Effects of interpreter credibility and discrepancy level of results on responses to test results.

Abstract

Subjects were given artificial psychological test results that were discrepant in either positive or negative directions with their self-reports on the traits purportedly measured. Test results were given by a counselor identified as either a PhD or a counseling practicum student. Amount of discrepancy between test results and self-report significantly affected the amount of change in self-report of subjects in both positive and negative feedback conditions. Professional level of the interpreter affected change in self-report for all groups receiving positive or self-enhancing results and for subjects receiving negative results highly discrepant with their self-report.Research on variables affecting clients' acceptance of test results has focused primarily on the results of use of various techniques of interpreting test results (see Tyler, 1969). Investigations by social psychologists of the effects of communicator credibility and of feedback of information discrepant with existing self-concepts have become increasingly related to test interpretation (Bergin, 1962;Johnson, 1966). The purpose of the present study was to investigfltq frpw counselor qrfidihility q.nri teat, rasjilts discrepant with clients' self-cqncepts affect clients' acceptance of the test results.Both Bergin and Johnson have shown that credibility of the communicator clearly influences change in self-report of subjects in response to feedback from psychological measures. However, neither study used professional counselors. Bergin contrasted a "research director" with a "high school student" ; Johnson had students rate the credibility of a senior psychology major as a test interpreter. The question of counselor credibility becomes important to the extent that

Differences between more and less effective psychotherapists: A study of select therapist variables.

“…1963;Bergin, 1962). A number of analogue studies have shown therapist expertness to be positively correlated with the patient's choice of therapist 11 (Corrigan, 1978), levels of rated attraction and trustworthiness (Greenberg, 1969;McKee & Smouse, 1983), information re~all (Guttman & Haase, 1972), attitudinal change (Binderman, Fretz, Scott & Abrams, 1972;Bergin, 1962) and to both self reported and actual behavior change (Dell, 1973;Hoffman & Spencer, 1977). In one of a few naturalistic long term treatment studies, Beutler, et ale (1975) found that patients post hoc perceptions of therapist credibility were significantly and positively related to patient improvement.…”

The Effects of Feedback Self-Consistency, Therapist Status, and Attitude Toward Therapy on Reaction to Personality Feedback

“…Specifically, we found that the client's perception of therapist status and the client's attitude toward therapy were significant moderators of his or her acceptance of self-inconsistent feedback. These findings further supported the role of source factors, such as status (e.g., Binderman et al, 1972;Hovland & Weiss, 1952), and attitudinal factors, such as discrepancy from one's own views (e.g., Sherif & Sherif, 1967), in determining message acceptance.…”

“…Highstatus therapists are a case in point of expert power (French & Raven, 1959), indicating the possibility that clients would perceive them as more credible and competent than low-status therapists. Supporting this possibility, Binderman, Fretz, Scott, and Abrams (1972) found that high-credibility therapists (i.e., counselors with doctorates) were able to evoke greater acceptance of selfinconsistent personality feedback from participants than low-credibility therapists (i.e., counseling practicum students).…”

“…Those researchers have manipulated a variety of independent variables and found that people tend to prefer self-consistent feedback (e.g., Jussim, Coleman, & Nassau, 1989;Moreland & Sweeney, 1984;Morling & Epstein, 1997;Swann & Read, 1981;Swann & Schroeder, 1995), although none of their articles referenced the clinical context. In the present study, we focused on the acceptance or rejection of personality feedback that was transmitted to participants from a high-status or low-status therapist, as did Binderman et al (1972). Updating our methods to the 21st century (and following recent trends toward online therapy), we delivered our feedback by email.…”

The Invisible Client

“…External Factors. External factors of counselors that have shown to be connected with client dropout from counseling include the following factors: interruption of the counseling relationship such as counselor vacations or absences (Straker et al, 1967); counselor display of awards and diplomas (Siegel & Sell, 1978); counselor credentials and prestigious reputations (Binderman, Fretz, Scott, & Abrams, 1972;Friedenberg & Gillis, 1977;Hartley, 1969); counselor attire (e.g., moderately formal was most positively perceived) (Rain, 1973); and counselors' room furnishings (Kerr, 1982;Miller, 1981).…”