An integrated approach to research on therapeutic counseling with samples of results.

Global attraction as a predictor of terminating and remaining in counseling

“…These findings supported the notion that the clients' global attraction to counselor was, in some way, related to a decision to remain in therapy or leave (lido, 1957;Hunt et al, 1959).…”

“…While this model is quite simplistic, it represents two im portant theoretical considerations: The quality of the re lationship between counselor and client is important to out comes (Hunt et al, 1959) and improvement in therapy is con ditional on remaining in treatment (Kirk & Headley, 1950;Gliedman et al, 1957;Hiler, 1958). Findings from this study suggested that early terminators, and also remainers, are more appropriately classified by their own feelings about the therapy situation than by the number of sessions they attended.…”

Behavior therapy and the minority client.

“…Yet conversely, the degree to which the therapist is usually warm and empathetic is influenced by a phenomena called "assumed similarity" (Fieldler, 1953), or the extent to which the therapist believes that his own personal characteristics resemble the personal characteristics of his client. A number of studies (Hunt, Ewing, LaForge & Gilbert, 1959) suggest that assumed similarity is monotonically related to such crucial therapist characteristics as empathy and unconditional positive regard. These findings may possibly indicate that a therapist may communicate feelings of warmth and understanding primarily when he views his client as being like himself in a number of salient ways.…”

The Invisible Client

“…Additional factors comprise those studies that do not fall clearly in either of the first two factors. Additional factors linked with early termination from counseling consist of the following: less education and less intelligent (Hiler, 1969;Hunt, Ewing, LaForge, & Gilbert, 1959); age (e.g., in brief, six sessions, therapy, the younger client was more likely to drop out) (Gottschalk, Mayerson, & Gottlieb, 1967); clients from lower socioeconomic status (Cole, Branch, & Allison, 1962;Gibby, Stotsky, Hiler, & Miller, 1954;Rubinstein & Lorr, 1956;Yamamoto & Goin, 1965); clients who were institutionally referred (Straker, Devenloo, & Moll, 1967); clients who experienced a delay in being assigned to a counselor (Kamin & Caughlan, 1963;Mayer, 1972); and clients who may have a difficult time paying for such services (Patterson, 1980). The logical question now seems to be, "How can these types of clients be identified so that appropriate, selective, or counseling procedures can be effectively introduced?"…”