Research on client perceptions and expectations: Client Perceptions of Counselors' Nonverbal Behavior: A Reevaluation

Abstract

The purpose of this audiovisual counseling study was to determine if variations in counselor nonverbal behavior result in enhanced or debilitated perceptions of counselor expertness, attractiveness, trustworthiness, and helpfulness. Three groups of participants rated the perceived expertness, attractiveness, trustworthiness, and helpfulness of a counselor emitting nonverbal behavior at a high, moderate, or low frequency. In addition, a fourth group rated the perceived expertness, attractiveness, trustworthiness, and helpfulness of the counselor role. Results indicate that: (a) low frequency counselor nonverbal behavior results in debilitated perceptions of counselors; (b) the counselor role is perceived as moderately expert, attractive, trustworthy, and helpful; and (c) compared with the counselor role, high frequency counselor nonverbal behavior does not enhance the perceived expertness, attractiveness, trustworthiness, and helpfulness of counselors. Implications for counseling practice, theory, and research are discussed.

Social influence research in counseling: A review and critique.

“…The bulk of the research on perceived expertness examined counselor verbal and nonverbal behaviors. A prevalent finding, also consistent with earlier reviews, was that frequent, consistent, and responsive nonverbal behaviors (e.g., touch, smiling, head nods, forward body lean, or gestures) produced positive perceptions of counselor expertness (Barak, Patkin, & Dell, 1982; Hackman & Claiborn, 1982; Hubble, Noble, & Robinson, 1981; Roll, Crowley, & Rappl, 1985; Seigel, 1980; Strohmer & Biggs, 1983; Tyson & Wall, 1983). One study, however, found that counselor nonverbal behaviors had no effect on perceived expertness (Curran & Loganbill, 1983).…”

“…Tracey et al recommended that future researchers interpret results by examining the specific first-order factors (expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness) as well as the more global general satisfaction factor. In addition, as data from both analogue and field studies suggest, clients may be responding more to the counselor role than to the particular person of the counselor in the initial phase of counseling (Heppner & Heesacker, 1982; Roll et al, 1985).…”

“…On the basis of our review of the existing literature, we offer the following recommendations for continued research on influence processes in counseling: With respect to the first stage of influence, we recommend that investigators clarify the relative contribution of legitimate power versus expert and referent power on client perceptions of the therapist (Strong & Matross, 1973). There is considerable evidence that counselors are rated as quite expert, attractive, and trustworthy on the basis of a minimal amount of stimulus material (e.g., Atkinson et al, 1981; Heppner & Heesacker, 1982; McKitrick, 1981; Roll et al, 1985; Roll & Roll, 1984; Zamostny et al, 1981). This seems to support legitimate power explanations, as Corrigan et al (1980) suggested in their earlier review.…”

“…Likewise, Sue and Zane (1987) labeled the position or role that one is assigned by others as ascribed status or credibility. If initial impressions of counselors are strongly related to legitimate power, perhaps a counselor is assumed expert and trustworthy until proven otherwise (see Roll et al, 1985). But how long does legitimate power last?…”

Counselor's reputation: An important precounseling variable for adolescents.

“…Research stimulated by Strong’s (1968) conceptualization of counseling as a social influence process has shown that both reputational and behavioral cues (i.e., counselor’s verbal and nonverbal behavior) influence clients’ perceptions of the counselor’s credibility (e.g., Atkinson & Carskadden, 1975; Claiborn & Schmidt, 1977; Scheid, 1976) and interpersonal attractiveness (e.g., Goldstein, 1971). Reviewers have concluded, however, that reputational cues are not as potent as behavioral cues (Corrigan et al, 1980; Roll, Crowley, & Rappl, 1985). Their conclusions are valid for situations in which a counseling session has already occurred.…”