Jean Ciaravino, Amy Sanford, Amanda Swanson, & Julia Grimm, Psychology Dept.
Previous researchers have noted that people with high degrees of religious commitment prefer that religion be emphasized in counseling (e.g., McMinn, 1991; Wyatt and Johnson, 1990). The literature has also given us some ideas about the preferences and perceptions of highly religious individuals, however, our understanding of what these individuals specifically prefer from counseling is quite limited. In addition, the role that religious behaviors and processes play in counseling with these individuals is unclear.
This study attempted to move beyond the methodologies typically employed by previous studies on perceptions and preferences by including a sample of participants from an adult church population as well as a student cohort. Past research has also generally assessed participantsı preferences and
perceptions by having them react to counselor descriptions or videotapes. By eliminating counselor descriptions and vignettes altogether, this study attempted to tap participantsı preferences for counseling in general. In addition, a measure of behavioral commitment to Christian values was employed.
It was hypothesized that there would be different levels of behavioral religious commitment between the student and church adult cohorts, and that those differences would produce different preferences for counseling in general. It was also hypothesized that the adult church members would have much greater preferences for religious behaviors and processes in counseling than the student participants.
Method
Results
Preference data from the modified EAC-B were analyzed using a cohort x gender multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), with the 19 scales of the modified EAC-B serving as dependent measures. Significant multivariate effects were followed up with univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Results of the MANOVA revealed significant main effects for cohort group (F(19, 244) = 24.56, p = .0001) and for gender (F(19, 244) = 3.50, p = .0001). The cohort by gender interaction was not significant.
Of the 19 scales on the modified EAC-B, 9 demonstrated significant (p < .05) cohort differences when explored via univariate ANOVAs. Church Adults had higher mean preference scores on 5 of the 9 significant scales (Motivation, Responsibility, Confrontation, Immediacy, Religious Behavior). While effect sizes (Cohenıs d) for these scales were generally small (less than .5), the effect size for the difference in Religious Behavior means was very large (2.08). Students had higher mean preference scores on the Realism, Directiveness, Self-Disclosure, and Attractiveness scales (effect sizes ranged from .28 to .70). Table 1 provides means, standard deviations, F statistics and effect sizes for the EAC-B scales by cohort.
When gender differences were explored, 12 of the 19 scales demonstrated significant differences
(p <.05). Women had higher mean preferences on 11 of the 12 significant scales (Motivation, Openness, Responsibility, Acceptance, Genuineness, Nurturance, Attractiveness, Trustworthiness, Concreteness, Immediacy, Outcome). Men had a significantly higher mean preference score on the Self-Disclosure scale. For both genders, effect sizes (Cohenıs d) tended to be more moderate (range of Cohenıs d = .42 - .64). Further, when all of the scales are considered (including those where non-significant differences are observed), women reported consistently higher preferences on all but two of the EAC-B scales (Realism and Self-Disclosure). Table 2 provides means, standard deviations, F statistics and effect sizes for the
EAC-B scales by gender.
Discussion
With respect to gender, women scored higher on 17 of the 19 counseling preference scales. While a baseline effect seems most likely, womenıs responses in general, seem to reflect more of an eagerness and motivation for counseling. This is not surprising, since women constitute a majority of the students in therapy in colleges/universities (Prosser-Gelwick & Garni, 1988).
Our knowledge of the counseling preferences of religious individuals may help us reach and draw in a "reluctant" client population that is potentially underserved. This knowledge can also be used to enhance existing counseling relationships, since it appears that religious techniques in counseling are most important for only those clients who are older and/or highly committed to their religious beliefs.
References
Pecnik, J. A., & Epperson, D. L. (1985). Analogue study of expectations for counseling as a function of the religious orientation of clients and counselors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 127-130.
Prosser-Gelwick, B., & Garni, K. F. (1988). Counseling and psychotherapy with college men. New Directions for Student Services, 42, 67-77.
Spilka, B. (1993). Religion in adult life. In R. Kastenbaum (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adult development (pp. 396-401). Phoenix: Oryx Press.
Tinsley, H. E. A. (1982). Expectations about Counseling: Brief Form (Form B). Unpublished questionnaire, 1982 revision. (Available from Howard E. A. Tinsley, Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901).
Wyatt, S. C. & Johnson, R. W. (1990). The influence of counselorsı religious values on clientsı perceptions of the counselor. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 18, 158-165.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and F statistics for MANOVA: Main Effect for Group
____________________________________________________________________________________
Students Church Adults
____________________________________________________________________________________
Motivation 4.93 1.31 5.19 1.33 4.16 .0424 .20
Openness 5.99 1.11 6.09 .96 1.56 .2132 --
Responsibility 5.85 .98 6.20 .72 15.54 .0001 .43
Realism 3.48 .82 3.16 .78 6.76 .0099 .41
Acceptance 5.39 1.27 5.12 1.35 2.24 .1355 --
Confrontation 5.11 1.28 5.39 1.22 4.19 .0416 .23
Directiveness 4.76 1.20 3.85 1.43 24.78 .0001 .70
Empathy 4.87 1.37 4.65 1.30 .98 .3242 --
Genuineness 6.33 .79 6.41 .79 1.36 .2441 --
Nurturance 5.79 1.16 5.79 1.06 .18 .6744 --
Self-Disclosure 3.66 1.57 3.24 1.50 4.97 .0266 .28
Attractiveness 5.54 1.13 4.90 1.25 15.22 .0001 .55
Expertise 5.76 1.03 5.51 1.07 1.84 .1765 --
Tolerance 5.31 1.27 4.96 1.19 3.47 .0634 --
Trustworthiness 6.31 .88 6.44 .82 3.21 .0743 --
Concreteness 5.85 1.00 5.84 1.02 .29 .5935 --
Immediacy 5.33 1.02 5.51 .99 3.95 .0478 .19
Outcome 5.89 .91 6.00 .88 1.98 .1610 --
Religious Behavior 2.59 1.32 5.23 1.22 290.18 .0001 2.08
___________________________________________________________________________________
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and F statistics for MANOVA: Main Effect for Gender
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Men (n = 107) Women (n = 159)
Motivation 4.75 1.48 5.29 1.16 12.87 .0004 .42
Openness 5.69 1.20 6.28 .82 24.48 .0001 .60
Responsibility 5.81 1.06 6.20 .66 17.36 .0001 .48
Realism 3.38 .79 3.26 .82 .82 .3657 --
Acceptance 4.94 1.37 5.44 1.25 9.94 .0018 .39
Confrontation 5.12 1.29 5.36 1.22 2.82 .0944 --
Directiveness 4.45 1.31 4.13 1.46 2.78 .0965 --
Empathy 4.59 1.43 4.86 1.26 3.16 .0768 --
Genuineness 6.13 .96 6.53 .60 18.66 .0001 .52
Nurturance 5.47 1.31 6.01 .88 18.15 .0001 .50
Self-Disclosure 3.78 1.54 3.20 1.51 9.26 .0026 .38
Attractiveness 4.89 1.23 5.39 1.21 12.97 .0004 .43
Expertise 5.50 1.17 5.70 .97 3.32 .0697 --
Tolerance 4.98 1.29 5.22 1.20 3.26 .0720 --
Trustworthiness 6.14 1.08 6.55 .59 17.76 .0001 .50
Concreteness 5.59 1.25 6.01 .77 14.12 .0002 .43
Immediacy 5.18 1.14 5.60 .86 13.94 .0002 .43
Outcome 5.63 1.06 6.17 .69 26.81 .0001 .64
Religious Behavior 4.02 1.98 4.05 1.72 .20 .6576 --
_____________________________________________________________________________________
a p < .05
One-hundred twenty college students (self-identified as Christian) and 146 adults from a large suburban church completed a modified version of the Expectations About Counseling: Brief Form (EAC-B) (Tinsley, 1982). The response scale and item prefaces of the EAC-B were modified so that they assessed the preference (rather than expectation) for the eighteen counseling variables identified by Tinsley. In addition, the modified EAC-B also included an additional scale, the Religious Behavior Scale, originally developed by Pecnik and Epperson (1985) to tap expectations for some of the religious processes and goals specific to religious/Christian counseling. Participants also provided demographic information and responded to several questions concerning their religious commitment.
The religious commitment of the two cohorts was compared by assessing their responses to four religious commitment items. The two participant cohorts were found to significantly differ on all four indices of religious commitment: Importance of Religion (t˘ (174) = -14.22; p=.0001), Frequency of Bible Reading (c2 (6, n=266) = 176.85; p=.001), Frequency of Prayer (c2 (6, n=266) = 127.99; p=.001), Frequency of Worship Service Attendance (c2 (4, n=266) = 120.39; p=.001).
These data largely supported both hypotheses. Church adults did demonstrate higher levels of behavioral religious commitment, and those differences in religious commitment appeared to produce different preferences for counseling in general. The pattern of preferences for church adults suggests a desire for more self-involvement in counseling, while student preferences suggest a more passive approach. These preferences find support in the developmental literature (e.g., Cole & Cole, 1993). As predicted, the church adult cohort also had a much greater preference for religious behaviors occurring in counseling. This finding is supported by the literature on the development of religious values (e.g., Spilka, 1993).
Cole, M., & Cole, S. R. (1993). The development of children (2nd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.
McMinn, M. R. (1991). Religious values, sexist language, and perceptions of a therapist. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 10, 132-136.
(n = 120) (n = 146)
Preference Scale M SD M SD F pa db
a p < .05
b d = Cohenıs d
Preference Scale M SD M SD F pa db
_____________________________________________________________________________________
b d = Cohenıs d