Replication and extension of social influence processes in counseling: A field study.

Addictions Counselors' Credibility: The Impact of Interactional Style, Recovery Status, and Nonverbal Behavior

“…One of the challenges faced by addictions counselors is working with clients to engage and stay engaged in the counseling process (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2000b. Thus, in our design of analogues, measuring participants' willingness to choose to work with the portrayed addictions counselor seemed an appropriate step in the direction of measuring client behavior in counseling, especially considering previous research has found that engagement in treatment and adherence to it are predictors of counseling outcome (Zweben & Zuckoff, 2002). Finally, other criticisms of research using analogues include participants not typically being counseling clients and, thus, not responding to the video as actual clients would (Heppner & Claiborn, 1988).…”

“…Regarding education level, previous social influence research has shown mixed results. For example, one study showed that counselors with a postdoctorate education level were perceived as more credible than counselors at a predoctorate level (Zamostny, Corrigan, & Eggert, 1981). However, other studies found no differences between perceptions and education levels (Heppner & Heesacker, 1982).…”

Premature Termination from University Counseling Centers: A Review

“…Several studies have explored the relationship between attitudes toward the counseling center or satisfaction with services and subsequent attendance; these studies have produced mixed results. Zamostny, Corrigan, and Eggert (1981) found that although prior confidence in the center did relate to satisfaction with the intake interview, neither prior confidence nor satisfaction predicted whether clients returned for another interview. Phillips and Fagan (1982) also failed to find a relationship between client satisfaction at intake and attrition, although others have found satisfaction with services to differentiate persisters from dropouts (Greenfield, 1983;Kokotovic & Tracey, 1987;McNeill, May, & Lee, 1987).…”

“…Counselor expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness are social influence variables that have been postulated to affect process and outcome (Strong, 1968). Zamostny et al (1981) found that although client ratings of counselor expertness and trustworthiness contributed to clients' overall satisfaction with the intake interview, they were not useful in predicting return for another interview. In two subsequent studies, a relationship was found between counselor-social influence variables and attrition.…”

Use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology research.

“…Although some empirical support for social influence theory has been generated, findings are inconsistent and there is much confusion about the relation between client-counselor interaction and client change (Corrigan et al, 1980). Problems include (a) validation of the tripartite structure of counselor characteristics; (b) the possibility of a legitimacy effect (Corrigan et al) in which attributions of expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness may be based on the socially-sanctioned counselor role, rather than from specific cues displayed by a particular counselor; (c) specification of the power bases (expert, referent, and legitimate) in which counselor characteristics are rooted (Strong & Matross, 1973); (d) failure to distinguish between actual and perceived counselor characteristics (Dell & Schmidt, 1976;Heppner & Heesacker, 1983); (e) focus on client and counselor perceptions of change rather than actual behavioral change (Zamostny, Corrigan, & Eggert, 1981;Heppner & Dixon, 1978), with very few studies (e.g., Heppner & Dixon;Merluzzi, Merluzzi, & Kaul, 1977) measuring client change through observational rather than selfreport measures; and (f) little attention to the influence attempt, although there have been recent studies of the effects of message discrepancy (Claiborn, Crawford, & Hackman, 1983;Claiborn & Dowd, 1985) and level of client disclosure (Corrigan et al, 1980) in client attributions and change.…”