[acb-hsp] Article: Disclosure of Disability of Counselors

Thu Nov 15 14:14:07 EST 2012

In general, clients are comfortable with me. I think that they feel that there will be greater empathy coming from one that has a disability. I have had a few, a very few, who absolutely refused to see someone who is blind.

Andy

From: acb-hsp-bounces at acb.org [mailto:acb-hsp-bounces at acb.org] On Behalf Of J.Rayl
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:17 AM
To: Discussion list for ACB human service professionals
Subject: [acb-hsp] Article: Disclosure of Disability of Counselors

Effect of disabled counselors' self-disclosures on client perceptions of the counselor.

Author: Mallinckrodt, Brent 1 ; Helms, Janet E. 1 U Maryland, College Park

Publication info: Journal of Counseling Psychology 33. 3 (Jul 1986): 343-348.

https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/614333158?accountid=34899

Abstract: In a videotaped counseling analog, 2 male counselors each portrayed (a)

an obviously disabled counselor in a wheelchair and (b) a not obviously disabled

counselor with visual impairment. Within each condition, counselors did or did not

make self-disclosures about their disability. Ss were 169 university students, none

of whom was disabled or had close friends or relatives who were disabled. Results

indicate that counselors in several of the disability conditions were rated as being

significantly more expert and attractive than able-bodied counselors. Counselor self-disclosures

did not have a clearly negative or positive effect on Ss' perceptions. The hypothesis

that awareness of a counselor's disability may enhance client perceptions of his

all rights reserved)

Links: null

Full Text: Contents - Abstract

Method Subjects

Instruments Counselor Rating Form

Counseling Situations Inventory

Counseling Interactions

Procedure

Results

Discussion

Show less

Figures and Tables - Table 1

- Table 2

Show less Abstract In a videotaped counseling analogue, two male counselors each

portrayed (a) an obviously disabled counselor in a wheelchair and (b) a not obviously

disabled counselor with visual impairment. Within each condition, counselors did

or did not make self-disclosures about their disability. Subjects were 169 university

students who had no disabled friends or relatives. Results indicated that counselors

in several of the disability conditions were rated as being significantly more expert

and attractive than able-bodied counselors. Counselor self-disclosures did not have

a clearly negative or positive effect on subjects' perceptions. The hypothesis that

awareness of a counselor's disability may enhance client perceptions of his or her

credibility is discussed.

Considerable controversy exists concerning whether physically disabled counselors

enjoy certain therapeutic advantages relative to able-bodied counselors simply because

they are disabled. Among the advantages cited are unique life experiences and coping

strategies ( Brearly, 1980 ; Grantham & Joslyn, 1981 ) that may enhance their function

as role models in working with both able-bodied and disabled clients. Biscardi, Helms,

and Harren (1979) also suggested that some clients may believe that the disabilities

make counselors more empathic, and thus, disabled counselors may enjoy the advantages

of greater client acceptance and more positive evaluations of their skills.

In support of this enhancement hypothesis are Mitchell and Allen's (1975) findings

that counselors in wheelchairs in a videotape counseling analogue were rated more

favorably than able-bodied counselors with regard to perceived empathy, level of

regard, unconditional regard, and congruence. Similarly, Toner and Johnson (1979)

found that 6th- and 10th-grade students preferred disabled to able-bodied counselors.

Other counseling analogue studies, however, seem to suggest that whether or not clients

are more willing to see an able-bodied counselor rather than a disabled counselor

may depend on the nature of the hypothetical presenting problem ( Brabham & Thoreson,

1973 ; Mitchell & Frederickson, 1975 ) and the level of anticipated interaction with

the counselor ( Allen & Cohen, 1980 ) or on the client's disability status ( Strohmer

& Biggs, 1983 ). With the exception of Strohmer and Biggs, all previously mentioned

researchers used able-bodied subjects.

Still other authors have suggested that the disabled counselor may actually operate

from a position of disadvantage. This position seems to be based on research suggesting

that obviously disabled persons evaluate themselves and are evaluated by others more

negatively than are able-bodied persons ( Bowman, 1979 ; Dailey, 1977 , 1978 ; Goldberg,

1974 ; Stovall & Sedlacek, 1981 ). If negative attitudes about disabled persons generalize

to disabled counselors, then such attitudes could potentially surface in the form

of negative perceptions of the counselor, decreased willingness to see the counselor

again, or both.

Given the disparity in viewpoints concerning the effects on the counseling process

of a visible disability, it is not clear how counselors should handle the matter

of their disability when dealing with clients. They might ignore it in hopes that

the counseling process would be enhanced by positive attributions that clients may

make, or they might discuss it in hopes of overcoming barriers caused by any unspoken

negative stereotypes. If they choose discussion, a question still remains as to how

that discussion should occur.

One manner of initiating discussions about the counselor's disability is via counselor

self-disclosure. Yet previous studies of able-bodied counselors' self-disclosures

have often yielded mixed results concerning their effectiveness in improving perceptions

of the counselors' credibility. In several counseling analogue studies, researchers

have found that perceptions of counselor characteristics, such as credibility and

unconditional regard ( Hoffman & Spencer, 1977 ), attractiveness ( Merluzzi, Banikiotes,

& Missbach, 1978 ), and nurturance ( Bundza & Simonson, 1973 ) were greater when

the counselor used self-disclosure. Other researchers ( Giannandrea & Murphy, 1973

; Jourard & Jaffe, 1970 ) have found that clients' level of self-disclosure and willingness

to interact with the counselor increased with increasing counselor self-disclosure.

Negative client perceptions of counselors have been found to result, however, if

the self-disclosures are perceived as being too frequent ( Mann & Murphy, 1975 ;

Simonson, 1976 ) or inappropriate for the level of the relationship ( Chaikin & Derlega,

1974 ). For instance, Curtis (1981) , using as subjects actual clients currently

in therapy, presented written transcripts of counseling sessions and found that the

clients rated high-self-disclosing counselors as significantly less empathic and

competent than the non-self-disclosing counselors.

With regard to subject matter of the disclosure, Nilsson, Strassberg, and Bannon

(1979) found that counselor statements calling attention to similarities in life

problems faced by the counselor and client produced the greatest increases in subjects'

perceptions of counselor warmth. Danish, D'Augelli, and Hauer (1980) distinguished

between self-involving statements (those concerning the counselor's personal reactions

to the client during the counseling session) and self-disclosing statements (those

concerning the counselor's personal experiences and feelings outside the counseling

session). McCarthy and Betz (1978) found that counselors making self-involving statements

were rated higher in trustworthiness and expertness than counselors making self-disclosing

statements. In a subsequent study, however, McCarthy (1982) found that self-disclosing

counselor statements containing a high level of intimacy were associated with as

equally positive client perceptions as self-involving statements. Remer, Roffey,

and Buckholtz (1983) found that self-involving statements with positive, in contrast

to negative, content (i.e., favorable reactions to the clients) resulted in more

favorable ratings of counselors, but Reynolds and Fisher (1983) found no significant

differences between negative and positive content in both types of statements. Dowd

and Boroto (1982) examined past-oriented self-disclosures, present-oriented self-disclosures,

and self-involving statements and found all three to be more effective in enhancing

perceptions of counselor attractiveness than either counselor summary statements

or dynamic interpretations. Despite this pattern of ratings, subjects indicated a

greater willingness to see the counselors who made the dynamic interpretations.

These findings suggest that more favorable ratings on a dependent variable measure

such as the Counselor Rating Form may not necessarily be associated with increased

self-reported willingness to see the counselor. Furthermore, little is known about

the relation between self-reported willingness to see the counselor and actual behavioral

evidence that the subject will indeed act according to the stated preference. In

none of the previously reviewed studies was any such behavioral evidence gathered

in addition to the self-report information. Giannandrea and Murphy (1973) , however,

used face-to-face counseling interviews to test the effect of varying the frequency

of self-disclosure. Subjects were asked at the conclusion of the interview to sign

up for a second session with the same counselor. The resulting pattern of subjects'

sign-ups was not related to the pattern of favorable ratings of the counselor on

the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory.

In a review of the literature, we failed to find any studies that investigated the

effects of self-disclosures by disabled counselors. An investigation of these effects

is important because (a) the presence of an observable disability is itself an unavoidable

type of self-disclosure to clients, and if negative attitudes and perceptions are

generated by the awareness of a disability, then barriers that can interfere with

the quality of the counseling relationship may be raised by such awareness; (b) if

negative attitudes are present, then disabled counselors may be able to alter some

of their clients' impressions through the use of self-disclosure. In addition, although

increasingly sophisticated prosthetic devices make it possible that a counselor's

disability may not be readily apparent to clients, some of these "nonobviously" disabled

persons may have impairments that may require self-disclosures about the disability

to permit them to conduct an effective counseling session. For example, counselors

who are hearing impaired may have to ask clients not to cover their mouths so that

lipreading is possible, or counselors who have impaired vision despite partial correction

by contact lenses may need to sit somewhat closer to a client than usual.

In this study, we examined the following three questions: (a) Are there differences

in subjects' perceptions of and willingness to see disabled counselors, as compared

to able-bodied ones? (b) What is the effect of disabled counselors' self-involving

type of self-disclosure about their disability on subjects' perceptions of the counselors

and on subjects' willingness to see them? (c) Are there differences between the effects

of such self-disclosures when the counselor's disability is nonobvious rather than

obvious?

Method

Subjects Subjects were 72 male and 97 female undergraduate students enrolled in introductory

psychology courses in a large eastern university. They received credit toward their

course grade for participation in the study. Mean age of male and female subjects

was 21.4 ( SD = 3.25) and 21.3 ( SD = 4.95) years, respectively. To avoid potential

bias, we excluded from the analyses data from 10 students who were disabled themselves

or who had close friends or relatives who were disabled.

Instruments The Counselor Rating Form (CRF; Barak & LaCrosse, 1975 ) was used to

assess subjects' perceptions of the counselors, and the Counseling Situations Inventory

(CSI), designed for this study, was used to measure their willingness to see the

counselors.

Counselor Rating Form The CRF consists of 36 bipolar adjective pairs presented via

7-point Likert-type scales ( Barak & LaCrosse, 1975 ). The three CRF subscales, Expertness

(e.g., skillful-unskillful), Trustworthiness (e.g., genuine-phony), and Attractiveness

(e.g., friendly-unfriendly), are composed of 12 items each. Scores are computed by

summing subjects' responses to each item, with high scores indicating positive evaluations.

For the 169 subjects used in the present study, the internal consistency of the Expertness,

Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness subscales as estimated by Cronbach's alpha was

.91, .93, and .87, respectively; test-retest reliabilities ( n = 18) after a 2-week

interval were .86, .88, and .95, respectively.

Counseling Situations Inventory The CSI was composed of 18 hypothetical counseling

problems that subjects were asked to imagine having (e.g., getting along with roommate,

loneliness, and feeling socially isolated). Subjects used a 5-point Likert-type scale

ranging from not willing (1) to willing (5) to rate their willingness to discuss

each of the problems with the counselor observed. Of these situations, 13 were adapted

from Mitchell and Frederickson's (1975) study of preferences for male disabled or

able-bodied counselors. In their study, only 1 item involved sexual concerns; however,

because responses to this item suggested that male subjects preferred able-bodied

counselors more than disabled ones, 5 additional items dealing with sexual concerns

were added to the scale in the present study. After data collection was completed,

a principal-components factor analysis was used to analyze the 18 items of the CSI.

However, the three factors that were identified were so highly intercorrelated (range

= .67 to .82) that only the total scale score was used in subsequent analyses. For

the total scale, Cronbach's alpha, based on the entire sample, was .91, with a test-retest

correlation of .79 ( n = 18).

Counseling Interactions Two kinds of disabled male counselors were depicted in a

counseling analogue-a counselor in a wheelchair and a counselor with a visual impairment.

Each type of counselor was shown in a counseling session that included a discussion

of his disability (i.e., self-disclosure condition) and a session that did not. Because

the visually impaired counselors were depicted in contact lenses, their impairment

was known to subjects only in the self-disclosure condition and not in both conditions

of disclosure level (as was the case for the counselors in wheelchairs). Thus, the

design involved four conditions as follows: (a) able-bodied, or no apparent disability

and no self-disclosure; (b) obvious disability with no self-disclosure, that is,

counselors in wheelchairs who made no mention of disability; (c) obvious disability

with self-disclosure, counselors in wheelchairs who discussed their disability; and

(d) nonobvious disability, apparently able-bodied counselors who disclosed a visual

impairment.

Two male, master's-level graduate students (one of whom has a nonobvious visual impairment)

role played the therapists in an excerpt from one of Rogers's (1977) interviews.

In the segment, a young woman discussed a presenting problem involving anxiety about

her perceived lack of social skills. The same female undergraduate student role played

the client in all of the counselor conditions. Each of the four conditions was portrayed

by the two counselors. The self-disclosure interactions were approximately 2 min

long and occurred after 13 min of the 17-min counseling session. They consisted of

a brief statement about the nature of the disability, followed by a self-involving

discussion of how the counselor's disabled status might effect the current counseling

relationship. Each of the two counselors was taped only in the two disability disclosure

conditions (visual impairment and wheelchair). The no-disclosure tapes were then

created by removing the disclosure portions from duplicates of these tapes. The transcript

was constructed so that this editing did not interrupt the natural flow of the sessions.

Procedure Subjects were contacted by telephone and instructed to view a specific

videotape filed at the university library. Subjects individually checked out the

videotape and a packet of materials from the library staff. They were instructed

to view the taped counseling session, complete the dependent measures, and return

the materials to the library staff. The CRF and CSI were presented in counterbalanced

order. Test-retest reliabilities were assessed by contacting a subsample of 18 subjects

2 weeks after their initial ratings and asking them to repeat the procedure. All

subjects were given debriefing information at the conclusion of the study.

Results A two-way (Counselor × Sex) analysis of variance ( ANOVA ) was performed

to compare ratings of the two counselors across all conditions and to test for differences

between ratings of male and female subjects. There were no significant differences

between perceptions of the two counselors for any of the dependent variables, including

perceived physical attractiveness, F s(1, 167) ranging from 0.39 to 1.17, p s > .28.

There were also no significant differences between male and female subjects' ratings

for any dependent variable, F s(1, 167) ranging from 0.23 to 2.18, p s > .14. Therefore,

in subsequent analyses, the data pertaining to the two counselors were combined,

and the data for male and female subjects were combined.

A 2 × 2 ANOVA examining the effect of self-disclosure and the effects of type of

disability was not possible. These variables were unavoidably confounded because

the counselors who did not disclose a hidden visual impairment appeared to be able-bodied,

and the nondisclosing counselors in wheelchairs were obviously disabled. Investigation

of the research questions required comparisons between various pairs of the four

experimental conditions. Therefore a one-way ANOVA was performed with Duncan's multiple-range

tests to assess significant differences between experimental conditions. An overall

Type I error rate of .05 was chosen for each set of Duncan's multiple-range comparisons.

The one-way ANOVA revealed that there were significant differences between the four

experimental conditions with regard to ratings of expertness, F (3, 165) = 3.88,

p < .02; trustworthiness, F (3, 165) = 2.80, p < .05; and attractiveness, F (3, 165)

= 3.88, p < .02. Means, standard deviations, and significant differences between

conditions are shown in Table 1 .

600?'600px':'auto');"> Enlarge this Image.

Means and Standard Deviations of Counselor Ratings

With regard to the general trend of expertness, trustworthiness, and attractiveness

ratings, disabled counselors received either equivalent or more positive ratings

than able-bodied counselors. Self-disclosure did not have a clearly negative or positive

effect on ratings. Non-self-disclosing counselors in wheelchairs (Condition B) were

rated as being significantly more expert and attractive than were the apparently

able-bodied counselors (Condition A). Self-disclosures from the counselors in wheelchairs

(Condition C) further increased the numerical margin of positive ratings for expertness

and attractiveness relative to those of the able-bodied counselors (A). In addition,

ratings of trustworthiness, which did not differ significantly when able-bodied counselors

(A) and counselors in wheelchairs (B) were compared, were significantly more positive

for counselors in wheelchairs when they made self-disclosures (A vs. C). Self-disclosure

itself did not, however, have a clearly positive effect because there were no significant

differences in the multiple-range analyses between counselors in wheelchairs who

self-disclosed (C) and those who did not (B). Counselors who were apparently able-bodied

but subsequently disclosed a nonobvious disability (D) were rated as significantly

more attractive than were able-bodied counselors (A).

Despite the differences in CRF ratings, there were no significant differences in

reported willingness to see the counselors on the CSI. Inspection of the mean scores

shown in Table 1 indicates a general trend of increased CSI scores (i.e., greater

willingness) for conditions receiving higher CRF ratings. Intercorrelations among

the dependent variables shown in Table 2 suggest that the relations between favorable

CRF ratings and willingness to see the counselors were not particularly strong, although

the CRF subscales themselves were highly intercorrelated.

600?'600px':'auto');"> Enlarge this Image.

Correlations Between Dependent Variables (N = 169)

Discussion In general, the results of the present study offer support for Biscardi

et al.'s (1979) disability enhancement hypothesis regarding clients' perceptions

of disabled counselors. Counselors in all three conditions of disability and self-disclosure

were perceived significantly more favorably than the apparently able-bodied counselors

on one or more of the CRF subscales, and the disabled counselors were not perceived

more negatively on any of the four dependent variables. The positive ratings may

have been due, in part, to subjects' assumptions that the disabled counselors had,

in the course of some potentially difficult life experiences, become experts at coping

or perhaps had become better able to empathize with the problems of others. Whatever

the nature of subjects' implicit assumptions about disabled counselors, the findings

of the current study suggest that the net effect of these assumptions was enhanced

perceptions of the disabled counselors.

The general effect of counselor self-disclosure about the disability seems to have

been neither clearly positive nor negative. On all of the dependent variables, mean

ratings given the self-disclosing counselors in wheelchairs were numerically more

positive than those given to the same counselors when they did not make self-disclosure

but not significantly so. In contrast to the findings of Merluzzi et al. (1978) and

Curtis (1981) , increased self-disclosure was not associated with decreased ratings

of expertness. When the disclosure was about a disability that had not been apparent

to subjects, the counselors were rated as more attractive than the able-bodied counselors.

In addition, there were no significant differences between subjects' ratings of counselors

who disclosed about a nonobvious versus an obvious disability.

To the extent that the results of this study are generalizable to actual counselors

with actual disabilities, the findings suggest that self-disclosure about a nonobvious

disability may enhance subjects' perceptions of the counseling, particularly with

regard to attractiveness. A nonobviously disabled counselor who must inform clients

about a disability can probably do so during the first counseling session without

negatively influencing the counseling relationship. For counselors with readily apparent

disabilities, the effects of self-disclosures are probably neutral; subjects seem

to react positively to visible disability whether or not counselors self-disclose

about it. None of the current findings suggest that such self-disclosures would have

a negative effect, and perhaps both obviously and nonobviously disabled counselors

might be able to make productive use of self-involving self-disclosures as a means

of potentially enhancing their therapeutic effectiveness. Such a strategy may be

especially appropriate when working with able-bodied clients whose initial attitudes

toward disabled persons are somewhat negative.

Only one specific type of obvious and one type of nonobvious disability were portrayed

in the current study, however. The portrayal was by two white male counselors of

essentially the same physical attractiveness. Only one relatively lengthy self-disclosure

was used. Researchers ( Mann & Murphy, 1975 ; Simonson, 1976 ) have suggested that

there may be an optimum frequency of self-disclosure for given circumstances beyond

which the positive effects begin to decrease. Further research is needed to investigate

the effects of self-disclosures of various lengths; frequencies; and content from

counselors who differ with regard to race, sex, and type of disability. The counselors

in wheelchairs in this study were not actually disabled in this manner, so at best,

they represented those counselors in wheelchairs who are not disfigured. In addition,

all the subjects were college students. Further research using different subject

populations and counselors with a variety of actual disabilities is needed.

Finally, much more investigation of the relation between perceptions of counselors

and self-reported willingness to see them for actual sessions is needed. Dowd and

Boroto (1982) found that counselors rated most favorably on CRF variables were not

the ones subjects expressed the greatest willingness to see. In the current study,

self-reported willingness ratings were all in the expected directions but were not

significantly different across conditions.

Because the videotape methodology used more closely simulated an actual counseling

session, the present study represents an improvement over previous studies of disabled

counselors in which slides or audiotape recordings were used. Nevertheless, because

it was an analogue, relations found between perceptions of counselors and willingness

to see them might be different in actual counseling situations. An important next

step in exploring the effects of counselor disability and self-disclosure would be

an examination of actual face-to-face counseling interactions.

References

1 . Allen, H. A., & Cohen, M. S. (1980). Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.

2 . Barak, A., & LaCrosse, M. B. (1975). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

3 . Biscardi, D. L., Helms, J. E., & Harren, V. A. (1979). The effect of perceived

expertness on preference for disabled vs. nondisabled counselors.

4 . Bowman, J. (1979). Dissertation Abstracts International.

5 . Brabham, R. E., & Thoreson, R. W. (1973). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

6 . Brearly, G. (1980). Sexuality and Disability.

7 . Bundza, K. A., & Simonson, N. R. (1973). Psychotherapy Theory, Research and Practice.

8 . Chaikin, A. L., & Derlega, V. J. (1974). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

9 . Curtis, J. M. (1981). Psychological Reports.

10 . Dailey, L. A. (1977). Journal of College Student Personnel.

11 . Dailey, L. A. (1978). Journal of College Student Personnel.

12 . Danish, S. J., D'Augelli, A. R., & Hauer, A. L. (1980). Helping skills: A basic

training program. New York: Human Services Press.

13 . Dowd, E. T., & Boroto, D. R. (1982). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

14 . Giannandrea, V., & Murphy, K. C. (1973). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

15 . Goldberg, R. T. (1974). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

16 . Grantham, R. J., & Joslyn, M. S. (1981). Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.

17 . Hoffman, M. A., & Spencer, G. P. (1977). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

18 . Jourard, S. M., & Jaffe, P. E. (1970). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

19 . Mann, B., & Murphy, K. C. (1975). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

20 . McCarthy, P. R. (1982). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

21 . McCarthy, P. R., & Betz, N. E. (1978). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

22 . Merluzzi, T. V., Banikiotes, P. G., & Missbach, J. W. (1978). Journal of Counseling

Psychology.

23 . Mitchell, D. C., & Frederickson, W. A. (1975). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

24 . Mitchell, J., & Allen, H. (1975). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

25 . Nilsson, D. E., Strassberg, D. S., & Bannon, J. (1979). Journal of Counseling

Psychology.

26 . Remer, P., Roffey, B. H., & Buckholtz, A. (1983). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

27 . Reynolds, C. L., & Fisher, C. H. (1983). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

28 . Rogers, C. R., Morse, S. J., & Watson, R. I. (1977). Psychotherapies: A comparative

casebook. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

29 . Simonson, N. R. (1976). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

30 . Stovall, C., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1981). Attitudes of male and female university

students toward students with different physical disabilities (Research Rep. No.

10-81). College Park: University of Maryland, Counseling Center.

31 . Strohmer, D. C., & Biggs, D. A. (1983). Journal of Counseling Psychology.

32 . Toner, I. J., & Johnson, M. L. (1979). Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.

Show less

Address for Correspondence: Brent Mallinckrodt, Department of Psychology, University

of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742

© 1986 American Psychological Association

Subject: Client Attitudes (major); Counselor Characteristics (major); Physical Disorders

(major); Self Disclosure (major)

Classification: 3370: Health&Mental Health Services

Age: Adulthood (18 yrs&older)

Population: Human

Identifier (keyword): counselors' self disclosure about their obvious vs nonobvious

disability, perceptions of counselor, college students

Methodology: Empirical Study

Title: Effect of disabled counselors' self-disclosures on client perceptions of the

counselor.

Publication title: Journal of Counseling Psychology

Volume: 33

Issue: 3

Pages: 343-348

Publication date: Jul 1986

Format covered: Print

Publisher: American Psychological Association

Country of publication: United States

ISSN: 0022-0167

eISSN: 1939-2168

Peer reviewed: Yes

Document type: Journal, Journal Article, Peer Reviewed Journal

Number of references: 32

Publication history :

Revised date: 27 Dec 1985

First submitted date: 02 Oct 1985

DOI: <a href="

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.33.3.343">http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.33.3.343</a <http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.33.3.343%3Ehttp:/dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.33.3.343%3C/a> 

> 

Release date: 01 Nov 1986 (PsycINFO); ; 10 Jul 2006 (PsycARTICLES);

Correction date: 25 Jan 2010 (PsycINFO)

Accession number: 1986-28123-001

ProQuest document ID: 614333158

Document URL:

https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/614333158?accountid=34899 <https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/614333158?accountid=34899> 

Copyright: ©American Psychological Association 1986

Database: PsycARTICLES

____________________________________________________________

Contact us at:

http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupport <http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupport> 

Terms and Conditions:

http://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions <http://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions> 

Jessie Rayl
thedogmom63 at frontier.com
www.facebook.com/Eaglewings10
www.pathtogrowth.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.acb.org/pipermail/acb-hsp/attachments/20121115/79b1ff44/attachment-0001.html>