Perceived Therapeutic Qualities of Counselor Trainees with Disabilities.

A counselor's influence may depend in part on technical skill and in part on the perceptions of the client. Clients who perceive their counselors as possessing the therapeutic qualities of expertness, attractiveness and trustworthiness may be less likely to devalue the counselor's intervention and to experience therapeutic change. This study examined whether experimental manipulations of a counselor trainee's disability status would influence participants' perceptions of the counselor's therapeutic qualities. Neither the presence of a learning disability nor a physical disability negatively influenced perceptions. Results are discussed in terms of prior research and theory.

Social influence theory may explain some aspects of the counseling process (Goldstein & Simonson, 1971; Strong, 1968). For example, characteristics of the counselor, the client, the influential message, and the environment contribute to the strength of influence (Lippa, 1994). Thus, the influence of counselors may depend not only on the therapeutic message itself, but on the clients' interpersonal perceptions. In particular, counselors perceived as being expert, attractive and trustworthy may be more influential with clients than those perceived as not having these qualities (Beutler, Machando & Neufeldt, 1994).

Applying cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) to the counseling relationship, Strong (1968) hypothesized that a counselor's influence on a client is the product of cognitive dissonance created by the counselor's message. The client can reduce dissonance through personal change (effective influence), devaluation of the counselor, devaluation of the message, or information seeking. In counseling, a personal change in the client is less likely when alternative means of dissonance reduction are available (Strong, 1968). Specifically, counselors perceived as less expert, attractive, and trustworthy may be less influential inasmuch as clients may be prepared to devalue them and their message. Research has supported Strong's hypothesis regarding influence and therapeutic outcomes (Strong & Dixon, 1971; LaCrosse, 1980).

While accurate conceptualizations and effective techniques can contribute to positive perceptions (Morran, Kurpius, Brack, & Rozecki, 1994), the personal attributes of the counselor may also affect client perceptions of therapeutic qualities. For example, counselors of minority ethnic background tend to be perceived more positively (Green, Cunningham & Yanico, 1986; Helms & Rode, 1982). The current study will examine participants' perceptions of a counselor whose disability status, a personal attribute that may influence perceptions, is experimentally manipulated.

Some research suggests that, when reviewing applications, employers may perceive persons with disabilities more negatively than those without disabilities (Ravaud, Madiot, & Ville, 1992). Mitchell and Fredreckson (1975), however, contend that persons with disabilities may be perceived to have an enhanced empathic ability and may therefore be preferred counselors. Similarly, Miller (1991) found that the presence of a physical disability led to more positive perceptions of the counselor. Still, a recent review of the literature (Strohmer, Leierer, Cochran & Arokiassamy, 1996) indicates that physical disabilities, as a broad class, bear little if any relationship to key perceptions of therapeutic qualities. Strohmer et al. (1996) note that most extant research has not addressed specific types of disabilities; learning disabilities, for example, have yet to be studied.

A learning disability (LD) is present when the person's achievement in a specific academic area is significantly below the level expected for age, schooling, and level of intelligence (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). In general, individuals with learning disabilities tend to be viewed less positively than individuals without learning disabilities (Haager & Vaughn, 1995). Children and adolescents with learning disabilities are less popular in sociometric ratings than non-learning disabled peers (Kistner & Gatlin, 1989; Stone & La Greca, 1990), and social rejection of LD children is common (Bear, Juvonen & McInerney, 1993). In addition to being less socially accepted by peers, LD students may also be viewed negatively by teachers. Examining teachers' views of their students, Cardell and Parmar (1988) demonstrated that those teaching LD students view their students more negatively than do those teaching non-LD students.

Persons with learning disabilities who graduate from college may encounter discrimination in employment (Patton & Polloway, 1982). College graduates with learning disabilities require a significantly longer period to find full-time employment after graduation than do their matched non-learning disabled counterparts (Frank, Karst & Boles, 1989). Negative employer attitudes may underlie Greenbaum, Graham and Scales's (1996) findings that, typically, persons with LD do not make known their disabilities when applying for jobs or while employed.

While client perceptions of physically disabled counselors may be varied, the perceptions of counselors with LD may, because of enduring stigmatization, be more negative. That is, the stigmatization associated with LD may lower client perceptions of expertness, attractiveness and trustworthiness. Negative perceptions, then, may increase the likelihood of dissonance reduction by means other than therapeutic change. For example, clients may devalue the counselor or the message when the counselor is known to have a learning disability.

In summary, attitudes towards persons with physical disabilities appear to be mixed, and may depend on specific settings and populations surveyed (Morgan & Wisely, 1996; Sigelman & McGrail, 1985). In contrast, stigmatization of persons with learning disabilities seems to be more stable (Cardell & Parmar, 1988; Minskoff, Sautter, Hoffman & Hawks, 1987). The present study will seek to investigate the effect of a counselor's disability status on perceived therapeutic qualities. It is predicted that participants led to believe they are viewing a learning disabled counselor trainee will view her as being less expert, attractive and trustworthy than will those participants led to believe that they are viewing a non-disabled trainee or a physically disabled trainee.

Method

Participants

Participants were 68 students enrolled in a General Psychology class at a university in the United States. The 45 women and 23 men ranged in age from 18 to 21 years (M = 18.94, SD = .98) and all provided informed consent. None of the participants reported a learning disability and three reported having a physical disability. Prior counseling was reported by 23 participants.

Apparatus

Participants read a paragraph describing a counselor trainee whom they were to view in a videotaped counseling session. In the description, participants read that the trainee was a physically disabled student (PD), a learning disabled student (LD), or simply a student (ND). The description appeared as follows:

   Becky is working on a masters degree in counseling. She has completed most
   of her coursework, and her performance is comparable to other graduate
   students. As a [physically disabled student/learning disabled
   student/student], she has been pleased with the atmosphere in the program.
   Throughout her graduate work, she has been active in the community. Becky
   expects to graduate next year.

The shortened version of the Counselor Rating Form (CRF-S; Corrigan & Schmidt, 1983) was used to measure expertness, trustworthiness and attractiveness. Mean split-half reliabilities for the CRF-S are reported at .90 for the expertness scale, .91 for the attractiveness scale and .87 for the trustworthiness scale (Corrigan & Schmidt, 1983). The CRF-S appeared on the same sheet as the trainee description.

Validity checks were included on a separate sheet to assess the degree to which participants understood the information presented, specifically regarding the trainee's status as physically disabled, learning disabled or non-disabled.

Procedure

Participants completed the study in small groups. They were given the trainee description to read, and were told that they would view a videotape of that trainee during a counseling session. Random assignment was used to determine which trainee description each participant received. A seven minute videotape, an excerpt from a counseling session, was shown on a large screen television. Deception was used in the experiment in that all participants were shown the same videotape, regardless of the trainee description they received. In the videotape, only the counselor's face and shoulders were visible to the participants. The presenting problem of the client in the videotape was related to anxiety. After viewing the videotape, participants completed the CRF-S and validity checks. A debriefing was provided before participants departed the study.

Results

Participant demographic variables did not appear to influence ratings. Given the number of statistical tests performed, a Bonferroni correction resulted in a critical p value of .003 for each test. For example, prior counseling (p's [is greater than] .05), participant disability status (p's [is greater than] .05), major (p's [is greater than] .05), and age (p's [is greater than] .04) were not significantly related to CRF-S scores.

Data from 51 of the 68 participants in the study were used in the multivariate analysis. The remaining 17 participants were excluded from the analysis due to incorrect answers on validity checks. The retained participants did not differ from those dropped in terms of age (t (66) = .86, p = .39) or ratings of expertness (t (66) = .62, p = .54), trustworthiness (t (66) = .42, p = .67) and attractiveness (t (66) = .66, p = .51).

CRF-S descriptive statistics for the final sample are reported in Table 1. Across groups, ratings of trustworthiness were found to be significantly higher than ratings of expertness (t(50) = 7.37, p [is less than] .001) and ratings of attractiveness (t(50) = 8.72, p [is less than] .001). Mean differences between expertness and attractiveness were not significant (t(50) = .21, p [is less than] .83).

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Ratings of the Counselor Trainee

                              Expertness    Attractiveness

No Disability (n=18)         12.61 (4.61)    12.11 (4.28)
Learning Disability (n=17)   11.94 (5.72)    14.05 (4.40)
Physical Disability (n=16)   12.87 (3.28)    11.62 (3.46)
Total (N=51)                 12.47 (4.61)    12.60 (4.14)

                             Trustworthiness

No Disability (n=18)          15.89 (4.50)
Learning Disability (n=17)    16.11 (4.76)
Physical Disability (n=16)    16.31 (3.60)
Total (N=51)                  16.09 (4.25)

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed with counselor disability status as the independent variable and expertness, attractiveness and trustworthiness as the dependent variables. Wilk's Lambda revealed no significant differences (= .83; F(6, 92)= 1.48148,p =. 19). Post-hoc univariate analyses, therefore, were not warranted.

Discussion

The present study sought to investigate the effect of disability status on participants' perceptions of a counselor's therapeutic qualities. It was predicted that participants led to believe they were viewing a learning disabled counselor trainee would rate her a being less expert, attractive and trustworthy than a non-disabled trainee or a physically disabled trainee. Consistent with prior research (Strohmer et al., 1996), no differences were found between the perceptions of non-disabled and physically disabled counselors. Contrary to the hypothesis, however, counselors with LD were not perceived differently. The results may indicate that disability status does not affect perceptions of a counselor's therapeutic qualities, implying that the influence counselors have with clients is not diminished by a disability.

The fact that the present study failed to yield results consistent with previous research regarding the stigmatization of LD (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 1996), however, may be related to methodological constraints. First, it should be noted that rather than interacting with the trainee, participants in the study simply viewed her in a videotape. Generalization to clients' perceptions during counseling should be done with caution. Furthermore, level of training may have been a more salient factor than disability status in influencing participants' CRF-S ratings. Counselors' level of training has been shown to affect perceptions of therapeutic skill (Mckee & Smouse, 1983). The ratings obtained in the current study appear to be lower than those obtained in studies where experienced counselors are rated (Corrigan & Schmidt, 1983; Vincent & Lebow, 1995; Walter & Handelsman, 1996). Therefore, the fact that the counselor was presented as a trainee may have pushed ratings to a floor at which other factors, like disability status, could have little effect. Counselor gender, too, has been shown to have a complex effect on perceptions of therapeutic qualities and skills (e.g., Feldstein, 1982), but only one counselor gender was examined in this study. Finally, that participants completed their reports in a group setting may have affected ratings. The presence of others can induce participants into greater self-focus, muting any antisocial or discriminitory tendencies (Carver & Scheier, 1981).

The current study found no evidence that a counselor trainee's disability status may influence college students' perceptions of her professional qualities. Future research may profitably incorporate counselors of varying experience levels and of both genders. Similarly, employing participants from a range of socioeconomic and educational backgrounds may enhance generalizabilty. Ultimately, studies of client reactions to their own counseling sessions may be important. Understanding how disability status may -- or may not -- influence professional perceptions may aid counselor trainees, their supervisors, and their clients.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bear, G., Juvonen, J. & McInerney, F. (1993). Self-perceptions and peer relations of boys with and boys without learning disabilities in an integrated setting: A longitudinal study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16(2), 127-136.

Beutler, L., Machando, P. & Neufeldt, S. (1994). Therapist variables, in A. Bergin & S. Garfiled (Eds.), Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. Worldwide: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Cardell, C. & Parmar, R. (1988). Teacher perceptions of temperament characteristics of children classified as learning disabled. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(8), 497-502.

Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M. (1981). The self-attentional-induced feedback loop and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 545-568.

Corrigan, J. & Schmidt, L. (1983). Development and validation of revisions in the counselor rating form. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(1), 64-75.

Feldstein, J. (1982). Counselor and client sex pairing: The effects of counseling problem and counselor sex role orientation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(4), 418-420.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Frank, K., Karst, R. & Boles, C. (1989). After graduation: The quest for employment by disabled college graduates. Journal of Applied rehabilitation Counseling, 20(4). 3-7.

Goldstein, A. & Simonson, N. (1971). Social psychological approaches to psychotherapy research. In A. Bergin & S. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. Worldwide: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Green, C., Cunningham, J. & Yanico, B. (1986). Effects of counselor and subject race and counselor physical attractiveness on impressions and expectations of a female counselor. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33(3), 349-352.

Greenbaum, B., Graham, S. & Scales, W. (1996). Adults with learning disabilities: Occupational and social status after college. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(2), 167-173.

Haager, D. & Vaughn, S. (1995). Parent, teacher, peer, and self-reports of the social competence of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(4), 205-215.

Helms, J. & Rode, L. (1982). Effects of counselor's age and physical attractiveness on evaluations of female counselors. Journal of College Student Personnel, 23(5) 418-423.

Kistner, J. & Gatlin, D. (1989). Sociometric differences between learning-disabled and non-handicapped students: Effects of sex and race. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 118-120.

LaCrosse, M. (1980). Perceived counselor social influence and counseling outcomes: Validity of the counselor rating form. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27(4), 320-327.

Lippa, R. (1994). Introduction to Social Psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

McKee, K. & Smouse, A. (1983). Clients' perceptions of counselor expertness, attractiveness and trustworthiness: Initial impact of counselor status and weight. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 332-338.

Miller, M. (1991), Counselors with disabilities: A comment on special features. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 347-349.

Minskoff, E., Sautter, S., Hoffman, F. & Hawks, R. (1987). Employer attitudes toward hiring the learning disabled. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(1), 53-57.

Mitchell, D. & Frederickson, W. (1975). Preferences for physically disabled counselors in hypothetical counseling situations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22(6), 477-482.

Morgan, S. & Wisely, D. (1996). Children's attitudes and behavioral intentions toward a peer presented as physically handicapped: A more positive view. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 8(1), 29-42.

Morran, D., Kurpius, D., Brack, G. & Rozecki, T. (1994). Relationship between counselors' clinical hypotheses and client ratings of counselor effectiveness. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 655-660.

Patton, J. & Polloway, E. (1982). The learning disabled: The adult years. Topic in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2(3), 79-88.

Ravaud, J., Madiot, B. & Ville, I. (1992). Discrimination towards disabled people seeking employment. Social Science and Medicine, 35(8), 951-958.

Sigelman, C. & McGrail, L. (1985). Developmental differences in evaluative reactions to physically and mentally handicapped children. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 3(3), 352-366.

Stone, W. & La Greca, A. (1990). The social status of children with learning disabilities: A reexamination. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(1), 32-37.

Strohmer, D., Leierer, S., Cochran, N., & Arokiasamy, C. (1996). The importance of counselor disability status: What we know and what we need to know. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 40, 96-115.

Strong, S. (1968). Counseling: An interpersonal influence process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18(3), 215-224.

Strong, S. & Dixon, D. (1971). Expertness, attractiveness, and influence in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18(6), 362-370.

Vincent, N. & Lebow, M. (1995). Treatment preference and acceptability: Epistemology and locus of control. Journal of Constructiveness Psychology, 8(2), 81-96.

Voges, S. & Adelman, P. (1990). Extrinsic and intrinsic factors in graduation and academic failure among LD college students. Annals of Dyslexia, 40, 119-137.

Walter, M. & Handelsman, M. (1996). Informed consent for mental health counseling: Effects of information specificity on clients' ratings of counselors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 18(3), 253-262.

RELATED ARTICLE: Software Review

AbleSoft Expands Its Line of Teachers' Software Products

AbleSoft, a brand of MMI, INc., has published a new edition of its popular software program Teacher's Toolbox Deluxe. Teachers who have come to depend on this program to record grades, track attendance, create lesson plans, makes seating charts and plan events will now be able to export that information to Microsoft Word[R] and Excel & In addition. Teacher's Toolbox Deluxe is now Window[R] 98 compatible. These new features, along with the program's ability to import files between Windows[R] and Mac computers, make this one of the most flexible and versatile teacher's productivity tools on the market. In just two years from introduction. Teacher's Toolbox has attracted a following of over 1/4 million users.

Teacher's Toolbox Suite helps teachers reduce the time they spend on administrative tasks, puts an entire library at the teacher's fingertips on one CD, and brings desktop publishing right into the classroom - all n one easy-to-use package.

MMI, Inc., is a brand oriented publisher and distributor of educational productivity and entertainment products. In addition to AbleSoft products, MMI publishes Rabbit Ears `a collection of classic children's stories narrated by world-famous actors, KidSoft, a line of educationally oriented CD games, and APBA, board and computer-based sports games for the whole family.

Contact MMI Corporate Office, 8550 Remington Avenue, Suite #, Pennsauken, NJ 08110.

Jeremy M. Linton, Psychology Department, Valparaiso University. Timothy K. Daugherty, Psychology Department, Valparaiso University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Timothy K. Daugherty, Ph.D., Psychology Department, Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, IN 46383. email: [e-mail].