statistical variables (e.g., effect size, statistical power, and Type I and Type II error rates). The data revealed a shift to realistic field studies, unchecked Type I and Type II error rates, medium effect sizes, and inattention to hypothesis validity. Recommendations for designing and conducting a feasible and well-designed supervision study are offered.It can be argued that a primary goal of research in clinical supervision is to test and improve theory and to guide the practice of supervision (Ellis, 1991b). A thorough understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of supervision research would ostensibly expand supervision theory and provide practitioners with information on how to train effective counselors who, in turn, will provide more effective therapy. Although there have been numerous calls for increasing the scientific rigor of research on counselor supervision and training (e.g., Ellis, 1991b;Hansen & Warner,

To assess joint influence of sexual provocativeness and prior sexual assault on perceptions of rape victims, males and females read rape reports presented in a factorial design that completely crossed levels of these variables. Multivariate analysis of variance indicated main effects for the independent variables but no interactions. Observers attributed more blame to victims whose preassault behavior was more provocative and who had a prior rape history. Relative to males, females were generally more empathic toward victims. Observers' perceptions were discussed in terms of attributions of causal and moral responsibility for assault.

The nature of anchoring errors in clinical judgments was clarified. Study 1 tested if gender mediates the occurrence of anchoring errors. Judgments from 103 undergraduate psychology students evidenced neither anchoring errors nor gender differences. Given the inability to replicate Friedlander and Stockman's (1983) study, two rival hypotheses were advanced: the adjustment hypothesis (practitioners adjust appropriately their clinical judgments after receiving new client information) and the adjustment mitigation hypothesis (initial anchoring effects are mitigated by an adjustment effect). The judgments from 157 psychologists in Study 2 affirmed the adjustment and mitigation hypotheses over the anchoring hypothesis alone. The mitigation process appears adaptable in clinical judgments.

No abstract

No abstract