To determine whether clinicians' diagnoses of patients are biased by their religion, by the religion of the patient, or by the interaction of religions, psychologists licensed in Utah were invited by questionnaire to participate in a clinical analogue experiment. Their religion (Latter-Day Saints [LDS] vs. Other) was obtained from a questionnaire, the purpose of which was not specified. Respondents received four fictitious case reports, which were varied on religion (LDS vs. Other), to diagnose according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Usable data were obtained from 60 psychologists, who assigned a wide variety of diagnoses. Diagnoses of all four cases were combined and grouped into seven categories. Chi-square and Fisher tests revealed that psychologists' use of diagnoses in these categories was not significantly influenced by the religion of the clinician or patient or by interactions between the two. The conclusion that psychologists in Utah are not biased by their religions, their patients' religions, or the relationship between the two when integrating case data to assign formal diagnoses is discussed in relation to previous research. This article is based on the flrst author's master's thesis, entitled "Influence of Clinicians' and Clients'

Observations of a Persian Gulf War support group suggest that the support group is a viable approach to ameliorating the stress of war among those personally affected. Cohesiveness developed readily, and facilitated a social support network. Therapeutic factors are compared with previous support group literature, and existential issues appear to be involved in groups addressing an uncontrollable stressor and/or the possibility of death. The volatility of the stressor produced variations in group character (supportive psychotherapy versus support versus self-help), necessitating a flexible leadership role. Observations are offered toward clarifying the nature of support groups in general.

No abstract