Information processing strategies in counselor hypothesis testing: The role of selective memory and expectancy.

Abstract

The issue of confirmatory bias in counselors' clinical hypothesis testing was explored. Previous research has suggested that counselors are unbiased when constructing questioning strategies to test a client hypothesis. This study proceeded on the assumption that questioning is only the beginning of the hypothesis-testing process. In 2 experiments the way counselors remembered information about a client was examined, and information from a client narrative was selected. In Experiment 1 experienced counselors remembered more confirmatory than disconfirmatory information, even when the report they reviewed contained more disconfirmatory information. In Experiment 2 counselors in training selected more confirmatory than disconfirmatory information, even when the report they reviewed contained more disconfirmatory information. Conclusions of the study were the following: Counselors need to be aware of these biases and counselor education should explicitly train counselors to avoid them.We do not first see, then define, we define first and then see.-Walter Lippmann What a man sees depends upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see. In the absence of such training there can only be, in William James's phrase, a 'blooming buzzin' confusion.-Thomas KuhnThe way in which counselors test clinical hypotheses about their clients and the factors that influence the objectivity of their hypothesis testing are important areas of counseling research. As a scientist and practitioner, the counselor is thought to develop a conceptual model of the client and to employ a hypothesis testing approach to evaluate the accuracy of this model. In numerous theoretical papers (e.g.

Confidence in psychodiagnosis: what makes us so sure?

“…A confirmatory bias (which presumably underlies anchoring effects in clinical decisionmaking) is in evidence when clinicians selectively attend to and remember case information that confirms rather than disconfirms a clinical hypothesis. Several studies have suggested that a relationship exists between anchoring (or a confirmatory bias) and psychodiagnostic confidence (Friedlander & Phillips, 1984;Friedlander & Stockman, 1983;Strohmer, Shivy, & Chiodo, 1990).…”

Teaching Counselor Trainees a Divergent Versus a Convergent Hypothesis‐Formation Strategy

“…This model outlines two distinct but closely related functions in hypothesis formation: discovery of client information and validation or testing of that information (Reichenbach, 1938). First, counselors discover information about their clients; then they test its veracity.Many researchers have focused on hypothesis-testing strategies as a way to improve counselor effectiveness (Hayden, 1987;Hirsch & Stone, 1983;Strohmer, Biggs, Haase, & Keller, 1983;Strohmer & Chiodo, 1984;Strohmer & Newman, 1983;Strohmer, Shivy, & Chiodo, 1990). The findings of such studies suggest that the tendency to converge quickly on a single hypothesis may lead counselors to limit their attempts to discover new information (early foreclosure) and may lead to bias in hypothesis testing.…”

Making Sense of Client Data: Clinical Experience and Confirmationism Revisited

“…This is not inconsistent with the premises of the thesis proposed by Asch (1946). It has been found that clinical anchoring in early-divulged information is indeed in evidence in clinical judgment but that it can be attenuated when sufficiently discrepant information is provided later (Ellis, Robbins, Schult, Ladany, & Baker, 1990;Strohmer et al, 1990). Clinical judgments about clients seem to be based on initial impressions rather than the exhaustive observation and hypothesis testing, which are characteristics of sound scientific inquiry.…”

“…The character of this process, its psychological properties, and the tangential dynamics it releases have not yet been fully examined. This effect has called for consideration of a confirmationist bias in clinical information processing (e.g., Garb, 1998;Pope & Vasquez, 2005;Snyder & Thomsen, 1988;Strohmer, Shivy, & Chiodo, 1990;Strohmer, Boas, & Abadie, 1996), a bias that has been shown to be a robust component of the dynamics of clinical judgment (Ganzach, 2000;Pope & Vasquez, 2005;Strohmer & Shivy, 1994). The bias has consequences for (a) the inhibition of inferences that disconfirm previous hypotheses bearing on clients' problems or dysfunctions and (b) the generation of inferences or clinical hypotheses that are consistent with initial assessment propositions.…”