University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Effects of test interpretation style and need for cognition on elaboration, favorability, and recall

(USC Thesis Other)

Effects of test interpretation style and need for cognition on elaboration, favorability, and recall

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EFFECTS OF TEST INTERPRETATION STYLE AND NEED FOR COGNITION
ON ELABORATION, FAVORABILITY, AND RECALL
by
Russell Duncan Allison
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUAE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Education ~ Counseling Psychology
August 1999
© 1999 Russell Duncan Allison
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UM I Number 3017982
___ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 3017982
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Mi 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
i
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertation, written by
Russell. _ D . ■ Allison
under the direction of ...... Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Dean of Graduate Studies
Date
February 23, 2000
•ISSER7ATION COMMITTEE
O uaryenm
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Tables
Table of Contents
iii
List of Figures
iv
Abstract
V
Chapter One: Conceptual and Empirical Foundations
1
Chapter Two: Methods
22
Chapter Three: Results
36
Chapter Four: Discussion
42
Bibliography
53
Appendices
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
List of Tables
1. Counselor Characteristics 36
2. Overall Means and Standard Deviations for Primary Variables 37
3. Intercorrelations for Primary Variables 38
4. Means and Standard Deviations of Immediate Elaboration and Immediate 38
Favorability by Interpretation Style and Need for Cognition
5. Means and Standard Deviations of Follow-up Elaboration and Follow-up 40
Favorability by Interpretation Style and Need for Cognition
6. Means and Standard Deviations of Recall by Interpretation Style and 40
Need for Cognition
7. Characteristics of Studies Examining the Effects of Test Interpretation 47
Style on Elaboration and Favorability
8. Means and Standard Deviations of Studies Examining the Effects of Test 48
Interpretation Style on Elaboration and Favorability
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
List of Figures
1. The Elaboration Likelihood Model at a Campaign Speech: Examples 1 1
2. Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion in Counseling 13
3. Interaction of Interpretation Style and Need for Cognition on Recall 41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of test interpretation style and individual need
for cognition on cognitive response and recall. Undergraduate students (N = 59) in a
large, private western university, took the Personality Research Form-E (PRF-E), then
attended a one-session interpretation interview with a counselor. Results were interpreted
in either an interactive or delivered style. In the former, clients were encouraged to
participate actively in the interpretation; in the latter, the counselor presented the results
and implications with minimal client participation. During the interview each participant
thought-listed twice during the session, and thought-listed again at a 6-week follow up
where they also were asked to recall their test scores from the PRF-E. Participants
receiving delivered interpretations listed more relevant and favorable thoughts during the
session than did participants receiving interactive interpretations. Participants did not
differ in thought-listing based on high or low individual need for cognition, nor did
interpretation style or need for cognition predict amount of thought-listing at the 6-week
follow up. An interactive effect was found for recall scores, with low need for cognition
individuals who received delivered interpretations reporting best recall, and low need for
cognition individuals who received interactive interpretations reporting worst recall.
Implications for test interpretation theory, research, and practice are discussed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I
Chapter One
Conceptual and Empirical Foundations
The history of psychological testing begins almost with the discipline of
psychology itself. It was a focus of pioneers such as Francis Galton, Emil Kraepelin, and
Alfred Binet at the end of the 19th century (Matarazzo, 1992), and remains a primary
function of applied psychologists, regardless of specialty (Goodyear & Lichtenberg,
1999).
Watkins, Campbell, and McGregor (1988) found that 68% of counseling
psychologist practitioners described testing as an important activity in their routine
psychological work. Tests are most commonly used for assessment, diagnosis, and
treatment planning, and are also used in specific decision-making in matters such as
competency to stand trial, career choice, hiring, occupational classification, and child
custody. Each of these functions requires that test results be interpreted by someone
(Goodyear & Lichtenberg, 1999).
Goodyear and Lichtenberg (1999) offer a three part definition of test
interpretation, stating that it consists of these components:
(1) the psychologist synthesizes/makes sense of test data;
(2) test data and their implications are presented to the client; and
(3) the client makes meaning of and finds implications in the test data.
Steps 1 and Step 3 are activities of the psychologists and client as individuals; it is their
interaction in Step 2 that is the focus of the actual process of test interpretation as an
intervention. This conception of test interpretation as a process of presenting data, their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
meanings, and their implications to clients is the most commonly used definition of test
interpretation, and was the focus of this research.
A pioneer in research on communicating test data to clients, Goldman (1971)
suggested four types of test interpretations:
• Descriptive: This takes place in the present and attempts to do no more than describe
particular attributes of the person: What kind of person is this client? What is his or
her aptitude for logical thinking? What seem to be areas of career aptitude? What are
some of his or her ways of behaving in relationships?
• Genetic: This leaves the present and goes backward into the past to look for
explanations of current behaviors: How did this person come to be this way? What
relationship patterns in his or her family-of-origin seem to influence current
functioning? What life experiences might help explain some of this client’s observed
behavior?
• Predictive: This leaves the present and goes forward into the future to anticipate how
the person is likely to behave: How well will this person do in graduate school? How
likely is this convicted child molester to be a recidivist? What is the probability that
this couple will have a satisfying marital relationship?
• Evaluative: This adds a value judgment: What action should the court take with
respect to this person’s request for parole? To which graduate school should this
person apply?
In general, the further a psychologist travels down this list of interpretation types, the
further he or she moves from the actual test data. For this reason, Goldman suggested
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
that descriptive interpretations are probably the most appropriate type of interpretation to
use in most counseling situations.
One primary reason that psychologists communicate test results to clients is that
they are ethically mandated to do so (American Psychological Association, 1992). That
is, testing is an intrusive procedure that can have real consequences to people and they
have right of access to information about test results. Further, the provision of test data to
clients anecdotally has been considered to have therapeutic benefits as well. Specifically,
test feedback can be used: (a) to help the client monitor treatment progress (Duckworth,
1990); (b) to increase client self-knowledge so that they can make better career and life
choices (Campbell, 1990); and (c) to stimulate changes in the way clients think, feel, and
behave (Tinsley & Bradley, 1986).
Unlike the ample and often controversial literature on testing and diagnosis, the
therapeutic utility of test interpretations is a clinical assumption that remains largely
unvalidated. In one of the first critical reviews of this literature, Goodyear (1990)
examined four decades of research (44 individual studies) on test interpretation, coming
to four primary conclusions regarding: (a) the usefulness of test interpretation; (b)
outcomes; (c) intervention modalities; and (d) needs for future test interpretation
research.
Goodyear’s primary conclusion was that test interpretation as an intervention had
its intended effects. Importantly, though, the vast majority of the studies he found
examined career counseling interventions with either high school or college students.
Virtually none were concerned with personal counseling (psychotherapy) or with couples
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
or family counseling, even though test interpretations are often employed in both these
areas.
In terms of outcomes, Goodyear found that the measure used most often in the
studies he surveyed was a client’s ability to recall his or her test scores at some point after
receiving test data. This criterion seems to have followed logically from counselors’ goal
of enhancing clients’ self-knowledge as a foundational means to improving functioning.
In his review, Goodyear echoed Berdie’s (19S4) early criticisms of this outcome measure,
in that there is a meaningful difference between learning test results and accepting them.
Although it provides evidence for cognitive impact of test results (i.e. learning), it is
limited in that it gives no indicator of client acceptance 01 use of the feedback. Even for
those studies that did not use recall as the primary outcome measure, most still focused
on career oriented measures such as vocational identity which would have less
applicability to non-career counseling test interpretations.
Test interpretation can be delivered in different formats or modalities. Goodyear
found little evidence suppoiting the effectiveness of one modality over another. The
aggregate studies did, however, suggest that clients preferred individual (as opposed to
group) test interpretations and that they rated individual interpretations as more satisfying
and helpful. Most psychologists apparently share this preference and therefore use
individual interpretations rather than group interpretations, except where cost is
particularly salient (e.g. Groth-Marnat, 1997; Keith-Spiegel & Koocher, 1985; Meyer &
Deitsch, 1996).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
Goodyear closed his review by reiterating a need for expanding the types of
outcome variables used in test interpretation. He also identified dependent and process
variables that merited research attention. One such area was that of test interpretations in
individual therapy, where a counselor communicates test results as part of a broader
therapeutic context (versus in career counseling). Another was the area of counselor
attributes: very few studies have considered how differential characteristics of counselors
might affect interpretation outcomes.
Two essential steps in gaining a clearer understanding of the potential beneficial
results of test interpretation have been (a) to identify variables (particularly outcome
variables) that are most relevant in examining the effectiveness of test interpretation; and
(b) to develop and test theoretical models that utilize those variables. Through exploring
the processes underlying test interpretations, greater clinical utility can be gained in the
use of tests in general.
Goodyear, Allison, Cortese, and Guzzard (1999) developed a general
classification scheme by which to conceptualize test interpretation variables. With
respect to predictor or independent variables, they suggested three primary types of
variables: (I) client variables (e.g., ethnicity and gender; personal relevance of results;
personality traits); (2) counselor variables (e.g., ethnicity and gender; level of expertise);
and (3) testing variables (e.g., group versus individual; projective versus objective;
physical setting of test).
In experimental or quasi-experimental research, it is these variables that can be
controlled to examine the processes and effects of test interpretations. This
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
conceptualization of three types of independent variables also acts as a foundation in
beginning to explore client/treatment interactions. Cronbach and Snow (1977) have
discussed this type of research as aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) research, in which
(in this case) specific types of clients may work best with specific types of counselors in
specific types of test interpretation situations.
Goodyear et al. (1999) also identified criterion or dependent variables, which
include (1) process variables (e.g. the working alliance; perceived counselor credibility);
and (2) outcome variables (e.g. career decisions; changes in self-esteem; satisfaction with
results). Through observing the effects of predictor variables on criterion variables,
evaluative judgments can begin regarding the use and usefulness of test interpretations.
Therapeutic Assessment
One of the most promising areas of recent research has centered around so-called
“therapeutic assessment.” Although there are clear antecedents in the work of earlier
psychologists, Stephen Finn is the person who recently has advanced that agenda.
Therapeutic assessment represents a test interpretation style in which the client is
involved as an active participant in the interpretation process. As Finn and Tonsager
(1997) state, the primary goal of therapeutic assessment is to produce meaningful
changes in clients. It supports the general goals of psychotherapy in its aim to help
people “confirm, challenge, and change how they act, think, and feel about themselves”
in problems of life (Finn & Tonsager, 1997).
Several researchers have offered anecdotal evidence for the effectiveness of a
more involving style based on clinical application. In several publications, for example,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
Fischer (1970,1985,1994) observed that positive client outcomes occur not only in
relation to the test feedback, but also by means of the client having been involved in the
assessment process from the outset. She concluded that what she termed a
“collaborative” style offered the most potential therapeutic benefit for clients. Finn
(1996), in fact, has acknowledged Fischer’s collaborative style as a precursor to his
therapeutic assessment. Both emphasize the primary impact of involving the client in the
test interpretation process.
In their work in communicating psychological test results with clients, Finn and
Butcher (1991) reported several client benefits following test feedback sessions,
including: (a) reduced feelings of isolation; (b) decreased symptomatology; (c) increased
self-esteem; (d) increased hopefulness; (e) increased self understanding and awareness;
and (f) increased motivation to participate in psychotherapy. Finn and Butcher posited
therapeutic benefits of test interpretation beyond the benefits gained found in any
therapeutic relationship.
Finn and Tonsager (1997) posited that the change mechanisms for these benefits
may include self-verification (confirmation of the accuracy with which clients view
themselves and the world), self-enhancement (resulting from validation of worth and
positive reframing of clients’ negative self-perceptions), and self-efficacy/self-discovery
(resulting from new understandings of clients’ difficulties). Through self-verification,
self-enhancement, and self-discovery, clients experience test feedback as therapeutic and
worthwhile.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
Several researchers have endorsed a collaborative and client-involving approach
to test interpretation (Berg, 1985; Duckworth & Anderson, 1986,1995; Finn, 1996;
Graham, 1993; Lewak, Marks, & Nelson, 1990). However, only recently has this
concept begun to be explored empirically. In Finn and Tonsager’s (1992) study,
university counseling center clients (who were recruited from a wait-list) who received
test feedback on the MMPI-2 were contrasted against a control group who received only
examiner attention. Compared with the controls, clients who completed the MMPl-2 and
heard their test results reported a decline in symptomatic distress, an increase in self
esteem, and felt more hopeful about their problems. Clients’ subjective impressions of
the feedback session were overwhelmingly positive.
One weakness of the Firm and Tonsager (1992) study was that the control group
did not in fact take the MMPI-2, raising concerns that the act of taking a personality test
may account for some of the benefits attributed to test feedback. Newman and Greenway
(1997) addressed this concern by performing a near replication of the earlier study. They
compared college counseling center clients receiving test feedback on the MMPI-2 versus
a control group who also took the MMPI-2, but did not receive feedback until later.
Compared with the control group, those who received test feedback reported a decrease
in symptomatic distress and an increase in self-esteem, replicating Finn and Tonsager’s
findings.
Factors Influencing Client Change in Test Interpretation
Although the previous two studies’ provide evidence for the therapeutic
effectiveness of collaborative test interpretations (as opposed to no feedback at all), little
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
is known about the processes by which these beneficial outcomes were gained. Further,
given the ethical mandate for test feedback outlined earlier, it is necessary to contrast
collaborative or client-involving interpretations against some other sort of test
interpretation, such as the traditional “test-and-tell” approach where the client has little or
no involvement in the interpretation. Lastly, in primarily focusing on empirically testing
client benefit, both studies were relatively limited in terms of the variables explored.
Although they used innovative outcome variables as opposed to previous research (i.e.
distress and self-esteem as opposed to recall of scores), no specific attention was paid to
client or counselor characteristics.
Social Psychological Influence Processes. In attempting to go beyond the “does it
work” questions of test interpretation’s effectiveness, researchers now are beginning to
propose theoretical models to explore and understand possible explanations for change
mechanisms. One model was suggested by Claibom and Hanson (1999), who employed
the social influence model to conceptualize test interpretation processes and outcomes.
Originally adapted from social psychological literature concerning attitude change
(Strong, 1968), this perspective depicts counseling and test interpretations as specific
forms of persuasion and influence (cf., Frank & Frank, 1991). From this perspective,
counseling is successful when a counselor is able to exert sufficient influence that the
client responds with positive and relevant change. In short, success and outcome in
counseling can be considered a direct function of success in delivery of an influential
message or messages (Strong & Matross, 1973).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
Variables that affect this communication of influence and message can be
categorized into three broad areas: (I) source characteristics such as the counselor or test,
(2) message characteristics involving the content of messages from a counselor or test to
a client; and, (3) recipient characteristics involving the client (Claibom & Hanson, 1999).
This conception of variables is congruent with that of Goodyear et al. (1999) discussed
earlier. To further clarify, examples of how these variables fit into these categories
include: the attractiveness and expertness of a counselor (source); personally relevant or
irrelevant test data (message); and type of presenting problem (recipient).
Adherents of the social influence model therefore view test interpretation as a
series of opportunities for the counselor to influence the client. The counselor not only
influences the client directly to take a test by providing an explanation and need for the
test’s usefulness, but also more indirectly influences the client’s beliefs about the test’s
validity and relevance to a referral question. Most importantly, the counselor persuades
the client that a test and the information it provides is useful and meaningful for life
change (Hanson, Claibom, & Kerr, 1997).
One way to explore how these influences relate to client attitude and behavior
change is through the use of Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) Elaboration Likelihood Model
(ELM). Originally developed as a theoretical model for persuasion processes in social
psychology research on attitudes, the ELM has been applied successfully to counseling
psychology interventions (e.g. Cacioppo, Petty, & Stoltenberg, 1985; Petty, Cacioppo, &
Heesacker, 1984) and has been identified as a model that unifies otherwise conflicting
results in studies of attitude change in counseling (McNeill & Stoltenberg, 1989).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
The ELM describes different approaches to information processing that lead to
attitude change, and is generally applicable to situations in which one or more persons
seeks attitude change in one or more other persons. A core feature of ELM that is
relevant to test interpretation is the notion of central versus peripheral routes of
processing. The central route involves the effortful cognitive elaboration of information,
whereas the peripheral route relies on environmental cues or simple rules. The
effectiveness of both routes is further modified by a recipient’s motivation (i.e. personal
relevance of message); and ability (i.e. intellectual ability; presence or lack of
environmental distractors) to process messages, with influence and attitude change more
likely to occur at higher levels. Please see Figure 1 for a simple illustration of the ELM
and source, message, and recipient characteristics as applied to campaign speeches before
a school election.
Figure 1. The Elaboration Likelihood Model at a Campaign Speech: Examples
Source Message Recipient
(Candidate) (Speech) (Audience)
Central Route r~ \ ^
* message content (i.e. “I am Recipient Motivation
the best candidate for the \_ ) * relevance of message
Q following reasons...”) Q Q (i.e. “Student government
O doesn’t affect me”)
Peripheral Route ^
* attractiveness of speaker w — . v-> Recipient Ability
* posters supporting candidate * environmental distractors
* group membership of candidate (i.e. unable to hear message
clearly because of nearby
chatting students)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2
The central and peripheral routes also interact with each other. The peripheral
route has its strongest effects when there is less central route processing taking place, as
is the case when the message is less relevant to the person being persuaded or when there
are environmental distractions. When central route processing is strongest, as with
personally relevant messages to highly motivated recipients, peripheral cues have little
effect. Further, it is important to note that the central and peripheral routes represent
positions on a continuous dimension ranging from high to low likelihood of message
relevant thinking rather than two mutually exclusive types of message processing
(Cacioppo, Petty, & Stoltenberg, 1985).
According to Petty and Cacioppo (1986), the degree to which influence messages
go through the central route (i.e., are thoughtfully processed, or elaborated) is positively
associated with influence outcomes (i.e., resulting attitude changes are found to be more
durable, more resistant to counterinfluence, and more likely to be reflected in recipient
behavior). In other words, the stronger the cognitive response a person has to a message
(e.g., the more he or she elaborates on information), the more likely that person will
exhibit lasting influence from that message.
In short, the basic tenet of the ELM as applied to counseling is that under certain
circumstances attitudes will be formed and changed depending primarily on the manner
with which a person understands, evaluates and integrates the issue-relevant information
presented (i.e. central route), as “elaboration likelihood” is said to be high. At other
times, however, attitudes will be formed and changed with little cognitive work and
based more on other peripheral cues in the persuasion setting, typifying the processes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 3
involved when elaboration likelihood is low (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). To help illustrate
how the ELM is applied to test interpretation, Figure 2 is included.
Figure 2. Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion in Counseling
INTERPRETATION:
Interpretation style
- >
MOTIVATED TO PROCESS:
Personal relevance, need for
cognition, affective level, etc
Yes
ABILITY TO PROCESS?:
Cognitive ability, external cues
1 V-
PERIPHERAL ATTITUDE
SHIFT: Attitude change in
counseling is temporary,
suscentible. and unnredictable of
Yes
Vo
PERIPHERAL CUE PRESENT?:
Expert, attractive, trustworthy
counselors, simple number of
armaments, etc.
Vo
I
No
RETAIN OR
REGAIN
INITIAL
ATTTTUDE
NATURE OF COGNITIVE PROCESSING:
(Initial stance, argument quality; etc.).
Favorable
Thoughts
Neutral
Thoughts
Unfavorable
Thoughts
COGNITIVE STRUCTURE CHANGE:
Are new' structures and coanitions
I Yes T
X (Favorable) ^
No
(Unfavorable)
Central
Positive
Attitude
Chanee
Central
Negative
Attitude
Chanee
Attitude change in counseling is
enduring and predictive of behavior.
Source: McNeill & Stoltenberg (1989)
In counseling and test interpretation, the message is information that is presumed
to be useful for client self-knowledge and change (Goodyear & Lichtenberg, 1999).
Therefore, one way to consider possible beneficial impacts of test interpretation is in
terms of the amount of cognitive processing and elaboration that it invokes within the
client. In particular, greater amounts of message-relevant and message-favorable
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 4
thinking would be posited to result in better outcomes, as elaboration likelihood would be
considered higher.
Test Interpretation Style. One variable that may affect this amount of cognitive
processing is the style by which the test interpretation is delivered. Test interpretation
style, especially the extent to which a counselor actively involves a client in the
interpretation of test results, historically (Dressel & Matteson, 1950; Folds & Gazda,
1966; Rogers, 1954) and more recently (Finn & Tonsager, 1992; Hanson & Claibom,
1996; Hanson, Claibom, & Kerr, 1997; Newman & Greenway, 1997) has been associated
with meaningful counseling outcomes. Across these studies, test interpretation styles
have been broadly classified as being delivered, where the emphasis is on presenting test
data to the client in a generally business-like fashion as in the “test-and-tell” method; and
interactive, where the emphasis is on presenting data in a more collaborative manner that
seeks involvement and “meaning making” from the client. In studies that have compared
these styles, it appears that an interactive style (roughly analogous to “therapeutic
assessment” as discussed earlier) may offer more utility to both counselors and clients in
that the client’s increased involvement in interpretation brings added opportunities for
therapeutic effectiveness.
In general, ELM proponents would agree in predicting that interactive test
interpretations would be more helpful, for clients’ increased interaction with the test data
would provide for the opportunity and motivation for a greater amount of engagement
with the therapeutic message(s). This would in turn provide for a greater likelihood of
real attitude change, as the client will have engaged in more central route processing of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 5
the messages communicated in therapy (i.e., that change is possible; that insight into a
problem can be useful for change).
Two recent studies tested this hypothesis. Hanson et al. (1997) compared the
effects of delivered versus interactive test interpretation on clients’ cognitive responses,
as well as their perceptions of the session and of the counselor. Clients in this case were
academically gifted college students. Despite demonstration of the interactive style as
being more effective in terms of client’s perception of the counselor and the usefulness of
the session (supporting test interpretation as a valid therapeutic intervention), cognitive
processing effects were not significant. Hanson and Claibom (unpublished manuscript)
recently replicated their earlier study, using more “typical” (versus gifted) college
students and obtained results opposite of their prediction. That is, delivered test
interpretations, involving little client involvement, elicited significantly more client
elaborations about test results than did interactive interpretations, involving considerably
more client participation.
The ELM would predict that one of the strongest effects of using the central route
would be the durability of influence. It is important, therefore, to note that these studies
measured only immediate elaboration. In other words, the differential effects of test
interpretation style on cognitive response may be best observed when feedback is less
proximal in time. Another possible explanation for the conflicting results obtained in
those two studies was that each used a different population of college students (the first
study consisted of honors students seeking career counseling; the second consisted of
students at a medium-range of academic aptitude who were seeking general
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 6
psychological counseling). Therefore, levels of motivation and ability to process
interpretation messages may have varied systematically. Still another possible
explanation is that persons differ in specific personality characteristics that would
theoretically influence test interpretation outcomes.
Need for Cognition. A potentially fruitful explanation for this apparent
contradiction to the Elaboration Likelihood perspective (i.e., that interactive
interpretations did not consistently elicit more elaboration and favorability than delivered
ones) involves individual difference in the recipient’s relative desire for the type of
message that is being communicated. Through ELM studies directed at counseling in
general, it has been proposed that individuals differ dispositionally in their tendency to
engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive endeavors (Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis,
1996). This disposition has been termed the need for cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982;
Cohen, 1957).
Individual differences in the need for cognition have been the focus of
investigation in over 100 empirical studies in fields ranging from social psychology to
marketing and law (Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis, 1996). This line of research has
provided evidence that “individuals high in need for cognition naturally tend to seek,
acquire, think about, and reflect back on information to make sense of stimuli,
relationships, and events in their world; individuals low in need for cognition, in contrast,
are more likely to rely on others (e.g. experts), cognitive heuristics, or social comparison
processes to provide this structure” (Cacioppo, et al., 1996, p. 243).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 7
Specifically, it appears that a person’s need for cognition influences the relative
effectiveness of different types of persuasive arguments. For example, high need for
cognition individuals are more attentive to the quality of attitude-relevant information in
persuasive communications than are low need for cognition individuals (Cacioppo, Petty,
Kao, & Rodriguez, 1986; Cacioppo, Petty, & Morris, 1983). Persons with low need for
cognition are conversely much more likely to be influenced by peripheral cues, such as
physical attractiveness (Cacioppo & Petty, 1984), reactions of peers (Axsom, Yates, &
Chaiken, 1987), and the sheer number of arguments contained in a message (Chaiken,
1987). Further, high need for cognition individuals respond better to arguments that are
“active” in that they appeal to the central route of persuasion, while low need for
cognition individuals show less of a preference, with attitude change often occurring even
with “passive” persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
In that test interpretation is a form of persuasive communication, a person’s
relative need for cognition influences his or her likelihood to “agree” with or make use of
test data. In particular, the method or style in which test data is presented (and the
channel by which it is processed) is more or less persuasive depending on that person’s
individual need for cognition. An interactive style would be expected to be preferable to
high need for cognition clients, as it would allow and encourage central route processing,
while a delivered style would be frustrating for these same clients. For low need for
cognition clients, a delivered style would likely to be sufficient, as these individuals
would be more comfortable “taking in” information and messages without effortful
cognition.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
The present study attempted to reconcile previous conflicting results and further
apply the ELM to test interpretation by replicating and expanding upon Hanson et al.’s
(1997) basic design. The present study attempts to address previous limitations in this
thread of research by: (a) introducing the individual difference (or recipient) variable of
need for cognition into research design on test interpretation style; (b) expanding
measurement of elaboration beyond immediately after a test interpretation session; and
(c) including a measure of participant recall of test results after a time delay as a
secondary measure of influence effectiveness. As stated before, where Hanson et al.
(1997) found that gifted students seeking counseling responded best to an interactive
style, the subsequent study with students of more average ability (also seeking
counseling) found a different pattern. Therefore, to further extend this line of inquiry, the
present study focuses on participants that are lower-achieving, and who are not
specifically seeking counseling.
Previous studies on test interpretation style’s affect on client cognitive processing
have been limited by: (a) relatively small sample size, limited to mainstream or honors
college students; (b) focus on participants experiencing clinical distress; and (c) only
immediate measurement of elaboration and recall.
Research Hypotheses
The purpose of this study was to investigate how test interpretation style and
participants’ need for cognition affect participants’ cognitive processing of personality
test feedback. It addresses previous deficiencies in research by including a means to
measure individual difference in need for cognition in examining test interpretations with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 9
non-mainstream college students who are not overtly seeking clinical help. Also, follow-
up measures of both cognitive processing and recall were used after a 6-week interval.
The nine hypotheses were clustered into three areas, as follows:
Interpretation Stvle and Need for Cognition on Immediate Cognitive Response.
Style of test interpretation (delivered vs. interactive) and need for cognition (high vs.
low) would have significant effects on the immediate cognitive response of test
interpretation subjects:
Hypothesis 1 : Interactive interpretations will elicit greater relevant and positive
thoughts in session than delivered interpretations, regardless of individual need for
cognition.
Hypothesis 2: High need for cognition individuals will report more immediate
relevant and positive thoughts than low need for cognition individuals, regardless of style
of test interpretation.
Hypothesis 3: Test interpretation style and need for cognition will interact, with
highest numbers of relevant and positive thoughts observed in high need for cognition
individuals receiving interactive interpretations and low need for cognition individuals
receiving delivered interpretations.
Interpretation Stvle and Need for Cognition on Follow-up Cognitive Response.
Style of test interpretation (delivered vs. interactive) and need for cognition (high vs.
low) would have significant effects on the cognitive response of test interpretation
subjects at a 6 week follow-up:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
Hypothesis 4: Interactive interpretations are hypothesized to elicit greater
relevant and positive thoughts at 6 week follow-up than delivered interpretations,
regardless of individual need for cognition.
Hypothesis 5: High need for cognition individuals will report more relevant and
positive thoughts than low need for cognition individuals at 6 week follow-up, regardless
of style of test interpretation.
Hypothesis 6: Test interpretation style and need for cognition will interact, with
highest numbers of relevant and positive thoughts (at 6 week follow-up) observed in high
need for cognition individuals receiving interactive interpretations and low need for
cognition individuals receiving delivered interpretations.
Interpretation Style and Need for Cognition on Recall of Test Scores. Style of
test interpretation (delivered vs. interactive) and need for cognition (high vs. low) would
have significant effects on the recall of test interpretation scores by participants at a 6
week follow-up:
Hypothesis 7: Interactive interpretations will lead to greater test data recall at 6
week follow-up than delivered ones, regardless of individual need for cognition.
Hypothesis 8: High need for cognition individuals will have better recall than low
need for cognition individuals at 6 week follow-up, regardless of style of test
interpretation.
Hypothesis 9: Test interpretation style and need for cognition will interact, with
best recall at the 6 week follow-up observed in high need for cognition individuals
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
receiving interactive interpretations and low need for cognition individuals receiving
delivered interpretations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
Chapter Two
Methods
This chapter describes the methods of the study. Participants (test interpretation
recipients, counselors, and raters), instrumentation, and procedure are each described.
Participants
Participants were 59 (22 men; 37 women) undergraduate students from a large
private southwestern university. Students were part of a mandated academic program
designed to offer university access to artistically, musically, and athletically talented
students who have a history of marginal academic performance. Mean age was 18.45 (SD
=1.52), with a range of 17 to 26. Approximately 40% were White, 24% Latino, 15%
Asian-American, 15% African-American, and 6% Other.
Counselors. Sixteen graduate students who were pursuing either a masters degree
in counseling (N = 8) or a Ph.D. in counseling psychology (N = 8) were recruited and
trained as counselors in this study. One counselor did not participate in the study due to
familiarity with the participant sample, while another did not participate due to
scheduling conflicts. The mean age of the remaining 14 counselors (11 females, 3 males),
was 28.21 (SD = 4.17); 58% were Caucasian and 42% were Asian-American. Each had
completed at least one course in the use of tests in counseling as well as at least one
semester of counseling practicum. All counselors were blind to the research questions
driving this study.
Raters. Four sets of raters were used for the tasks in this study. Raters for the
first task were three graduate students (two masters-level MFCC students; one doctoral
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
counseling psychology student), none of whom served as counselors in the study. All
were female with a mean age of 25 (SD = 1.73; Range 23 to 26). One was Caucasian and
two were Asian-American. The raters listened as a group to 10-minute segments
(beginning BLANK minutes into the session) of audiotaped recordings from all test
interpretation sessions. The raters evaluated interpretation sessions using the Counselor
Rating From - Short Form (CRF-S) and other measures unrelated to the current study.
The average between-rater correlation for the CRF-S was .67 for the Attractiveness
subscale, .74 for the Expertness subscale, and .71 for the Trustworthy subscale. These
ratings were used for the sole purpose of controlling for individual counselor effects.
For the next rating task, one female and one male rater were trained by a research
team member to recognize both the Delivered and the Interactive test interpretation
styles. Both raters were Caucasian, mean age was 28.5 (SD=.71; Range=28 to 29), and
both raters were advanced doctoral students in counseling psychology. The raters
independently rated videotaped segments of “mock” test interpretation sessions generated
by each of the counselors to determine criterion level performance with the test
interpretation protocols. The raters classified the interpretation session as being either of
the Delivered or the Interactive style. Order effects were controlled by varying the order
in which each interpretation styles appeared in the videotape. Inter-rater agreement was
complete, with a Cohen’s (1960) kappa of 1.00.
Another set of two raters (one 27-year old male; one 28-year old female) were
recruited to act as judges of relevance of thought-listed responses. Both raters were
Caucasian and were 3rd year graduate students in clinical psychology. Using criteria set
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
forth by Cacioppo and Petty (1981), the raters were trained to judge participants7 thought
listed responses in terms of relevance (as described below). A Cohen’s (1960) kappa of
.83 was obtained on the total of 1561 responses, demonstrating independent inter-rater
agreement.
The fourth set of raters (two 25-year old females) were also recruited to act as
judges of thought-listed responses. Both raters were Caucasian and were 2nd year
graduate students in clinical psychology. Once again using criteria set forth by Cacioppo
and Petty, the raters were trained to judge participants’ thought listed responses in terms
of favorability (as described below). A kappa of .68 was obtained on the total of 1561
responses, demonstrating independent inter-rater agreement.
All raters used in this study were unfamiliar with the nature of the research and
were unaware of the experimental hypotheses.
Test Interpretation Styles
To allow comparability with previous studies, the test interpretation styles were
operationalized according to test interpretation protocols by Hanson, Claibom, and Kerr
(1997). The interpretation variable was the presentation to the client of either a Delivered
style interpretation, with little client involvement in the process, or an Interactive
interpretation, with considerable client involvement. The current study used functionally
identical protocols for the two styles of interpretation as developed by Hanson et al. (see
Appendix C).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
Measures
Measures used in this study were the Counselor Rating Form - Short Form (CRF-
S), Personality Research Form-E (PRF-E), the Need for Cognition Scale-Short form
(NCS-S), the thought-listing procedure, and a simple recall measure. (See Appendices A
and B for the CRF-S and NCS-S).
Counselor Rating Form - Short Form (CRF-S). The CRF-S is a 12-item scale,
which yields three subscale scores that correspond to participant perceptions of counselor
attractiveness, expertness, and trustworthiness. Corrigan and Schmidt (1983) developed it
by selecting four items from each scale of the original Counselor Rating From (CRF;
Barak & LaCrosse, 1975), based on the extent to which the item loaded on the
appropriate attribute in previous factor analyses and the comprehension level necessary
for understanding of the items. The items are in a 7-point, Likert style format, scaled
from not very to very, with higher scores representing higher levels of that particular
attribute. Established interitem reliabilities from each subscale range from .82 to .94
(Corrigan & Schmidt, 1983). Confirmatory factor analysis yielded both specific first
order factors (expertness, trustworthiness, attractiveness) and also general satisfaction
with the counselor (Tracey, Glidden, & Kokotoric, 1988). Internal consistency estimates
were .93, .92, .92 for expertness, trustworthiness, and attractiveness respectively.
Personality Research Form E (PRF-El. The PRF-E (Jackson, 1987) is designed to
measure various normal personality characteristics and traits. Based on Murray’s (1938)
need theory, the PRF Form E consists o f352 items, comprising 20 personality scales and
two validity scales. This form of the PRF was designed for general use with individuals
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
and groups and has become according to Jackson (1987) “the form of choice for a wide
variety of applications” (p. 35). Reliability for the PRF-E is excellent, with odd-even
reliabilities for the 20 content scales ranging from .50 to .91 (median: .70) for a college
student sample. Median test-retest reliability for all twenty-two scales of the PRF is .81
(specific test-retest reliability has not been published for Form E). The PRF is considered
one of the best tests of normal personality from a psychometric viewpoint, and has strong
evidence for its validity (Graham & Lilly, 1984, pp. 267-268).
Need for Cognition Scale-Short form fNCS-Sl. The NCS-S is an 18-item
measure designed to assess an individual’s tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful
cognitive endeavors. Participants respond to statements such as“I really enjoy a task that
involves coming up with new solutions to problems,” and “The idea of relying on thought
to make my way to the top appeals to me,” by using Likert-type scales ranging from 0
(very strong disagreement! to 9 (very strong agreement). The short form of the NCS-S
has been judged to be equivalent to the 34-item full NCS based on high correlations
between the tests (r = .95) and similar factor structures (Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984).
Both versions of the NCS have demonstrated more than adequate internal consistency
(Cronbach alphas typically > .85), split-half reliability (rs = .87 and .79), and test-retest
reliability (r = .88) (Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis, 1996). Alpha for the present
study was .89, with a normal distribution that is congruent with other samples of college
students (e.g. Haugtvedt & Petty, 1992; Kardash & Scholes, 1996; Thompson, Chaiken,
& Hazlewood, 1993). Higher scores represent greater tendencies to engage in and enjoy
effortful cognitive activity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
Thought-listing. As developed by Cacioppo and Petty (1981), the thought-listing
procedure assesses a person’s cognition, usually in response to a stimulus or message.
For this study, participants were asked to thought-list up to three different times: twice
during the actual test interpretation session, and once approximately six weeks later.
Specifically, for the first two measurements, participants were told by a person other than
their counselor before the session began:
Twice during the session your counselor will ask you to "thought-list.’ Each time
he or she asks you to do this, please take the thought-listing sheet out of the folder
next to your chair, and for three minutes, list all of the thoughts that are going
through your mind, regardless of what you are thinking. But list only one thought
in each box. Just so you know, your counselor will never see the thoughts that
you write down. Okay?
At the follow-up measurement, participants were told at the beginning of their regular
class meeting by the experimenter:
About six weeks ago, most of you participated in a test interpretation session with
a counselor about your PRF test results. I would like you to reflect back on that
session and consider what was discussed and what you thought about it. You may
remember twice doing ‘thought-listing’ during the session. I would like you to
thought-list once again right now. To remind you, I would like each of you to
take three minutes and list all of the thoughts that are going through your mind as
you reflect on that session, regardless of what you are thinking. But list only one
thought in each box. You can begin now.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
These instructions are modeled after those used in the studies by Hanson et al. (1997) and
Hanson and Claiborn (1998). The 3-minute time limit has been recommended by
Cacioppo and Petty (1981) as a way to increase the likelihood that written responses will
be only those elicited by a stimulus (in this case, the test interpretation session) and that
are most readily accessible. In this study, this exercise produced two sets (thoughts listed
at time of interpretation and thoughts listed at 6 week follow-up) of scores: (a) an
elaboration score representing the total number of thoughts listed relevant to the test
interpretation session, and (b) a favorabilitv score representing the number of relevant
thoughts favorable to the test interpretation session. These scores are produced through a
simple rating process developed by Hanson et al (1997) specific to test interpretation,
using two sets of independent raters not otherwise involved in this study.
Thoughts were considered relevant and were included in the elaboration score if
they concerned the PRF itself, the interpretation content, the interpretation process, or the
counselor. Thoughts were considered favorable if they expressed a positive attitude
towards the PRF, acceptance of interpretation data, or positive reactions to the counselor
or the process. Thoughts rated by independent judges have been demonstrated to
correlate highly with those rated by individuals who rate their own thought-list results
(Cacioppo & Petty, 1981). Further, these thought-listing procedures have been used in
other research on counseling and social influence (cf. Hanson et al., 1997; Heppner,
Rosenberg, & Hedgespeth, 1992), have demonstrated adequate split-half and test-retest
reliabilities, and can be considered to be valid measures of attitude (Cacioppo & Petty,
1981). As mentioned earlier, kappas of .83 and .68 was obtained for elaboration and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
favorability respectively, indicating that approximately 91% and 84% of all responses
received the same score from both raters independently.
Recall. Participants were asked to recall the information they were given in the
test interpretation sessions by means of listing their four highest PRF scores. Their
specific instruction was:
During your feedback session, you were told that you had scored highest on four
particular scales. If you can recall what those four scales were, please list them in
these blank. If you cannot remember the exact name of a scale, just list whatever
word seems closest.
Each written response was considered a valid “recall” if it was identical to the name of a
particular participant’s highest PRF scores, or was identical to one of 14-17 “defining
trait adjectives” matched to those high scale scores as provided in the PRF manual
(Jackson, 1989).
Procedure
Counselor training. Counselors participated in a four hour training session (split
into two 2-hour sessions) conducted by two advanced counseling psychology students
(one of whom is the researcher) prior to beginning the study. This training session was
modeled on that conducted by Hanson et al. (1997) and Hanson and Claibom (1996). In
the first two hour session, the counselors were trained on background, use, and
interpretation of the PRF (with use of excerpts from Jackson, 1989). Also during this
session, the counselors were taught the two test interpretation style protocols through
instruction, observation of supervisor demonstrations on how to conduct the protocols,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
and the viewing of videotapes of “mock” test interpretations. This first half of the
training was primarily didactic, with emphasis on answering the counselors’ questions
about the PRF and proper implementation of the protocols.
In the second half of training, each counselor role-played both protocols with
“mock” clients until competence was demonstrated in each. It was emphasized to the
counselors that the standard set by the protocols is necessary in order to control for
session content and counselor individual differences. To assist in adherence to the
protocols, counselors were trained to use cue sheets (that they also then used in providing
actual interpretations) outlining the differing formats (see Appendix C). Each counselor
was given a test interpretation “packet” which included: (a) the two protocols; (b) a
summary sheet of the PRF information to describe to the participants in the test
interpretation session; (c) excerpts from the PRF manual, as well as other interpretative
information (Graham & Lilly, 1984, pp. 262-268); (d) PRF “stock” interpretations that
list a number of behavioral examples for high scores for each scale. (See Appendix D).
After each counselor completed the four hours of training, he or she was later
videotaped while conducting a “mock” test interpretation session with the same role-
played client. A 10-minute segment of each interview was then recorded on videotape
and rated by two graduate students using the Counselor Rating Form-Short form (CRF-
S). As stated earlier, the CRF-S is a well-established 12-item measure of subject’s
perceptions of three social influence attributes of counselors: expertness, attractiveness,
and trustworthiness (Corrigan & Schmidt, 1983), and in aggregate, can be considered
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
valid measure of counselor influence (Epperson & Pecnik, 198S; Heppner & Claibom,
1989).
Conducting the intervention. Participants were recruited from an undergraduate
psychology of learning course designed specifically to help students (most of who were
on a form of academic probation) develop better study skills. As part of course
requirements, students participate in a number of diagnostic assessments, and give
informed consent to use these data as part of ongoing research projects. The
administration and interpretation of the personality test (PRF-E) and other measures used
in this study was included as part of that informed consent package.
Participants competed the PRF-E and NCS-S, and short measures unrelated to this
study in groups of approximately 20 during six laboratory periods occurring one day
apart. A few individual administrations occurred due to absences, tardiness, or time
limitations. These individual administrations were all completed in the same private
office. Upon completion of the test, each participant was offered the opportunity to make
an appointment for a test interpretation session before leaving the room. All appointments
were scheduled within 4 weeks of test administration. Of the 111 students who
completed the PRF-E, 59 chose to receive interpretation of test results.
Participants were randomly assigned to test interpretation conditions and to
counselors, constrained by each participant’s schedule and counselor availability. Each
counselor alternated between interpretation styles, with initial order assigned randomly to
control for order effects.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
Upon arriving for his or her appointment, each participant was greeted by one of
the experimenters and taken to an available private office. Participants were informed
that a graduate student in counseling psychology would arrive shortly to interpret their
test results. Next, the experimenter instructed each participant on how to perform the
thought-list procedure. Participants were then informed that, with their permission, the
session would be audiotaped as a part of a research project. The experimenter assured the
participants that the tapes would be listened to only as part of the research project, and
that both the tape and any identifying information found on the tape would be destroyed
at the end of the project (all participants in the present study consented to being
audiotaped). The experimenter then left the room, the counselor entered and introduced
himself or herself, thereby beginning the session. Each session lasted from 15 to 45
minutes.
Tests were interpreted according to either of the two distinct interpretation style
protocols. In all cases, focus was placed on both positive as well as potentially negative
interpretations of test data. Interpretations of both positive and negative favorability have
resulted in strong participant response, and are closer to realistic use of test results
(Hanson et al., 1997). In delivered interpretations, the counselor began the session by
asking the participant about his or her reactions to taking the test, with only markedly
negative reactions to be explored. The counselor continued by providing an overview of
the session, explained what the PRF-E was designed to measure, and commented on the
general reliability and validity of the test.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
The counselor then interpreted the four highest PRF-E scales that had a T score
above 60 (one standard deviation or more above the mean). In cases where there were
less than four scales above 60, the counselor interpreted the four highest scales overall,
using appropriate terminology recommended by Jackson (1989). In interpreting each
scale, the counselor then described the construct measured by the scale and provided four
behavioral examples (two positive and two potentially negative) of that construct. This
description and four examples were part of the training packet given to counselors.
For example, if the participant had an exhibition scale score of 65, the counselor
might say: ‘This scale measures the extent to which you are colorful and entertaining. In
other words, it measures how dramatic you are. You scored very high on this scale,
which suggests that you express yourself cleverly and amusingly, openly show feelings
and emotions, engage in ‘attention-getting’ behavior, and may brag about yourself and
your accomplishments.” This step was then be repeated with the second highest scale
score.
After interpreting the highest two scales, the counselor requested the participant to
thought-list for three minutes. During thought-listing, the counselor sat quietly and
looked away from the participant. The counselor would then interpret the next two
highest scales in the same way as above. After asking the participant to thought-list once
again, the counselor then ended the session by summarizing at least two themes (one
positive and one potentially negative) from the interpretation session (i.e. “With your
high scores on achievement, autonomy, and endurance, it appears that you feel
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
comfortable working hard on projects on your own”), answering questions, and clarifying
information already given.
For interactive sessions, the counselor involved the participant as much as
possible in the interpretation of PRF-E results. After opening the session in the same
way, the counselor began by asking the participant to identify the four highest PRF
scales. For each interpreted scale, the counselor described the construct measured in the
same way, using the same description as in the delivered style. However, the interpreter
then asked the participant to provide four behavioral examples (two positive and two
potentially negative) of that construct in his or her life. For example, if the participant
observed that he or she had an exhibition scale of 65, the interpreter might say: ‘This
scale measures the extent to which you are colorful and entertaining. In other words, it
measures how dramatic you are. You scored very high on this scale. What are some
things that might suggest about you?” The counselor would use prompts (e.g., examples
from other scales, and, as a last resort, examples from the scale itself) if the participant
found it difficult to arrive at examples on his or her own.
After having the participant identify and describe the two highest scales in this
way, the counselor asked him or her to thought-list for 3 minutes. The counselor then
repeated this process with the third and fourth highest scores, followed by thought-listing.
The interpretation ended with the counselor asking the participant to summarize at least
two themes from the session. The counselor then answered questions and clarified
information already given. After the end of both types of sessions, the participant was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
asked to respond to a short questionnaire about perceptions of the counselor that is
unrelated to this study.
At approximately six weeks after the test interpretation sessions had been
completed, the experimenter entered the participants’ class and asked them to reflect back
on the session. They were then asked to perform the thought-listing procedure as they
reflected back to their thoughts from the session, and were asked to try to recall the four
scales they scored highest on.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
Chapter Three
Results
This chapter presents the results of the data analyses, including statistical
procedures used to address the research questions and the statistical findings for each
hypothesis. Results of each procedure are explained and include relevant tables and
information.
Preliminary Analysis
Table 1 presents the age, sex, race/ethnicity, program, and types of interpretations
conducted by each counselor.
Table 1. Counselor Characteristics
» Ace Sex Ethnicitv Program Delivered Interactive High Low Total
NCS NCS
1 37 F Caucasian Ph.D. 3 3 3 3 6
2 23 F Caucasian MFCC 1 2 0 3 3
3 27 F Caucasian MFCC 0 1
* *
t
4 25 F Asian American MFCC 5 6 5 6 1 1
5 27 M Asian American Ph.D. 2 2 2 2 4
6 34 M Caucasian Ph.D. I 1 1 1 2
7 29 F Asian American Ph.D. 1 2 3 0 3
8 33 F Asian American Ph.D. 0 2 2 0 2
9 30 M Caucasian Ph.D. 2 1 1 2 3
1 0 25 F Caucasian MFCC 2 2 1 3 4
1 1 23 F Asian American MFCC 3 2 2 3 5
1 2 29 F Caucasian P J lD. I 0 I 0 1
1 3 25 F Asian American MFCC 4 3 4 3 7
1 4 28 F Caucasian MFCC 4 3 3 4 7
* Note. Participants were classified as either high or low Need for Cognition by means of
a median split procedure identical to that used in numerous applied studies of the NCS
(see Cacioppo, Petty, & Feinstein, 19%).
A one-way MANOVA was performed on the three CRF-S scales of
Attractiveness, Expertness, and Trustworthiness scores using counselor as the
independent variable to evaluate the unique effects of each counselor. Significant
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
differences were found for all three CRF-S scales, suggesting that individual counselors
were viewed differently by participants. Follow-up analyses resulted in identification of
one counselor who was a significant outlier, with particularly low CRF-S ratings.
Because this counselor (#3) had worked with only one participant, that case was deleted
from the analysis. Another MANOVA, with counselor as the independent variable, was
performed on the CRF-S scores after deletion of the case, and no significant differences
were found.
In addition, two one-way MANOVAs (immediate thought-listing and follow-up
thought-listing) and one one-way ANOVA (recall) were conducted with counselor as the
independent variable. No statistically significant differences were identified, indicating
that individual counselors did not differentially affect clients’ scores on any of the
dependent measures. Further, no significant differences were identified when client
gender was entered as the independent variable, indicating that gender did not
differentially affect clients’ scores.
Overall sample means and standard deviations for the primary variables are
presented in Table 2, and intercoiTeiations for these variables are included in Table 3.
Table 2. Overall Means and Standard Deviations for Primary Variables
Variable N M SD
Need for Cognition 58 88.33 19.16
Immediate Elaboration 58 9.24 6.28
Follow-up Elaboration 46 3.00 3.18
Immediate Favorability 58 3.86 4.16
Follow-up Favorability 46 .96 1.59
Recall 46 .65 .90
Note. 1 3 participants were unavailable at the time of the 6-week follow-up
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
Table 3. Intercorrelations for Primary Variables
Measure I 2 3 4 5 6
1. Need for Cognition
_ _ _
2. Immediate Elaboration .07
—
3. Follow-up Elaboration .25 18
—
4. Immediate Favorability .21 .82* .13
—
S. Follow-up Favorability .20 .28 .71* .32* —
6. Recall .04 .01 .11 -.02 .05
* p < .05, two tailed.
Test of Research Hypotheses
Hypotheses #1-3: Style of test interpretation (delivered vs. interactive) and need for
cognition would have significant effects on the immediate cognitive response of test
interpretation subjects. A 2 (style: delivered vs. interactive) X 2 (need for cognition: high
vs. low) MANOVA was performed on the immediate elaboration and immediate
favorability scores. Cell means and standard deviations for this data are presented in
Table 4.
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations of Immediate Elaboration and Immediate
Favorability by Interpretation Style and Need for Cognition (N=58)
Delivered Interactive
High NCS Low NCS High NCS Low NCS
M S D M S D M S D M S D
Elaboration 12.00 7.13 9.54 6.83 7.21 4.06 7.93 5.99
Favorability 6.31 5.49 3.92 3.93 3.00 3.14 2.00 2.14
A statistically significant main effect was obtained for test interpretation style, using
Wilks’ Lamda, multivariate F (2, 53) = 3.17, p< 05. According to the r\2 statistic, test
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
interpretation style accounted for 11% of the variance in the dependent variable scores.
However, there was no statistically significant main effect for need for cognition, nor was
there an interaction effect. Follow-up univariate analyses yielded significant main effects
for test interpretation style for both immediate elaboration, F (1, 54) = 4.03, p<05, and
immediate favorability, F (1, 55) = 6.44, p < .05. According to the r|2 statistic, test
interpretation style accounted for 7% of the variance in immediate elaboration scores and
11% of the variance in immediate favorability scores. These findings suggest that
regardless of an individual's need for cognition, participants elaborated more relevant and
positive thoughts after receiving delivered interpretations as opposed to interactive
interpretations. Therefore, Hypotheses #1-3 are rejected.
Hypotheses #4-6: Style of test interpretation (delivered vs. interactive) and need
for cognition (high vs. low) would have significant effects on the cognitive response of
test interpretation. A 2 (style: delivered vs. interactive) X 2 (need for cognition: high vs.
low) ANOVA was performed on the follow-up elaboration and favorability scores. Cell
means and standard deviations for this data are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations of Follow-up Elaboration and Follow-up
Favorability by Interpretation Style and Need for Cognition (N=46)
Delivered Interactive
High NCS Low NCS
M SD M SD
Elaboration 3.14 3.39 2.22 2 39
Favorability 1.07 1.77 .78 1.64
High NCS Low NCS
M SD M SD
3.82 4.19 2.67 2.50
1.27 2.00 .67 .89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
No significant main or interaction effects were obtained. This suggests that elaboration
and favorability at 6-week follow-up were not affected by interpretation style or
individual need for cognition. Therefore, Hypotheses #4-6 are rejected.
Hypotheses #7-9: Style of test interpretation (delivered vs. interactive) and need
for cognition (high vs. low) would have significant effects on the cognitive response of
test interpretation subjects at 6-week follow-up. A 2 (style: delivered vs. interactive) X 2
(need for cognition: high vs. low) ANOVA was performed on the recall scores. Cell
means and standard deviations for this data are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations of Recall by Interpretation Style and Need
for Cognition (N==46)
Delivered Interactive
High NCS Low NCS High NCS Low NCS
M S D M S D M S D M S D
Recall________ .36 .63 1.22 .97 .91 1.14 .33 .65_______
A significant interactive effect was found, univariate F (1,42) = 8.05, p< 05. Post hoc
analyses (Least Significance Difference, p < .05) revealed that recall was best for
delivered interpretations with low need for cognition individuals, and worst for (a)
delivered interpretations with high need for cognition individuals; and (b) interactive
interpretations with low need for cognition individuals. Figure 3 illustrates this
interaction effect. Therefore, Hypothesis #9 is accepted (which renders Hypotheses #7-8
moot).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
Figure 3. Interaction of Interpretation Style and Need for Cognition on Recall
S B S S a B I ^ ^ B B a B B B S S S B B ^ B S S B S S S I S S S a a a S S ^ B S a ^ ^ B S S S :
• »
c
«
2
m
c
a
m
2
■ o
©
NCS Median Split
Low
£
n
U J
Interpretation Style
.Vote. Post hoc analyses revealed significant differences between 1 vs. 3 and 1 vs. 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
Chapter Four
Discussion
This chapter discusses the meaning of the previously presented results in the
context of existing literature, giving specific attention to each of the research hypotheses.
Implications for these findings are considered, as are the strengths and limitations of this
research.
The current study advances knowledge of test interpretation processes and
outcomes. Specifically, its results show that, counter to theoretical predictions made by
the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), delivered interpretations elicited more relevant
and favorable thoughts from participants than did interactive interpretations. Further, test
interpretation style interacted with the individual difference variable of need for cognition
in how well participants remember test data after a 6 week period.
Elaboration and Favorabilitv
Test interpretation style had a significant effect on elaboration and favorability at
the time of test interpretation. That is, the delivered style elicited (a) a greater number of
relevant thoughts and (b) a greater number of thoughts that were more positive in tone
than did the integrative style. This suggests that the delivered interpretations were more
influential than interactive interpretations, at least in terms of encouraging issue-relevant
thinking which is required for central route processing in the ELM.
This result is inconsistent with predictions based on the ELM Model.
Specifically, ELM predicts that interpretations with more interaction and communication
about personal results will result in more elaboration. Interestingly, though, this study’s
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
findings actually replicate Hansen and Claibom’s (unpublished manuscript) study, which
also found greater participant elaboration with delivered interpretations. Whereas Hanson
and Claibom posited that individual differences such as need for cognition may have
explained the findings, this study specifically tested for need for cognition’s effects.
Participants’ need for cognition did not predict their response on the thought
listing variables, either immediately or at 6-week follow-up. Consequently, there is no
empirical support for the hypothesis that need for cognition affects the cognitive
responses elicited by different types of test interpretation.
The failure of participants’ need for cognition to predict any salient outcomes is
theoretically problematic. Need for cognition generally has been useful in a number of
other studies related to subject’s cognitive processing (e.g., Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, &
Jarvis, 1996). Perhaps then, it is premature to reject the use of the individual need for
cognition as a predictor of test interpretation outcomes. It may instead be that the
construct is not useful in predicting the quantity of cognitive responses. Differences in
need for cognition may not be reflected in the number of responses a person generates,
but rather may be more meaningfully found in the quality of those responses.
It also is possible that need for cognition differences found in test interpretation
styles actually may occur in less quantifiable ways, such as how much an individual
subjectively enjoys or values the information. Regardless, it would seem that research
examining the interaction between interpretation style and need for cognition on other
variables such as client involvement, client evaluation of the counselor, should be
conducted before the construct is abandoned in this field of study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
Although some researchers have found that individuals high in need for cognition
will elaborate more relevant thoughts than will those low in need for cognition
(Haugtvedt & Petty, 1992; Priester & Petty, 1995), others have found that argument
quality can interact with need for cognition on elaboration. Specifically, two studies
(Cacioppo, Petty, Kao, & Rodriguez, 1986; Haugtvedt, Petty, & Cacioppo, 1992) found
that thoughts generated by individuals high in need for cognition were more likely to be
influenced by the quality of arguments in a message than thoughts generated by
individuals low in need for cognition. Need for cognition differences may have been
influenced in the present study by the participants’ individual evaluations of the quality
of the test interpretation information they were given.
Test interpretation style had no significant effect on elaboration or favorability at
6-week follow-up. Results from the present study raises questions about using the utility
of thought-listing as means to measure cognitive elaboration after a delay, at a relatively
long one. The relative range of relevant and positive thoughts listed at the 6 week
follow-up was extremely small (for all groups, mean number of thoughts listed was less
than 4), and showed only modest correlation with the immediate thought-listing scores (r
< .33). Although the thought listing measure has been used as a follow-up measure in
attitude research that is focused on a very specific, concrete message, it may be
considerably less useful in the broader more diffuse circumstances of test interpretation.
An appropriate means to test the utility of this method might be to use thought-listing as a
follow-up to test interpretation with participants that are part of ongoing counseling, so
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
that relative changes in elaboration and favorability scores can be observed for variability
over time.
Recall
Test interpretation style and need for cognition interacted significantly in terms of
participant recall of test information at 6-week follow-up. Consistent with hypothesized
predictions, best recall was found for delivered interpretations with low need for
cognition individuals, whereas poorest recall was found for: (a) delivered interpretations
with high need for cognition individuals; and (b) interactive interpretations with low need
for cognition individuals. These results, however, are also problematic in that the
theoretical rationale for differing recall for the aforementioned groups was predicated on
increased elaboration (i.e. the ELM predicts that more elaboration leads to better and
more durable recall of a given message).
A possible explanation for these results that is consistent with the ELM involves
the relative quality of a message presented to a subject. An individual’s appraisal of the
quality of a message is related to both his or her memory of the message as well as
subsequent attitude change (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). At least in terms of recall, it may
be that for this sample participants had differing evaluations about the quality of test
interpretation as a function of style and need for cognition. A simple example of how
this might occur is in regards to expectancy, or what participants might have been
expecting as they entered to learn their test results. Low need for cognition subjects,
based on their own preference for having information presented to them as opposed to
elicited from them, may have seen delivered interpretations as being of higher quality as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
it fit that preference. Conversely, high need for cognition subjects, who enjoy reasoning
and cogitating, may have found the much less passive interactive interpretations as being
of higher quality. Results for the present study are consistent with this formulation, with
best recall found for participants receiving interpretations consistent with their
expectations, and worst recall found for participants receiving ones that were discrepant
from their expectations.
One factor that may have affected the present findings is the use of a sample that
was not overtly seeking psychological help. Participants were student volunteers from a
college course that in most cases was mandated by virtue of their being on academic
probation. Given a lower level of motivation based on taking a mandated class, coupled
with a likely low level of person relevance based on the fact that the participants were not
seeking help with a “presenting problem,” participants’ cognitive involvement and
responsiveness may have been inherently constrained. A core tenet of the ELM is that
both the central and peripheral routes are substantially influenced by the motivation and
ability of the target. It is conceivable therefore that test interpretation style differences
were strongly affected by participants’ motivational factors such as the personal
relevance of the test interpretation session.
Another possible explanation is that the participants receiving interactive
interpretations may have listed fewer thoughts than those receiving delivered
interpretations because the increased verbal involvement acted as a sort of “discharge
effect.” In other words, participants may have listed fewer thoughts on paper because
they already had expressed those thoughts during interacting with the counselor. In the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
one study where interactive interpretations resulted in greater written thought-listing
(Hanson & Claibom, 1996), this discharge effect may not have operated in that the
participants were honors students, who might be expected to “have more to say” in
general.
A direct comparison of the immediate thought listing data in the current study
with that of Claibom and Hanson (unpublished manuscript) and Hanson et al (1997) is
helpful in evaluating the results of the current study as well as this branch of test
interpretation research in general. Please see Table 7 and Table 8 for summaries of
relevant information.
Table 7. Characteristics of Studies Examining the Effects of Test Interpretation
Style on Elaboration and Favorability.
Sample Size
Population
Academic
achievement
Tests given
Hanson £ Claiborn
23
Seeking general
counseling
General college
population
Seeking career
counseling
Academic honors
program
PRF and VPI
Hanson et al
26
Academic probation
Current Study
58
Not seeking help
PRF PRF
Thought-listing
ratings
Subjects rated Judges rated thoughts Judges rated thoughts
thoughts
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
Table 8. Means and Standard Deviations of Studies Examining the Effects of Test
Interpretation Style on Elaboration and Favorability.
Hanson & Claiborn_______ Hanson et at
Delivered Interactive Delivered Interactive
(n = 11) (n = 12) (n =
11)
(n =
15)
M SD M
SD M SD
M
SD
8.67 5.42 7.00 4.20 8.63 3.56 9.73 3.22
5.50 3.78 2.73 2.53 4.91 2.39 7.33 3.52
Current Studv
Delivered Interactive
(n = 29) (n = 30)
M SD M
SD
Elaboration 10.90 6.98 7.60 4.99
Favorability 5.24 4.92 2.43 2.64
As can be seen, results from the Hanson and Claibom (unpublished manuscript) and the
present study are very similar. Amount of relevant and favorable thoughts listed in the
interactive condition are almost identical, as well as the number of favorable thoughts in
the delivered condition. This similarity of results signals that the Hanson et al. (1997)
study may be specifically different from the other two studies.
Examination of Table 7 reveals that the Hanson et al (1997) is different from the
other two studies in two ways: (a) the participants in the study were academic honors
students while the other two studies had participants who were medium or low academic
achievers; and (b) whereas Hanson and Claibom and the current study used only the PRF,
Hanson et al interpreted both PRF and Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI) results. In
other words, in the only study where interactive interpretations elicited more elaboration,
participants were high achieving students who received both vocational and personality
test feedback.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
These results reinforce the need for research that both controls variables as well as
contrasts them. The issue of which style of interpretation is likely to produce greater
cognitive elaboration in general (regardless of academic achievement or other factors)
remains largely unanswered. Future studies will allow a greater pool for comparisons, as
well as expand generalizability to diverse populations.
Limitations
Strong (1971) points out that analogue studies of counseling vary in the extent to
which they approximate actual counseling practice. This variability exists according to
the extent that the particular study meets the following “boundary” conditions: (a) an
interaction occurs of duration; (b) the interaction is between individuals of unequal status;
(c) one individual is motivated to change; (d) and that individual may be emotionally
distressed. In the current study, these boundary conditions may have been violated.
Participants were not help-seekers, but were instead enrolled in an undergraduate course
that was mandated because of academic probation. Therefore, it appears that 2 of the 4
conditions may have been violated, as it is unclear if participants were motivated to
change or if they were in any kind of emotional distress.
Also, the relative brevity of the sessions (on average about 20-25 minutes each)
may have affected the power of differing styles of interpretation to affect cognitive
response. The interactive style of interpretation could conceivably require more time
between counselor and client, as to allow more of a collaborative relationship as
suggested by Finn and Tonsager (1992). In fact, the delivered style may have resulted in
more elaboration in part because it seemed to fit participants’ expectations for how a test
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
interpretation style should go (i.e. have the counselor tell the person his or her results).
The attempt at collaboration in the interactive style may have felt inappropriate or
disingenuous to participants in the current study, as it was counter to their expectations of
passively receiving information.
Recommendations.
As discussed earlier, need for cognition requires further exploration as a potential
moderating factor for test interpretations. In particular, relative levels of need for
cognition should be examined for their effects throughout the test interpretation process,
including its relationship with: (a) likeliness to take tests; (b) likeliness to seek out test
interpretation; (c) ability to establish a collaborative relationship; (d) need for feedback;
(e) evaluation of discrepant results. Also, given the findings regarding recall, future
research might pay particular attention to issues of expectancy, personal relevance, and
message quality.
Although the thought-listing measure should by no means be abandoned entirely,
future test interpretation research should explore alternate means of measuring cognitive
response. Structured interviews with participants of differing test interpretation styles
may be particularly helpful, as client, counselor, and test variables can be discussed from
a variety of perspectives. Also, Interpersonal Process Recall, which has been extremely
useful in counseling and supervision process research, might be used to retrospectively
have participants share their thoughts while viewing a video tape of a test interpretation
session. A further possibility is to in fact enhance the thought-listing measure itself, by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
rating responses on other dimensions than relevance and favorability, such as origin
(Greenwald, 1968), saliency (Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956), or reality (Ellis, 1977).
A strength of the current research is the continued development of manualized
protocols by which test interpretation may eventually be efficaciously standardized.
Future research must expand the limited repertoire of delivered and interactive styles as
presented here and create protocols that approach closer and closer to actual practice. In
particular, protocols that more completely encompass Finn’s model of therapeutic
assessment are necessary to further explore the effects of collaboration in test
interpretation. Protocols that are more sophisticated and closer to the ways that
practicing psychologists actually perform test interpretations are likely to offer needed
insight into the relative effects of client, counselor, and test variables.
The present study’s inconclusive results regarding measures taken at a 6-week
follow up can be further explored by performing research on test interpretation in the
context of ongoing therapy. All studies measuring cognitive response in test
interpretation up to this point have been extremely brief, and not within a realistic model
of ongoing care. Added insight into the resiliency and durability of test interpretation
outcomes can be explored by integrating test interpretation research into other areas of
ongoing counseling process research.
In using ELM, central and peripheral routes have been given quite a bit of
attention in counseling research. The present study highlights a need to further explore
two other major components of the ELM: motivation and personal relevance. In general,
it may be necessary to control for motivation and relevance in test interpretation studies
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
evaluating the central and peripheral routes of processing, since both can influence
message acceptance and attitude change in complex ways. In particular, specific studies
using differing levels of motivation or relevance in the same sample (i.e. a study that
specifically compared clinical versus non-clinical clients on test interpretation outcomes)
are needed to explore the effects of test interpretations.
Further, there are broad issues that have been explored in depth in the counseling
literature that still need to be applied to test interpretation research. Examples of these
questions include: (a) how do sex/gender and racial/ethnic differences interact with test
interpretation style or impact the interoperation process? (b) how do individual
differences (in sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) between the counselor
(interpreter) and the client (interpretee) affect outcomes? (c) what effects do physical
setting have on the test interpretation process? (d) how does bias in psychological impact
interpretations? and (e) how do all of the aforementioned factors interact and influence
each other in test interpretation outcomes? While some of these questions may be
premature given the relative infancy of research in this arena, these questions are
important in setting a future research agenda.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
Bibliography
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical Principles of Psychologists
and Code of Conduct. American Psychologist 47. 1597-1611.
Axsom, D., Yates, S. M., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic
cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53. 30-40.
Barak, A., & LaCrosse, M. (1975). Multidimensional perception of counselor
behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 22.471-476.
Berdie, R. F. (1954). Changes in self-rating as a method of evaluating counseling.
Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1.49-54.
Berg, M. (1985). The feedback process in diagnostic psychological testing.
Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic. 49. 52-69.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1981). Social psychological procedures for
cognitive response assessment. The thought-listing technique. In T.V. Merluzzi, C.R.
Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assessment (pp. 309-342). New York: Guilford
Press.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 4 2 .116-131.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of
need for cognition. Journal o f Personality Assessment. 48.306-307.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and
peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 51.1032-1043.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition
on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 45. 805-818.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Stoltenberg, C. (1985). Processes of social
influence: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In P. Kendall (Ed.), Advances
in cognitive behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 41. New York: Academic Press.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996).
Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals
varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin. 119.197-253.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
Campbell, V. L. (1990). A model for using tests in counseling. In C. E. Watkins
& V. L. Campbell (Eds.), Testing in counseling practice (pp. 1-7). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M.
Olsen, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol 5, pp. 3-
39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Claibom, C. D., & Hanson, W. E. (1999). Test interpretation: A social influence
perspective. In J. W. Lichtenberg & R. K. Goodyear (Eds), Test interpretation: A
scientist/practitioner perspective (pp. 151-166). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cohen, A. R. (1957). Need for cognition and order of communication as
determinants of opinion change. In C.I. Hovland (Ed.). The order of presentation in
persuasion (pp. 79-97). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement. 20.37-46.
Corrigan, J. D., & Schmidt, L. D. (1983). Development and validation of
revisions in the counselor rating form. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 30.64-75.
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instruction methods. New
York: Irvington.
Dressel, P. L., & Matteson, R. W. (1950). The effect of client participation in test
interpretation. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 10.693-703.
Duckworth, J. C. (1990). The counseling approach to the use of testing. The
Counseling Psychologist 18. 198-204.
Duckworth, J. C., & Anderson, W. P. (1986). MMPI: Interpretation manual for
counselors and clinicians (3rd ed.). Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.
Duckworth, J. C., & Anderson, W. P. (1995). MMPI & MMPI-2: Interpretation
manual for counselors and clinicians (4th ed.). Bristol, PA: Accelerated Development.
Ellis, A. (1977). Research data supporting the clinical and personality hypotheses
of RET and other cognitive-behavior therapies. In A. Ellis & R. Grieger (Eds.),
Handbook of rational-emotive therapy (pp. 254-284). New York: Springer.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
Epperson, D. L., & Pecnik, J. A. (1985). Counselor rating form-short version;
Further validation and comparison to the long form. Journal of Counseling Psychology.
32, 143-146.
Finn, S. E. (1996). Manual for using the MMPI-2 as a therapeutic intervention.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Finn, S. E. & Butcher, J. N. (1991). Clinical objective personality assessment. In
M. Hersen, A. E. Kazdin, & A. S. Bellack (Eds.), The clinical psychology handbook (2n d
ed.: pp. 362-373). New York: Pergamon Press.
Finn, S. E. & Tonsager, M. E. (1992). Therapeutic effects of providing MMPI-2
test feedback to college students awaiting therapy. Psychological Assessment. 4 .278-
287.
Finn, S. E. & Tonsager, M. E. (1997). Information-gathering and therapeutic
models of assessment: Complementary paradigms. Psychological Assessment. 9 .374-
385.
Fischer, C. (1970,1985,1994). Individualizing psychological assessment.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Folds, J. H., & Gazda, G. M. (1966). A comparison of the effectiveness and
efficiency of three methods of test interpretation. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 13.
318-324.
Frank, J. D., & Frank, J. B. (1991). Persuasion and healing (3rd ed.). Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Goldman, L. (1971). Using tests in counseling (2n d ed.). New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Goodyear, R. K. (1990). Research on the effects of test interpretation: A review.
The Counseling Psychologist. 18.240-257.
Goodyear, R. K, Allison, R. D., Cortese, J. C., & Guzzard, C. R. (1999, April).
Toward a test-interpretation research agenda. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Education Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Goodyear, R. K., & Lichtenberg, J. W. (1999). A scientist-practitioner perspective
on test interpretation. In J. W. Lichtenberg & R. K. Goodyear (Eds), Test interpretation:
A scientist/practitioner perspective (pp. 1-14). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
Graham, J. R. (1993). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (2n d
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Graham, J. R., & Lilly, R. S. (1984). Psychological testing. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion,
and attitude change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.),
Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 203-234). New York: Academic Press.
Groth-Mamat, G. (1997). Handbook of psychological assessment (3rd ed.V New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for
cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 63.308-319.
Haugtvedt, C. P, Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Need for cognition and
advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior.
Journal of Consumer Behavior. 1.239-260.
Hanson, W. E., Claibom, C. D., & Kerr, B. (1997). Differential effects of two test
interpretation styles in counseling: A field study. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 44,
400-405.
Hanson, W. E., & Claibom, C. D. (1998). Effects of test interpretation style and
favorability in the counseling process. Manuscript in preparation.
Heppner, P. P., & Claibom, C. D. (1989). Social influence research in
counseling: A review and critique. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 36.365-387.
Heppner, P. P., Rosenberg, J. I., & Hedgespeth, J. (1992). Three methods in
measuring the therapeutic process: Clients’ and counselors’ constructions of the
therapeutic process: Clients’ and counselors’ constructions of the therapeutic process
versus actual therapeutic events. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39.20-31.
Ivey, A. E. (1979). Counseling psychology: The most broadly-based applied
psychology specialty. The Counseling Psychologist 8(31.3-6.
Jackson, D. N. (1987). Personality research from-Form E. Port Huron, MI: Sigma
Assessment Systems.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
Jackson, D. N. (1989). Personality research form manual. (3rd ed.V Port Huron,
MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.
Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs,
epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues.
Journal of Educational Psychology. 88.260-271.
Keith-Spiegel, P. & Koocher, G. P. (1985). Ethics in psychology. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lewak, R. W., Marks, P. A., & Nelson, G. E. (1990). Therapist guide to the
MMPI and MMPI-2. Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development.
Mattarazzo, J. D. (1992). Psychological testing and assessment in the 21* century.
American Psychologist. 4 7 .1007-1018.
McNeill, B. W., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1989). Reconceptualizing social influence
in counseling: The elaboration likelihood model. Journal o f Counseling Psychology. 36.
24-33.
Meyer, R. G. & Deitsch, S. E. (1996). The clinician’s handbook (4th ed.l. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Newman, M. L., & Greenway, P. (1997). Therapeutic effects of providing MMPI-
2 test feedback to clients at a university counseling service: A collaborative approach.
Psychological Assessment. 9 .122-131.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of
persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 19. 123-205.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Heesacker, M. (1984). Central and peripheral
routes to persuasion: Application to counseling. In R. McGlynn, J. Maddux, C.
Stoltenberg, & J. Harvey fEds ). Social perception in clinical and counseling psychology
(pp. 59-89). Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Press.
Priester, J., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived
honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin. 21.637-654.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
Rogers, L. B. (1954). A comparison of two kinds of test interpretation interview.
Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1.224-231.
Smith, M. B., Bruner, J. S., & White, R. W. (1956). Opinions and personality.
New York: Springer.
Strong, S. R. (1968). Counseling: An interpersonal influence process. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 15,215-224.
Strong, S. R. & Matross, R. P. (1973). Change processes in counseling and
psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 20.25-37.
Thompson, E. P., Chaiken, S., & Hazlewood, J. D. (1993). Need for cognition and
desire for control as moderators of extrinsic reward effects: A person x situation approach
to the study of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64.
987-999.
Tinsley, H. E. A, & Bradley, R. W. (1986). Test interpretation. Journal of
Counseling and Development. 64.462-466.
Tracey, T. J., (Hidden, C. E., & Kokotovic, A M. (1988). Factor structure of the
counselor rating form-short. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 35.330-335.
Watkins Jr., C. E., Campbell, V. L., & McGregor, P. (1988). Counseling
psychologists’ uses of and opinions about psychological tests: A contemporary
perspective. The Counseling Psychologist 16.476-486.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
APPENDIX A: COUNSELOR RATING FORM-SHORT
On this page, each characteristic is followed by a seven-point scale that ranges from "not very" to "very."
Please mark (X) the point on the scale that best represents how you viewed the therapist you heard on the
tape.
Though all the following characteristics we ask you to rate are desirable, therapists may differ in the degree
to which they manifest them. Please use the following scales to rate the therapist you have just heard.
Friendly
Not v ery _ _ Very
Experienced
Not v ery _ _ Very
Honest
Not v ery _ _ Very
Likeable
Not v ery _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Very
Expert
Not v ery _ _ Very
Reliable
Not very _ _ Very
Sociable
Not v ery _ _ Very
Prepared
Not v ery _ _ Very
Sincere
Not v ery _ _ Very
Warm
Not very _ _ Very
Skillful
Not v ery _ _ Very
Trustworthy
Not v ery _ _ Very
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
APPENDIX B: NEED FOR COGNITION SCALE
Please rate your degree of agreement or disagreement to each of these statements, using the following
format:
(-4) very strong disagreement
(-3) strong disagreement
(-2) moderate disagreement
(-1) slight disagreement
(0) neither agreement or disagreement
(+1) slight agreement
(+2) moderate agreement
(+3) strong agreement
(+4) very strong agreement
1 . I would prefer complex to simple problems.
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
2. I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking.
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
3. Thinking is not my idea of fun.*
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
4. I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my
thinking abilities.*
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
5. I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is likely chance I will have to think in depth about
something. *
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
6. I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours.
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
7. I only think as hard as I have to. *
4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
8. I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones. *
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
9. 1 like tasks that require little thought once I’ ve learned them. *
4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
10. The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to me.
4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
11. I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems.
4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
12. Learning new ways to think doesn’t excite me very much. *
4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
13. I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve.
4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
14. The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me.
4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
13. I would prefer a task that is intellectual, difficult, and important to one that is somewhat important but
does not require much thought.
4 -3 -2 -I 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
16. I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort*
4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
17. It’s enough for me that something gets the job done; I don’t care bow or why it works. *
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
18. I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally.
4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
* Reverse scoring is used for this item
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
APPENDIX C: TEST INTERPRETATION PROTOCOLS
DELIVERED TEST INTERPRETATION
A. Greeting/Brief Conversation/Process Reactions to the PRF
Begin the interview by referring to the PRF. Ask about the client's reactions to taking the
test. Accept his or her reactions with interest, but explore only markedly negative
reactions.
B. Overview of the Session
Indicate that today you will be looking at the results of the PRF, and then say: "What I
will do is interpret the results for you, and I will stop at the end to see if you have any
questions. But if you have any questions along the way, feel free to ask them."
C. Introduction to the PRF
Explain generally what the PRF measures, and indicate its reliability and validity. For
example, you might say: "The PRF was designed to measure various aspects of normal
personality functioning. Research has shown that this test is very reliable, and that each
scale measures what it was designed to measure. Thus, the PRF is also a valid measure of
personality."
[Additional information about the PRF's reliability and validity is provided in a separate
section of this training packet.]
Indicate the number of scales, and show the client how to read the profile. For example,
you might say: "As you can see, there are twenty different personality scales and two
validity scales. For each scale, fifty is the average score. For the next thirty minutes or so,
we are going to focus on your four highest scores.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
Then say: "Even though the PRF is one of the best personality tests available, it is subject
to error in measurement, and it is up to you to determine how the results fit with your
personality."
D. Interpretation of the PRF Results
Identify the four (4) highest scale scores above S O . Taking each of these separately,
describe the construct measured by the scale (1-2 sentences), and then say: "You scored
[very high, high] on this scale, and that suggests that you [choose four (4) behavioral
examples appropriate to the scale and the experimental condition]."
• For each interpreted scale score, select 2 positive behavior examples and 2
potentially negative behavioral examples
• Counterbalance the order of the positive and negative behavioral examples
(e.g., for the first scale, select 2 positive behavioral examples to interpret
followed by 2 negative behavioral examples; however, for the second scale,
select 2 negative behavioral examples to interpret followed by 2 positive
examples, and so on.
Pause at the end of each scale interpretation to see if the client has any comments. Accept
the client's comments with interest but explore only markedly negative comments.
E. Thought-Listing
Ask the client to thought-list after interpreting the first two scales and again after
interpreting the other two scales.
F. Summary of the PRF Results
At the end of the session, summarize 2 themes from the PRF interpretation. Focus on 1
positive theme and 1 potentially negative theme.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
Then say: "This ends our interpretation session, but I want to be sure to leave time for
you to ask any remaining questions about the results. Do you have any questions?"
Respond to them briefly, but restate or clarify only information already given.
G. Wrap-up/Assignment
Ask the client to return to the experimenter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
INTERACTIVE TEST INTERPRETATION
A. Greeting/Brief Conversation/Process Reactions to the PRF
Begin the interview by referring to the PRF. Ask about the client's reactions to taking the
test. Accept his or her reactions with interest, but explore only markedly negative
reactions.
B. Overview of the Session
Indicate that today you will be looking at the results of the PRF, and then say . "I will
begin the interpretation by giving you some information about the test and the scales, but
I want to involve you as much as possible in relating these results to your own life."
C. Introduction to the PRF
Explain generally what the PRF measures, and indicate its reliability and validity. For
example, you might say: "The PRF was designed to measure various aspects of normal
personality functioning. Research has shown that this test is very reliable, and that each
scale measures what it was designed to measure. Thus, the PRF is also a valid measure of
personality."
[Additional information about the PRF's reliability and validity is provided in a separate
section of this training packet.]
Indicate the number of scales, and show the client how to read the profile. For example,
you might say. "As you can see, there are twenty different personality scales and two
validity scales. For each scale, fifty is the average score. For the next thirty minutes or so,
we are going to focus on your four highest scores."
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
Then say: "Even though the PRF is one of the best personality tests available, it is subject
to error in measurement, and it is up to you to determine how the results fit with your
personality."
D. Interpretation of the PRF Results
Ask the client to identify the four (4) highest scale scores. Taking each of these
separately, describe the construct measured by the scale (1-2 sentences), and then say:
"You scored [very high, high] on this scale. What might that suggest about you [ask the
client to give 4 specific behavioral examples for each construct]? Respond appropriately
to the client's examples (i.e., praise or modify). Pause at the end of each scale
interpretation to see if the client has any additional comments. Accept the client's
comments with interest, but explore only markedly negative comments.
• For each interpreted scale score, ask the client to give 2 positive behavioral
examples and 2 potentially negative behavioral examples (e.g., Tm looking
for two ways in which having a [very high, high] score on this scale could be
beneficial to you and two ways in which having a [very high, high] score
could be potentially problematic?").
• Counterbalance the order of the positive and negative behavioral examples
(e.g., for the first scale, ask the client to give 2 positive behavioral examples
followed by 2 potentially negative behavioral examples; however, for the
second scale, ask the client to give 2 potentially negative behavioral examples
followed by 2 positive examples, and so on).
E. Thought-Listing
Ask the client to thought-list after interpreting the first two scales and again after
interpreting the other two scales.
F. Summary of the PRF Results
At the end of the session, ask the client to summarize two themes (one positive, and one
potentially negative) from the PRF interpretation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
Then say: "This ends our interpretation session, but I want to be sure to leave time for
you to ask any remaining questions about the results. Do you have any questions?"
Respond to them briefly, but restate or clarify only information already given.
G. Wrap-up/Assignment
Ask the client to return to the experimenter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
APPENDIX D: PRF "STOCK” INTERPRETATIONS
Abasement: "This scale measures the extent to which you blame yourself for your
problems. So, it measures how critical you are of yourself."
POSITIVE:
- are respectful of others, especially authority figures
- take responsibility for your mistakes
- willing to be critical of yourself
- do not brag too much about your accomplishments
NEGATIVE:
- accept blame and criticism even when it's not deserved
- prefer inferior positions over leadership roles
Achievement: "This scale measures the extent to which you strive to achieve. So, it
measures how ambitious you are."
POSITIVE:
- able to successfully complete difficult tasks
- set high personal standards
- willing to work hard to achieve goals
- respond positively to competition
NEGATIVE:
- overly competitive with others
- sometimes set unrealistic goals for yourself
Affiliation: "This scale measures the extent to which you enjoy the company of others.
So, it measures how sociable you are.”
POSITIVE:
- enjoy being with friends and other people
- accepting of other people
- very cooperative
- tend to be loyal
NEGATIVE:
- put others feelings/wishes ahead of your own
- worry about how others perceive you
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
A ggression: "This scale measures the extent to which you are easily angered or
provoked. So, it measures how temperamental you are."
POSITIVE:
- often give truthful and “heartfelt” answers to questions
- able to appropriately defend yourself against potential threats
- able to act assertively
- able to stand up for yourself when you need to
NEGATIVE:
- get easily annoyed and upset
- sometimes willing to hurt other people to get your way
Autonomy: "This scale measures the extent to which you rely on yourself to ‘get by.’
So, it measures how independent and non-conforming you are."
POSITIVE:
- tend to break away from restraints, confinements, or restrictions of any kind
- resist the influence of authoritative people
- tend to be independent from others
- able to work productively when alone
NEGATIVE:
- sometimes alienate the people around you
- get rebellious when faced with constraints
Change: "This scale measures the extent to which you adapt to change. So, it measures
how flexible you are."
POSITIVE:
- enjoy new and different experiences
- readily adapt to changes in the environment
- tend to be creative and innovative
- are tolerant of others
NEGATIVE:
- dislike routine to the point of avoiding it
- change your opinions and values abruptly
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
C ognitive Structure: "This scale measures the extent to which you seek factual and/or
accurate information. So, it measures your need for certainty.”
POSTIVE:
- like to be precise in your work
- do not like ambiguity or uncertainty
- prefer to make decisions based on definite knowledge, rather than on guesses
or probabilities
- generally provide accurate information to others
NEGATIVE:
- tend to be overly perfectionistic
- somewhat rigid in your thinking
Defendence: "This scale measures the extent to which you are self-protective. So, it
measures how defensive or guarded you are."
POSITIVE:
- are not easily deceived or cheated
- alert and sensitive to your surroundings
- able to appropriately defend yourself against threats from other people
- are cautious
NEGATIVE:
- act as if you have a “chip on your shoulder”
- take offense easily
Dominance: "This scale measures the extent to which you like to control other people.
So, it measures how authoritative you are."
POSITIVE:
- enjoy the role of leader and may assume it spontaneously
- able to take charge in demanding and stressful situations
- outgoing and persuasive
- perceived by others as powerful and capable
NEGATIVE:
- attempt to control other people
- forcefully express your opinions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
Endurance: "This scale measures the extent to which you are able to stick to a task. So,
it measures how persistent you are."
POSITIVE:
- willing to work long hours
- patient and unrelenting in work habits
- do not give up easily on a problem
• tend to be persevering, even in the face of great difficulty
NEGATIVE:
- can occasionally be rather rude and difficult to get along with
- sometimes get “stuck” trying to use old solutions on new problems
Exhibition: "This scale measures the extent to which you are colorful and entertaining.
So, it measures how dramatic you are."
POSITIVE:
- express yourself cleverly and amusingly
- enjoy being the center of attention
- enjoy performing in front of an audience
- openly show feelings and emotions
NEGATIVE:
- engage in “attention getting” behavior
- routinely brag about yourself and your accomplishments
Harm avoidance. “This scale measures the extent to which you protect yourself from
potentially dangerous experiences. So, it measures how cautious you are.”
POSITIVE:
- tend to avoid risky activities
- able to maximize your personal safety
- acutely aware of potential dangers/threats
- routinely stay out of harms way
NEGATIVE:
- overly fearful and worried
- sometimes miss out on potentially fun and enjoyable experiences
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
Impulsivity. “This scale measures the extent to which you act on the ‘spur of the
moment.’ So, it measures how spontaneous you are.”
POSITIVE:
- able to “think on your feet”
- quick to get involved in conversations and activities
- easily excitable
- speak freely and openly
NEGATIVE:
- often act without thinking about the consequences
- tend to be impatient
Nurturance: “This scale measures the extent to which you are willing to care for others.
So, it measures how helpful you are.”
POSITIVE:
- sympathetic to others’ feelings and experiences
- willing to offer a “helping hand” to those in need
- readily perform favors for others
- interested in caring for children, the disabled, and so on
NEGATIVE:
- occasionally act in an overly protective manner
- often neglect your own needs
Order. ‘This scale measures the extent to which you enjoy being neat and clean. So, it
is a measure of your need for organization.”
POSITIVE:
- dislike clutter and confusion
- continually develop ways to keep things organized
- like sticking to a schedule
- tend to be methodical and deliberate in your actions
NEGATIVE.
- often procrastinate as a result of trying to keep things too neat and organized
- get easily frustrated by disorganization
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
Play ‘This scale measures the extent to which you seek fun and pleasurable activities.
So, it measures how playful you are.”
POSITIVE:
- enjoy participating in games, sports, and social activities
- enjoy jokes and funny stories
- do many things “just for the fun of it”
- tend to be light hearted and easy going
NEGATIVE:
- put off doing work-related tasks
- play many pranks on other people
Sentience: “This scale measures the extent to which you enjoy physical sensations.”
POSITIVE:
- regularly notice smells, sounds, sights, tastes, and the way things feel
- able to remember various sensations and believe that they are an important
part of life
- open to new experiences
- very observant and perceptive
NEGATIVE:
- are overly preoccupied with seeking physical stimulation
- occasionally act in a self-absorbed, pleasure-seeking manner
Social Recognition: “This scale measures the extent to which you seek recognition and
respect from others. So, it is a measure of your need for approval.”
POSITIVE:
- good at making a positive first impression
- are agreeable and generally get along with others
- desire to be held in high esteem by acquaintances
- well-mannered and courteous in social situations
NEGATIVE:
- worry excessively about what others are thinking about you
- overly concerned about your reputation
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
Succorance: “This scale measures the extent to which you seek help and support from
other people. So, it measures how dependent you are.”
POSITIVE.
- enjoy the attention and affection of others
- actively seek sympathy, protection, love, advice, and reassurance from other
people
- trust other people
- generally willing to confide in other people
NEGATIVE:
- often feel insecure and helpless when not supported by others
- overly dependent and reliant on others for help
Understanding: “This scale measures the extent to which you actively seek knowledge.
So, it measures how curious and inquisitive you are.”
POSITIVE:
- want to understand many areas of knowledge
- value synthesis of ideas
- value logical thought
- regularly ask relevant and important questions
NEGATIVE:
- get easily distracted and jump from one topic to another
- occasionally ask too many personal or private questions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Assessment of racial identity and self -esteem in an Armenian American population

PDF

A two-dimensional model of cognitive empathy: An empirical study

PDF

Integration of science and practice: A collective case study of scientist -practitioner programs in counseling psychology

PDF

Development and validation of the Cooper Quality of Imagery Scale: A measure of vividness of sporting mental imagery

PDF

An investigation of a new diagnostic sub-type: Post traumatic stress disorder with psychotic features

PDF

Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men and the attitude functions they serve: Correlates, stability and gender differences

PDF

Attachment style, interpersonal guilt, parental alcoholism, parental divorce and eating disordered symptomatology in college women

PDF

Considering the impact of culture on the therapeutic relationship: A look at Latino school-age children in a special education setting

PDF

Gender role conflict, personality, and help -seeking in adult men

PDF

Gender differences in motivation for sexual intercourse: Implications for risky sexual behavior and substance use in a university and community sample

PDF

Impact of language and culture on a neuropsychological screening battery for Hispanics

PDF

Intergenerational conflict, family functioning, and acculturation experienced by Asian American community college students

PDF

Gender differences in symptom presentation of depression in primary care settings

PDF

A daily diary approach to compare the accuracy of depressed and nondepressed participants' estimation of positive and negative mood: A test of the depressive realism hypothesis

PDF

Collective efficacy, anxiety, creativity/innovation and work performance at the team level

PDF

Anger expression in men with elevated blood pressure: Relationships to assertiveness

PDF

Behavioral and demographic predictors of breast cancer stage at diagnosis

PDF

Neuropsychological And Psychological Correlates Of Marital Violence In A Clinical Sample

PDF

An integrative analysis of racism and quality of life: A comparison of multidimensional moderators in an ethnically diverse sample

PDF

Child sexual abuse in a sample of male and female Hispanic and White nonclinical adolescents: Extending the reliability and validity of the Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI)

Asset Metadata

Creator Allison, Russell Duncan (author)

Core Title Effects of test interpretation style and need for cognition on elaboration, favorability, and recall

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education - Counseling Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, cognitive,psychology, personality

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Goodyear, Rodney (committee chair), Abreu, Jose (committee member), Crimmins, Eileen M. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-58172

Unique identifier UC11338287

Identifier 3017982.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-58172 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3017982.pdf

Dmrecord 58172

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Allison, Russell Duncan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA