counselling  theories.  For example,  the somewhat  - 43 -  "client-centered" counselling plicit  counselling  perspective  theories no doubt r e f l e c t  of individual counsellors  as well.  i m p l i c i t counselling theories may example, being more open and with people who  was  noted in the study. the  personal  Im-  philosophies  Another source or j u s t i f i c a t i o n  be c u l t u r a l stereotypes  or norms.  of For  genuine or s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g tends to occur  are more l i k e a b l e .  No  doubt these only  represent  some  of the sources of j u s t i f i c a t i o n for i m p l i c i t counselling theories.  Uses and  Application  The  methodology  and  analytic techniques employed  have serveral possible uses. instruments used can  In the f i r s t  completion of  provide an excellent basis for review of  l i n g experiences from the perspective a c t e r i s t i c s and  instance,  in this study  of both c l i e n t  the  counsel-  personality  char-  interventions.  As noted e a r l i e r , the results of the study would suggest that i t is  very important that counsellors  personality  and  ward heightening dology make  and a  counselling theories.  techniques employed  the  Providing  feedback directed  to-  that awareness i s a primary application of the metho-  contribution  heightening  become more aware of their i m p l i c i t  to  in this study.  counsellor  awareness of  training  clinical  S i m i l a r l y , they and  supervisors  supervision as  to  the  could  through implicit  theories being used by counselling students.  Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r  There are  several  Research  directions in which further research  area could make a useful contribution. tudinal  study  of  counselling  One  psychology  in t h i s  direction would be a longistudents  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 i m p l i c i t counselling theories of the subjects. measurements at several points during  Such a study, taking  the training of a s p e c i f i c group  of counselling students would overcome the e s s e n t i a l l y s t a t i c nature of the present study. the  changes  indication training  A study of that  in implicit of student  models,  theories progress.  this methodology  nature could  provide insight into  as t r a i n i n g proceeds as well Coupled could  with  also  differing  as an  counsellor  make a contribution to  counselling programme evaluation. An  interesting research  direction which might be taken with t h i s  methodology i s the exploration of the change process in counselling.  In  that instance, the measures could for example be completed by a counsellor  after each of say ten counselling  The  research  ceptions  sessions  with  the same c l i e n t .  might provide some insight into changes i n counsellor per-  of c l i e n t  personality  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as well  as  progressive  changes i n the counselling techniques and strategies employed. A study of experienced counsellors who presumably approach t h e i r counselling could  and therapy  contribute  from  more e x p l i c i t  theoretical  perspectives  to our understanding through a comparison of the i n -  fluence and application of e x p l i c t and i m p l i c i t personality and counsell i n g theories within the counselling context. Summary and Conclusion This Kelly's  exploratory  (1955) repertory  study  of c l i n i c a l  judgement used a variant of  grid methodology to examine and describe the  - 45 -  relationship  between t h e i m p l i c i t  counselling jects,  action  toward  personality  clients  a r e l a t i o n s h i p termed  o f twenty  implicit  theories  and p o l i c i e s o f  counselling  counselling  theory  student  sub-  within  this  study. The s t r o n g e s t r e l a t i o n s h i p s a c r o s s s u b j e c t s were i n d i c a t e d i n t h e 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 client  personality constructs).  dicated  relative  structs.  ( t h a t i s , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between  Somewhat weaker r e l a t i o n s h i p s were i n -  t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  counselling  action  A l t h o u g h some c o m m o n a l i t i e s were e v i d e n t i n t h e 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 was  con-  toward  considerable  variations  i n these  relationships.  agreement on these r e l a t i o n s h i p s a c r o s s s u b j e c t s  trend  General  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 directiveness gesting  on t h e p a r t  of counsellor  subjects.  The r e s u l t s  s e v e r a l , r a t h e r 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  sug-  theory.  The study i n d i c a t e d t h a t 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 t h e n a t u r e o f t h e 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 aware  and atmosphere.  of t h e i r  implicit  The importance of c o u n s e l l o r s personality  g e s t e d by the r e s u l t s of the s t u d y .  and c o u n s e l l i n g  becoming more  theories  was sug-  - 46 BIBLIOGRAPHY  Adams-Webber, 1979.  J . Personal  construct  Agnew, J . , and Bannister, p s e u d o - s p e c i a l i s t language. 1972-73, 45-46, 69-73.  theory.  Toronto:  Wiley  & Sons,  D. Psychiatric diagnosis as a B r i t i s h Journal of Medical Psychology,  Bannister, D. Conceptual Structure in thought disordered s c h i z o p h r e n i c s . J o u r n a l o f M e n t a l S c i e n c e , 1960, 106, 1230-1249. B a n n i s t e r , D. and M a i r , J . The e v a l u a t i o n o f p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s . York: Academic P r e s s , 1968.  New  B a n n i s t e r , D., Salmon, P., and Leiberman, D. Diagnosis-treatment relationships i n psychiatry. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f 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 o f b e h a v i o r a l i n f o r m a t i o n . H u n t i n g t o n , N.Y.: K r i e g e r P r e s s , 1966. B r u n e r , 3., and T a g i u r i , R. The p e r c e p t i o n of p e o p l e . I n G. (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Cambridge, Addison-Wesley, 1954.  Lindzey Mass.:  Cochran, L. C o n s t r u c t Systems and t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1978, 3 6 ( 7 ) , 733-740. Cochran, L. C o n s t r u i n g and a c t i n g toward o t h e r s . B e h a v i o r and P e r s o n a l i t y , 1981, 9 0 ) , 37-40. Cook, M.  Perceiving others.  Journal of S o c i a l  New York: Methuen, 1979.  C r o c k e t t , W. C o g n i t i v e c o m p l e x i t y and i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n . I n B.A. Maher (Ed.) P r o g r e s s i n e x p e r i m e n t a l p e r s o n a l i t y r e s e a r c h ( V o l . 2 ) . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1965. Egan, G. The s k i l l e d h e l p e r : A model f o r s y s t e m a t i c h e l p i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i n g . Monterey, Ca.: B r o o k s / C o l e , 1975a. Egan, G. 1975b.  Exercises  F r a n s e l l a , F. ( E d . ) .  i n helping  skills.  Personality.  Monterey, Ca.: Brooks  and Cole,  New York: Methuen, 1981.  F r a n s e l l a , F., and B a n n i s t e r , D. A manual f o r r e p e r t o r y g r i d New York: Academic P r e s s , 1977.  technique.  Green, G., and Cochran, L. M e a n i n g f u l n e s s o f 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 i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n . Canadian J o u r n a l o f B e h a v i o u r a l S c i e n c e , 1978, 1 0 ( 4 ) , 339-49.  - 47 Kelly, G. The Norton, 1955.  psychology  of personal constructs.  New  York:  W.W.  Korman, M. Implicit personality theories of c l i n i c i a n s 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 1966, 57, 187-192.  of grid  scores.  British  Journal of Psychology,  Mancuso, J . (Ed.). Readings f o r a cognitive Toronto: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.  theory of personality.  McPherson, M. and Walton, H. The dimensions of psychotherapy group interaction: An analysis of c l i n i c i a n s ' constructs. B r i t i s h Journal of Medical Psychology, 1970, 43, 281-289. Sarbin, T., Taft, R., and Bailey, D. C l i n i c a l theory. New York: Holt-Rinehart, 1960~7  inference and cognitive  Sharf, R., and Bishop, J . Counselors feelings toward c l i e n t s as related to intake judgements and outcome variables. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 1979, 26(3), 267-269. Slater, P. (Ed.). Explorations of Toronto: Wiley & Sons, 1976. Sundberg, N., and Tyler, L. Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1962. Taft, R. The a b i l i t y 52, 1-23.  intrapersonal  Clinical  to judge people.  space  psychology.  (Vol. 1). New  Psychological B u l l e t i n ,  York: 1955,  T a g i u r i , R. Person perception. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of s o c i a l psychology (2nd ed.), (Vol. 3). Don M i l l s , 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. University Press, 1977.  Implicit  psychology.  New York: Oxford  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 d e s c r i p t i o n  i n Part  A c i r c l e the dot which best  d e s c r i b e s your p e r c e p t i o n s of t h i s c l i e n t . describe  this client  as a s s e r t i v e  or e a s i l y l e d .  U  u  ca  f  cu  CU  a o  CO  assertive intellectualizing r e s i s t a n t to f e e l i n g s  For example would you  O U  C  a)  cu  cu !5 -C 4J 4-1 CU  ca CU  a a o fi -i-l co  •H  cu  U  CU  > easily led i n touch with  responsible  irresponsible  self-assured  apprehensive  well  motivated  clear-headed self-insightful goal-oriented relaxed more l i k e a b l e  lacking  motivation  confused uninsightful aimless tense less  feeli  likeable  - 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.  u  u  cu >  cu  a o CO  0  cu cu  4-1  4-1  •§ cu  CU rD  c  ca  a o  CO  (-4  cu >  more reflective  less reflective  more confrontive  less confrontive  more empathic  less empathic  more focused on feelings  less focused on feelings  more emphasis on action  less emphasis on action  more interpretive  less interpretive  more active (take initiatives) more self-disclosure more directive more open and genuine  less active (wait for initiatives to arise from client) less self-disclosure less directive less open and genuine  - 50 -  APPENDIX B  My M.A.  name i s Oerry Long, and I am a graduate student completing  in Counselling Psychology  This study  at the University of B r i t i s h  my  Columbia.  i s an investigation into counsellor perceptions and actions  toward c l i e n t s .  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 i s on a voluntary basis and  you  Should  may  refuse to answer any  questions  you choose not to participate, i t w i l l  f i n a l standing in this course. p a r t i c i p a t e , completion  or withdraw at in no way  any  time.  influence your  Alternatively, should you be w i l l i n g to  of the forms w i l l be assumed to be your consent  to do so. All  data required w i l l  take approximately  be gathered  45 to 60 minutes.  today, which i s expected  to  While I w i l l not be asking you to  i d e n t i f y yourself, I w i l l be asking for brief biographical information. I w i l l then be asking you to think of 10 c l i e n t s you have worked with i n counselling.  Following that, I w i l l be asking you to rate each of those  c l i e n t s in terms of personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and your actions toward them in counselling.  The results w i l l be reported on an individual and  group basis. If  you  would l i k e to know more about the results of the  study,  please contact me later in the summer and I w i l l t e l l you about them. I thank you for your p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  - 51 -  APPENDIX B (cont'd)  Constructs Personality Now,  I would l i k e you to turn to the next page, headed Part A,  where you w i l l find a l i s t i n g of a number of characteristics  which might  be used to describe a c l i e n t . I would l i k e you to think of the f i r s t c l i e n t that you i d e n t i f i e d earlier.  The one whose i n i t i a l s you placed beside numer 1.  to ask you to describe your perceptions  of this c l i e n t  I am going  by c i r c l i n g the  dot which best describes him or her i n terms of each of the characteristics listed. Let me just If  you see this  first  give an example starting  client  dot on the l e f t ;  as being  led  c i r c l e the  was somewhat assertive you would  I f you see this c l i e n t as being very  led you would c i r c l e the f i r s t dot on the right;  you would c i r c l e the second dot from  client  assertive/easily l e d .  assertive you would  i f this c l i e n t  c i r c l e the second dot on the l e f t . easily  very  with  as neither assertive or easily  the r i g h t .  somewhat easily I f you see the  led, you would c i r c l e the middle  dot. Any  questions  on that?  Would you then c i r c l e the dot that best  describes this c l i e n t i n terms of a s s e r t i v e / e a s i l y l e d . Now, on the same basis I would l i k e you to consider this in terms of the next description. this  client  Circle  i n terms i n t e l l e c t u a l i z i n g ,  with feelings.  Could you then continue  the dot that best  resistant  client  describes  to feelings i n touch  to describe this c l i e n t  on the  - 52 -  same  basis  on each  of t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  P a r t A - more l i k e a b l e / l e s s  u n t i l you reach the end o f  likeable.  Take t h e time you need.  W e ' l l proceed t o P a r t B when  everyone  has completed P a r t A.  Counselling Action Now,  please turn  t o t h e next page headed P a r t B.  you t o c o n t i n u e t h i n k i n g  about  the same c l i e n t  I would  like  and your e x p e r i e n c e i n  c o u n s e l l i n g him or h e r . In  P a r t B I am going t o ask you t o 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 w i t h an example. c o u n s e l l i n g I use a v a r i e t y different  o f approaches.  c l i e n t s I use d i f f e r i n g  I know t h a t i n my  F o r example, i n working w i t h  amounts of r e f l e c t i o n .  i d e a of a norm i n terms of the amount of r e f l e c t i o n c l i e n t s I may use v e r y much more r e f l e c t i o n  dot from  With some c l i e n t s  and I would c i r c l e the f i r s t of  reflection  norm I would  very much  less  I n the case where my use  Where I f e l t t h a t my use o f r e f l e c t i o n was about a t c i r c l e the middle dot.  q u e s t i o n s on t h a t ?  a c t i o n s toward  c i r c l e the second  than t h e norm I would c i r c l e t h e second  s i m p l y t o d e s c r i b e how I a c t toward d i f f e r e n t Any  With some  sometimes I use somewhat  I use r e f l e c t i o n  dot on the r i g h t .  was somewhat l e s s  dot from the r i g h t . the  I use.  than my norm, i n which case I would  the l e f t .  I have some  than t h a t norm and i n t h a t  c a s e , I would c i r c l e t h e f i r s t dot on t h e l e f t , more r e f l e c t i o n  own  this  first  What I am  trying  t o do i s  clients.  Then I would l i k e you t o c o n s i d e r  client  i n a similar  way  your  and c i r c l e the dot  - 53 -  which best describes your actions i n terms of each of those l i s t e d . Take the time you need to complete this the  part.  We'll proceed to  next part when everyone has completed this one. Now, I would l i k e you to turn to the next page, again headed Part  A, with the same l i s t of ways i n which a c l i e n t might be described. I would l i k e you to now think of the second c l i e n t you i d e n t i f i e d earlier. the  On this  second c l i e n t  page I would l i k e you to describe your perceptions of by c i r c l i n g  for each of the descriptions. to the  the dot which best describes him or her Similarly, I would l i k e you to use Part B  describe your actions i n counselling  the second c l i e n t  by c i r c l i n g  appropriate dot for each of the counselling actions l i s t e d . Could you then continue on and describe the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and  your actions toward each of the c l i e n t s & B f o r each of the remaining 8 c l i e n t s Any  questions?  u n t i l you have completed Part A that you i d e n t i f i e d .  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 everyone has completed their Thank you.  descriptions.  until  - 54 -  APPENDIX C  EXAMPLE OF PERSONALITY AND COUNSELLING ACTION GRIDS  The action  following  grids  represented  are examples of the personality  completed  by two subjects  by columns and constructs  representing  and  i n the study.  counselling Clients are  by rows, with their intersection  the rating of each c l i e n t on each  construct.  Subject 8 Personality  Grid  Clients  10  Constructs 1  2  3  4  assertive 2  4  5  1 4  1 5 5 2 5 easily led  intellectualizing, 4 r e s i s t a n t to feelings  4  1  4  3  2  2  3  1  4  in touch with feelings  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  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  responsible  5  3  6  4  7  5  8  5  9  2  5  lacking motivation  55  Appendix C cont'd  Counselling Action Grid  Clients Constructs 1  2  more r e f l e c t i v e 4 more confrontive 3  4  5  6  7  8  9  2  5  3  5  2  3  5  less r e f l e c t i v e  2  5  3  2  3  5  less confrontive  5  3  5  3  3  5  5  less empathic  5  3  5  3  3  5  5  less focused on feelings  2  3  less emphasis on action  3  more empathic 4  5  more focused on 4 feelings more emphasis on 4 action  3  3  more interpretive 2  2  1 1  k  more active 3  3  2  3  3  more s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e 2  5  2  5  2  i\  3 3  more d i r e c t i v e 4  more open and it- 5 genuine  10  3  5 2  1 1  less  interpretive  3  3  3  3  less  active  3  2  3  3  less  self-disclosure  3  3  3  3  2  less d i r e c t i v e  5  5  2  3  5  less open and genuine  2  5  Appendix C (cont'd)  S u b j e c t 16 Personality  Grid Clients 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  1  2  2  2  2  4  2  1  tense  1  3  3  2  2  3  4  4  less likeable  Clients Constructs 1 2 3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  relaxed 2 more likeable 4  Counselling Action  4  Grid  more r e f l e c t i v e 5  4  3  4  3  3  4  4  2  5  less r e f l e c t i v e  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- 4 feelings  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 s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e 2  5  2  4  4  2  3  2  4  5  less s e l f - d i s c l o s u i  more d i r e c t i v e 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