1
. 3%..
human:
.1 in

.s... 2

.. 1.32:5...
1.3.1.4... a: .3 v
1 .3... 1......
:0.- . ..

.n.h....nrd.ﬁ.ﬁ... 1
81h... .9...» .....t
\p... x. ya»:

2...... .1... Ian. 1?.
.5. am...
7

x93!)
1- t
31..

, .1

3.32.3.1 3:... f .2
23...... I: .1. E.
5411...... .

. .2.
.sur:
- I
f
.
a
;. . 1..t.v.~ub:\...
3.111....
:... .1..- .
£352....
3 .

1% le!

3 .x..!:; .
:hﬁiaav (tan

u is». .x...
.. u.

ﬂaw...“

it???
13.1

£..z« z... 'I
-

 

 

1... a m 11111111111111111 111111 1111111111

Michigan State 3
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
FEMINIST VALUES , EPISTEMOLOGICAL PREFERENCES ,

AND THEIR RELATION TO
PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT ATTRIBUTIONS

presented by

Mary Sue Gilbert

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

 

 

Ph . D . degree in Counseling Psychology

56th (L1, W

Major professor

 

 

MS U i: an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-127“

1

. H-_.._ W

' ' Ag‘iW——‘ ..._..___.,‘ "ll—I. _

_‘_

o

. _._k_,-_...‘44

-_.. __.

PLACE It RETURN BOX to roman this chockout from your rocord.
TO AVOID FINES rotum on or botoro doto duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 11 l I

MSU Is An Afﬂrmotlvo Action/Equal Opportunity lrtotltuton
mm:

FEMINIST VALUES, EPISTEMOLOGICAL PREFERENCES,
AND THEIR RELATION TO
PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATIVIENT ATTRIBUTIONS

By

Mary Sue Gilbert

A DISSERTATION

submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology,
and Special Education

1996

V2

‘3
In
SU
K
the
sta

fer

of 1
(M
has
has:

Prof

ABSTRACT

F EMINIST VALUES, EPISTEMOLOGICAL PREFERENCES,
AND THEIR RELATION TO
PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT ATTRIBUTIONS

By

Mary Sue Gilbert

Although empiricism has been increasingly recognized as too narrow in its ﬁeld of
inquiry to adequately examine the complexity of human issues (Polkinghome, I984),
empiricism remains the dominant force in Western psychology morgen, 1992; Unger,
1983). Many feminist psychologists are at the forefront in criticizing the tradition of
empiricism as the only basis for valid knowledge and the assumption that any science is
value-free (Harding, 1987; Hawkesworth, 1989; Ricketts, 1989).

The purpose of this research was to examine the effects of feminist values on
epistemological preferences and the attribution of responsibility in psychological
treatment. One hundred and sixty-one PhD. psychologists completed a mail survey. The

survey included measures of feminist values: the Attitudes Towards Feminism and the

 

Women's Movement (F assinger, 1994), the Behavioral and Political Orientation scales of

 

the Attributions of the Term Feminist (F erryman-Fink & Verderber, 1985), and a
statement of feminism developed for this study. All were combined in a composite
feminism score. The survey also included a demographics form, the Psycho-

lestemolgical Proﬁle (Royce & Mos, 1980), which measures the epistemological styles

 

of empiricism, rationalism and social constructionism, the Helping Orientation Scal_e
(Nﬁchlitsh & Frankel, 1989), which measures four styles of attribution of responsibility
based on theoretical constructs developed by Brickman et al. (1982). These models are
based on whether a therapist attributes responsibility for problem development and

problem solution to the client or to others. The four attribution of responsibility styles

ep'

re\

hi2

Hi,

otl

CIT

by

st}

l’CS

fer

SU‘

 

are: 1) the moral style, that holds individuals responsible for both problems and solutions;
2) the compensatory style, that considers people responsible for solutions, but not
problems; 3) the medical style, that holds individuals responsible for neither problems nor
solutions; and 4) the enlightenment style, that considers people responsible for problems,
but not solutions.

Regressions on the overall model analyzing the effects of feminism level,
epistemology styles and demographic characteristics on attribution of responsibility style
revealed being heterosexual and male, along with low social constructionism scores and
high empiricism scores, were predictive of the scoring higher in the enlightenment style.
Higher scores in the medical style were predicted by being male, having an occupation
other than a faculty member or a psychotherapy practitioner and having a higher
empiricism score. High scores in the compensatory style were signiﬁcantly predicted only
by high social constructionism scores. Scoring higher in attribution of responsibility moral
style was predicted by having high rationalism scores and low feminism scores. Other
results of signiﬁcance were also found. Overall, results were partially supportive of
feminism affecting epistemological style and attribution of responsibility style, and highly

supportive of epistemology affecting attribution of responsibility style.

 

 

PhI
gonr
care
acac
facu
dimi
men

Bee

PFC

AC KNOWLEDGNIENTS

I believe that completing a PhD. program and dissertation can only be
accomplished with the support and encouragement of a close and caring social system. I
wish to thank the many vital people in my life who have provided me with the necessary
help to reach this important goal in my life.

I would particularly like to thank my advisor and dissertation chair, Linda Forrest,
Ph.D., for her continued support, assistance and encouragement. She has consistently
gone the extra mile when she believed it would be helpﬁrl to me personally or in my
career, and always been there when I needed her. Along with teaching me much
academically, Linda has provided a positive role model of a caring, involved and available
faculty member. Without her, my progress to this degree would have been very
diminished, if accomplished at all. I also wish to acknowledge and thank the other
members of my dissertation committee for their important assistance and support: Betsy
Becker, Ph.D.; Marilyn Frye, Ph.D.; Kathryn Moore, Ph.D.; and Robbie Steward, PhD.

Finally, I wish to thank the family members and many good ﬁiends who have
provided unique and necessary forms of support, love, encouragement, fun and escape in

this process. Each has contributed greatly to this effort and is deeply appreciated.

iv

 

 

C HA

CH;

CHA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1
Introduction .
Statement of the Problem
Epistemology .
Feminism . .
Purpose of the Study .
Summary

CHAPTER 2 .
Literature Review
Theoretical Constructs . .
Attribution of Responsibility Models .
Feminism .
Epistemological Styles
Empiricism .
Rationalism
Social Constructionism
Empirical Studies .
Epistemological Values
Feminist Beliefs .
Attribution of Responsibility .
Conclusion .

CHAPTER 3 . .
Methodology .

Sample
Demographics
Procedure .
Measures . ..
Reliability . . .
Scale Descriptive Statistics
Design
Hypotheses.
Analysis

CHAPTER 4 .
Results

Correlations
Demographic Variable Analyses
Main Analyses .
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 4
Summary of Results

CHAPTER 5 .
Discussion .
Summary of Study

Interrelationship Among Variables

Main Results

Limitations .

Future Research .
Implications and Applications

Appendix A
APA Letter Requesting Subjects

Appendix B .
Demographics Questionnaire .

Appendix C
Psycho-Epistemological Proﬁle

Appendix D .
Social Issues Inventory

Appendix E .
Attributions of the Term F emrmst

Appendix F .
Helping Orientations Scale

Appendix G
Cover Letter

Appendix H
Correction Letter

Appendix I .
Reminder Letter

68
73
73
73
75
77
78
82

84
84
84
85
88
97
100
102

105
105

107
107

110
110

114
114

116
116

117
117

119
119

121
121

122
122

List of References . . . . . . . . . 123

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.]
Demographic Information for the Total Sample

Table 3.2
Correlations Among Feminist Measures

 

Table 4.]
Correlations

Table 4.2
Regression PredictingFeminism

 

Table 4.3
Regression for Erﬁghtenment .

 

Table 4.4
ﬁgression for Compensatory.

Table 4.5
Regression for Medical

Table 4.6
Whole Model Regression on Enlightenment .

Table 4.7
Whole Model Regression on Medical .

 

Table 4.8
Whole Model Regression on Compensatory .

Table 4.9
Whole Model Reﬁssion on Moral

Table 4.10
Signiﬁcant Predictors for Each HOS Style

viii

. 45-47

.61

. 71-72

.74

.75

.76

.76

.79

.80

.81

.81

.82

 

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

In recent years, there has been increasing interest and attention regarding
the epistemological beliefs undergirding the foundations of knowledge in
counseling psychology (Borden, 1992). Many counseling psychologists are
beginning to recognize and admit that values are inherent in all that we endeavor
to do, and starting to address the underlying effects of beliefs and values on
theory, research and practice. The tradition of psychology, though, is that of an
empirical science that strives for value-neutrality and objectivity (Polkinghorne,
1984). Feminism, on the other hand, is considered a value orientation with
implications for action (Ricketts, 1989). Feminist psychology has stressed the
importance of examining the effects our beliefs have on what we accept as
constituting knowledge. Combining these two perspectives is a fundamental
dilemma for feminist psychologists (Peplau & Conrad, 1989). Given these
concerns, I assert there is a need for research on how feminist beliefs impact
epistemology and how both affect psychological treatment.

The research problem being examined in this study is the relationship of
feminism to epistemological preferences and attributions of responsibility in
psychological treatment. Feminism will be discussed further below, but can be
basically deﬁned as believing that the social status of women is inferior, unjust
and in need of change (Jagger, 1977). Three primary epistemological styles will
be studied: empiricism, rationalism, and social constructionism. These are also
discussed below. Treatment attributions refer to who a therapist believes has the

responsibility for problem cause and solution. Attribution of responsibility styles

will be examined to determine if psychotherapists attribute the responsibility for
the problem development and solution to the client or to someone or something
other than the client. I wish to determine if there is a relationship between
feminist values and choice of epistemological style, and if either or both have an
effect on attribution of responsibility in psychological treatment. There has been
little empirical research on these topics. As such, much of the literature referred
to in this work is conceptual and should be considered so unless speciﬁcally
identiﬁed as research or empirically based.

During over two decades of research, Royce and his colleagues have
developed a conceptual model of three fundamental classes of knowing:
rationalism, empiricism and metaphorism (Diamond & Royce, 1980; Mos,
Wardell, & Royce, 1974; Royce, 1964; Royce, Coward, Egan, Kessel, & Mos,
1978). They termed these approaches to knowing "epistemic styles", which are
presumed to reﬂect differences in the way individuals test and evaluate the
validity of their beliefs. Each entails a different core criterion for truth (Lyddon,
1989). Brieﬂy, the empirical style of knowing depends on perceptual cognitive
processes and testing the validity of beliefs based on reliable correspondence to
relevant observation. This style relies primarily on sense perception and is
considered inductive. The rational style of knowing relies on conceptual cognitive
abilities and testing the validity of beliefs based on their logical consistency. This
style relies primarily on logical analysis and synthesis of information and is
considered deductive. The metaphoric style (which is being considered
synonymous with social constructionism for the purposes of this study) is based
on symbolic cognitive abilities and testing the validity of beliefs according to their
universality (ability to generalize to other areas of experience). The focus is on
symbolizing and constructing new meanings, therefore metaphorism is considered

an analogical style. How a person makes meaning from the combination of their

 

 

 

 

 

pre
PSY
beh

epis

conr
and

This
heter
ﬁns]
behe

andt

Lnde
resea
Ofthr
in Yes
struc‘
COUn:
Sh0u]
Opera
COver
SOCia
thard

1984]

inCIea

 

 

precepts, concepts and symbols is considered one's world view. The
psychological processes of perceiving, conceptualizing and symbolizing are
believed to function interdependently, but people generally have one
epistemological style they use most often (Royce & Powell, 1983).

My interest in this topic comes from my own feminist beliefs and my
concern that psychologists have traditionally been biased in their attempts to study
and understand women, along with other non majority individuals and groups.
This bias is due to theory and research emanating primarily from a white, Western,
heterosexual, male, privileged perspective (Brown, 1990). A major difﬁculty with
this perspective is that any bias is usually unrecognized because of the traditional
belief predominant in Western cultures that science and research are empirical,
and therefore not biased or based on values (Harding, 1991; Unger, 1983).

Epistemology is relevant to counseling psychology in a number of ways.
Understanding and identifying the epistemological beliefs underlying the theory,
research and practice of psychology are important to gain a ﬁller understanding
of the assumptive framework guiding the work. Borgen (1992) stated that insight
in research and in therapy means understanding the embedded meanings and deep
structure: the paradigm. He went on to say that it is intrinsically valuable for
counseling psychology to make the implicit culture of our science explicit, which
should lead to better service for clients. Kuhn (1970) stated that a discipline
operates within a paradigm; a set of assumptions that are often hidden, and with
covert social-cognitive motivations and beliefs. The emerging perspective of
social constructionism asserts that science begins with paradigms and world views
that determine what we will look for and see at the level of data (Highlen & Hill,
1984).

Traditional research methods have been found lacking in their ability to

increase our knowledge of the counseling process (Borgen, 1992). Commitment

 

 

 

 

to a pa
what c
beings
to ader
Borger

subjec

the do
Polkin
valued
psychc
and cc

know]

View I
Obsen
and ya
an abs
dOmin,
mEanjr
Objecri
Obsen.
UHIEna'
knowle
(1989)
an aSSU

which 1:

to a particular methodology (i.e., empiricism) instead of a question sets limits on
what can be investigated. In the ﬁeld of counseling psychology, with human
beings the subject of interest, empiricism is often too narrow in its ﬁeld of inquiry
to adequately examine the complexity of human issues (Polkinghorne, 1984).
Borgen (1984) stated that our energy is invested in designs that do not ﬁt our
subject matter and the bulk of our research follows an obsolete view of science.

Although being challenged more in recent years, empiricism continues to be
the dominant force in Western psychology (Borgen, 1992; Unger, 1983).
Polkinghorne (1984) stated that the ideals of empiricism are still accepted and
valued as the standards for research in psychology. Most counseling
psychologists have remained deeply committed to the assumptions of empiricism
and continue to believe this perspective is the one way to properly produce
knowledge.

According to Polkinghorne (1984), most philosophers of science, however,
view the empirical position as fundamentally untenable and inadequate.
Observations do not produce "facts," but are dependent on the theories, culture
and values of the observer. Neither formal logic nor pure sense data can provide
an absolute foundation for knowledge. Lyddon (1989), in critiquing the
domination of empiricism, noted that it is no longer justiﬁed by workable,
meaningful logic. Krasner and Houts (1984) discussed the implausibility of
objective observation and showed that theory and assumptions logically precede
observation. They stated that "the fundamental assumption of objectivism is
untenable, because it is neither physically nor philosophically possible to obtain
knowledge without ﬁrst choosing some assumptive framework" (p. 841). Ricketts
(1989) suggested that believing in the value neutrality of science is itself merely
an assumption about epistemology that arises from an empiricist world view,

which is a value. Kuhn (1970) asserted that science is basically a cultural creation

 

anc
Sec
the
crh
use.
obs:

hypr

Rick
sock
what
(198
queu
“incl
noﬁc.
(ﬂear
Slatec
becau
ignore
ofthe

CXplar

basis c
(1983)
quesnc
Iiardin‘

epiSIem

and must be understood in motivational and psychological terms. Manicas and
Secord (1983) stated that most scientists, including psychologists, largely ignore
the philosophical debates regarding the nature of knowledge and the need to
critically examine the underlying assumptions of the constructs and theories they
use. Instead, they continue to act as if science is based, without ambiguity, on the
observation of data and facts, connected by complete logic to theories and
hypotheses.

Others have recognized the impact of values and environment on research.
Ricketts (1989) stated that to understand scientists, we need to recognize their
social context and membership in groups that may hold incompatible views about
what constitutes valid knowledge of reality and the nature of reality. Hubbard
(1988) said that facts are not just "out there" - every fact has a maker. She
questioned how people decide which aspects of the world they consider fact and
which they consider ﬁction, and, even more important, what they do not even
notice and therefore do not relegate to either fact or ﬁction. She also deemed it
clear that making facts and making science are social enterprises. Wittig (1985)
stated that reliance on traditional empiricism is debilitating to the social scientist
because of the compromise that occurs when effects of values on fact-ﬁnding are
ignored. She noted that the adequacy base of psychology is affected by the values
of the psychologist because both the objects of research and the modes of
explanation are value-sensitive.

If science is actually value-laden, then it brings into question much of the
basis of our discipline and the supposed facts from which we operate. Unger
(1983) argued that our models of reality inﬂuence our research in terms of
question selection, causal factors hypothesized, and interpretation of data.
Harding (1987) noted the importance to feminists of understanding the

epistemological agendas within science because some agendas lead to distortion

 

and
res:
the
the:

P5."

cm}
are

will
Sch
Rest
psyc
auth

COHC

and misunderstanding of women's experiences. Longino (1989) stated that in
research, a commitment to a particular model is strongly inﬂuenced by values, and
the model then determines the relevance and interpretation of data. The model
then affects psychological treatment, to the extent that research and theories guide
psychotherapists.

Although it is not clear that psychotherapists have the same commitment to
empiricism that the ﬁeld of psychology in general does, counseling psychologists
are trained as scientist-practitioners with the expectation that treatment methods
will follow from research-based methodology (Goldfried & Padawer, 1982;
Schmidt & Meara, 1984), which has been shown to be affected by values.
Research indicates epistemological beliefs and values also impact the practice of
psychotherapy. McGowan & Schmidt (1962) compiled the studies of various
authors who extensively analyzed the issue of values in psychotherapy and
concluded that it is not possible for psychotherapists to be value-free during the
therapeutic interaction. Not understanding our own epistemological beliefs, or
even acknowledging that they exist (namely, thinking that everything we do is
value-free), could result in unknowingly treating people according to our own
values rather than their needs. This is supported by research on the Psycho-
Epistemological Proﬁle (PEP) and value dimensions of the Allport-Vernon-
Lindzey Study of Vmes that produced moderately high correlations between each
epistemological style and various values each style is believed to reﬂect,
suggesting that value commitments may reﬂect underlying epistemologies (Royce
& Mos, 1980). Mahoney and Lyddon (1988), in their review of the conceptual
literature, discussed a number of differences between therapies based in rationalist
and constructionist viewpoints, showing that epistemological styles do transfer to
different therapist beliefs and behaviors in psychotherapy. According to Mahoney

and Lyddon (1988), epistemology affects how we conceptualize client problems,

 

the er
nﬂaps
.Anotl
psych
then'
rnerar
show=
ofij
thatc
know
epistr
value
caref
resea

CPEU

COUn
expe
eDist
ackn
there
ﬁler;
that
the a
inIer
11ndc

(iiar

the emphasis of our interventions, our conceptualization of affect, resistance, and
relapse and regression, the view of insight, and the therapeutic relationship.
Another empirical study found that a random sample of behavioral and
psychoanalytic therapists showed distinct epistemological preferences based on
their PEP responses. Eighty-six percent of psychoanalytic therapists preferred
metaphorism, compared to 33% of behavior therapists. Behavior therapists
showed a much stronger preference for empiricism than did the comparative group
of psychoanalytic therapists (Schacht & Black, 1985). Hoshmand (1991) stated
that one of the needs of counseling psychology is to articulate the models of
knowledge implicit in approaches to the practice of psychotherapy, including their
epistemological assumptions. If we accept the growing viewpoint that there is no
value-free science or practice, then an understanding of epistemology and a
careful examination of underlying values is necessary for evaluating theory,
research, and practice in the ﬁeld of counseling psychology. I assert that
epistemology impacts each of these areas.

The preceding review of reasons why these issues are relevant to
counseling psychology also highlights the gap in our knowledge. In my
experience, I do not recall ever reading a journal article where the underlying
epistemological belief was articulated. Rarely, if ever, is there even an
acknowledgment of an epistemological basis to the work (Borgen, 1992). Yet,
there are three predominant epistemologies frequently cited in the general
literature, each espousing very different values and beliefs. Borgen (1992) noted
that a typical empirical article in a journal rarely reveals the discovery context or
the assumptive paradigm of the study. Psychological theories and methods of
intervention are often seen as valid and reﬂecting "truth" without examining the
underlying beliefs that led to their development, testing and implementation

(Harding, 1987). Women and minority groups are often excluded from research

 

 

 

leading
ways I'
groups
nhenr
Ricket
idenuf
values
resear.
treatm
values
ourbh

Psychr

leading to the development of theory and practice interventions, or studied in
ways that do not capture the complexity of their experiences. Because of this,
groups of underrepresented people have often been devalued or misunderstood
when deve10ping psychological theory and methods of intervention (Coan, 1979;
Ricketts, 1989; Unger, 1983). Essentially, there is currently a gap in examining,
identifying and even knowing how we know what we know, as well as how our
values might have impacted this knowledge. More importantly, there is very little
research on the effects of our epistemology on our theories, research, and
treatment. I believe it is vitally important that we examine and acknowledge our
values and our understanding of truth in an attempt to recognize and articulate
our biases. More research will hopefully lead to a more critical evaluation of
psychological theory, research and treatment, and how each can be improved.

As feminist psychology has always been explicit in acknowledging its
emancipatory values and goals, the expectation of this study is that these values
and goals will be reﬂected in psychotherapy. In fact, feminist psychology (both
research and clinical practice) is typically deﬁned by its attention to and
explication of underlying beliefs rather than the use of speciﬁc methods or
techniques (Enns & Hackett, 1990; Harding, 1987). Feminists are therefore at the
forefront in examining epistemologies. Gergen (1985) found feminist
psychologists to be among those most aware of the possibilities of social
constructionism and most attracted to it as an alternative to empiricism. The
empiricist orientation has advocated manipulation, suppression, and alienation of
those one wants to understand, often women (J aeger, 1983). Also from feminist
perspectives, empiricism often seems to have been used by males to construct
views of women that contribute to their subjugation (Bleier, 1984). Feminist
psychology has criticized empirical methods in a number of ways: for neglecting

women as subjects, for ignoring the effect of the sex of the experimenter on

 

 

 

 

perfor
resear
behav
1983)

need:

probh
ofhel
(hﬂer
respo
chent
detaﬂ
are re
behav
Whetl

anrn)

SCoﬁr
e1npir
femini
Ghent
innUer
m0del
Isther

performance, for the tendency to make most generalizations to humans from
research based only on men, for the effect of sex biases in determining speciﬁc
behaviors to study with each sex, and for treating people like objects (Unger,
1983). Feminists object to the pervasive androcentrism in psychology and see the
need to distinguish between knowledge and prejudice (Hawkesworth, 1989).

A primary goal of psychotherapy is to help people solve or cope with their
problems (Corsini & Wedding, 1989). Brickman et al. (1982) developed models
of helping and coping they hypothesized as metatheoretical assumptions based on
different world views. The authors conceptualized four styles of attribution of
responsibility, believed to direct therapists' behavior when attempting to help
clients solve problems. Attribution of responsibility styles will be explained in
detail in the next chapter. Because different styles of attribution of responsibility
are representative of different beliefs and are believed to lead to different therapist
behaviors, these styles will be used in this study as an outcome to determine
whether feminism and epistemological styles are related to differences in
attribution of responsibility style in psychotherapy.

The questions I plan to address in my study are as follows: 1) Do those
scoring high in feminist values subscribe more frequently to a rationalist,
empiricist, or social constructionist epistemology? 2) Does the endorsement of
feminist values inﬂuence one's preferred model for attributing responsibility for
client problems and solutions? 3) Does one's preferred epistemological style
inﬂuence one's preferred model of attribution of responsibility, and, if so, which
model of attribution of responsibility is related to which epistemological style? 4)
Is there a relationship among feminism, epistemological style and attribution of
responsibility style in psychological treatment?

Key variables are endorsement of feminist values, preferred epistemological

style, and model of attribution of responsibility for the problem and the solution.

 

 

1e
reh
end
eph
resr
01k
ﬁnn
BaSI
sohi
conr
used
some
Thus
ignor
comp
deveh
the so
PFCdic
"Otan;
01’ no 6

.ﬁnﬁnk,
have a S
andnonr
psycholo

commllte

10

I expect that feminism will affect epistemological style, and epistemology will
relate to attribution of treatment responsibility. My expectations are that those
endorsing feminist values will prefer social constructionism as their
epistemological style, followed by rationalism and then empiricism. What little
research there is on this topic suggests that this will be the order of preference
(Ricketts, 1989; Unger, 1985). There does not appear to be any literature relating
feminism or epistemology to a choice of attribution of responsibility models.
Based on how the models distribute responsibility for the problem and the
solution, my own prediction is that feminists are most likely to endorse the
compensatory model, (one of the models in the attribution of responsibility being
used in this study), which places responsibility for problem development with
someone other than the client and responsibility for the solution with the client.
This prediction is based on the criticisms feminists make of empiricism for often
ignoring social context and not empowering the subject or client. In the
compensatory model, social context is considered in understanding problem
development and the client is empowered to make changes rather than assuming
the solution to problems needs to come from a superior authority ﬁgure. This
prediction is based only on my own ideas of how feminists are likely to respond,
not any empirical evidence. The hypotheses will not be directional due to minimal
or no empirical support for relationships among the concepts I have selected for
this study.

My main reason for choosing these constructs for study is my interests in
feminism, epistemology, and in providing efﬁcacious psychological treatment. I
have a strong commitment to work to change the inherent biases against women
and nonmajority groups in both our society and the ﬁeld of counseling
psychology. As has been discussed, much of counseling psychology remains

committed to traditional empiricism as the only method for gaining knowledge and

 

 

 

trut
com
a“ h
chsc
over
vahn
inter
epnn
itsar
bneﬂ
epntr
trean
behav
ShouL
psych

treatn

fegarr
0f prc
and e]

SOhni

“IErat
thefef
unden
lhat If

ll

truth. Often, this leads to "truth" or knowledge that does not capture the
complexity of inﬂuences many experience and is not valid and representative for
all individuals. Any work that contributes to the recognition of the traditional,
discriminatory values on which this ﬁeld continues to be largely based will help
overcome our biases and make counseling psychology more representative and
valuing of all individuals. I also found Ricketts (1989) similar study very
interesting and wanted to improve it. She explored the effects of values on
epistemology. However, I believe her study had serious limitations that restrict
its applicability. Ricketts (1989) will be examined in detail later in this work, but
brieﬂy, her study could be improved by using better measures of values and
epistemology, and by adding social constructionist epistemology. Also, effects on
treatment were related only to theoretical orientation rather than psychotherapists'
behaviors and metatheoretical beliefs. My use of Brickman et al.'s (1982) model
should show more clearly how epistemology actually affects part of the
psychotherapy process by examining conceptualization of responsibility in
treatment.

The purpose of this study is to expand the empirical base of information
regarding the effects of feminism on epistemological style, and belief in the locus
of problems in the individual or the environment, and to determine how feminism
and epistemology relate to attributions of responsibility for the problem and the
solution to self or others in psychological treatment.

Although there is some minor theoretical and empirical support in the
literature for certain hypotheses, very little has yet been done in this area. I am
therefore considering this primarily an exploratory study to gain a better
understanding of the questions and relationships involved. My ﬁrst hypothesis is
that there will be differences between feminists and nonfeminists in preferences

among social constructionist, rationalist, and empiricist epistemological styles. I

 

hax
una
wih
resl
ther
ofr
that

anri

undr
ﬁndi
atth
Furﬂ
help
assur
need:
andt.

Study

12

have found no literature related to my second, third and fourth hypotheses, so am
unable to predict the likely order of choices. The second hypothesis is that there
will be differences between feminists and nonfeminists in preferred model of
responsibility attribution in psychological treatment. The third hypothesis is that
there will be a difference between epistemological styles in the choice of models
of responsibility attribution in psychological treatment. The fourth hypothesis is
that there will be a relationship between feminism, epistemological choice, and
attribution of responsibility style in treatment.

Answering the questions of this study could provide a clearer
understanding of certain issues and beliefs that underlie and guide treatment. The
ﬁndings of this study may prompt counseling psychologists to look more closely
at their undergirding values and the ways their values affect their practice.
Further understanding of the relationship between epistemology and practice will
help us be more ethical in claiming our biases by being explicit regarding our
assumptions and how these are inherent in our work. Empirical research is
needed to examine the effects of feminist values on choice of epistemological style
and the effects both feminism and epistemological style have on treatment. This

study will provide data to examine the relationships among these variables.

 

epis
beer
expl

Ila:

copir
psycl
Super
(1981
for Ca
differ
hnkag
(1982
COrreg
mode],-
i“(livid
The es:
for a so
resDons

motivatj

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

Empirical research on how beliefs impact epistemological style, and how
epistemological style impacts theory, research and psychological treatment has
been minimal. In this section, the theoretical constructs used in this study will be
explained, followed by a review of the relevant empirical studies.

Theoretical Constructs

Attribution of ResponsibilitLModel.

Attribution of responsibility will be assessed using models of helping and
coping developed by Brickman et al. (1982). The authors hypothesized that a
psychotherapist's model of responsibility is a metatheoretical assumption that
supersedes or complements her or his theoretical orientation. Brickman et al.
(1982) believed that judgments about whether or not people are held responsible
for causing their problems and for solving these problems are functions of four
different world views. This theoretical connection to world view provides some
linkage for my study in relating feminism to epistemological style. Brickman et al.
(1982) conceptualized and developed four models of attribution of responsibility
corresponding to the four different world views they theorized. These four
models of attribution of responsibility are believed to specify what form
individuals‘ behavior will take when they attempt to help themselves or others.
The essence of these models is the attribution of responsibility for a problem and
for a solution to one's self or others. The m_()_ra_l model holds individuals
responsible for both problems and solutions. Individuals need only proper

motivation to change. In the compensatory model, people are considered

13

 

helping
Proble
to over
change
any Che
remind:
themsel
r€5pons
someon
the Way
complai
11

the Obst;
Conabor;
orOppor
“Sing thi:
not {mm
Provide 11
mus: be a

Social my

l4

responsible for solutions but not problems. They are thought to need power to
change. The mam model holds individuals responsible for neither the problem
nor the solution, and they are believed to need treatment to change. In the
enlightenment model, people are considered responsible for problems but unable
or unwilling to provide solutions. These individuals are in need of discipline to
change.

In the mpral model, others do not feel obligated to help or capable of
helping; everyone makes their own troubles and must ﬁnd their own solutions.
Problems are seen as a sign of weak character requiring the use of more willpower
to overcome. People are seen as lazy or unwilling to make enough effort to
change, or their effort is misdirected. The individual with the problem must make
any changes for her- or himself if he or she wants to. Helping consists of
reminding people they are responsible for their own fate and must help
themselves. If they don't like the way things are, they should recognize their
responsibility for changing things, stop sitting around complaining or waiting for
someone else to do something, and change things. Otherwise, they should accept
the way things are, realizing they are responsible for their situation, and still stop
complaining or blaming others (Brickman et al., 1982).

In the compensatm model, people are seen as having to compensate for
the obstacles imposed on them by their situation with special efforts or
collaboration with others. Helpers see themselves as compensating for resources
or opportunities that the clients deserve but do not have. The responsibility for
using this help is with the recipients. Clients are seen as suffering or deprived,
not from their own deﬁciencies, but from the failure of their social environment to
provide them with services or goods to which they are entitled. Recipients of help
must be assertive to solve their problems. They may need to compel an unwilling

social environment to give them necessary resources. Therapists can help train

15

them in assertiveness techniques and empower them to deal with their
environment more effectively. Therapists ask how they can be of help and may,
for a time, mobilize on behalf ofthe client. People are not blamed for their
problems and are encouraged to direct their energies outward to solve problems
through changing the environment. Clients are given credit for developing
solutions to their problems (Brickman et al., 1982).

In the medical model, people are seen as victims and subject to forces that
were and will continue to be out of their control. People should not be blamed for
their problems or expected to develop their own solutions. Clients are seen as
having an illness or being incapacitated. They are expected to accept their state,
not worry about social obligations, but seek expert help. The therapist, as the
expert, provides clients with solutions and clients are expected to use the
therapist's help to try to get better. The responsibility for prescribing the solution
and judging its success resides with the therapist. People are not expected to take
care of problems by themselves; they need to depend on their therapist.
Medications are often considered useful and prescribed (Brickman et al., 1982).

In the enlightenment model, people are required to accept a very negative
view of themselves and submit to agents of social control to improve. People are
seen as guilty or sinful, or at least as responsible, based on past behavior, for their
current problems. Their own impulses are out of control and causing their
problems. To control these impulses, clients must learn to submit to
authoritative, moral forces of the community. Solutions to problems lie outside
the person and can be maintained only as long as they maintain the relationship
with external authorities (such as a therapist) or a spiritual community. Power is
given to these external agents. Clients are expected to repudiate their old, evil
ways and continually perform acts that show this repudiation (Brickman et al.,

1982)

l6

Feminism.

Although there are many styles and deﬁnitions of feminism, some basic
commitments are common. Feminists are united in believing that the inferior
social status of women is unjust and in need of change (Jaggar, 1977). Feminism
is considered a system of values that challenges male dominance and advocates
political, social, and economic equity of women and men in society (Riger, 1992).
The primary deﬁnition of feminism in this study will be: The belief that sexism
exists and is a fundamental, pervasive oppression of women, including the belief
that current inequalities exist in political, social, civil and educational rights and
opportunities between the sexes, along with a commitment to eradicating the
ideology of male domination that permeates Western culture and the elimination
of inequalities for women through legal, social, economic and educational reform
to allow complete equality for women (Enns & Hackett, 1990; Kramarae &
Treichler, 1985; Tuttle, 1986). In providing psychotherapy, a feminist would be
expected to focus on expanding awareness of gender role socialization, social
barriers and discrimination, and encourage the altering of behavior and
environments (Enns & Hackett, 1990).

Examination of Epistemological Styles

Epistemology is basically deﬁned as the science of knowledge, with the
primary concerns being how knowledge is acquired and validated (Lyddon, 1989),
or how we come to know what we know. Royce and Mos (1980) have developed
a psychophilosophical theory of knowledge positing three basic ways of knowing:
rationalism, empiricism, and metaphorism. They regard these ways of knowing as
basic because of their dependence on various fundamental cognitive processes and
their epistemological justiﬁability. Although there are other epistemological
styles discussed in the literature, particularly speciﬁc feminist epistemologies, this

study will only examine the global epistemological styles mentioned above.

17

Although I am very interested in the feminist epistemologies not contained in the
categories I am studying (feminist empiricism, standpoint theory and
postmodernism), I want to ﬁrst examine the general epistemologies. In further
research I might either develop an instrument that measures feminist
epistemologies (none currently exist to my knowledge) or study feminist
epistemologies using qualitative methodologies to gain a better understanding of
the styles.

Empiricism.

The dominant tradition of epistemology in Western psychology has been
empiricism, an objectivist epistemology based in logical positivism (Hoshmand,
1991). Empiricism restricts analysis to a few clearly observable units of behavior
so that one's own beliefs are assumed to not be imposed on the organism being
studied. The method of investigation and subject matter are considered
independent of each other (Unger, 1983). The presumption is of a singular,
stable, external reality that is accurately revealed by one's senses (Mahoney &
Lyddon, 1988). People are assumed to be essentially passive reactors to
environmental events (Ricketts, 1989). The observer, too, is believed to be
passive and have a mechanistic conception of nature that functions without the
intervention of the detached observer (Code, 1991). Typically, behavior is
observed in a laboratory to prevent extraneous variables from inﬂuencing
behavior. People are seen only as subjects by removing them from their historical
and situational contexts (Unger, 1983). Empiricists believe the cause of an event
can be determined by breaking down the event into its component parts and
studying the relationship among those parts. They try to be ahistorical, seldom
looking for the historical and cultural aspects of the lives of the human beings

being studied (Sherif, 1987). There is an assumption of objectivity - observation

 

 

-. _ ._ .., .h- -.

 

 

 

18

provides unassailable knowledge: the knowledge of facts and raw data (Krasner &
Houts, 1984).

Empiricists require a total separation of intellect and emotion. The belief is
that value judgments are emotive and not veriﬁable, and must therefore be
separated from the construction of knowledge. Emotion is subjective, but
perceptions of our senses feed directly into the intellect to produce objective,
rational knowledge (Code, 1991).

Feminist psychologists have been at the forefront in critiquing traditional
empiricism. A major area of criticism by feminists is their recognition that values
are an integral part of science inﬂuencing all phases of the process. They believe
values should be acknowledged and made explicit. Another major area of feminist
criticism argues that the methods, language and objectives of science itself,
particularly as deﬁned by the experimental method common in empiricism, have
been deﬁned and shaped by "masculine" personalities, concerns and interests
(Lott, 1985). Feminist psychologists pointed out that empiricist methodology
neglected a number of important issues: women as subjects; the effect of the sex
of the researcher on the subjects performance; often making generalizations from
all-male data to humans as a whole, but not from all-female data; and sex bias in
deciding what behavior to study with what sex (Unger, 1983).

Sherif (1987) pointed out that there is much opportunity for bias in the
traditional research situation, starting when the decision is made about what to
study. There are also many different points where the researcher decides how to
study the subject, such as what to consider independent variables and what
behavior to observe and what to ignore during the experiment. The power
differential between the researcher and "subjects" are also ignored. There is
typically a failure to recognize the effects of the research setting, and the effects

of researcher's expectations interacting with subjects attempts to behave in

._“.___7'_
d“. .h ‘21:.41

 

 

soc
bel
1111

3C

l9

socially desirable ways. Empiricism has also been criticized for restricting the
behaviors that are examined to those that are amenable to simple observation,
therefore usually devoid of much meaning to the subjects, and for elimination of
actions that involve values and ideology because of their inability to be
operationalized (Unger, 1983). Lott (1985) summarized many of the criticisms of
empiricism by stating that "facts are always 'construed' by an active
investigator/interpreter, and values (or biases) are present throughout the research
process" (p. 159), and added that it is to be expected in a patriarchal culture that
patriarchal values will be reﬂected in research. What is seen by some as
"masculinity" is reﬂected in the emphasis of science on power and control, along
with compartmentalization, separation, and the search for prime causes rather than
equally valid emphases on interdependence, interaction and process (Lott, 1985).

Gergen (1988) criticized empiricism from a feminist perspective on similar
accounts: the scientist and subject are considered independent, the subject matter
is decontextualized from the ﬁeld in which it is physically and historically
embedded, the belief of value-neutrality in theory and practice, the supposed
independence of "facts" from the researcher, and the belief in the superiority of
the scientist over others.

Harding (1979, in Code, 1991) discussed some problems of the empiricist
tradition that hide behind the guise of objectivity and impartial neutrality, such as
providing justiﬁcation for treating people as cases rather than active, creative and
agentic. Particularly interesting is Harding's critique of classic empiricists
exempting their own minds from the model they consider universally valid - that
everyone is a blank tablet and no one is a self-directed agent. The authors'
theoretical creativity allows them to escape the description they apply to all
others. The consequence of "the empiricist model of mind functions as a self-

fulﬁlling prescription beneﬁcial to those already in power: treat people as if they

20

are passive and need direction from others, and they will become or remain able to
be manipulated and controlled" (Harding, 1979, p. 46). Harding believed the
active empiricist theorist and the passive subject model parallels the stereotype of
active male and passive female, and serves to legitimate the consequences of that
stereotype in androcentric power structures (Code, 1991). Both Harding (1979)
and Code (1991) concluded that the sex of the knower (typically the researcher) is
epistemologically signiﬁcant; theories of knowledge developed by men are
inﬂuenced by their sex.

Code (1991) also critiqued the supposed lack of emotion in the production
of knowledge from the empiricist viewpoint. She pointed out that it is at times
reasonable to feel certain emotions, and that emotions such as curiosity and
interest are necessary to the construction of knowledge. In fact, "emotion and
intellect are mutually constitutive and sustaining, rather than oppositional forces
in the construction of knowledge" (Code, 1991, p. 47). However, the denigration
of emotion is associated with the stereotype of female emotionality. Code warned
that feminists must be cautious in identifying with what is believed to be
irrationality (female emotionality). She noted, too, that empiricism actually is
sustained by subjective forces of self-interest. The ideal of objectivity which
suppresses emotionality is largely a product of subjective interests and
enthusiasms. Code (1991) continued by pointing out that it is natural that
epistemological ideals should derive out of human interests and implausible to
believe that which is made by human cognitive agents would not. This
recognition of the involvement of human interests should lead us to carefully
analyze and critique that which claims to be objective and neutral (Code, 1991).

Empiricism is based in what is often considered "male" ways of knowing.
Objectivity and reductionism are prized. Ways of knowing that have frequently

been considered "female", such as emotional understanding, are discounted (Code,

21

1991). Understanding connections among individuals and how context affects
behavior is ignored (Harding, 1987). The continued Western, scientiﬁc emphasis
on empiricism is one way to maintain the status quo and uphold the patriarchy.

By ignoring the very different contexts of women and minorities from those of the
white male, which can lead to different thoughts, feelings and behaviors,
differences can be attributed to transcendent categories or considered biologically
natural. The need for social change is less obvious and less threatening to those
in power who don't want to give up their position in society. Women and
minorities can continue to be seen as the imperfect "other" compared to the white,
male standard. Research that doesn't follow standard empirical procedures, and
results in information that challenges previous constructions or hierarchies can be
ignored as not being rigorous enough to provide accurate information. Believing
in empiricism as the only way to truth allows psychologists to ignore the
sociocultural, political and historical contexts of the individuals they study and
treat, thereby surely ignoring much of what has made, and continues to make,
people the way they are.

Rationalism.

Rationalism considers ideas the source of knowledge as opposed to
experience (or the senses ) which empiricism considers the source of knowledge
(Harding, 1991). Rationalists agree with empiricists that the task of knowledge is
to build an adequate representation of nature or reality (Benhabib, 1990).
Rationalists also see reality as stable, singular and external, and representations as
more or less accurate copies, corresponding to the real world (Mahoney &
Lyddon, 1988). Rationalists also agree with empiricists about there being an ideal
objectivity; seeking a disinterested, impartial stance for the knower (Benhabib,
1990). Rationalists believe you must detach from the time and place, from

personal interests and prejudices, and from the object being studied (Code, 1991).

22

Both rationalists and empiricists argue against dependence on individuals own
emotional responses or other people as a source of knowledge. Rationalists
believe that the harmony of mind and nature will guarantee correspondence
between the representations of each (Benhabib, 1990).

The rationalist perspective contends that thought is superior to the senses
and is most powerful in determining experience (Mahoney & Lyddon, 1988). The
rational epistemological style relies on conceptual, cognitive abilities and involves
testing the validity of one's beliefs in terms of their logical consistency (Lyddon,
1989). Thus, knowledge is considered valid by logic or reason. Knowledge is
authorized or justiﬁed through various methods of gaining information, such as
sense experience (although this is not dominant), empirical data, science, logic
and expert authority. Intellectual processes are supreme and direct actions and
feelings (Mahoney & Lyddon, 1988).

Many of the criticisms that apply to empiricism also apply to rationalism.
Although rationalists view people as more active in construing their realities,
knowledge and reality construction are still very individualistic processes.
Rationalists believe in a ﬁxed, external reality and do not recognize that reality
can be construed very differently by individuals in very different contexts. They
do not consider the contextual inﬂuences on thinking, or the social construction
involved in what is believed to be "logical". Rationalists also focus on objectivity
and believe there can be an impartial stance allowing detachment from context,
self and others (Mahoney & Lyddon, 1988). Here, too, this belief ignores much
of what is vital in the development and actions of people living in many different
contexts. It seems to allow for there being a "right" way to view the world and
ﬁnd "truth, " thereby denying the reality of many who do not ﬁt the norm.
Typically, feminists view rationalism as unacceptable because it denies emotion

and experience as valid ways of knowing. Rationalism seems to parallel

. .EI

23

stereotypic male beliefs that only logic and reason provides knowledge, and
women are too emotional to be possessors or makers of knowledge (Code, 1991).

Soci4al Constructionism.

The foundation of social constructionism is the idea that humans actively
create and construe their personal realities - each person, in conjunction with
others, creates her or his own representational model of the world. This model
then becomes a framework from which the person orders and assigns meaning to
new experience (Mahoney & Lyddon, 1988). The emphasis of social
constructionism is on sign-mediated transactions with knowledge constituted
through interactions with others in discourse interchanges and communities
(Gavalek, 1992). The primary concern of social constructionism is in explicating
the processes by which people come to explain, describe, or somehow account for
themselves and the world. Discourse about the world is viewed as an artifact of
communal interchange - the world is understood as social artifacts, products of
historically situated interchanges among people. The process of understanding is
the result of a cooperative, active endeavor of individuals in relationship (Gergen,
1985)

Social constructionists believe that it is impossible to view the world
objectively; our descriptions of the world provide information about ourselves as
well as the world. Our research and theories tell about ourselves as well as the
world, and the aspects of the world we deem to deserve scientiﬁc attention. Our
perception of the world and the system of categories by which we perceive it are
inseparable. The social constructionist framework chooses between competing
views based on their utility; what are the consequences rather than which is
correct. Due to different people having different interests, this can never be

determined absolutely (Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1990).

4.!

24

Rather than believing that we discover reality, social constructionsim
asserts that we invent it. Our experience is an ordering, selecting and organizing
of what is out there, not a direct reﬂection of reality. We do not passively
observe reality, but actively construct the meanings we use to organize and frame
our experiences and perceptions. What we understand as reality is not an exact
replica, but a representation of what is out there. Representations of what we
understand to be reality are shared meanings derived from shared history,
language and culture. The "realities" of social life are actually products of
language and meanings on which we agree (Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1990).
Realities are believed to be individual and collective constructions to order our
experience. Knowing is behavioral, emotional and cognitive, and the validity of
knowledge is less important than its meaningfulness. Thought, action, and feeling
are functionally and structurally inseparable. All human knowing is seen as
inseparable from the experience of the knower (Mahoney & Lyddon, 1988).

From the social constructionist position, all knowledge is a construction of
the human mind. Sensory data are ﬁltered through our biological apparatuses for
acquiring sensory information and made into cognitions and perceptions. The
mind itself is constructed in a social context, so the minds' knowledge is created in
part by the cultural and social contexts in which the mind comes to know the
world. The usefulness of what we come to know depends on the shared
perceptions of what the "facts" are (consensual validation) and on whether or not
they work for various purposes. Knowledge cannot be perceived or processed
without being constrained by our beliefs - emotional responses and personal
prejudices impact our knowledge of events. Individuals, including scientists, seek
"facts" that ﬁt into their world view and are congruent with prior beliefs (Scarr,

1985)

 

25

Social constructionism considers both the individual and the world,
construing knowledge as a communal human construction that both forms and is
formed by human beings. Making knowledge is seen as a communal rather than a
private activity as advances in knowledge generally come from moving beyond or
reﬁning what is already known (Soltis, 1981). Social constructionism breaks
down the individual/society dichotomy in two ways. First, it states that human
action, thought and perception must be examined in terms of meanings. Second,
codes, particularly language, carry meanings and are inherently intersubjective
(Ingleby, 1986). According to Ingleby (1986), these codes that structure action
should be the subject of psychology, not individual minds. The prominence of the
individual is rejected by social constructionism. Bruffe (1986) gave what he
considered a succinct summary of the social constructionist understanding of
knowledge by quoting Geertz (1973), "we must learn to conceive 'of cognition,
emotion, motivation, perception, imagination, memory whatever' - entities we
normally think of a strictly individual, internal, and mental affairs - 'as themselves,
and directly, social affairs'" (p. 775). Regarding scientiﬁc knowledge, Kuhn
(1970) stated that it, too, is a social construct, identical with the language in
which it is formulated. The community of scientists constructs knowledge
essentially by arriving at a consensus.

In contrast to empiricism, social constructionist theory challenges the belief
that reality is ﬁxed and can be objectively observed. Social constructionists also
challenge the belief that it is possible to distinguish facts from values, believing
instead that values and attitudes determine what are to be accepted as facts.
Empiricism focuses on facts and answers; social constructionism focuses on
assumptions and questions. Social constructionist theory asserts that knowledge,
including scientiﬁc knowledge, cannot be disinterested or politically neutral

(Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1990).

 

26

Social constructionists believe that empiricist methods for gaining
psychological knowledge are inadequate. Knowledge about behavior is
constructed, not just deduced, and methods beyond those of the traditional
scientiﬁc method are necessary for a more complete understanding of human
behavior. Constructions of knowledge are affected by personal, social, historical
and cultural contexts. Judgments of the validity, meaning and usefulness of
particular analyses of behavior are themselves socially inﬂuenced. Explanations of
human behavior must include knowledge of the individual's social contexts -
explanations derived under controlled conditions are at best incomplete. Behavior
is caused by multiple factors that change in complex ways. Methods must be
sensitive to multiple and bi-directional causality and subjective meanings to help
gain understanding of interactional processes. Research should be on multiple
levels of inquiry and coordinate the study of psychological processes with
biological and social processes (Wittig, 1985). Rather than looking for
explanations for human behavior in the interior of the mind, the focus shifts to
examining the processes and structures of human interaction. Social
constructionism attempts to move beyond the dualism of empiricism and
rationalism, placing knowledge within the process of social interchanges (Gergen,
1985). According to Bruner (1990), the basic claim of social constructionism is
that "knowledge is 'right' or 'wrong' in light of the perspective we have chosen to
assume" (p. 25).

Social constructionism stresses that processes or social categories are
produced through language and the selective use of evidence. In psychology, this
perspective would argue that psychological phenomena need to be understood
relative to their situational and historical speciﬁcity - they do not exist apart from
the context in which they occur or are studied. Researchers will obtain different

results depending on how they shape the context of the questions asked or frame

 

27

their questions (Unger, 1990). A social constructionist position in psychology
attempts to explain rather than necessarily predict human behavior. Social
constructionism does not attempt to ﬁnd universal principles and deterministic
laws that can be applied to essentially all of humanity. The social constructionism
position attempts to account for more complex causal relationships and other
aspects of human action that are often ignored in research, such as intentions,
purposes, subjective meanings and values (Wittig, 1985).

Social constructionism challenges the concepts of experience and sense
data basic to empiricism, suggesting that reports of experience are linguistic
constructions shaped by historically contingent conventions of discourse. There is
no one "truth" or method to determine "truth." Knowledge claims are to be
evaluated through recognizing limitations inherent in existing constructions,
current needs for systems of intelligibility, and numerous moral, political,
aesthetic, and practical considerations (Gergen, 1985).

For feminist psychology, the social constructionist approach allows
feminist political analysis to inﬂuence theory and practice directly rather than just
through the selection of content or the problem to be studied. Current social
circumstances must enter into psychological analysis, such as understanding that
virtually all women exist in hierarchical societies where men are viewed as
superior. This understanding helps deter believing that factors limiting women's
lives and inﬂuencing their choices are "all in their heads" or caused only by female
biology, rather than also related to sociopolitical circumstances (Unger, 1990).

Social constructionism is seen by many feminists as an attractive alternative
to empiricism, in particular, due to its emphasis on the processes of interpretation,
the communal basis of knowledge, and concern with the values which are the
underpinnings of traditional scientiﬁc accounts (Gergen, 1985). Some uses

feminists have made of social constructionist theory are in employing interpretive

 

28

research strategies, demonstrating the pragmatic uses of constructionist inquiry,
documenting the scientiﬁc construction of gender, and exploring the foundations
for constructionist metatheory (Unger, 1983). Some feminists are concerned,
though, that the focus on meaning and language will deﬂect from a focus on the
political, social and economic problems associated with women's lives (Hare-
Mustin & Marecek, 1990).

Cook and Fonow's (1990) feminist critique of epistemological beliefs of the
social sciences articulated some ways that social constructionism ﬁts
epistemological principles undergirding feminist science and research. First, they
support the necessity of continuously attending to the signiﬁcance of gender as a
basic component of all social life, including research. Women and their
experiences are the focus of inquiry. Subjective experiences are not discounted,
but the emotional, interior worlds of women are validated. There must be
recognition that much of what is considered knowledge about human behavior is
actually knowledge about male behavior, where masculine is equated with
universal and women are ignored. The researcher should also be located as a
gendered being whose own life and research is inﬂuenced by the social relations
related to gender. Another feminist epistemological principle found in social
constructionism is a challenge to the norm of objectivity that assumes personal or
grounded experiences are unscientiﬁc and the subject and object of research can
be separated. This leads to exploration of the fallacy that separation of researcher
and subject produces more valid, legitimate knowledge. It also encourages
exploration of how the research process reinforces the subordination of women
participants, and leads to a critique of equating quantitative research as more
objective, instead noting that quantiﬁcation has inherent distortions and biases

(Cook & Fonow, 1990).

 

29

The social constructionist epistemological beliefs also support feminist
concerns about research in other areas. Wylie (1992) stated that women should
not be objectiﬁed - the supposed separation of researcher and object of study
should be abandoned, especially attempting to avoid the power differential typical
of the hierarchical relationship of researcher and subject in most quantitative
research. Researchers should be acknowledged as socially situated individuals
whose own experience and social involvement with participants of the study
inevitably affects their understanding. This makes visible the researcher's part in
the construction of knowledge and allows it to be critiqued as a part of the
research process. Harding (1989) added that keeping the researcher in the same
critical plane as the overt subject matter allows the whole research process (such
as formulation of questions and hypotheses, and methods used) to be considered
for scrutiny when interpreting the results of the project. Acknowledging the
personal lenses of the researcher also helps avoid false universalizing of results.
With the concern of feminists to make the politics of personal life known, it is
important that the position of the researcher be included throughout the research
process (Scott, 1985).

The social constructionist viewpoint also meshes with feminist's admitting
to political agendas (Sherwin, 1989). Feminists analyze gender critically, looking
at how individual, symbolic and structural expressions of gender account for
women's Oppression. Through the questions posed by feminist research, and the
absence of questions in certain areas that it locates, feminism places gender as
central in shaping institutions, consciousness and skills along with distributing
privilege and power (Lather, 1991). Feminist research recognizes that questions
men have wanted answered have oﬁen been used to control or exploit women, and
to glorify masculinity by seeing women as less than or deviant from men. Instead,

feminist research attempts to ﬁnd explanations to biological and social phenomena

 

30

that women need and want (Harding, 1989). Questions asked in feminist research
primarily focus on women's experiences in political struggle because the questions
of an oppressed group are not often for pure "truth" but for information about
how to overcome their oppression. This challenges the traditional, empirical
pretense of truth for its own sake without an agenda (Sherwin, 1989).

The focus on women's experiences as the source of problems also
challenges traditional methodology by acknowledging that there is no problem
without a group of people who have a problem. Traditional research ignores the
relevance of the origin of problems or hypotheses in considering the value of the
results. Those approaching research from a feminist perspective believe that the
questions asked, and those not asked, are as important in determining the
adequacy of the complete picture as results. The purposes of research and
analysis are not separated from the origins of research problems (Harding, 1987).
Feminist researchers openness about the process of research being affected by a
theoretical framework is often seen as a threat to orthodox research (Scott,
1985)

Feminist epistemological bases for research also emphasize the plurality of
women's experiences - there is no one universal woman or man to be held up as
the norm (Harding, 1987). Claims of being abstract, objective or universal are
explicitly avoided (Sherwin, 1989). Feminist approaches to science aim to
eliminate oppression of individuals based on gender, class, race, sexuality,
ableness, or nationality. "Truth" is acknowledged as partial and culture-bound
(Harding, 1991). These values of feminist researchers also suggest support for
the social constructionist epistemological position.

The social constructionist position seems to provide a balance between
more radical views, such as empiricism and postmodernism. The emphasis on

context requires multiple methods and levels of inquiry in order to have a more

 

31

complete picture of individuals and their actions. The complexity of human life is
central (Harding, 1987). Yet, the social constructionist position acknowledges an
ontological reality and biological constraints on development and behavior. Our
realities are shaped by complex interactions between biology and contexts. Social
constructionism believes that knowers both shape and are shaped by the world.
This allows for a limited concept of agency. There is meaning, but it is developed
with others and by consensus. Meanings are not based on biological categories or
transcendental over time and cultures (Gavelek, 1992). Utility is sought rather
than absolute truths. Social constructionism recognizes that values are inherent in
all that we do. Science is not exempt from the inﬂuence of values (Unger, 1990).
As such, "truth" that does not consider context or claims universality is
questioned. This focus allows the voices and realities of all people and groups to
be considered valid and important for study and understanding our societies.
Clearly, there are numerous views of how knowledge and "truth" are
attained, along with what constitutes knowledge and truth. If we do not examine
our own and others' epistemological styles, we are not able to recognize the world
view that inﬂuences and guides theory, research and practice. Without this
understanding, we are left with only partial and distorted views of what is
considered valid information and beliefs. Uncritically accepting certain
epistemological styles can also lead to partial and distorted views of what is
reality for many individuals, especially women and minorities. Acceptance of the
status quo views of science and facts must be critically examined and questioned
to provide the basis for a broader understanding of the many, complex inﬂuences
that shape all individuals and their realities. Only then can we develop theories,
conduct research, and provide therapy in ways that reﬂect the multifaceted truths,

needs and realities of all people.

 

Feminist researchers, in particular, have challenged the acceptance of
traditional, androcentric scientiﬁc methodologies by explicating their ﬂaws and
biases. Feminist criticisms of epistemological styles and the methodologies that
emerge from them have helped open the way for a broader understanding of the
research process and how research ﬁndings affect women's lives. We can now see
that there are many ways for generating acceptable "truths" and knowledge.
Empiricism as the primary epistemology, and empirical methods that often ignore
or distort women's concerns and lives, should not continue to be the main
acceptable basis for generating "truth" and knowledge for the ﬁeld of counseling
psychology.

Empirical Studies

Ricketts (1989) studied female feminist psychologists to determine their
epistemological values and whether or not they separated their beliefs from their
choice of methods of treatment. Lesbian feminists as a group were also studied,
as were groups of academic and practicing psychologists. The results revealed
feminist psychologists as an overall group prefer rationalist over empiricist
epistemology, and viewed science as value-laden. Lesbian psychologists were
even less committed to traditional empiricist ideology than non lesbian, and
academics were more committed to traditional empiricist values than practitioners.

Ricketts (1989) gave questionnaires to participants in two conferences for
women in psychology. The sample consisted of 190 participants, 97% were
female and 96% were white. Educational level varied from B.A.'s to Ph.D.'s.
Teaching or research was the primary occupation for 40% of the sample. The
remainder were providers of psychological services. Fifty-six percent of the
sample was heterosexual, with the majority of the remainder describing their

sexual orientation as lesbian.

 

33

Ricketts (1989) used Coan's (1979) Theoretical Orientation Survey (TOS)
to study epistemological style. The TOS is purported to measure the contrasting
epistemological styles labeled "Objectivism" and "Subjectivism". The TOS
contains 32 items which are arranged into eight factor subscales. Five of these
factors deﬁne the Objectivism and Subjectivism scales. The other three measure
factual orientation vs. theoretical orientation, environmental determinism, and
biological determinism. A second order factor is calculated to determine an
exogenism vs. enodgenism orientation: a person's tendency to emphasize either
external, social or internal, biological sources of individual differences in

behavior. A 43-item ﬁlues Survey (VS) (Krasner & Houts, 1984), with eight

 

subscales corresponding to eight broad domains of values, was used to investigate
relationships between psychologists' personal values and their assumptions about
epistemology.

A major difﬁculty with understanding this study is Ricketts' apparent
deﬁnition of rationalism. She describes rationalism as viewing individuals as
active and agentic, and based on the belief that individuals construct their own
reality. She used the TOS, which is supposed to represent the contrasting
epistemological positions of subjectivism and objectivism. Although she was clear
in considering objectivism as corresponding to empiricism, I believe she
incorrectly labeled the subjectivist position as rationalism rather than social
constructionism. This study was considered representative of only the current
membership in certain women in psychology groups. No deﬁnition was given for
feminism and the assumption was made that the subjects were feminist based on
their membership in the surveyed groups. Ricketts failed to provide adequate
reliability and validity information on her measures of epistemology, or sufﬁcient

general information to make them clearly understandable. Also, the author

 

34

examined only the rationalist (possibly social constructionist) and empiricist
perspectives.

Unger (1985) sampled feminist psychologists and compared their world
view to a sample of faculty members in psychology and students in courses
studying women. The intent of the study was (a) to determine if feminists share
values that differ from nonfeminists, and (b) to categorize the areas of value
differences. She used the Attitudes About Reality Sca_le (AARS), which measures
epistemological frameworks. This scale was constructed to reﬂect a continuum of
epistemological styles between Objectivist and Subjectivist viewpoints, similar to
the TOS (Coan, 1979). It consists of forty items, measured on a 7-point Likert
scale, encompassing four conceptual domains: preference for biological versus.
social explanations for individual and group differences; power as a personal
versus. a societal construct; belief that science is value-free and objective versus.
relativistic and subjective; and acceptance of the societal status quo versus. belief
in the efﬁcacy and legitimacy of individual efforts to change society. Unger
surveyed 20 leaders in feminist activities for this study, and compared their AARS
scores to students enrolled in college courses on women. An additional
comparison group of nine individuals on the college psychology faculty was also
used. Respondents self-identiﬁed as feminists.

Unger (1985) found the feminist leaders in psychology were more likely to
be social constructionists in their epistemological viewpoint regarding biological
vs. social causality and the nature of science than the comparison groups. The
comparison groups were more similar to each other on the AARS. Feminist
leaders also differed from students in their view of how science works. They were
more likely to see science as a human enterprise and less fair than the students
saw it. Feminist leaders were also more sensitive than students to issues involving

social and personal power. They were more aware of power inequities and

 

35

viewed attempts at social change more positively. Unger concluded that feminist
leaders in psychology possess a world view that differs from that of their students
and probably most of their professional peers. This study had small sample sizes,
a nonrepresentative sample of feminists, and did not give information on the
psychometric adequacy of the scale.

Another study compared the value systems of behavioral and nonbehavioral
psychologists (Krasner & Houts, 1984). Eighty-two behavioral psychologists
were compared to 37 randomly selected non-behavioral psychologists. Measures
used were the Theoretical Orientation Survey (TOS), the y_alues Survey (VS), and
the Epistemologic_al Style OuestionnaiLe (ESQ). The ESQ is a 24-item scale that
was rationally constructed to assess the three basic epistemological assumptions
about science: empiricism, rationalism, and metaphorism. The ESQ was based on
the conceptual work of Royce (1975), but the reliability scores for the three
subscales were not adequate. Exploratory factor analysis of the ESQ revealed
four factors that were labeled metaphorism, rationalism, reductionism, and
antiempiricism. Metaphorism referred to an intuitive approach to science as
opposed to assumptions of rational order and the primacy of data. Rationalism
referred to using deductive as opposed to inductive methods. Reductionism
referred to believing that psychology cannot be reduced to physical science.
Antiempiricism referred to opposition to traditional empiricism.

Krasner and Houts (1984) found that different groups had very different
basic assumptions about psychology and science. Behaviorists were more
empirical in their epistemological style than the non behaviorists. They
systematically and consistently differed from the comparison group over basic
assumptions about psychology and science. Results also revealed only a few
signiﬁcant but weak relationships between assumptions about psychology and

science and broader sociopolitical values. The authors suggested that broad

 

36

values may be only marginally related discipline-speciﬁc assumptions. These
weak ﬁndings regarding assumptions about psychology and sociopolitical could
relate to an expectation of my study, namely that feminist women do not separate
their personal values from their work as much as other psychologists. Only six of
the 119 subjects in this study were women, which may have affected the weak
relationship between epistemology and sociopolitical view.

Lyddon (1989) used the three epistemological styles being used in this
study to examine whether or not clients preferred a therapy style that matched
their personal epistemological style. Epistemological style was measured using
the Psycho-Epistemological Proﬁle (PEP), with the participants' epistemological
style determined by their highest PEP score. Therapy style was measured by two
scales developed to determine participant's evaluation of the counseling
approaches in relation to themselves and in relation to others. Participants
preferred the therapy approach that represented a match with their personal
epistemological style, which supports that all three personal epistemology styles
can be measured and may inﬂuence treatment.

In an extension of Lyddon's 1989 work, Neimeyer, Prichard, Lyddon, and
Sherrard (1993) examined the relationship between epistemological style and
counseling preference for rationalist, behavioral or social constructionist
approaches. Participants were read a description of the type of counseling,
including theoretical and practical aspects, after which they completed rating
forms to indicate their preference. Participants also completed the PEP. PEP
rationalism scores correlated strongest with preferences for a rationalist approach
to counseling (g = .17). PEP empirical styles correlated strongest with a
preference for behavioral counseling (1_' = .28), and metaphoric styles correlated
strongest with the social constructionist approach to counseling (L = .35).

Overall, the correlation pattern showed consistent support for the relationship

H .. layu'ba’tsllll‘lﬂ
. I .

 

37

between epistemological style and client counseling style preferences (Neimeyer,
et al., 1993).

Another study by Neimeyer et al. (1993) was designed to test the
relationship between epistemological style and counseling theories preference
among beginning graduate student counselors in training. Participants were given
the PEP and a counseling theory packet which consisted of seven counseling
theory approaches and questions regarding each theory, such as level of
agreement with the approach. Predicted correlations based on the previous study
were generally, but not strongly, supported. Rationalist epistemologies correlated
most highly with preferences for rational-emotive and behavioral therapies, and
metaphorical styles correlated most highly with gestalt and rational-emotive
approaches (Neimeyer et al., 1993).

Also relevant to my study are several studies about the effects of feminist
beliefs. Unger, Draper, and Pendergrass (1986) studied connections between
personal experiences and epistemology. The authors hypothesized that social
group membership may inﬂuence epistemology because oppressed minorities are
likely to have life experiences that may sensitize them to aspects of reality that
individuals who are not oppressed do not really perceive. It was expected that
those with a relatively problem-free relationship with society would be more likely
to have an empirical epistemology. Results of the study, in which the AARS was
used, indicated that college students with exposure to psychology courses taught
from a feminist perspective became signiﬁcantly more social constructionist in
their epistemological beliefs. Also, students who identiﬁed themselves as active
feminists scored as much more social constructionist than other students in the
sample. Unger, et al. concluded: "Thus feminists, who identify with women as a
deprived group, appear to have a particularly strong disposition to endorse the

view that reality is socially constructed" (p.76).

38

Similarly, Coan (1979), using the TOS, found connections between the
theoretical orientation of psychologists and their life circumstances. Those who
are more likely to have experienced a lack of accord with society are less likely to
be empiricists. The author suggested that personal experience sensitizes
individuals to different aspects of problems and leads them to question
assumptions considered self-evident by others who lack this experience (Unger,
1983). Ricketts (1989) characterized feminism as a minority group perspective
that alters values and social perceptions. This minority group perspective could
be even more appropriate and accurate for lesbian women and members of racial
minorities, who experience discrimination for these attributes. Ricketts (1989)
also noted that lesbian women are a more stigmatized minority group than women
in general, and could therefore be expected to have life experiences that sensitize
them to aspects of reality of which other women may be unaware.

McGovern, Newman and Kopta (1986) used the Brickman et al. (1982)
models of attributions of responsibility to assess metatheoretical assumptions of
client responsibility in psychotherapy and how this might differ by theoretical
orientation. To operationalize the Brickman et al. model, they used two case
vignettes, each containing a psychosocial history and a description of a therapy
session. The authors then rated the responses of 43 clinicians to open-ended
questions concerning attribution of responsibility to place subjects in one of the
models' categories. The questions used to determine attribution of responsibility
were: 1) Speculate brieﬂy on what factors may represent signiﬁcant causal
determinants in the patient's disorder, 2) What speciﬁcally brought about these
causal factors, 3) What role would you take in the execution/attainment of the
treatment goals you outlined above, and 4) What role would you expect the

patient to take in the attainment of these goals. Responses to all questions were

 

39

rated on whether responsibility for problem cause and solution was considered
internal or external.

Results indicated cognitive-behavioral, eclectic, and family-systems
therapists clustered together on their attributional schemes. Signiﬁcant
differences were found with the psychodynamic therapists, who attributed less
responsibility to the patient for both problem cause and change.

Conclusion

Epistemology is an important underlying issue in counseling psychology.
There are three distinct epistemological styles often discussed in the literature:
empiricism, rationalism and social constructionism. However, the ways in which
epistemological style might effect theory, research and practice in counseling
psychology have rarely been examined. Feminist psychologists have been at the
forefront in acknowledging their values and challenging the empirical traditions of
psychology. What little empirical evidence that exists suggests values and
epistemology do have an affect on the practice of psychotherapy. Yet, historically
and currently, little attention is given to examining how our beliefs impact our
work and those with whom we work. This study will be at the forefront of
understanding and articulating the effects of feminism on epistemology and the

effects of both on treatment.

 

CHAPTER 3

Methodology

To begin this section, I would like to acknowledge that have I struggled at
length with the conﬂict inherent in proposing an empirical study that will show
that values impact research and that the empirical style of epistemology should
not be the only one used in counseling psychology. I have based my decision to
proceed with an empirical study on a number of issues. First, I believe I have
acknowledged my biases clearly throughout this work, which follows feminist
suggestions for research.

Second, Harding (1987) distinguished between methods and methodology
in research. A method is a technique of gathering evidence, whereas a
methodology is an analysis and theory of the speciﬁc way research should
proceed. Epistemological issues are intertwined with both. Harding stated that
methodology is one area where feminist inﬂuence is found; even though the
general methods may be similar, the evidence may be gathered in different ways by
feminists, such as by paying attention to women's concerns. Within a
methodology that recognizes the value of women and is guided by a feminist
agenda, each method must be evaluated based on how well its use fulﬁlls the goal
of uncovering and understanding the reality of those being studied. No method is
in itself sexist, but rather sexism is inherent in the way it is used. Feminist
research is mainly deﬁned by an application of feminist theory. I believe my
attempt to gather more information about issues that often negatively affect
women and to point out the biases often underlying research about women fulﬁlls

this agenda.

40

41

Third, because there is so little work in this area, this is primarily an
exploratory study. As such, I wish to ﬁrst determine if my hypotheses are
supported through a study of this type. If there is some support for my
hypotheses, I would like to pursue more in-depth, qualitative research on this
topic. And, ﬁnally, I believe there are many individuals, committed to the
empiricist tradition, who ignore or give little value to research that is not
empirical. I would like to use empirical methodology to provide some evidence to
these individuals that values and epistemological style do affect psychological
work and this underlying inﬂuence should be acknowledged.

S_arap_le_

To choose the participants in this study, a random sample of full members
from certain Divisions and job areas was obtained from the American
Psychological Association [APA] membership records. Randomly selecting the
sample is an accepted method for providing variability in age, race, geographical
region, and other demographic variables (Glass & Hopkins, 1984). Only
individuals who were full members in the APA were selected to control for
educational level because full membership requires a doctoral degree. To obtain a
sample that could reasonably be expected to be involved in either academic
positions (including researchers) or practice positions, along with attempting to
provide subject variability in race and sexual orientation, only members of certain
Divisions of the APA were considered potential subjects. These Divisions were:
12 - Clinical, 17 - Counseling, 35 - Psychology of Women, 44 - Gay and Lesbian
Issues, and 45 - Ethnic Minority Issues. A letter was sent to APA (Appendix A),
following their guidelines for information needed for approval of research projects
on APA members. Included were speciﬁcations for sampling, such as division
membership, no overlapping members, equal amounts of men and women, and

sorting by only those with clinical and counseling psychology degrees. I

42

requested and received 600 name and address labels, 120 from each of the above
listed divisions.

Sample size was determined by ﬁrst deciding on a .05 alpha level for two-
tailed statistical analyses. Although this could be considered somewhat stringent
for an exploratory study, I hoped to show signiﬁcant results at the level typically
accepted in social sciences research. As effect size was unknown, it was difﬁcult
to determine an adequate number of subjects. However, an acceptable critical
effect size was determined to be .30, which is often used in social science research
not considered to have a major impact on society. I then chose an 80% power
level, again often considered adequate for social science research. This would
have resulted in a necessary sample size of 83 subjects per group (feminist versus
nonfeminist) (Kraemer & Thiemann, 1987). Utilizing scores above and below the
mean to determine identiﬁcation as feminist versus nonfeminist (Enns & Hackett,
1990), 85 participants scored as more feminist and 76 scored as less feminist. The
ﬁnal, usable sample size of 161 (26.8% response rate for correctly completed
surveys) was not as large as hoped for or expected, but I was unable to further
increase response rate. Due to the amount of variables in my study, and the desire
to keep power high, I had determined the desired sample size to be an expected
minimum of 200. Recent research on response rates to mail survey research found
a median response rate of 63.7% across 34 studies using various survey
procedures (Weathers, Furlong & Solorzano, 1993). Due to the length and timing
of my study, I expected around a 33% response rate, though I was hopeful that
Ph.D. psychologists, having done dissertations themselves, would be more
responsive. Although division membership varies widely by size (Division 12 =
6,667, Division 17 = 3279, Division 35 = 6042, Division 44 = 962, and Division
45 = 874) (Personal communication, APA, 1995), I purposely oversampled from

Divisions 44 and 45 to gain greater diversity in race and sexual orientation than

 

43

would otherwise be expected. The response rates from the divisions sampled are
as follows: Division 12, 33 responses (20% rate); Division 17, 39 responses (24%
rate); Division 42, 29 responses (18% rate); Division 44, 34 responses (21% rate);
and Division 45, 25 responses (16% rate). The division of one respondent was
not able to be determined.

I received a total of 175 survey responses. Ofthose, 161 were completed
and able to be used in the analyses. Fourteen of the responses were unusable due
to the respondent only partially completing the survey. I did not indicate that
each page needed to be turned over, and all partial completions had neglected the
back pages of the survey. One of the 161 respondents with usable results
completed all instruments, but did not complete the demographic form so all
sample characteristics will be reported on 160 subjects (except in certain cases
where an occasional demographic response was omitted).

Demographic description of the sample. Various demographic characteristics
were collected from the study respondents and are reported in Table 3.1. The
sample consisted of almost equal numbers of men and women. There was a wide
variation in age, with most of respondents ranging between 30 and 60 years of
age. The great majority of subjects are Caucasian, with only a few respondents in
other racial categories. In the area of sexual/affectional orientation, no one
identiﬁed as strictly bisexual according to the Kinsey (1953) scale used. Slightly
over one-fourth of the respondents self-identiﬁed as totally or primarily lesbian or
gay and almost three-fourths self-identiﬁed as totally or primarily heterosexual.
The majority of the respondents are either married or in a committed partnership.
The great majority of the individuals earn a relatively high income, with over one
third earning more than $100,000 per year. A large majority of the subjects live
in an urban or suburban area. Almost all of the respondents received their degree

in either counseling or clinical psychology. The majority of the participants work

 

44

as clinicians, with some faculty members and administrators. The individuals in
this sample tend to have many years of clinical practice experience, with the
majority having over 10 years of experience and ranging to over 40 years of
experience. Theoretical orientation varied, but the largest group was composed
of those who identiﬁed as eclectic, with many respondents also identifying as

cognitive-behavioral and psychodynamic.

 

Table 3.]

Demographic Information for the Total Sample

45

 

 

 

Variable N %
5%

Women 83 52
Men 77 48
Age

20-29 2 1.3
30-39 32 20
40-49 75 47
50-59 29 18
60-69 17 11
70-79 4 2.5
Over 80 l .6
Race

African-American 6 3.8
Asian 5 3.1
Caucasian 142 88.8
Hispanic 4 2.5
Native American 2 1.3
Other 1 .6
Sexaal Orientation

Exclusively homosexual 16 10
Predominantly homosexual 22 13.8
Preference for homosexual 3 1.9
Equal interest 0 0
Preference for heterosexual 3 1.9
Predominantly heterosexual 19 1 1.9
Exclusively heterosexual 95 59.4

 

Table 3.1, continued

Relationship status

Committed partnership
Divorced

Married

Separated

Single

Widowed

Income

Less than $30,000
$3 0,000-$3 9,000
$40,000-$49,000
$50,000-$59,000
$60,000-$69,000
$70,000-$79,000
$80,000-$89,000
$90,000-$99,000
Over $100,000

Residence Area
Rural
Suburban

Urban

Areagof Degree

 

Counseling Psychology
Clinical Psychology
School Psychology

Area of Employment

Faculty
Administrators
Clinicians
Other

46

42
15
85

11

\lb)

18
18
15
18
61

23
76
61

60
95

28
10
103
14

26.3
9.4

53
1.9
6.9
1.9

1.9
4.4

6.9
11.3
11.3

9.4
11.3
38

14.4
47.5
38

37.5
59.4
1.9

17.5
6.3
64.4
8.8

r"—

l'

Table 3.1, continued

 

Years of Clinical Experience

 

0-4

5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
Over 40

Primary Theoretical Orientation

Behavioral

Cognitive
Cognitive-Behavioral
Client-Centered
Family Systems
Eclectic

Humanistic
Psychodynamic
Other

47

27
36
32
24
19

~

38

57
ll
25

3.8
16.9
22.5
20
15
11.9

uh—l
i—xo

2.5

23.8
2.5
4.4

35.6
6.9

15.6
3.8

 

48

Procedure

All 600 individuals identiﬁed by the APA random search were sent the
demographic form (Appendix B) and measurement materials (Appendixes C - F)
with a cover letter (Appendix G), a stamped, self-addressed post card, a stamped,
addressed return envelope, and a computer answer sheet. The post card could be
used to request omission from the survey or to request the results. Directions
were given in the cover letter. The cover letter also brieﬂy explained the purpose
of the study (discovering if certain beliefs affect how the subjects conceptualize
client problems and ways of helping clients), assured conﬁdentiality, and
requested their participation. Additionally, participants were informed of their
rights and given my phone number to contact me if they had any questions. The
information given in the cover letter was fairly nonspeciﬁc regarding the purpose
of the study to guard against inﬂuencing the results. Informed and voluntary
consent was assumed when the questionnaire packet was returned. Participants
were asked to complete, on the computer answer sheet, the questionnaire packet
that included: a demographic form, the Psycho-Epistemological Proﬁle, the M
Issues Inventory. the Behavioral and Politica_l Orientation scales of the
Attributions of the Term Feminist instrument, and the Helping Orientations Soak.
They were also told that completion of the materials should take approximately
15-20 minutes, based on the average completion time of ﬁve volunteers who
pretested the instruments. As an incentive for responding, the cover letter
informed participants that they would be eligible for a $100 prize, which would be
drawn from identiﬁcation numbers of completed, returned surveys, when their
survey packet was returned. Upon completing the packet, the participant was
asked to return the computer answer sheet and the demographics form to me in
the stamped, addressed envelope provided. Computer forms and demographic

sheets were stapled together to increase the likelihood of participants returning

9!;

49

the correct forms. To do the follow-up mailings and draw for the $100 ﬁnancial
incentive, each questionnaire packet was numbered and a list was maintained with
numbers matched to names of those chosen for the study. Following the
procedures recommended by Dillman (1978) and Weathers et al. (1993) for
questionnaire surveys, I signed the cover letter, used ﬁrst class postage on the
surveys and return envelopes, included an incentive, and intended to make a
minimum of requests for participation. Continuing to follow their suggestions, it
was my intent to send a follow-up letter approximately one week after the surveys

were sent. Unfortunately, an error was discovered two days after mailing the

ﬁrm-“1

initial survey packets. The paragraph describing how to code answers at the top
of the ﬁrst page of the instruments correctly identiﬁed the meaning of responses
coded 0 through 4. However, the graph following the explanation was incorrectly
labeled. 0 was labeled "CD" for complete disagreement, 1 was labeled "MD" for
moderate disagreement, 2 was labeled "N" for neutral, 3 was incorrectly labeled
"CA" for complete agreement (but should have been "MA" for moderate
agreement) and 4 was incorrectly labeled "CD" for complete disagreement (but
should have been "CA" for complete agreement). As soon as the error was
discovered, I developed a postcard (Appendix H) explaining the error and the
corrections, asked respondents to inform me of how they had responded to
questions (e. g., according to the paragraph or the graph), along with encouraging
those who had not yet responded to do so immediately. This postcard was sent
out three days after the surveys were mailed. Participants were very helpful in
understanding and responding to my error. I received 155 responses, with all 155
saying they understood how the answers were supposed to be coded and
responded based on the paragraph directions, not the error. Given this 100%
correct usage of the numerical responses, the fact that psychologists are very

familiar with how Likert scales are supposed to be used, and everywhere else on

50

the survey the graph was correct, all 161 completed survey responses were used
in the analyses. Additionally, approximately three weeks aﬁer the mailing of the
survey packets, a second follow-up postcard (Appendix I) was mailed to those
who had not yet responded. I extended the deadline for the monetary incentive
and again asked for their participation in the survey. I also increased the
information given regarding the purpose of the study in the hopes of generating
more interest in responding, and added my school afﬁliation and advisor's name in
response to some criticism from earlier respondents.
Demographic Form
All respondents were asked to complete a demographic information form
(Appendix B). Demographic information included: age, sex, race, income, urban,
suburban or rural community, area of psychology degree, relationship status,
theoretical orientation, years of clinical practice experience, and primary type of
work (academic or practitioner). Participants were also asked to identify their
sexual/affectional orientation, which was assessed with the Kinsey Scale (1953).
This scale is a single item, seven point scale that asks respondents to choose one
of seven categories that best describes their preference for sexual involvement
with members of the same sex, opposite sex, or both.
Measures
Psycho-@istemological Proﬁle.
The key construct of epistemology was operationalized and measured by
the bycho-Bpistemological Proﬁle (PEP) (Royce & Mos, 1980) (Appendix C).
The primary reason for using the PEP is that it is the only available measure that
categorizes respondents into all epistemological styles being examined. The PEP
is an empirically based method for assessing the epistemological dimensions of

empiricism, rationalism, and metaphorism.

 

51

Royce and Mos use the label metaphorism which is synonymous with social
constructionism. Royce (1975) described the symbolizing in metaphorism as
"'constructed productions' offered as representations of reality" and "internally
generated forms" (p.23). These meanings are checked for their universality rather
than idiosyncrasy. This description parallels the basic description of social
constructionism with its emphasis on the construction and transformation of
personal meanings in conjunction with a social community. Also, Lyddon (1989)
considered metaphorism and social constructionism as the same concept and used
them interchangeably. The three styles of knowing are based on different ways of
interpreting the world, including different truth criteria, that are theorized to lead
to different world views (Royce & Mos, 1980). The PEP proﬁle provides scores
for all three epistemologies. The subscale with the highest score is considered the
participant's dominant epistemological style (Royce & Mos, 1980).

The PEP is self-administered and consists of 90 items, 30 measuring each
epistemological style. Respondents answer each question on a ﬁve point Likert
scale which ranges between complete disagreement (1) and complete agreement
(5). The PEP has gone through ﬁve revisions. The current version, Revised Form
IV, was standardized on a junior college population of 925 male and 417 female
students 19 to 24 years of age. The mean scores for female and male subjects are
similar on all three dimensions, however, there are between-sex differences in
percentages of preference for each dimension. For the entire population, 36%
prefer metaphorism, 33% prefer rationalism, and 31% prefer empiricism. Among
females, 40% prefer metaphorism, 47% rationalism, and 13% prefer empiricism.
Of the males, 34% prefer metaphorism, 26% rationalism, and 40% prefer
empiricism. The authors state that there are no extreme scores in the norming
population, which suggests there is no consistent preference for any one way of

knowing in this heterogeneous population (Royce & Mos, 1980).

 

52

The epistemological dimensions measured by the PEP are independent of
each other in the sense that a value assigned to an item measuring one dimension
does not affect the value assigned to items measuring the other two dimensions
(Royce & Mos, 1980). The possible range of scores for each dimension is 30-
150. The means and standard deviations of the normative sample are as follows:
For 925 males, M = 89.49, SD = 9.06 for metaphoric; M = 90.01, S_D = 9.92 for

rational; and M = 90.61, SD = 9.18 for empirical. For 417 females, M = 102.42,

1
SD = 11.29 for metaphoric; M = 103.04, SD = 11.13 for rational; and M = ['1
100.85, SD = 10.34 for empirical. No attempt was made to determine what a
should be considered high and low scores, but T-scores and percentiles based on .1

same-sex responses of those scoring at the same raw score are given. For the
purposes of this study, the scores on each epistemological style will be used as
continuous variables and the highest proﬁle score will be used to determine the

respondents preferred epistemological style.

Royce and Mos's (1980) review of the PEP literature provided extensive

evidence for concurrent and construct validity. Concurrent validity was
established by various studies contrasting different student, occupational and
professional groups theoretically expected to represent certain epistemological
proﬁles. Construct validity was established by a number of studies which
analyzed the theoretically predicted relationships between the PEP and frequently-
used occupational interest scales and personality assessments which were believed
to represent certain epistemological styles. Item factor analysis was also
consistent with the hypothesized three-dimensional structure.

Reliability for the PEP is acceptable. Item analysis using 130 subjects
shows that every item of each dimension is positively correlated with the total
score for each dimension. Split-half reliability was demonstrated with odd-even

correlations for 137 students, with correlation coefﬁcients all ranging from .75 to

53

.88. Nine-month test-retest reliability was obtained for a sample of 43 college
students. The correlations were .68 for rationalism, .66 for metaphorism, and .87
for empiricism. Due to the small sample size and reliability being partially a

function of sample size, it was expected that the correlations would be in the .80

to .90 range as 1i increased (Royce & Mos, 1980).

Attribution of Responsibili_ty.

Attribution of responsibility will be operationalized and measured by the
participant's responses to the Helping Orientations Scal_e (Michlitsh & Frankel,
1989) (Appendix F). This scale was developed based on the Brickman et al.
(1982) conceptual model of the attribution of responsibility into four orientations
(moral, compensatory, medical, and enlightenment). The HOS was developed to
test Brickman et al.'s (1982) conceptual model as previous empirical support was
considered weak (Rabinowitz, 1978), and provide statistical evidence of the
existence of Brickman et al.'s four orientations (Michlitsh & Frankel, 1989). The
four Brickman et al. (1982) styles of attribution of responsibility were renamed in
the HOS, but I have used the corresponding original style names developed by
Brickman et al. throughout this work to increase clarity.

The Helping Orientations Scal_e (HOS) (Michlitsh & Frankel, 1989) was
developed in three phases. In the ﬁrst phases, 25 to 30 items for each of the four
orientations were given to 15 subjects for face validation. Only those items that
were correctly sorted into the intended orientation category were used in the
second phase. Each orientation was represented by at least 19 items. The 83
items that were retained were administered to a convenience sample of 430
college students with a mean age of 26. They were asked to indicate their
agreement with statements using a ﬁve-point scale. A 25-item scale was
developed from this study based on factor analysis, reliability measures, and inter-

factor correlations and was administered to a target group of 300 employed

 

54

subjects with a mean age of 32. Coefﬁcients of congruence between these two
studies on the four factors were .93, .97. .93 and .82 for medical, enlightenment,
moral and compensatory orientations, respectively. Factor analysis from both
studies supports the existence of the four distinct, yet overlapping orientations.
In the authors' research in two studies, the medical style scores correlated .47 and
.42 with enlightenment, -.31 and -25 with moral, and -.44 and -.19 with
compensatory. Alpha levels for the medical style were .81 and .42.
Enlightenment correlated .07 and -.06 with the moral style, and -. 13 and -.17 with
compensatory. Alpha levels for the enlightenment style were .70 and .76. Moral
style correlated with compensatory style .46 and .09, with alphas of .70 and .65.
Compensatory alpha levels were .71 and .60. Factor patterns for each orientation
are relatively strong. Overall, items had their highest loading on the factor for
which they were written. There is consistency across studies for both
conﬁguration and magnitude of loadings. The combined means and standard
deviations for both of the above studies were also reported. For the medical style,
M = 2.36, S_D = .16. For the enlightenment style, M = 2.48, S_D = .13. For the
moral style, M = 3.63, S_D = .25. For the compensatory style, M = 3.72, SD = .30
(Michlitsh & Frankel, 1989).

The Hehpiag Orientation Scal_la (Michlitsh & Frankel, 1989) consists of 25
statements reﬂecting general attitudes toward problems and their solutions.
Subjects are asked to indicate their level of agreement to the statements using a

ﬁve-point scale from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). A proﬁle is then
developed from respondents' scores on each scale.

Feminism Measures

Feminist values will be measured using the Attitudes Towards Feminism

 

aarl the Women's Movement (FWM) embedded in the Social Issues Inventory

(SII) (Fassinger, 1985a, as revised by Enns & Hackett, 1990, Appendix D), the

55

 

Behavioral and Political Orientation scales of the Attributions of the Term

Feminist instrument (F erryman-Fink & Verderber, 1985, Appendix D), and a

statement of feminism developed for this study.

Attitudes Towards Feminism and the Women's Movement in the Social

Issues Inventory.

Before developing the Attitudes Towards Feminism and the Women's

 

Movement (FWM), F assinger examined 16 scales that measured attitudes toward
feminism. These scales were found to suffer from one or more of the following
inadequacies: 1) too long or focused on superﬂuous detail, or extreme brevity, 2)
a confusing mixture of beliefs about gender speciﬁc domestic roles, attitudes
toward feminist philosophy, and social behavior, 3) a ceiling effect that created
difﬁculty in discriminating between feminists and nonfeminists, and 4) outdated
items that did not reﬂect the rapid social change since the development of the
scale (Fassinger, 1985a). In my search for a measure of feminist attitudes, I found
these same difﬁculties. Simple inspection of other available scales indicated the
likelihood of a ceiling effect, particularly with the highly educated, professional
sample of this study. Some examples of typical questions from other scales are as
follows. "Sons in a family should be given more encouragement to go to college
than daughters" (Attitudes Toward Women. Spence & Helmreich, 1978). "Almost

any woman is better off in her home than in a job or profession" (Attitudes

 

Tom Sex Roles. Larson & Long, 1988). "A working woman who sends her six
month old baby to a daycare center is a bad mother" (FEM Scale, Smith, Ferree,
& Miller, 1975). I believed it would be likely very few, if anyone, would score as
nonfeminist in this sample if these types of questions were used.

Fassinger (19853) designed the feminist measure embedded in the S11,
originally called the Attitudes Towﬂ F eminism/W omen's Movement scale, now

the FWM, to measure global attitudes towards the women's movement and

 

56

feminism. She believed there was a need for a brief, easily used measure of
affective responses to feminism and the women's movement that was not subject
to social desirability effects (Fassinger, 1994). The FWM is purposely nonspeciﬁc
as to type of feminism because it is assumed that affective responses to feminism
can be largely independent of speciﬁc political and philosophical principles (Enns,
1993; Fassinger, 1994)).

The FWM was developed by ﬁrst developing and testing equal-appearing
intervals, then establishing reliability and validity of the rating scale. The scale is
based on an original item pool of 84 attitude statements, either adapted from
books and magazines, generated through statements and ideas from colleagues
and students of the author, or modiﬁed from other attitudinal scales. The author
included statements reﬂecting a wide range of affective attitudes that could be
clearly discriminated along a continuum of favorable to unfavorable. Items were
constructed on the basis of measurement criteria regarding grammar, language,
and ambiguity (Fassinger, 1994).

The original items were sorted into nine "equal appearing intervals" or
categories ranging from "Extremely Unfavorable" (category 1) to "Neither
Favorable Nor Unfavorable" (category 5) to "Extremely Favorable" (category 9).
Based on proportions, cumulative proportions, frequencies, medians, scale values,
and Q values, 18 items (two from each category) were selected. The items
selected represented the greatest consistency in category assignment. The items
were then administered to ten female subjects who verbally reported a range of
feminist attitudes. Based on mean scores, those items scoring in the top 25% and
bottom 25% were used as criterion groups for ﬁnal item selection. Eight items
that did not adequately discriminate among subjects were deleted. Six of the final
items represent favorable attitude statements and four represent unfavorable

statements. The items included on the ﬁnal lO-item scale are those that best

57

discriminated between individuals endorsing feminist and nonfeminist attitudes.
Each of the 10 items are responded to with a Likert scale from Strongly Disagree
(1) to Strongly Agree (5). To ﬁthher test consistency and determine their
relationship to direct self-statements about attitudes towards feminism, the whole
original scale and the ﬁnal 10 item scale was then administered to 12 subjects and
compared to a third, single-item scale asking each participant to rank their
attitudes toward feminism and the women's movement. Some validity was
established by the strong consistency between the mean scores measured by these
three scales (& = 6.35 [S_D = .78], 6.35 [S_D = .72], 6.25 [S_D = 2.0],
respectively) (F assinger, 1994).

To attempt to establish reliability of the FWM, the scale was administered
to 117 undergraduate psychology students at a large, public university.
Undergraduate students were purposely chosen to provide consistency in
interpretation and permit comparison to other instruments and studies. The
sample contained 76 women and 41 men, and was 57% Caucasian, 16% African-
American, 4% Hispanic, 17% Asian-American, and 5% Mideastern or other. The
mean score for this population was 35.17 out of a possible 50, with a standard
deviation of 6.61. Full scale reliabilities were .90 for men, .87 for women, and
.89 for the total sample. Full scale reliabilities for other instruments used to
establish construct validity ranged from .67 to .94. Only one 25 item scale, that
showed a reliability of .94, was higher than that of the FWM (Fassinger, 1994).
The FWM was correlated with other feminism instruments to establish
discriminant and convergent reliability. Signiﬁcant positive correlations were
found between the FWM and all instruments used to establish convergent validity.
Discriminant validity was also supported by ﬁnding the expected correlations with
other measures (Fassinger, 1994). Fassinger (1994) reported that the FWM has

been used successfully in a number of empirical studies to discriminate between

 

58

feminist and nonfeminist men and women, and found to be a valid and reliable
measure of attitudes towards feminism. Parker (1995) compared the FWM to the
Attitudes Toward Women scale, the FEM scale and the Feminism scale and
determined the FWM to be the best of the four scales based on construct and
criterion-related validity.

The 10 speciﬁc FWM items were embedded in 22 masking items about
attitudes toward social issues (Enns & Hackett, 1990). Pilot research on 150
undergraduate women demonstrated a two-week test-retest reliability on the
FWM of .81. The FWM correlated .68 with a subjective identiﬁcation with
feminism three—item scale, .51 with interests in feminist activities, and .38 with
involvement with feminist activities. One question in the original FWM was found
to have a .02 correlation between testing sessions and was determined to be
unable to discriminate between feminist and nonfeminist attitudes. As a result,
this item was dropped and an additional item tapping subjective identiﬁcation with
feminism was added (Enns & Hackett, 1990). Only the ﬁnal nine FWM items are
scored in the $11.

Attributions of the Term Feminist.

Berryman-Fink and Verderber (1985) sought to clarify the meaning of the
term feminist through a factor analytic development of a measuring instrument,
Attributions of the Term Feminist (ATF) (Appendix E). Ninety-six college
students were asked to indicate all words and phrases that came to mind when
thinking of the word feminist. Frequently repeated terms were constructed as
semantic differential items. This resulted in a 91-item, 5-point semantic
differential test of the attributions of the term feminist. This test was then given
to 768 undergraduate students (407 females, 361 males). Factor analysis was

done to reduce the items, leaving ﬁve factors deﬁned by 54 semantic differential

items.

 

 

59

Factor 11, labeled Behavioral, and Factor III, labeled Political Orientation,
will be used in this study. Factor 11 is deﬁned by 20 scale items that are
attributions of speciﬁc behaviors and activities of feminists. Factor 11 accounted
for 19.6% of the variance and had a reliability coefﬁcient of .86. Factor III is
deﬁned by seven scale items that reﬂect agreement with speciﬁc political
ideologies, groups or issues. This factor resulted in a .60 theta reliability

coefﬁcient and accounted for 3.8% of the variance. Factor analysis on split halves

V

of the test resulted in an 86% reliability. Validity information was not reported. 1

In political beliefs, based on the above test, a feminist is deﬁned as

T "

supporting the following issues for women: equal wages, reform, liberation, equal
rights, NOW, women's liberation and the ERA. A feminist is also deﬁned by this
test as having numerous speciﬁc behavioral attributes (Berryman-Fink &
Verderber, 1985). The Behavioral and Political Oriengtion factor scales have
been used (Enns & Hackett, 1990; Hackett, Enns & Zetzer, 1992), in conjunction
with the $11 to measure feminism. In the above studies, the instructions were
revised by asking participants to indicate whether the items described themselves
or not, which is how it was used in this study.

mtement of Feminism.

Although there are many types and deﬁnitions of feminism, for the
purposes of this study, the following statement of feminism was used: I believe
that sexism exists and is a fundamental, pervasive oppression of women. I agree
that there are current inequalities in political, social, civil and educational rights
and opportunities between the sexes. I am committed to eradicating the ideology
of male domination that permeates Western culture and the elimination of
inequalities for women through legal, social, economic and educational reform to
allow complete equality for women (Enns & Hackett, 1990; Kramare & Treichler,

1985; Tuttle, 1986). Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement

60

with the above statement of feminism based on their personal beliefs, using a
Likert scale of one through ﬁve with 1) representing strongly disagree and 5)
representing strongly agree. This statement was developed by including basic

elements that were common to the deﬁnition of feminism in A Feminist Dictionary

 

(Kramarae & Treichler, 1985) and in the Encyclopedia of Feminism, (Tuttle,
1986), as well as including basic components of liberal and radical feminism
because deﬁnitions of liberal and radical feminist have been used in previous
research (Enns & Hackett, 1990). The statement was purposely developed to be
extreme to avoid ceiling effects and social desirability responses. This feminist
statement was more speciﬁc about political and philosophical beliefs than the
nonspeciﬁc FWM. By providing a speciﬁc deﬁnition of feminism, different
understandings of the term should be reduced. Based on all feminism measures
and the response to the statement of feminism, a composite score of feminist
values was obtained by aggregating scores. A composite score should measure
multiple types of feminist values.

To examine the effect of multiple measures of feminism on this sample,
correlations were computed among the different measures. These correlations are
reported in Table 3.2. The statement of feminism is highly correlated with both
the FWM and the ATF political orientation scale. The FWM is also highly
correlated with the ATF political orientation scale. These correlations appear to
indicate that similar values of feminism are being measured by the statement of
feminism, the ATF political orientation scale and the FWM. Lower correlations
among the ATF behavioral scale and the other measures may indicate that this

scale is capturing a different aspect of feminism, possibly an action component not
directly measured by the other scales.

 

61

Table 3.2

Correlations Among Feminist Measures

Behavioral Political FWM
Statement .19* .61*** .58***
Behavioral . 18* . l 1
Political .69***

Key: Statement = Statement of feminism, Behavioral = ATF behavioral scale,
Political = ATF political orientation scale and FWM = FWM scale.
*=p<.05,***=p<.001

Reliability

Before analyses were performed, reliability information on the instruments
used in this study was computed for this sample population. The alpha coefﬁcient
for the FWM was .82. Adding the statement of feminism developed for this study,
the alpha coefﬁcient increased to .84. The alpha coefﬁcient for the behavioral
scale of the ATF was .81; and, for the political orientation scale of the ATF, was
.79. The overall reliability coefﬁcient for the composite feminism score was .85.
Reliability for the PEP rationalism scale was .70. The alpha coefﬁcient for PEP
social constructionism was .72, with the alpha for PEP empiricism at .68. The
alpha coefﬁcients for the HOS styles were: medical, .67; enlightenment, .69;
moral, .68; and compensatory, .69. Overall, all reliabilities were acceptable, with
feminism having the strongest reliability and HOS scores the weakest. The
reliabilities were also similar to previous studies reliabilities on these measures, as
has been reported.
S_cale Descriptive Stagtics

The feminism composite score has a range of 37 - 185, with a mean total

score of 143.71 and a standard deviation of 13.39 for this sample. The mean on

V

62

the score scale was 3.88. No previous mean and standard deviation is available on
this composite feminism score. Previous researchers using a composite score for
feminism have identiﬁed scores above the mean as feminist and below the mean as
nonfeminist (Enns & Hackett, 1990). This method identiﬁed 85 participants
above the mean and 76 below the mean. As the mean score is nearly in the
moderately agree category, I checked this categorization by also using one self-
report item as a determinant of feminism category . Subjects were asked to
respond "yes", "no" or "uncertain" to a question directly asking the individual
whether or not he or she considered him or herself a feminist. Utilizing this
coding, 98 respondents identiﬁed as feminist, 32 as nonfeminist, and 23 as
uncertain of feminist identiﬁcation. This method identiﬁes more individuals as
feminist, however, I believe the composite feminism score is more valuable for use
in the analyses. The composite score is not categorical, so less information is lost
in analyses. Also, some individuals may self-identify as feminist if they view
feminism as socially desirable. By masking some of the items in the composite
feminism score, there is less likelihood of social desirability responses.

Deﬁnitions of feminism vary widely (Enns & Hackett, 1990), so utilizing speciﬁc
items that have been determined to be components of feminism also provide
knowledge of speciﬁcally what is being measured as feminist.

Each PEP scale has a range of 30 - 150. Means of average scores were
computed. For this sample, PEP rationalism had a mean of 73.76 and a standard
deviation of 9.41. Empiricism had a mean of 64.41 and a standard deviation of
9.30. Social constructionism had a mean of 77.94 and a standard deviation of
9.98. All PEP means were substantially lower (rationalism: M = 96.52;
empiricism: M = 95.73; social constructionism: M = 95.95) than the combined

means for each sex on the normative sample of the PEP. Standard deviations

were similar for this sample and the PEP normative sample. PEP scores were

 

63

ranked to determine the amount ofindividuals having their highest score in each
style, but all PEP scores were used in the regressions. Thirteen individuals had
empiricism as their highest score, 45 had rationalism as their highest score, and
113 had social constructionism as their highest score. Eight individuals had a tie
score between two styles and were therefore coded as scoring highest in each tied
style.

HOS scales have the following ranges: medical, 6 - 30; enlightenment, 7 -

V

35, moral, 7 - 35, and compensatory, 5 - 25. Means of item average scores were

computed. For this sample, HOS medical had a mean of 2. 13 and a standard

1‘

deviation of .49. HOS enlightenment had a mean of 2.06 and a standard deviation
of .50. HOS moral had a mean of3.41 and a standard deviation of .54. HOS
compensatory had a mean of 3.78 and a standard deviation of .49. This sample
had fairly similar mean scores and somewhat higher standard deviations than those
reported earlier on the HOS normative sample. HOS styles were also ranked
according to the amount of individuals having their highest score in each style.
Both the enlightenment and medical styles had only one individual each with these
styles as their highest score. Forty-nine participants scored highest in the moral
style, and 116 scored highest in compensatory style. Subjects had scores in each
style, though, and regressions were run using all HOS scores, not just highest
style scores.
298.ng

The basic design of this study is a passive-observational study. This study
attempted to infer causal processes based on observations in natural settings
without deliberate manipulation and controls (Cook & Campbell, 1979). The
continuous variable of endorsement of feminist values was compared to scores on
the three epistemological styles. Choice of epistemological style was then

analyzed to see if it related to attribution of responsibility in treatment. Due to

64

the type of questions being studied, the use of continuous variables, and the
exploratory nature of this study without a treatment being applied, the passive-
observational study design appears most appropriate. At this early point in the
research, basic information is needed regarding whether the data support different
beliefs about feminism leading to different epistemological styles, and different
epistemological styles leading to different effects on treatment in the area of
attribution of responsibility. Also, due to the preliminary type of data sought in
this study, no treatment was done, so quasi-experimental design was not
appropriate for use.

Hypotheses

 

1) There will be differences between feminists and nonfeminists in
preferences for social constructionist, rationalist, and empiricist
epistemological styles.
2) There will be differences between feminists and nonfeminists in their
style of attribution of responsibility in psychological treatment.
3) There will be a relationship between the subjects' epistemological style
and the style of attribution of responsibility in psychological treatment.
4) There will be a relationship among feminism, epistemological style,
and attribution of responsibility in treatment.
Analysis
All instrument data were transformed from scores of zero through four
(necessary for computer sheet coding) to one through ﬁve to correspond to
conventional score values on each scale. Then, all data were checked for accurate
coding and errors were corrected. Initially, an intercorrelation matrix of all
variables under investigation was computed to insure that the independent

variables and the demographic information were not excessively correlated.

V

".3“

‘D

 

 

65

Coefﬁcients of .8 or above among independent variables indicate multicollinearity
(Lewis-Beck, 1980).

The primary method of analysis in this study was stepwise multiple
regressions. According to Glass and Hopkins (1984), "Much - if not most -
behavioral research that employs multiple regression equations utilizes 'stepwise'
multiple regression computer programs to show the increment added by each
predictor" (p. 137). By utilizing this method, all variables were able to be entered
into each regression equation and those that were signiﬁcant were identiﬁed. All
variables are continuous. A correlation matrix was completed before the stepwise
multiple regressions were computed. Age and experience were highly correlated
(; = .78), so only experience was used in the regression analyses. Demographic
variables (experience, sexual orientation, occupation, race, area of degree, and
sex) and main variable scores (PEP and feminism) were entered in stepwise
regressions with HOS scores as dependent variables to test the overall model to
determine the predictive utility of feminist values and epistemological preference
on attribution of responsibility in treatment. A stepwise regression was performed
on all demographic variables listed above and PEP scores with feminism as the
dependent variable of interest to determine which variables contributed to feminist
identiﬁcation. Stepwise regressions were performed with the HOS scores as
dependent variables, with demographic data and feminism scores (without PEP
scores) as independent variables, to determine the predictive value of feminist
identiﬁcation apart from epistemological style. For the regressions, sex, sexual
orientation, race, occupation, and type of degree were all coded as dummy
variables. As all variable scores could be made categorical as well as continuous
variables, certain univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) computations were
also performed on main scale scores and demographic variables. Multi-factor

analysis of variance was not used due to the fairly small sample size. If numerous

 

66

cells were used with the variables of interest proportioned by more than two
factors, most cell sizes would have been extremely small. There is minor
empirical support for primary type of employment (academic vs. practitioner) and
sexual/affectional orientation being related to epistemological style choice
(Ricketts, 1989), plus theoretical orientation being related to attribution of
responsibility in treatment (McGovern et al., 1986). Therefore, these variables
were checked with one-way ANOVAs. All results were checked for statistical
signiﬁcance. Although signiﬁcance was originally set at p < .05, due to the
number of variables in each equation the signiﬁcance level was lowered to p < .01
for the correlations and the regressions to decrease the probability of Type I error
in the regression equations. Speciﬁc methods and results for each hypothesis and
the demographic variables tested will be reported in chapter 4.

Stepwise multiple regression is considered an appropriate method for
studying the collective and separate contributions of independent variables to the
variation of the dependent variable (Wampold & F reund, 1987). Through the use
of continuous variables, less information is lost and hence the analysis is more
powerﬁil than by unnecessarily making the variables categorical and using a
different type of analysis. Stepwise multiple regression allows for determining the
predictive value of each of the variables being tested, including the proportion of
variance accounted for at each step above what was accounted for by variables
entering the equation earlier (Wampold & Freund, 1987). With variables also able
to be made categorical and tested with other continuous variables, particularly in
regard to demographic variables, ANOVAs were useful in gaining further
information from the data. As only one-way ANOVAs were run, the signiﬁcance
level for ANOVAs was kept at p < .05.

These methods of analysis are also appropriate based on meeting the

required assumptions for multiple regression and ANOVA (Polkosnik &

 

67

Wisenbaker, 1986). The theoretical assumptions of ANOVA and regression
include: a) a linear relationship between the independent and dependent variables,
b) homoscedasticity, and c) normality of errors. These assumptions were checked
with visual inspections of histograms and scatter plots before the actual
regressions were run. All assumptions were met.
Conclusion

This chapter has provided a description of all instruments used in this
study. The procedures used in this study and the sample demographics were

described. Reliabilities and sample characteristics on the main variables were

 

provided, and study design and methodology explained. In the following chapter,

results of the data analyses will be provided.

CHAPTER 4

Results

In this chapter, the results of the data analyses conducted in this study will
be reported. Initially, the correlations between demographic variables, scores for

the composite feminism score, the Helping Orientations Scale (HOS) and the

 

Psycho-Epistemological Proﬁle (PEP) will be reviewed. Analyses of demographic

 

variables will then be presented, followed by the results of analyses computed for
each hypothesis.
Correlations

The main purpose of this study was to test for possible relationships among
feminist values, epistemological styles, and attribution of responsibility in
psychological treatment. Initially, an intercorrelational matrix was completed on
all variables to check for signiﬁcant correlations and correlation coefﬁcients of .8
or over, that would indicate multicollinearity which would need to be controlled
for in the analyses. No demographic variables correlated above .8 with the scores
for feminism, the PEP, or the HOS, nor did any of the subscales among these
instruments correlate above .8 with each other. There was a signiﬁcant inverse
relationship of -.92, (p = .000) between the indicators for degrees obtained in
counseling and in clinical psychology. This ﬁnding was expected given
respondents would have received their degree in only one area. Respondents who
received their degree in school psychology formed too small a category to be
included in the correlational analysis, accounting for the lack of a perfect negative
correlation. Age was highly correlated with experience (r = .78), so only

experience was included in the regression analyses.

68

 

69

Among the main variables, some signiﬁcant correlations were found. HOS
enlightenment was signiﬁcantly correlated at the p < .001 level with HOS moral
and medical (L = .29 and .49, respectively). HOS moral was signiﬁcantly inversely
correlated at the p < .001 level with compensatory ([ = -.26). HOS compensatory
was signiﬁcantly correlated (p < .001) with both PEP social constructionism ([ =
.33) and feminism (g = .25). PEP empiricism correlated at the p < .001 level with
PEP social constructionism ([ = .41), PEP rationalism (; = .69), and feminism (1: =
.26). PEP social constructionism correlated signiﬁcantly (p < .001) with PEP
rationalism (L = .37) and feminism ([ = .40). PEP rationalism also correlated
signiﬁcantly (p < .001) with feminism ([ = 27). These signiﬁcant correlations
between main variables, especially those of the PEP, though not multicollinear,
make it more difﬁcult to determine the actual affect of scores in the multiple
regression equations using all variables of interest. Among HOS variables,
compensatory style was the only style signiﬁcantly correlated with feminism and
social constructionism, which was predicted. Although social constructionism
was the highest of the PEP styles correlated with feminism, the other two styles
were also signiﬁcantly correlated. This is supportive of the expectation that
social constructionism is related to feminism, but does not support social
constructionism as the only epistemological style related to feminism.

Among signiﬁcant demographic variables, being lesbian or gay is negatively
correlated with scoring as enlightenment style on the HOS (p < .01, g = -.23), and
rationalist in style on the PEP (p < .05, g = -.19), and positively correlated with
high feminism scores (p < .001, g = .27). Being male is positively correlated with
the medical (p < .01, g = .23) and enlightenment styles (p < .01, g = .20). Being
male is inversely related to feminism (p < .01, g = -. l9). Caucasians are less likely

to be rationalists on the PEP than nonwhites (p < .01, g = -.22). Experience is

 

7O

positively correlated with all PEP styles. Other correlations of signiﬁcance can be

found in the correlation matrix of all variables, Table 4.1.

 

71

Table 4.1
Correlations

Main Variables

 

enlig comp med mor emp s.c. rat fem
enlig --- -.18 .49b .29b .17 -.15 .10 -.19a
comp --- .08 -.26b .07 .33b .03 .25b
med --- -.05 .18 -.04 .06 -.04
mor --- .18 .12 .23a -.07
emp --- .41b .69b .26b
s.c. --- .37b .40b
rat --- .27b

Table 4.], continued

Main Variables with Demographic Variables

enlig comp med mor emp s.c. rat fem
age .07 .ll .02 .07 .15 .19a .18 .08
sex .20a -.07 .23a .11 .14 .03 .18 -.19a
race .00 -.11 .07 -.14 -.11 -.05 -.22a -.08
sexor -.23a .19a -.11 -.06 -.14 .13 -.19a .27b
dcli .03 .12 .03 .05 .09 -.08 .03 -.06
dcou -.O4 -.O4 -.02 -.09 -.09 .11 -.04 .06
clin -.08 .05 -.13 -.01 .03 .09 -.04 -.07
fac .06 .05 -.03 .10 -.01 -.03 .11 -.03
occ .10 -.06 .22a -.09 -.04 -.13 -.O9 .02
incm -.17 -.03 -.20a .01 -.10 .04 -.10 .08
expe .12 .13 .12 .02 .17 .19a .17 .14

72

hble 4.1 (cong

Demographic Variables

 

 

dcou clin fac occ incm expe race sexor sex age
dcli -.92b .11 -.12 -.01 .19a .08 -.15 .17 -.02 -.03
dcou --- -.12 .15 .00 -.ZIa -.10 .16 -.17 .00 .01
clin --- -.61b -.56b .08 -.10 .17 .02 -.13 -.03
fac --- -.19a -.13 .00 -.14 -.09 .12 -.06
occ --- .04 .14 -.01 .04 .07 .14
incm --- .04 .08 -.03 -.05 .04
expe --- .04 .03 .33b .78b
race --- -.06 .03 .07
sexor --- -.11 -.03
sex --- .24

age ---

Key: enlig = HOS enlightenment, comp = HOS compensatory, med = HOS
medical, mor = HOS moral, emp = PEP empiricism, so = PEP social
constructionism, rat = PEP rationalism, fem = composite feminism score, dcli =
degree in clinical, dcou = degree in counseling, clin = clinician, fac = faculty, occ
= not clinical or faculty, race = race, sexor = sexual orientation, incm = income,
expe = years of clinical experience, age = age, sex = sex.

Variable coding: dcou = O, dcli = 1; nonwhite = 0, white = 1; female = 0, male =
1; heterosexual = 0, gay or lesbian = 1; not clin = 0, clin = 1; not fac = 0, fac = 1;
not clinical or faculty = 0, other occupation = 1.

a=p<.01,b=p<.001

73

Demphics Variable Analges.

Theoretical orientation is a categorical value and was unable to be included
in the correlation analyses. Therefore, one-way ANOVAs were performed on
PEP scores by theoretical orientation. Theoretical orientations were grouped
together for this analysis based on similarities between theoretical orientations
(e. g., cognitive and behavioral orientations were grouped together with cognitive-
behaviorists). A signiﬁcant difference was found only in social constructionism
PEP style, where humanists were signiﬁcantly different (p < .05, M = 3.98) from
other theoretical orientations: cognitive-behaviorists (M = 3.58), eclectic (M =
3.67), psychodynamic (M = 3.71) and other (M = 3.84).

Main Analyses

 

Hypothesis 1
There will be differences between feminists and nonfeminists in preferences
for social constructionist, rationalist, and empiricist epistemological styles.

 

One—way ANOVAs were run using the combined total feminism scores and
the highest rank PEP category. No signiﬁcant differences were found in these
three ANOVAs. There was, though, a strong signiﬁcant correlation ([ =.40)
between the composite score for feminism and social constructionism. The
correlations between the composite score of feminism and rationalism and
empiricism were also signiﬁcant, but lower (a = .27 and .26, respectively).
However, the different levels of correlation were not enough to prove signiﬁcant
in ANOVA analyses. Hypothesis 1 was largely unsupported by these data.

As another way to further test the ﬁrst hypothesis, stepwise regressions
were run with demographic variables (years of clinical practice experience,
occupation, sex, sexual orientation, race and area of degree), and PEP style scores
entered as independent variables and the composite feminism score used as the

dependent variable of interest. This equation was computed to determine what

 

74

variables predicted feminism. PEP social constructionism entered the equation
ﬁrst and accounted for 15% ofthe variance (R2 = .15, Standardized Beta [B]:
.27). Sexual orientation entered the equation next and increased the variance
accounted for to 20% (R2 = .20, B = .26). Third was PEP rationalism scores (R2
= .25, B = .25), and fourth to enter the equation was sex (B = -.22), with 28% of
the variance now accounted for by this equation. See Table 4.2. This equation
indicates that those higher in PEP social constructionism and rationalism scores,
female, and gay or lesbian are higher in composite feminism scores. These data

partially support the prediction of hypothesis 1 that there are differences among

’r

level of feminism identiﬁcation and PEP styles by showing that social

constructionism and rationalism are related to feminism.

Table 4.2

Regression Predicting Feminism

 

 

Variables _B SE B_ B R2 Change R;
Social Constructionism .008 .002 .27 .15 .15
Sexual Orientation .21 .06 .26 .05 .20
Rationalism .009 .003 .25 .05 .25

Sex -.16 .05 -.22 .03 .28

 

75

Hypothesis 2
There will be differences between feminists and nonfeminists in their style
of attribution of responsibility in psychological treatment.

 

Four stepwise multiple regressions were performed with demographic data
(years of clinical practice experience, occupation, sex, sexual orientation, race and
area of degree) and the composite feminism score as independent variables on
HOS styles as the dependent variables to test the predictive value of feminism on
attribution of responsibility without PEP style scores. For the enlightenment
style, sexual orientation entered the equation ﬁrst and accounted for 23% of the
variance (R2 = .05, p = .0038, B = -.21). Sex entered the equation as the second
and ﬁnal variable, with 8% ofthe variance now accounted for (R2 = .08, p =
.0012, B = .17). This equation indicates that heterosexuals are more likely to
have higher enlightenment scores than gays and lesbians, and men are more likely

than women to have higher enlightenment scores. See Table 4.3.

Table 4.3

Regression for Enlightenment

 

 

 

Variables B S_E B__ B R;— Change R;
Sexual Orientation 1.66 .61 -.21 .05 .05
Sex 1.21 .54 .17 .03 .08

 

For the compensatory style, only feminism score entered the equation as

signiﬁcant (p = .0008). This variable accounted for 7% ofthe variance (R2 = .07,

 

76

B = .26). Those with higher feminism scores are more likely to score higher in the

compensatory style. See Table 4.4.

Table 4.4

Regression for Compensatory

 

Variables B S_EB B R} Change _B_;

 

Feminism 1.80 .53 .26 .07 .07

 

For the moral style, no variables entered the equation as signiﬁcant.

For the medical style, sex entered the equation ﬁrst and accounted for 5%
ofthe variance (R2 = .05, p = .0037, B = .19). Having an occupation other than
clinician or faculty member entered the equation as the next and ﬁnal variable.
Nine percent ofthe variance is now accounted for (R2 = .09, p = .0008, B = .22).
Men are more likely than women to score higher in the medical style, as are those

who are in an occupation other than clinician or faculty member. See Table 4.5.

M641;

Regression for Medica_l

 

Variables B BB B B B3— Change 32

 

Sex 1.54 .64 .19 .05 .05
Other occupation 1.26 .45 —.22 .04 .09

 

 

77

Level of feminism was only signiﬁcant in the compensatory style.
Feminism is also signiﬁcantly positively correlated with compensatory style (p_ <
.001, g = .25). None of the other HOS styles is signiﬁcantly correlated with
feminism. This hypothesis was tested further in stepwise regressions on the whole
model reported under hypothesis 4. Whole model regression analyses found low
feminism scores to be a predictor of scoring as moral in HOS style. However,
feminism was not signiﬁcant in regressions on the enlightenment, medical and
compensatory styles. The regressions and correlations partially support this
hypothesis by showing that those who are more identiﬁed as feminist score higher
in HOS compensatory style. However, whole model regressions that included
PEP scores do not support feminism as a signiﬁcant predictor of the
compensatory style. They do support low feminism as predictive of the moral
style. This hypothesis was partially supported by the data.

Hypothesis 3
There will be a relationship between the subject epistemological style and
the style of attribution of responsibility in psychological treatment.

Three one-way ANOVAs were performed by highest ranked PEP category
on HOS style scores to examine differences in these groups. PEP empiricists were
not signiﬁcantly different from other PEP styles in enlightenment, compensatory,
or moral styles, but were signiﬁcantly different in medical style scores (p < .05).
Empiricists scored higher in the medical style (M = 2.40, S_D = .50) compared to
other PEP styles (M = 2.10, _SB = .48). PEP rationalists were not signiﬁcantly
different from other PEP styles in medical or moral styles. However, rationalists
were signiﬁcantly higher (p < .05) in enlightenment scores (M = 2.20, _SB = .46)
than other PEP styles (M =2.01, SB = .51), and lower (p_ < .01) in compensatory
scores (M = 3.58, SB = .50) compared to empiricists and social constructionists

(M = 3.86, SB = .47). Social constructionists were signiﬁcantly different from

 

78

other PEP styles only on compensatory styles. Social constructionists scored
signiﬁcantly (p < .001) higher (M = 3.88, BB = .47) than other PEP styles (M =
3.57, S_B = .49) in compensatory scores. Empiricists are most likely to be medical
in HOS style, rationalists are most likely to be enlightenment in HOS style and
least likely to be compensatory, and social constructionists are most likely to be
compensatory in HOS style. This hypothesis is supported by the data.

Iiypothesis 4
There will be a relationship among feminism, epistemological style, and
attribution of responsibility in treatment. b

Regression analyses of this hypothesis were computed to check the model

 

as a whole on the complete sample. Four stepwise multiple regressions were run
with demographic variables (years of experience, occupation, sex, race, sexual
orientation, and area of degree), total feminism score, and PEP scores entered as
independent variables with the four mean HOS style scores as the dependent
variables. Each stepwise regression will be described separately below.

Enthtenment.

Stepwise regression on the whole model with enlightenment style as the
dependent variable produced signiﬁcant predictors of higher enlightenment style
scores. Sexual orientation entered the model ﬁrst and accounted for 5% of the
variance (R2 = .05, p = .0038), indicating heterosexuals were more likely to score
higher in enlightenment style than gays and lesbians (B = -.14). Sex entered the
equation in the second step, with 8% (R2 = .08, p_ = .0012) of the variance
accounted for and showing that males are more likely to score as higher in
enlightenment style than females (B = .15). The third variable entering the
equation was PEP social construction scores, with 11% of the variance (R2 = .1 1,
p = .0005) now accounted for, and indicating social constructionists are less likely

to score high in enlightenment style (B = -.27). PEP empiricism scores entered

79

the equation as the fourth and ﬁnal variable. The total variance accounted for by
this equation was 16% (R2 = .16, p = .0000). Beta (.25) indicates those with
higher empiricist scores are more likely to score high in enlightenment. In the
enlightenment style, sexual orientation and sex are signiﬁcant demographic
predictors. Of the main variables being examined in this study, PEP social
constructionism and empiricism scores are predictive of higher enlightenment style

scores. See Table 4.6.

Table 4.6

 

Whole Model Regression on Enlightenment

 

 

 

Variables B BB B B B; Change B;

Sexual orientation -.16 .09 -.14 .05 .05

Sex .15 .07 .15 .03 .08

Social constructionism -.01 .003 -.27 .03 .11

Empiricism .01 .004 .25 .05 .16
Medical.

The same overall stepwise regression with the medical style as the
dependent variable found sex entering the equation ﬁrst and accounting for 5%
(R2 = .05, p = .0037) of the variance, with men more likely to score higher in
medical style than women (B = .19). The second variable entering this equation
was having an occupation other than academic or clinical indicating higher
medical scores (B = .20). Therefore, those who do not work as either a

psychotherapy clinician or a faculty member score higher in the medical style.

80

The equation now accounts for 9% of the variance (R2 = .09, p = .0008). PEP
empiricism scores entered the equation as the third and last variable, with 10% of
the variance now accounted for (R2: .10, p = .0003) and indicating higher
empiricism scores predict higher medical style scores (B = .16). Signiﬁcant
demographic variables were sex and occupation. PEP rationalism was the only

signiﬁcant main variable. See Table 4.7.

Table 4.7

Whole Model Regression on Medical

 

 

 

Variables B _SB B B B; Change B;

Sex .19 .07 .19 .05 .05

Other occupation .27 .1 1 .20 .04 .09

Empiricism .007 .003 .16 .01 .10
Compensatory.

 

Stepwise regression of the whole model with HOS compensatory style
scores as the dependent variable found PEP social constructionism scores was the
only variable to enter the model and accounted for 12% (R2 = .12, p = .0000) of
the variance. Beta (.34) indicates higher social constructionism scores predict

higher compensatory style scores. See Table 4.8.

81

Table 4.8

Whole Model Regression on Compensatory

 

 

 

 

Variables B _B B B B;— Change B3
Social Constructionism .01 .003 .34 .12 .12
Moral.

Stepwise regression ofthe whole model with HOS moral style scores as the
dependent variable found PEP rationalism scores entering the model ﬁrst and
accounting for 6% (R2 = .06, p = .0029) of the variance. The composite feminism
score entered the model as the other variable of signiﬁcance, with 8% (R2 = .08,
p = .0017) of the variance now accounted for. Therefore, two main variables,
higher PEP rationalism scores and lower feminism scores were predictive of

higher moral scores (B = .28 and -. 16, respectively). See Table 4.9.

Table 4.9

Whole Model Reﬂssion on Moral

 

Variables B _S_BB B B; Change B;—

 

Rationalism .01 .004 .28 .06 .06
Feminism -.24 .12 -.16 .02 .08

 

82

In summary, the results of the analyses of hypothesis 4 indicate the
following. For the HOS enlightenment style, regressions on the model as a whole
and the ﬁall sample found the main variables of PEP epistemological styles social
constructionism and empiricism signiﬁcant, along with the demographic variables
of sex and sexual orientation. In the medical style, only PEP rationalism was a
signiﬁcant predictor among the main variables, along with the demographic
variables of sex and occupation. For those in the compensatory style, only the
main variable of social constructionism was a signiﬁcant predictor. The moral
style had two main variable predictors, rationalism and feminism and no
signiﬁcant demographic variables. See Table 4.10 for a summary of the results of

the various signiﬁcant predictors in each group for hypothesis 4.

 

 

 

Table 4.10

Signiﬁcant Predictors for Each HOS Style

Enthtenment Medical Compensatory Mpral

+ heterosexual + male + social construct. + rationalism
+ male + other occupation - feminism

- social construct. + empiricism

+ empiricism

 

Key: + = this variable increases likelihood of scoring in this category, - = this
variable decreases likelihood of scoring in this category, social construct. = social
constructionist.

Summagy of Results
Hypothesis 1 was partially supported by the data. Although ANOVAs to
compare differences between level of feminism and highest ranked PEP style did

not produce signiﬁcant results, the strongest correlation among feminism and the

83

PEP epistemological styles was between feminism and social constructionism.
Also, a stepwise regression computed to determine predictors of feminism found
two epistemological styles to be signiﬁcant.

Hypothesis 2 was partially supported by the data. Feminism was
signiﬁcantly positively correlated with compensatory style. Stepwise regressions
without PEP scores found higher scores in feminism predictive of higher
compensatory scores. Low feminism scores were found to be a signiﬁcant
predictor of scoring as moral in HOS style.

Hypothesis 3 was supported by the data. All three epistemological styles
were signiﬁcant predictors of HOS style of attribution of responsibility in
psychological treatment.

Hypothesis 4 was largely supported by the data. Certain demographic
variables, as discussed, were found to be signiﬁcant predictors of HOS style,
along with main variables. As shown in Table 4.10, often the main variables being
studied in this research were also signiﬁcant. For the HOS enlightenment style,
two epistemological styles (social constructionism and empiricism) were
signiﬁcant. For the HOS medical style, one epistemological preference
(empiricism) was a signiﬁcant predictor. For the HOS compensatory style, the
epistemological style of social constructionism was a signiﬁcant predictor. For
the HOS moral style, both feminism and one epistemological style (rationalism)

were signiﬁcant predictors.

 

CHAPTER 5

Discussion

In this ﬁnal chapter, the purpose of the study will be summarized, followed
by a summary and interpretation of the results of data analyses. Limitations of the
study will be addressed, followed by future research directions. Finally,
implications and applications of this research will be discussed.

Summary of the study

Although many areas of scientiﬁc study have come to recognize that the
epistemological style of empiricism is only one way to understand truth and
knowledge, counseling psychology as a ﬁeld has remained largely committed to
empiricism as the only way to obtain useful and valid knowledge (Borgen, 1992;
Polkinghorne, 1984). Feminist psychologists have been at the forefront in
criticizing the empirical method as limiting the knowledge that can be gained from
research and the understanding of the complexity of truth from the perspective of
women and nonmajority groups (Borgen, 1992; Polkinghorne, 1984). Many
scientists, along with many feminists, now contend that values impact all areas of
research by deﬁning, directing and limiting what we look for and see as "truth"
(Harding, 1987; Hubbard, 1988; Longino, 1989; Unger, 1983). Feminism is by
deﬁnition a set of beliefs, or a value orientation (Ricketts, 1989). Counseling
psychologists are trained in the scientist-practitioner model and encouraged to
understand client issues from the perspective of a proven theoretical lens, as well
as use techniques in psychotherapy that are supported with empirical evidence
(Goldfried & Padawer, 1982; Schmidt & Meara, 1984). I believe our choice of

epistemological style effects our research, theory and practice, but is rarely

s4

 

85

recognized or acknowledged as so doing. The purpose of this study was to utilize
the acknowledged values of feminism and examine the relationship of feminism to
epistemological style and to psychotherapists' style of attribution of responsibility
for problem development and problem solution in psychotherapy treatment.

Instruments were chosen to measure feminism, epistemological styles, and
attribution of responsibility style. Two fairly widely used measures of feminist
identiﬁcation, along with a speciﬁc statement of feminism that encompasses the
basic tenets and was developed for this study, were used to identify level of
support for feminist values. There are three major epistemological styles often
discussed in the literature; empiricism, rationalism and social constructionism.
Utilizing the Psycho-Epistemological Proﬁle (PEP) (Royce & Mos, 1980), which
measures these three epistemological styles, dominant epistemological style and
scores for each style were determined. The Helping Orientations Sﬁ (HOS)
(Michlitsh & Frankel, 1989), which was developed to categorize individuals' style
of attribution of responsibility in helping others based on Brickman et al. (1982),
was utilized to determine predominant style of attribution of responsibility and
scores for each style. Demographic data from the random sample of psychologists
studied for this research was also gathered.

Interrelationships Amoagathe Variables

 

An initial stage of data analysis consisted of determining correlations
among the predictor and demographic variables. Certain demographic variables
were signiﬁcantly correlated with the main variables of this study. Being of a
nonwhite race was signiﬁcantly correlated with rationalism. This is somewhat
surprising as theory would suggest that those who are in a nonmajority group
would be more likely to identify with social constructionism (Unger, 1983).
Possibly rationalism taps some area that nonwhites particularly relate to or

identify with. This correlation could relate to rationalists viewing reality as

 

86

external and ﬁxed (Mahoney & Lyddon, 1988), and nonwhites often experiencing
discrimination from external, societal forces that do not appear to change quickly
or easily. It has been suggested that nonwhite women often feel excluded from
the women's movement and feminism, so may not personally identify with
feminism (Smith, 1990). However, this study did not support that suggestion as
there was not a signiﬁcant correlation between race and feminism. Perhaps other
factors, such as a high level of education, makes this group different from others
of a nonwhite race who may react negatively to feminism. Another possibility,
given the small number (N = 16) of nonwhites who responded to this survey, is
that perhaps racial minorities identiﬁed this research as related to feminism and
therefore decided not to participate because of negative feelings about the term or
the women's movement.

An interesting lack of an expected correlation was between epistemological
preference and area of employment. Ricketts (1989) found practicing clinicians
were less committed to empiricism than academics. For this sample, there were
no signiﬁcant correlations between either academics or clinicians and
epistemological style or preferred helping orientation. Perhaps for this sample,
empiricism is no longer the epistemology of choice, even for academics
conducting research. Lack of support for the empiricist style is suggested by PEP
ranking, in which only 13 participants had empiricism as their highest
epistemological score. Or, it may be that participants responded based on general
beliefs that do not generalize to how they conduct scientiﬁc research. Also,
Ricketts (1989) ﬁndings may be speciﬁc only to her sample and not generalizable.
In particular, Ricketts sample consisted of only women, so male responses
included in this sample may have decreased the correlations. Ricketts sample also
varied widely by education. Possibly, as one's level of education increases, one's

epistemology is less connected to occupation.

 

87

Sexual orientation was inversely correlated with the enlightenment style of
attribution, indicating those who are gay or lesbian are less likely to agree with
the enlightenment style of helping. The enlightenment style expects helpees to
accept a negative view of themselves (e. g., as sinful or guilty), see themselves as
causing their own problems and submit to agents of social control to solve their
problems (Brickman, et al., 1982). Given this negative view of self and positive
view of society as the helper, gay and lesbian professionals with a positive view of
self would be more likely to reject this view of treatment. Lesbians and gays
strive to view themselves positively and overcome the many problems caused by
societal stigma and discrimination (Pharr, 1988). Being gay or lesbian is
positively correlated with a compensatory style. This style sees society as
responsible for many of the problems individuals face and views helpers as
empowering clients to change the environment (Brickman et al., 1982). Being
lesbian or gay was negatively correlated with the epistemological style of
rationalism. Possibly, the personal reality of lesbians and gays changed when they
identiﬁed their sexual orientation, so they no longer see reality as external and
stable. However, if this were the explanation for this result, I would expect that
there would also be a negative correlation with empiricism and a positive
correlation with social constructionism, which was not the case. Being gay or
lesbian correlated highly with having strong feminist beliefs. This was expected as
gays and lesbians in particular usually do not follow the traditional roles society
proscribes for the sexes. Lesbian women do not have intimate relationships with
men from which they gain power and tend to support women's rights to be totally
equal (Pharr, 1988).

Sex of the participant was signiﬁcantly correlated with medical and
enlightenment styles, with men scoring higher than women in these styles of

attribution of responsibility. Traditionally, men are more likely to be in positions

88

of power in our society and therefore to view society more positively than women
who may see societal structure as contributing to their problems. Given the
deﬁnitions of these styles, which see society positively and the individual as
ﬂawed and in need of expert help, I ﬁnd it reasonable that men would be more
likely to ﬁt these styles than women. Or, these results may relate to the "take
charge" attitude suggested by both these styles. Men are often seen as being
responsible and needing to get things done, which is captured by these styles
(Dugger, 1991).
ME Results of the Analyses

In this section, the main results of the analyses will be summarized,
followed by a discussion of plausible explanations for the results. Analyses of
these data suggest a limited relationship between level of identiﬁcation with
feminist values and epistemological style scores, and between feminism and
attribution of responsibility style scores. Correlations between epistemological
style and feminism found all three PEP styles signiﬁcantly correlated with
feminism, but the social constructionism correlation was .14 and .13 higher than
empiricism and rationalism, respectively. These correlations indicate that
feminism is more strongly related to social constructionism. The high correlations
between feminism and all epistemological styles may be related to those willing to
stand up for their feminist beliefs being also willing to clearly support other beliefs
related to epistemological style. However, with the strong criticisms of
empiricism and rationalism made by many feminists (Code, 1991; Harding, 1991),
I ﬁnd it surprising that feminism is positively correlated with these
epistemological styles. Perhaps only certain types of feminists, not able to be
determined with the measures currently available, are social constructionists.
Certainly, there are those who identify themselves as feminist empiricists

(Harding, 1987). Although contrary to my expectations, another possibility is that

 

89

the typical lack of discussion and exploration in the ﬁeld of psychology regarding
how our values may impact other beliefs (Borgen, 1992; Polkinghorne, 1984) may
indicate the professionals in this sample have not seriously considered how their
feminist values relate to epistemological beliefs.

In the interest of determining what variables contributed to high
endorsement of feminist variables, a stepwise regression was performed. This
regression supported higher social constructionism and rationalism scores as
predictors of high feminism scores, along with being female and gay or lesbian.
Previous research in this area has used only women as subjects, so comparisons
between men and women were not possible. I believed that women would support
feminist values more often than men, as I think that women are most negatively
affected by the results of sexism and men often believe they gain from sexist
beliefs and practices (Code, 1991). Unger et al. (1986) found that feminists who
identify with women as a deprived group were more likely to view reality as
socially constructed. Coan (1979) found that those who have experienced a lack
of accord with society are less likely to be empiricists. Feminist women and
lesbians often appear to experience a lack of accord with society (Ricketts, 1989;
Unger et al., 1986). Level of feminist identiﬁcation not predicting PEP
epistemological rank in the ANOVAs may have been related to the data that are
lost when categorizing variables. Each participant had scores on all
epistemological styles, sometimes similar scores. Including all PEP scores as
continuous variables in the regression may have allowed the connection between
feminism and epistemology to be more clearly determined.

Although the correlations discussed earlier are strong, regression results
indicate that feminism identiﬁcation is not a particularly strong predictor of
epistemological style. Perhaps beliefs and values such as feminism are not carried

over into action, which is a large part of what the PEP measures. This possibility

 

90

is also supported by the low correlation between the behavioral subscale of the
ATF with the other components of the composite feminism score. Also, Unger et
al. (1986) found that subjects who identiﬁed themselves as active feminists scored
higher on social constructionism than nonactive feminists. Or, possibly feminism
is only minimally related to epistemological style. Perhaps beliefs and values
related to feminism do not lead to certain beliefs and values about how we come
to know and understand truth. Although the conceptual literature suggests that
our values will be reﬂected in other beliefs (Borgen, 1992; Harding, 1991; Unger,
1983), the connection may not be consistently supported by empirical research.
Another possibility is that this empirical research was not able to capture the
complexity of feminist meanings and values that might be found to be connected
to epistemological beliefs through qualitative analysis. Feminism was related most
strongly to social constructionism, however feminism was also correlated with all
epistemological styles, so there is only limited support for feminism being related
to epistemological style.

Regarding the connection between level of feminism and styles of
attribution of responsibility in psychological treatment, higher feminism scores
were signiﬁcantly positively correlated with higher compensatory style scores.
Based on the deﬁnitions of feminism and the compensatory style, this outcome
was expected. Although there is no previous research to support this relationship,
I predicted that feminists would support the compensatory view that society has a
role in the development of problems and the belief that clients should be
supported and empowered to help themselves ﬁnd solutions to problems. The
enlightenment style was negatively related to feminism. Feminists strive to see
women in a positive, powerful manner and tend to see society as causing many of
the problems women face (Code, 1991), contrary to the beliefs in the

enlightenment style. Also, the feminist statement used in this study particularly

 

91

labeled society as problematic and in need of change, so those endorsing feminist
values would not be expected to also endorse society as it is currently structured
as the provider of solutions to problems.

Regressions without PEP scores found higher feminism scores predictive of
higher compensatory style scores, and lower feminism scores predictive of higher
moral style scores. However, whole model regressions found only higher social
constructionism scores predictive of higher scores in the compensatory style.
Contrary to my expectations, feminism was not found to be a signiﬁcant predictor
of compensatory style in this regression. It appears that feminism, although
somewhat related to compensatory styles in other analyses, was not a strong
enough component of compensatory style scores to be signiﬁcant in stepwise
regressions that included epistemological scores.

Results of these analyses suggest level of feminist identiﬁcation is
somewhat related to the compensatory, enlightenment and moral styles. Perhaps
compensatory style is related in this sample to feminist values and beliefs, yet
those with lower endorsement of feminist beliefs do not subscribe to one
attribution of responsibility style over another. Possibly feminism is not a good
predictor of attribution of responsibility style except for partially predicting higher
compensatory style scores. Other styles may not be strongly enough related to
feminism for feminist identiﬁcation to be of value in predicting attribution of
responsibility style. Or, again, it may be that the methodology and measures used
in this study do not adequately capture the complexity of issues involved in these
concepts. The pattern of these results suggests that the compensatory style is
most strongly related to feminism, however, epistemology appears to be a more
important predictor of attribution of responsibility scores than feminism.

A stronger pattern of connection was found in the analyses of the

relationships between epistemological style scores and attribution of responsibility

 

92

style scores. Higher empiricism scores were found to be signiﬁcantly predictive
of higher medical and enlightenment style scores than social constructionism and
rationalism scores. Empiricists tend to believe in a singular, stable, external
reality that is accurately revealed by one's senses (Mahoney & Lyddon, 1988) and
that individuals are essentially passive reactors to environmental events (Ricketts,
1989) This view ﬁts well with the medical style beliefs that people are victims of
forces out of their control and should not be blamed for their problems or
expected to solve them (Brickman et al., 1982). Instead, there is one reality that
exists to which people simply react.

Higher rationalism scores were found to be signiﬁcantly predictive of
higher enlightenment and moral style scores and signiﬁcantly predictive of lower
compensatory style scores than the other two epistemological styles. Rationalists,
too, believe in a ﬁxed, external reality, and do not consider contextual inﬂuences
on the perception of reality. They also believe in detachment from others
(Mahoney & Lyddon, 1988). In contrast, the compensatory style suggests context
is important in the development of problems and suggests close involvement with
those one is helping (Brickman et al., 1982). The enlightenment style expects
people to accept a negative view of themselves and seek expert help (Brickman et
al., 1982). Higher enlightenment style scores might be explained by rationalists
and empiricists taking the expert position with clients which keeps the therapist in
a more detached role than the role other therapists might chose. Perhaps also this
negative view of self expected in the enlightenment style would be perceived by
rationalists and empiricists as reﬂective of reality; social context does not
inﬂuence problem development, so the person him or herself must be the problem.
In the moral style, people are considered responsible for their own problems and
their own solutions - others are not expected to help (Brickman et al., 1982). The

relationship between rationalism and the moral style seems somewhat surprising

 

93

given that rationalists tend to view reality as external and ﬁxed (Mahoney &
Lyddon, 1988), which would seem to indicate they would not consider clients
responsible for their own problems. However, rationalists also believe there can
be an impartial stance that allows detachment from context and others (Mahoney
& Lyddon, 1988). This view would ﬁt with seeing the clients themselves, rather
than their context, as contributing to problem development, as well as allow a
detachment and lack of expectation of needing to help the client. Overall, though,
I ﬁnd it somewhat surprising that psychologists score as moral given that the ﬁeld
is largely based on helping others. Once again, possibly beliefs about how truth
and knowledge are determined don't transfer to styles of helping as much as I
expected from the theoretical concepts. Also, psychologists have been shown to
have many different beliefs (Krasner & Houts, 1984; Mahoney & Lyddon, 1988;
Ricketts, 1989), and some of these differences are apparent in the differing
epistemological and attribution of responsibility styles found in this study.
However, when ranked by highest PEP style, the overwhelming majority of the
sample were social constructionist. This provides support for the possibility that
psychology may no longer be strongly based in empiricism.

Higher social constructionism scores were signiﬁcantly predictive of higher
compensatory style scores. This result ﬁts with my expectation that
compensatory style and social constructionism would be related. Again, my
thinking was that social constructionists would support the compensatory style
because social context is considered in attempting to understand problem
development. With the great majority of this sample scoring high in social
constructionism and compensatory, the results of this study provide support for
psychologists tending to strongly consider sociocultural context in how they
deﬁne knowledge and truth, and how they think about problem development and

solution.

 

94

More variables of signiﬁcance were found in the whole model regressions
than in the ANOVAs that examined the relationship between epistemology and
attribution of responsibility. This, again, may relate to the data that are lost when
variables are made categorical. These data provide fairly strong support for the
relationship between epistemological style and attribution of responsibility style.

Some of the HOS scales were signiﬁcantly correlated with each other,
suggesting that although one style of helping may dominate, other styles are also f?
used, possibly with different types of clients or problems, or in different situations "51--

other than psychotherapy. These correlations also concur with the normative

 

scores of the HOS that suggested the styles overlapped (Michlitsh & Frankel, . _
1989). All PEP epistemological styles were also signiﬁcantly correlated with each

other. As with HOS styles, this indicates overlap among styles. Again, it may be

that although one style is dominant, others are also used, and may differ

depending on the situation. Perhaps, in considering responses to both the PEP

and the HOS, participants were answering based on broader sociopolitical

contexts versus speciﬁc decisions they may make about psychological treatment

issues. Or, therapists may use different styles of both epistemology and

attribution of responsibility with different clients in unique situations.

To this point, the discussion has focused on interpretations of the empirical
data in a traditional manner. I will now brieﬂy discuss this study from a social
constructionist perspective. To begin with, I will highlight some ways research
from a purely social constructionist perspective would have been conducted
differently. First, standardized tests would have been unlikely to be used.
Second, although demographic data allow for some sense of the context of the
individuals participating, much more attention would have been given to each
participants personal, sociohistorical context. Third, data would have been

gathered about what each question meant to the respondent, such as how each

95

person interpreted the meaning of each question and what factors she or he
considered in responding to each question. Fourth, the complexity of meaning
involved in each individual's responses to questions would have been considered
in much more depth. This type of information would have allowed for greater
understanding of the meaning of responses from participants by knowing how
respondents contextualized their answers. And ﬁfth, emotions that may have
arisen when responding to certain questions would have been taken into account
in considering the meaning of the response to the individual. Primarily, this
research would have been much more personalized in approach with fewer
questions and the meaning of each question pursued with each participant at a
deeper, fuller level that considered each individual's personal context.

The above type and depth of information would have allowed a more
complex, clearer understanding of the meaning of the results. Social
constructionists believe that meaning is constructed at a community level versus
an individual level. Although this study attempted to address that level to some
extent by determining demographic characteristics and focusing on a community
of psychologists and the tendency of members of this profession to endorse a
certain epistemological style (empiricism), each respondent is a member of various
communities and sociohistorical contexts. Demographic characteristics and one's
profession do not capture all of these communities and contexts, nor their
meaning to the individual. From a social constructionist perspective, discussion
of possible meanings of results would be developed from gaining more indepth
information from each participant about the personal contexts and meanings of
answers. Generalizations from the data available from this study as it was
conducted would be very tentative, if done at all, because individual and social

group contextualization and interpretation of questions and answers is largely

 

96

unknown and highly inﬂuenced by power based on who has control over
determining the dominant narrative.

The signiﬁcant correlations between HOS styles and PEP styles may have
been explainable by social constructionist methods. Perhaps individuals use all
styles of helping and epistemological styles depending on what type of situation
they are in or dealing with, which further examination of the context of the
response to questions in these areas could have determined. In this way, speciﬁc
information about how therapists determine truth in psychological treatment and
choose their method of helping clients, and whether this differs among clients,
may have been understood. How and why feminism correlates with each
epistemological style may have been more clear. Theoretical literature (Enns &
Hackett, 1990; Enns, 1993) suggests that there are different types of feminism
which are not able to be determined by measures currently available. A social
constructionist methodology and analysis of results would have provided more
detailed information and understanding of respondents personal understandings
and meanings of the term feminism, along with how they view their beliefs about
feminism affecting their understanding of truth. Similarly, results indicating
sexual orientation, racial minority group, and sex of the respondent correlate
signiﬁciantly with certain epistemological and helping orientations, as well as
signiﬁcantly contribute to predicting epistemological or helping orientation style,
could be better understood and causes delineated by understanding personal
understandings of the inﬂuences of sex, racial group and/or sexual orientation, as
well as dominant group narratives about these aspects of self and social group.
Each individual's understanding of how her or his epistemological beliefs
inﬂuences his or her helping style could also have been more clearly determined.
Essentially, the meaning and interpretation of all responses of signiﬁcance would

be understood from the point of view of the respondents.

 

97

Personal, contextual inﬂuences on responses to a mail survey
questionnaire, such as used in this research, are unable to be determined to any
meaningful extent. Therefore, the depth and complexity of meanings of responses
is not able to be fully understood. Social constructionist interpretations of data
must recognize that each individual is actively construing a personal reality in a
unique sociohistorical context with a dominant narrative and developing that
personal reality in conjuction with others in communities. One objective, external
reality does not exist. There are, therefore, many interpretations and meanings to
results of data analyses. Utilizing empirical methods as a starting point, this study

has attempted to begin the search for understanding the inﬂuence of some

contextual issues on important aspects of psychology.
Overall, many results of signiﬁcance were found, but other expected results

were not found. The lack of some expected results may be because many
eXpectations were based only on theoretical speculations rather than previous
empirical support. This lack may also relate to the design of this study in
Choosing to attempt to quantify complex, contextually based issues in primarily
empirical, rather than social constructionist, research. These data do suggest

some links between the concepts studied in this research that should be pursued in

fllture research.

There are several limitations of this research design and methodology.

I\’Illlticollinearity was not a problem, but certain variables computed in the same
regressions were fairly highly correlated. Type I error increases with multiple
c(>I'nparisons, and most stepwise multiple regression equations were run with eight
Variables. The sample size was not as large as hoped and some groups were very

Stl'l-all, particularly PEP empiricists and two HOS styles, which could decrease the

likelihood of ﬁnding signiﬁcant results when using highest ranked style in

98

analyses, or render the results nearly meaningless. However, continuous scores
for each style of both the PEP and HOS were used in all regression equations.
This was not an experimental study, which limits its rigor and precludes cause-
effect. Effects of self-selection and background variables may have confounded
the results. There is a lack of adequate prior research to suggest confounding
variables for which to control. However, demographic data found to be highly
correlated for this sample (age and experience), was controlled for in the
regressions. There is also the lack of proven test-retest reliability for the
statement of feminism I developed from the literature, though the statement did
increase the reliability of the composite feminism score for this sample.
Generalizability was somewhat dependent on those responding to the survey, but
results may be generalizable to psychologists who are similar to this sample.

However, even with attempts to increase demographic variability, the great

majority of the sample was composed of Caucasians.

A major concern in the area of internal validity is the threat of selection by
hi story interaction. Other confounding events in a person's history, rather than
ju St feminist beliefs, could have led to the selection of certain epistemological
Styles or treatment attribution models. Theoretical orientation could have had an
efi‘ect on incorporation of values into treatment, but again, Enns and Hackett
( 1 990) noted that feminist therapy is primarily distinguished by its value
Orientations and philosophical assumptions, rather than any particular type of
therapeutic techniques, and theoretical orientation was found to be signiﬁcant

Only for humanists. Among the literature, there is limited support for suggesting
tl”lat minority group status (mainly having a lesbian sexual orientation) and major
cEll‘eer emphasis (academic vs. practitioner) may be confounding variables. These
variables did not prove to be confounding in this research. This study attempted

to identify and analyze possible confounding variables that will need to be

99

controlled for in future research, but only age and experience were highly

correlated, and this correlation would logically be expected.

Selection bias was also a threat to internal validity. Individuals may have
inappropriately selected their level of endorsement of feminist values because they
were essentially self-selecting rather than being randomly assigned. Yet, selecting
the appropriate personal level of feminism is also an integral part of this study.
The speciﬁcity and strength of the deﬁnition, plus the masking of feminism items
in the S11, and the composite score for feminist values were an attempt to control

for ceiling effects or social desirability responses in the feminism scores.
Instrumentation is another possible threat to internal validity. The PEP has not
been widely used and reported on in the literature, so some questions about its
adequacy as a measure of epistemological styles remain. The authors of the
instrument, however, report extensive testing of the measure. Questions could
also be raised about whether or not metaphorism is truly the same as social
Constructionism. The HOS has also not been widely used or reported on in the
literature, although reliability is acceptable based on the authors' research. None
Of the measures used in this study give any information related to previous use
With psychologists, so results on this population could be different than
established norms. Experimental mortality may have also been a threat to internal
validity. Different response rates from the groups being compared might have a
ITleauiing that inﬂuenced the results. An example is feminists possibly responding
in higher numbers because of an interest in research that is examining the feminist
perspective and a desire to have the feminist perspective heard, and there was
quite a high level of endorsement of feminist values. An attempt to control as
l"1111ch as possible speciﬁc groups, such as feminists, responding more than others
V""518 be made by choosing participants randomly from the subject pool and some

iteIII-masking ($11). The inferential power was increased by obtaining as large of

100

a stratiﬁed random sample as reasonably possible, but, again, the response rate
and sample size were lower than what was anticipated.

External validity would appear to be fairly good, but each participant
responded to the survey and measures in her or his own choice of setting, frame
of mind, and length of time. These external arrangements were not able to be
controlled for with the methods of this study, but attempting to obtain a larger,

randomly chosen group was deemed more important than studying a speciﬁc

group in one setting.

Future Research
The results of this research suggest some future directions for inquiry. As

noted previously, there is a lack of research on how values impact theory,
research and practice in psychology, yet I believe this area is vitally important in
its implications for the ﬁeld as a whole and how we treat the clients we serve. As
this study was exploratory and no previous work has been done that combines all
the variables used in this study, a replication of this research study would be
u seful for determining if similar results would again be found. A larger and more
l‘acially varied sample size would provide more data and show whether similar
I‘esults are again found. More sophisticated statistical analyses, such as
determining interaction effects through MANOVAs, could be computed with a
larg er sample. Different results might be found with analyses that were able to
control for the fairly high correlations between all epistemological styles and some
of the attribution of responsibility styles that were identiﬁed through this research.
A Similar study could also be conducted on a sample that included different levels
0f education to see if educational level may have affected these results. Another
Sitl'lilar study could be conducted with other social scientists, such as social
workers, to determine how training and work in psychology may have had an

effect on results. Values other than feminism could be used to see if or how they

101

relate to epistemological style and attribution of responsibility style. Another
possibility would be to examine a different affect on treatment than attribution of
responsibility.

One interesting area for further study might be to examine the unexpected
correlation between nonwhite race and rationalism to determine what might
contribute to this ﬁnding as it was contrary to expectations based on theoretical
literature. Another interesting study might try to determine if gays and lesbians in
a different sample were only related to low rationalism scores, and not low

empiricism scores along with high social constructionism scores, as could be

t heoretically expected.
Replication research would be useful to determine if similar results were

found in the types of epistemology styles and demographic variables that were
predictive of the attribution of responsibility styles. Further research might also
provide more information about why feminist values were typically not related to
attribution of responsibility style as might theoretically be expected.

Further testing should be done on whether or not there are differences
between academics and clinicians in epistemological style because these ﬁndings
were different from prior research. If, in fact, the majority of psychological
researchers are no longer strongly committed to the empiricist tradition, it may be

that the empiricist basis of psychology has changed and future research utilizing

0t her methodology will be more widely accepted.
Future research might also focus on instrument development. The PEP is

quite long and is rarely used in published research. Similarly, the HOS has rarely
been used in research: More data on each of this instruments could lead to their
improvement. The FWM has only recently been published, so more future use of
tIlis instrument could provide more information about its value as a measure of

ferninism. Another possibility for instrument development would be an effective

102

measure of different types of feminism. Though this research supports the use of
a composite score of feminism versus one measure of feminism, the effects of the
use of a composite score of feminism could also be more clearly determined and
supported with additional research. In general, the use of these concepts in
research is at the very beginning and it would seem that any research that studies
how our values affect our deﬁnition of truth and knowledge and how each of

these relate to client treatment, theory development or research practices would

be very beneﬁcial.

Implications and Applications
The results of this study have implications for how we perceive and deal

 

with the impact of values on the theory, research and practice of psychology and
psychotherapy. This study has provided at least initial support for some of the
hypotheses developed from the literature. This study has also provided some
interesting results that should be considered when working with clients in
Psychotherapy and in research. A possible relationship between of attribution of
1’ eSponsibility and sexual orientation needs to be considered when working with
gay and lesbian clients. Any theory, research or psychotherapy that implies the
le Sbian or gay individual should have a negative view of self and a positive view
of society is likely to be strongly rejected and future work would probably not
cOntinue. This is particularly important as many psychologists are not adequately
trained in working with gays and lesbians, and often tend to still believe there is
actually something wrong with the client's sexual orientation (Carl, 1990). The
t1'Tlerapist may need to examine both his or her own epistemological beliefs and
StYIe of attribution of responsibility to adequately work with lesbian and gay
clients who tend to believe society has contributed to their problems and want to

be empowered and supported to change both themselves as necessary and society

103

Differences between the sexes should also be considered in theory
development, research practices and psychotherapy. Men and women need to be
aware of their attribution of responsibility style tendencies, and recognize they are
oﬁen different from each other, thus it is necessary for each sex to consider how
these differences might affect their work in each of the above areas. Males are
particularly more likely than women to ignore the effects of social context. This
could lead to very different views of reality which will impact any work with
women, possibly leading to some distortion of women's' realities and an inability
to most effectively theorize, research or provide therapy to women. Men are also
much less likely to be feminist in their values than women. Males must be careful
not to impose sexist values on women with whom they do therapy or conduct
research. Feminists strive to see women in a positive, powerful manner, and
society as causing or contributing to many of the problems women face. All

therapists need to be aware of these feminist views when working with feminist
clients. Therapists need to also be aware that gays and lesbians, and probably
especially lesbians, tend to support feminist values which need to be respected in
therapy.
Understanding that individuals tend to use all epistemological styles and
attribution of responsibility styles could be useful for therapists and researchers in
real izing that they can utilize different styles of understanding and behavior for
different situations and clients. If we begin to pay attention to our underlying
beliefs in these areas, we may better understand our own response tendencies in
certain situations and develop the ability to be more ﬂexible in employing different
beliefs and responses based on the needs of the individual or situation rather than

out own beliefs. This will ultimately beneﬁt both clients and research ﬁndings.

S iInilarly, recognizing that one probably has a dominant epistemological style, and

each epistemological style has a preferred attribution of responsibility style, can

104

help psychologists begin to be more aware of and recognize their personal styles

and therefore some typical or likely ways of thinking and behaving. This

awareness and understanding can increase one's ability to chose how to respond
rather than react based on underlying beliefs.

Beginning to recognize and acknowledge what this study has largely
supported, namely that values do often have an affect on how we do the work of
psychology, is an important step in starting to examine our own underlying
epistemological and attribution of responsibility beliefs and those inherent in the
theories and research on which we base our work. The impact of how we deﬁne
and determine truth, along with how we believe others problems developed and
should be solved, are integral to all of psychology. We cannot continue to largely
ignore this basis of the ﬁeld of psychology. These beliefs and their effect must be
examined both individually and collectively, then identiﬁed and acknowledged.
Only then can we make theories, research and clinical practice in psychology truly

representative of all the complexities of life that individuals face. This research

has provided another step in that direction.

APPENDICES

Appendix A
APA Letter Requesting Subjects

April 18, 1995

114 Parkwest Dr., 2E7
Lansing, MI 48917
(517) 321-7643

Dear APA ODEER:

I am writing to request your approval of using APA members as subjects in my
dissertation research. Per your guidelines:

1 . COpies of all instruments and the cover letter are enclosed. These are in ﬁnal form
except for the removal of the appendix designation.

2 - a. My target population is ﬁll members and fellows of APA (not associates), in
Divisions 12 (Clinical), l7 (Counseling), 42, (Psychologists in Independent Practice), 44
(Gay and Lesbian Issues) and 45 (Ethnic Minority Issues). I want a random sample of
members in each of these ﬁve divisions. My goal is to gain a sample of psychologists
likely to have experience and/or knowledge of psychotherapy, with some being
practitioners and others professors. I also hope to have a range of racial minorities and
Sexual orientations.

2 - b. The procedures will be a mail survey including the cover letter, demographics form,
the instruments enclosed, a coding/answer sheet, a self-addressed, stamped postcard
(blank, except for ID number), and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. A follow-up
postcard will be sent approximately two weeks after the initial mailing of the survey to
relriind those who have not responded. Surveys will be coded for the purpose of payment
Of the monetary incentive for participating in the survey, for follow-up with those who
have not responded, to omit those who have requested omission, and to send results to
tllose requesting them. All data will be kept conﬁdential. Once all completed surveys
have been received, data entered into the computer and the monetary incentive paid, the
0I‘iginal coding sheet will be destroyed. There will then be no way to individually identify
S1.113jects and all data will be presented in an aggregate manner, with no way to associate
sI>ecific subjects with speciﬁc responses, thereby assuring conﬁdentiality. The surveys will
be sent within one-two weeks of receiving your approval for this project, hopefully mid to
late May, 1995.

g - c. The intent of this study is to explore empirically the hypothesis that underlying beliefs
1tripact the theories, research, practice and psychological treatment done by psychologists.
The general purpose of this study is to examine the possible relationships between feminist
VaJues, epistemological styles and attribution of responsibility in psychological treatment.
Those interested in the practice of psychology and understanding the value basis of much

105

of the work done in the ﬁeld of psychology should beneﬁt from the results of this work.

Many consider psychology an empirical science not inﬂuenced by values or
epistemological beliefs. This research project will examine the accuracy of those tenets of
psychology and provide valuable new information on whether or not they are correct.

2. (1. Analyses of information will primarily consist of a series of multiple hierarchical
regressions. My current plans for the information are to use the data to complete my
dissertation. I also hope to attempt to publish articles and give presentations on the
materials aﬂer completion of the dissertation, but have no speciﬁc details of publications

or presentations at this time.

2. e- I do not have any outside ﬁnding to help support this research. I will be using my
income from employment and student loans.

3 - Enclosed is a copy of the approval letter of my dissertation proposal ﬁom my
university's (Michigan State University) human subjects committee.

I an requesting random sampling of ﬁill APA members in Divisions 12, 17, 42, 44, and 45
With 120 subjects selected from each of these ﬁve divisions, for a combined total of 600
Subjects. I would like the division each is in to be recorded on the information I am given.
I would also like them to be selected/sorted for an equal number of men and women ﬁ'om
each division. I would also like the random sample of each division (particularly 44, and
4 5 ) to be sorted to include only Clinical Psychology and Counseling Psychology Ph.D. or
P sy. D. degrees (I'm not interested in degrees where clinical practice is not possible), and
S()l'ted so that there are no overlapping members from different divisions. prossible, I
Would like those currently holding administrative or agency director positions excluded
ﬁ‘om the sample. I would also like two copies of the mailing labels of the ﬁnal sample.

P1 ease feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need further information.
Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Mary S. Gilbert

106

Appendix B

Demographics Questionnaire
(Please return this portion of the survey with your coding sheet)

Please provide the following information to assist in my data analysis. (Continue coding
responses on the answer sheet.)

1 75 - Age:

0. 20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
Over 80

99999.“?

176. Sex:
0. Female
1. Male

1 7 7. What is your racial/ethnic background?
0. African-American

Asian American

Caucasian

Hispanic

Native American

Other, please specify (write in):

.‘J‘PP’NT‘

 

1 78. Please select the category which best describes your sexual orientation.
0. Exclusive preference for sexual relations with members of the same sex, and no
interest in sexual relations with members of the opposite sex.
1. Predominant preference for sexual relations with members of the same sex,
with only incidental interest in sexual relations with members of the opposite sex.
2. Clear preference for same-sex sexual relations, with a lesser but still active
interest in sexual relations with members of the opposite sex.
3. Approximately equal interest in sexual relations with members of the opposite
sex and members of the same sex.
4. Clear preference for opposite-sex sexual relations, with a lesser but still active
interest in sexual relations with members of the same sex.
5. Predominant preference for opposite-sex sexual relations, with only incidental
interest in sexual relations with members of the same sex.
6. Exclusive preference for sexual relations with members of the opposite sex and
no interest in sexual relations with members of the same sex.

107

 

.I.I

 

I79. , What is your current relationship status?
Committed partnership

Divorced

Married

Separated

Single

Widowed

.V‘PWNS—‘Q

1 80- What is your current household income, per year, before taxes?
0. Under 30,000

30,000-39,999

40,000-49,999

50,000-59,999

60,000-69,999

70,000-79,999

80,000-89,000

90,000-99,000

Over 100,000

WNQMBP’N?‘

1 8 1. How would you describe the area in which you live?
0. Rural
1. Suburban
2. Urban

1 82. In what area of psychology did you get your degree? (write in answer)

 

1 83. Please describe your current occupation.
Title:(write in answer)
Current primary job function:
0. Faculty member
1. Administrator
2. Clinician
3. Other (please specify)

 

 

1 84. Approximately how many years of clinical experience do you have?
0-4

5-9

10-14

1 5-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

Over 40

@NQMBPNFQ

108

185. What is your primary theoretical orientation?
Behavioral

Cognitive
Cognitive-behavioral
Client-centered
Family systems
Eclectic

Humanistic
Psychodynamic
Other, please specify:

@NQMP‘WNT‘Q

 

1 86- Do you consider yourself a feminist?
0. No
1. Yes
2. Uncertain

1 8 7- Please respond to the following paragraph based on your personal beliefs. (Code the
number corresponding to your response).

I believe that sexism exists and is a ﬁmdamental, pervasive oppression of women.
I agree that there are current inequalities in political, social, civil and educational rights
and opportunities between the sexes. I am committed to eradicating the ideology of male
domination that permeates Western culture and the elimination of inequalities for women
through legal, social, economic and educational reform to allow complete equality for
Women.

 

 

‘~0 l 2 3 4
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree
Strongly

isagree Nor Disagree Agree

109

Appendix C

Psycho-Epistemological Proﬁle

Directions: For each of the following statements, you are to indicate your personal
agreement or disagreement on the coding sheet. 0='CD' and means complete
disagreement with the statement, 1='MD' and means moderate disagreement, 2='N' and
means neutral, 3=’MA' and means moderate agreement, and 4='CA' and means complete
agreement. Your personal preference alone is required. There are no right or wrong
responses. It is necessary. however, thagou answer L“ of the questions. Be sure to
clearly mark the appropriate space for each question. Use a pencil and erase any extra
marks. Trusgour ﬁrst impression.

 

 

--O 1 2 3 4
CD MD N MA CA
1 - A good teacher is primarily one who has a sparkling, entertaining delivery.

2 . The thing most responsible for a child's fear of the dark is thinking of all sorts of things
that could be "out there".
3 - Most people who read a lot, know a lot because they come to know of the nature and
ﬁlnction of the world around them.
4 - Higher education should place a greater emphasis on ﬁne arts and literature.
5 - I would like to be a philosopher.
6 - A subject I would like to study is biology.
7 - In choosing a job I would look for one which offered opportunity for experimentation
and observation.
.8 - The Bible is still a best seller today because it provides meaningful accounts of several
ll'liportant eras in religious history.
9 - Our understanding of the meaning of life has been furthered most by art and literature.
1 0. More people are in church today than ever before because they want to see and hear
for themselves what ministers have to say.
1 I. It is of primary importance for parents to be consistent in their ideas and plans
regarding their children.
1 2. I would choose the following topic for an essay: The Artist in an Age of Science.
11 3. I feel most at home in a culture in which people can freely discuss their philosophy of
ife.
1 4. Responsibility among individuals requires an honest appraisal of situations where
irresponsibility has transpired.
1 5. A good driver is observant.
1 6. When people are arguing a question from two different points of view, I would say
that the argument should be resolved by actual observation of the debated situation.
1 ‘7. I would like to visit a library.
1 8. IfI were visiting India, I would be primarily interested in understanding the basis for
their way of life.

110

 

 

 

 

O 1 2 3 4
CD MD N MA CA

1 9. Human morality is molded primarily by an individual's conscious analysis of right and
wrong.
20- A good indicator of decay in a nation is a decline of interest in the arts.
2 1 - My intellect has been developed most by learning methods of observation and
experimentation.

22 - The prime function of a university is to teach principles of research and discovery.
23 - A good driver is even tempered.
24 - If I am in a contest, I try to win by following a pre-determined plan.
2 5 - I would like to have been Shakespeare.
26 - Our understanding of the meaning of life has been ﬁirthered most by mathematics.
27 - I like to think of myself as a considerate person.
28 - I would very much like to have written Darwin's "The Origin of Species".
29- When visiting a new area, I ﬁrst try to see as much as I possibly can.
3 0 . My intellect has been developed most by gaining insightﬁil self knowledge.

3 1 . I would be very disturbed if accused of being insensitive to the needs of others.

3 2. The kind of reading which interests me most is that which creates new insights.

3 3. The greatest evil inherent in a totalitarian regime is alienation of human relationships.
3 4. Most atheists are disturbed by the absence of factual proof of the existence of God.
3 S. In choosing a job I would look for one which offered the opportunity to use
imagination.

3 6. In my leisure I would most often like to enjoy some form of art, music, or literature.
3 '7. The kind of reading which interests me most is that which stimulates critical thought.
3 8. I prefer to associate with people who are spontaneous.

3 9. In my leisure I would like to play chess or bridge.
40. Most people who read a lot, know a lot because they develop an awareness and
Sensitivity through their reading.
4 1. When visiting a new area, I ﬁrst pause to try to get a "feel" for the place.
42. Many TV. programs lack sensitivity.
43. I like to think of myselfas observant.
44. Happiness is largely due to sensitivity.
4 5. I would be very disturbed if accused of being inaccurate or biased in my observations.
46. A good teacher is primarily one who helps his students develop their powers of
reasoning.

47. I would like to be a novelist.

4 8. The greatest evil inherent in a totalitarian regime are restrictions of thought and
criticism.

49. More people are in church today than ever before because theologians are beginning
to meet the minds of the educated people.

50. The most valuable person on a scientiﬁc research team is one who is gifted at critical
analysis.

5 1. Many TV. programs lack organization and coherence.

5 2. I like country living because it gives you a chance to see nature ﬁrst hand.

111

 

 

 

 

O 1 2 3 4

CD MD N MA CA
53 - Upon election to Congress I would endorse steps to encourage an interest in the arts.
54- It is important for parents to be familiar with theories of child psychology.
55 . The prime function of a university is to train the minds of the capable.
56- I would like to have written Hamlet.
5 7 - Higher education should place a greater emphasis on mathematics and logic.
5 8 - The kind of reading which interests me most is that which is essentially true to life.
59- A subject I would like to study is art.
60 - I feel most at home in a culture in which realism and objectivity are highly valued.
6 l - The prime function of a university is to develop a sensitivity to life.
62 - When playing bridge or similar games I try to think my strategy through before
playing.
63 - If I were visiting India, I would be primarily interested in noting the actual evidence of
cultural change.
64 - When buying new clothes I look for the best possible buy.
65 - I would like to visit an art gallery.
66. When a child is seriously ill, a good mother will remain calm and reasonable.
67. I prefer to associate with people who stay in close contact with the facts of life.
68.

69.

70.
7 1.

Many TV. programs are based on inadequate background research.
Higher education should place greater emphasis on natural science.
I like to think of myself as logical.

When people are arguing a question from two different points of view, I would say

that each should endeavor to assess honestly his or her own bias before arguing ﬁrrther.
72. When reading an historical novel, I am most interested in the factual accuracy found
1 n the novel.

73. The greatest evil inherent in a totalitarian regime is distortion of the facts.

74. A good driver is considerate.

7 5. Our understanding of the meaning of life has been furthered most by biology.

76. I would like to have been Galileo.

7 7. My children must possess the characteristics of sensitivity.

7 8. I would like to be a geologist.

'79. A good indicator of decay in a nation is an increase in the sale of movie magazines
over news publications.

80. I would be very disturbed if accused of being illogical in my beliefs.

81. Most great scientiﬁc discoveries come about by thinking about a phenomenon in a
new way.

82. I feel most at home in a culture in which the expression of creative talent is
encouraged.

83. In choosing a job I would look for one which offered a speciﬁc intellectual challenge.
84. When visiting a new area, I ﬁrst plan a course of action to guide my visit.

85. A good teacher is primarily one who is able to discover what works in class and is
able to use it.

112

86. Most great scientiﬁc discoveries come about by careﬁrl observation of the phenomena
in question.

87. Most people who read a lot, know a lot because they acquire an intellectual
proﬁciency through the sitting of ideas.

88. I would like to visit a botanical garden or zoo.

89. When reading an historical novel, I am most interested in the subtleties of the
personalities described.

90. When playing bridge or similar games I play the game by following spontaneous cues.

113

 

 

Appendix D

Social Issues Inventory

Please indicate your opinion on each of the following statements by ﬁlling in the
appropriate space on your coding sheet.

 

---0 1 2 3 4
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree Nor Disagree Agree

91. The civil rights movement was one of the most positive occurrences of this century.
92. Welfare programs should not be provided to people who reﬁrse to take responsibility
for themselves.

93. The leaders of the women's movement may be extreme, but they have the right idea.
94. Although some war protesters may be overly radical, they successfully point out the
absurdity of achieving peace through war.

95. Aﬂirmative action programs for minorities hurt the career options of the majority.
96. There are better ways for women to ﬁght for equality than through the women's
movement.

97. A strong national defense is the only way to assure that individual freedom will be
preserved.

98. More people would favor the women's movement if they knew more about it.

99. Every person should be guaranteed access to adequate food, housing, and other basic
necessities.

100. The civil rights movement has helped Americans eliminate their stereotypes and
prejudices.

101. Right wing political groups pose a major threat to our freedom.

102. The women's movement has positively inﬂuenced relationships between men and
women.

103. Welfare programs are contributing to the downfall of the American family.

104. Instead of criticizing our nation, we should be proud of its contributions to freedom
and world peace.

105. Our nation has an obligation to provide adequately for the poor, disabled, elderly,
and homeless.

106. The women's movement is too radical and extreme in its views.

107. Civil rights leaders should spend more time solving problems, rather than talking
about prejudice.

108. Feminists are too visionary for a practical world.

109. Political liberals are naive to think that welfare programs will help people become
self-sufﬁcient.

110. Opponents of our government's policies have destructive inﬂuences on our society.
111. Feminist principles should be adopted everywhere.

114

 

 

112. I am excited that the civil rights movement has helped minorities gain more power in
our society.

113. A powerful defense is the only way to ensure our nation's survival and strength.

114. Feminists are a menace to this nation and the world.

115. We must make a strong commitment to eradicating poverty in our country before
intervening in the affairs of other nations.

116. Most people who get involved in peace marches are too idealistic for the real world.
117. I am overjoyed that women's liberation is ﬁnally happening in this country.

118. The application of civil rights principles in all aspects of work and social life is our

‘ only hope for full equality between people.

119. I consider myself to be politically conservative.

120. I am supportive of the aims of the civil rights movement.

121. I consider myself a feminist and supportive of the women's movement.

122. I favor political activism as an appropriate response to injustice.

115

—_H

 

mu. Inc-.1 "nun

 

Appendix E

Attributions of the Term Feminist

For each of the following items, please indicate the degree to which the following words
do or do not describe you by ﬁlling in the answer on your coding sheet based on the
following scale:

 

---0 1 2 3 4
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree Nor Disagree Agree

Behavioral Characteristics
123. Aggressive

124. Extrovert

125. Passivist

126. Very likely to be working
127. Not at all opinionated
128. Not at all domineering
129. Very forceﬁrl

130. Ambitious

131. Dependent

132. Very career oriented
133. Passive

134. Weak

135. Nonconfomrist

136. Very motivated

137. Submissive

138. Assertive

139. Busy

140. Very talkative

141. Very energetic

142. Subordinate

Political Orientation (regarding women's issues)
143. Against reform

144. For equal wages

145. Against liberation

146. For equal rights

147. Supports NOW

148. Against women's lib

149. For ERA

116

 

Appendix F

Helping Orientations Scale

The following statements reﬂect general attitudes towards problems and their
solutions. There are no correct or incorrect responses. Please respond to each statement
by indicating your level of agreement with that statement. 4 means you strongly agree, 3
means you agree, 2 means you neither agree nor disagree, 1 means you disagree and 0
means you strongly disagree. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree
with each statement by marking the appropriate response on your coding sheet.

----0 l 2 3 4
SD D Neutral A SA

 

150. People's biggest limitation is their unwillingness to accept proper moral guidelines.
151. If you want to get something done, the biggest problem is ﬁnding the right person to
tell you how to do it.

152. Often people do not solve their own problems because they are held back by
circumstances.

153. It's silly to rely upon oneself when there are so many more knowledgeable people.
154. When things are tough, people have to rely on themselves and try harder.

155. People need the cooperation of others to compensate for the obstacles imposed
upon them by their situations.

156. Life's problems are too complicated. People have to rely upon skilled people for
proper assistance and/or treatment.

157. There is always a right way and wrong way to do things.

158. It is foolish to expect people to be able to solve their problems alone when there are
so many specialists.

159. PeOple should help others help themselves.

160. Whoever has the problem has the responsibility to make it right.

161. For society to function well, people need to be told what to do by those who know
what is proper.

162. Life requires people to take a stand when dealing with the problems they created.
163. Without the guidance that social norms provide, people would amount to nothing.
164. Often people are not given an opportunity to solve their own problems.

165. If people were not fearﬁrl of rejection by others, they wouldn't try to do what is
right.

166. Sheer determination will do a lot more for people than relying on others to solve
their problems.

167. For the best results, people should rely upon experts to solve their problems.

168. People are ultimately responsible for the problems they have.

169. People would be a lot better off if they followed the advice of experts.

170. People must submit to others' ideas about proper behavior if they are going to
resolve their problems.

117

 

 

171. The real solution to people's problems must come from them.
172. Rather than assessing blame, people should be concerned with helping others

overcome lirrritations imposed on them by society.
173. Behind every problem faced is someone not doing something they should have.
174. Life requires pe0ple to work for what they want because there is nothing in their

way but themselves.

118

Appendix G

Cover Letter
May 12, 1995
Dear Psychologist;

Your name was chosen from among a list of psychologists. I hope you will choose
to participate in a research project by ﬁlling out the enclosed forms. I am working on a
dissertation that explores whether or not certain beliefs affect how psychologists
conceptualize client problems and ways of helping clients. This information could be
valuable in exploring the relationship of values to psychological treatment.

Your participation in this study is voluntary, but would be very much appreciated.
You may choose not to participate at all or to end your involvement at any time without
penalty. You may reﬁrse to answer any question, however, all questions are important to
gain a full understanding of the issues being studied and to ensure that I can use your
responses.

It should take approximately 15 - 20 minutes to complete the entire survey. In
return for your time and help by completing the enclosed survey, I will enter you in a
drawing for a cash prize of $100.00. Your chances of winning will be approximately 1 in
200-250. All of your responses will be kept totally conﬁdential. Results will only be
reported in group terms, not individually. Your survey will have an identiﬁcation number
on it for follow up purposes and to enter you in the $100 drawing. No one other than
myself will have access to your name and it will be destroyed as soon as data gathering is
complete. Please do pat put your name anywhere on the answer sheet or survey. Ifyou
have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (517) 321-7643.

 

To participate in this study, please use a Number 2 pencil to ﬁll in the blanks on
the coding (answer) sheet that represent your anwer and corresponds to the question
number in the survey. Please return only your completed coding sheet and the
demographics section of the survey in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. I
have also enclosed a self-addressed, stamped post card. If you would like to be
withdrawn from the survey, please write your name and "omit" on the card and return it to
me. Ifyou would like a copy of the results of this survey, please write your name, address
and "results" on the card and return it to me. I would greatly appreciate your timely
response. In order to be eligible for the $100 drawing, please return your survey no later
than June 5. 1995. Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation.

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning
this questionnaire.

119

 

Sincerely,

Mary S. Gilbert

 

120

 

Appendix H

Correction Letter

Dear Psychologist;

Recently you received a survey in the mail that explores the relationship of values
to psychological treatment. Unfortunately, after what seemed like hundreds of reviews to
make sure it was correct, I found it contains an error. The opening paragraph on the ﬁrst
page describes the answer scale correctly, but the graph on that page is wrong. The
number "3" should equal "MA" (moderate agreement) and the number "4" should equal
"CA" (complete agreement). If you have not responded yet, please correct the graph on
the ﬁrst page as stated above and make a note on your demographics sheet that you
responded based on the corrections. If you have already responded, I would greatly
appreciate it if you would use the postcard I included in the packet to brieﬂy let me know
what you did when answering (e. g., used the written directions and corrected your scale,
responded as the scale was written, etc.) Because of my error, much of the data will be
unusable without knowing what you meant when answering. Also, if you have not yet
responded, I would much appreciate your taking a few minutes to do so. I'm sure you
remember what it's like to try and ﬁnish your dissertation and without a large, corrected
response to my survey, I'm in serious trouble. (Plus, you could win $100!). Thank you
again.

Sincerely,

Mary S. Gilbert

121

 

Appendix I

Reminder Letter
Dear Psychologist:
I am writing to remind you of the survey on values in psychology that you received about
3 weeks ago. I am ﬁnishing my PhD. in counseling psychology at Michigan State
University and need your help to complete my dissertation. Although many people have
kindly responded, I am still many short of the number that I need to complete my analyses.
Therefore, I am extending the deadline for being eligible to win the $100 by completing
and returning my survey. You will also be able to receive the results if you wish. I believe
this is an important area in psychology that has not been adequately explored. I am again
asking for your assistance so that this work can continue. I would greatly appreciate you
taking some of your time to complete the survey and return it as soon as possible. Ifyou
have misplaced your survey, but would be willing to assist me, I'll gladly send you a new

packet. Please drop me a note or call me collect at (517) 321-7643.

Sincerely,

Mary S. Gilbert Linda Forrest

Dissertation Chair

122

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (1989). Directory of the APA.
Washington, DC: Author.

 

Benhabib, S. (1990). Epistemologies of postmodernism: A rejoinder to Jean-
Francois Lyotard. In L]. Nicholson (Ed), Feminism/postmodemism (pp. 107-130).
New York: Routledge.

Berryman-F ink, C ., & Verderber, KS. (1985). Attributions of the term feminist:
A factor analytic development of a measuring instrument. Psychology of Women

@arterly, 2, 51-64.

Bleir, R. (1984). Science and gender, a critique of biology and its theories on
women. New York: Pergamon.

 

Borgen, F.H. (1984b). Counseling psychology. Annpal Review of Psychology,
35, 579-604.

Borgen, EH. (1992). Expanding scientiﬁc paradigms in counseling psychology.
In S.D. Brown, & R.W. Lent (Eds), Bandbook of counseling psychology (2nd ed.) (pp.
111-139). New York: Wiley.

Brickman, P., Rabinowitz, V.C., Karuza, J. Jr., Coates, D., Cohn, E., & Kidder, L.
(1982). Models of helping and coping. Ameriaan Psychologig, M, 368-384.

Brown, LS. (1990). The meaning of a multicultural perspective for theory-
building in feminist therapy. Women and Therapy, 2, 1-22.

Bruffee, K.A. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of
knowledge: A bibliographical essay. College English. 18, 773-790.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
The Proper Study of Man (Chapter 1).

Carl, D. (1990). Counseling sarn -sex couples. New York: W.W. Norton.

Coan, R.W. (1979). Psychologists: Person and theoretical pathways. New York:
Irvington.

123

Code, L. (1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of
knowledge. Ithica: Cornell University Press.

 

Cook, J .A. & Fonow, M.M. (1990). Knowledge and women's interests: Issues of
epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. In J.M. Nielsen (Ed),
Feminist research methods: Exempgrry readigs in the social sciences (pp. 69-82).
Boulder: West View Press.

Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design &
analysis issues for ﬁeld settings. Boston: Houghton Miﬂlin.

 

Corsini, R.J., & Wedding, D. (1989). Current psychotherapies (4th ed.). Itasca,
IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers.

 

Diamond, S., & Royce, J .R. (1980). Cognitive abilities as expressions of three
"ways of knowing." Multivamte Behavioral Research, 15, 31-56.

Dillman, DA. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dugger, K. (1991). Social location and gender-role attitudes: A comparison of
black and white women. In J. Lorber & S.A. Farrell (Eds), The social construction of
gender (pp. 38-59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Enns, C.Z. (1993). Twenty years of feminist counseling and therapy: From
naming biases to implementing multifaceted practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 2_1_ , 3-
87 .

Enns, C.Z., & Hackett, G. (1990). Comparison of feminist and nonfeminist
women's reactions to variants of nonsexist and feminist counseling. J oumﬁ of Counseling
Psychology, 37, 33-40.

 

F assinger, RE. (1985a). Development of Attitudes Toward Feminism scale.
Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Fassinger, RE. (1994). Development and testing of the Attitudes Toward
Feminism and the Women's Movement (FWM) scale. Psychology of Women Ougterly,
18, 389-402.

Gavelek, J. (1992). Class notes from Sociocultural Conceptions of Cognition &
Education.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretatgm of cultures. New York: Basic.

124

 

 

Gergen, KJ. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology.
American Psychologist, @, 266-275.

 

Gergen, M.M. (1988). Toward a feminist metatheory and methodology in the
social sciences. In M.M. Gergen (Ed), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledga
(pp. 27-48). New York: New York University Press.

Glass, G.V., & Hopkins, K.D. (1984). Statistical methods in education a_n_d
psychology (2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goldﬁied, M.R., & Padawer, W. (1982). Current status and future directions in
psychotherapy. In MR. Goldﬁied (Ed), Converging themes in psychotherapy: Trends in :-
psychodwaﬂahumanistica and behavioral practice (pp. 3-52). New York: Springer
Publishing.

Hackett, G., Enns, C.Z., & Zetzer, HA. (1992). Reactions of women to
nonsexist and feminist counseling: Effects of counselor orientation and mode of
information delivery. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2, 321-330.

 

L- ‘ {me“

Harding, S. (1979). The social ﬁinction of the empiricist conception of mind.
Metaphilosophy, _1__Q, 38-47.

Harding, S. (1987). Feminism & Methodology. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.

Harding, S. (1989). Feminist justiﬁcatory strategies. In A. Garry & M. Pearsall
(Eds), Women. knowledge, and reality: Explorations in feminist philosophy (pp. 189-
201). Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking ﬁom
women's lives. Ithica: Cornell University Press.

Hare-Mustin, R.T., & Marecek, J. (1988). The meaning of difference: Gender
theory, postmodernism, and psychology. American Psycholagisa, Q, 45 5-464.

Hare-Mustin, R.T., & Marecek, J. (Eds). (1990). Making a difference:
Psychology and the construction of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hawkesworth, ME. (1989). Knowers, knowing, known: Feminist theory and
claims of truth. Sigr_rs: Journﬂf Women in Cultureﬁ and Society. 14, 533-557.

Hawkesworth, ME. (1990). Beyond oppression: Feminist theory and political
strategy. New York: Continuum.

125

Highlen, P.S., & Hill, CE. (1984). Factors inﬂuencing client change in individual
counseling: Current status and theoretical speculations. In S.D. Brown & R.W. Lent
(Eds), Handbowf counseling psychology (pp. 334-396). New York: Wiley.

Hoshmand, L.L.T. (1991). Clinical inquiry as scientiﬁc training. The Counseling
Psychologist, 12, 431-453.

Hubbard, R. (1988). Some thoughts about the masculinity of the natural sciences.
In M.M. Gergen (Ed), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledga (pp. 1-15). New
York: New York University Press.

Ingleby, D. (1986). Development in social context. In M. Richards & P. Light
(Eds), Children of social worlds: Development in 50cm context (pp. 297-317). 7
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Jaeger, A. (1983). Feminist politicaemd human nature. New York: Rowman &
Allanheld.

 

Jagger, A. (1977). Political philosophies of women's liberation. In F.A.E.
Vetterling-Braggin & J. English, (Eds), Feminism and philosophy. Titowa, N.J.:
Littleﬁeld, Adams.

Kinsey, A.E., Pomeroy, W.B., Martin, C.E., & Gebbhard, PH. (1953). Sexual
balpwior in the human fem. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

Kraemer, H.C., & Thiemann, S. (1987). How many subjects?: Statisticﬂ power
analysis in research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Kramarae, C. & Treichler, PA. (1985). A feminist dictionary. Boston: Pandora
Press.

Krasner, L., & Houts, AC. (1984). A study of the "value" systems of behavioral
scientists. American Psychologiat, 39, 840-850.

 

Kuhn, TS. (1970). The structure of scientiﬁc revolutions. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Larsen, K.S., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward sex-roles: Traditional or
egalitarian? Sex Roles, l_9_, 1-12.

Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/1n the
postmodern. New York: Routledge.

Lewis-Beck, MS. (1980). Applied reggession: An introduction. Newbury Park:
Sage.

126

Longino, HE. (1989). Can there be a feminist science? In A. Garry & M.
Pearsall (Eds), Women. knowledge, and reality: Explorations in feminist philosophy (pp.
203-216). Boston: Unwin Hyman.

 

Lott, B. (1985). The potential enrichment of social/personality psychology
through feminist research and vice versa. American Psychologist. 49, 155-164.

 

Lyddon, W.J. (1989). Personal epistemology and preference for counseling.
Joumal of Counseling Psychology, M, 423-429.

Mahoney, M.J., & Lyddon, W.J. (1988). Recent developments in cognitive
approaches to counseling and psychotherapy. The Counseling Psychologist, _1_6, 190-234.

 

Manicas, P.T., & Secord, PF. (1983). Implications for psychology of the new
philosophy of science. American Psvphologist. 3, 399-413.

 

McGovern, M.P., Newman, F.L., & Kopta, SM. (1986). Metatheoretical
assumptions and psychotherapy orientation: Clinician attributions of patients' problem
causality and responsibility for treatment outcome. Joumal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 5_4, 476-481.

McGowan, J .F., & Schmidt, L.D. (1962). Counseling: Readings in theory and
practice. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

Mos, L.P., Wardell, D., & Royce, JR. (1974). A factor analysis of some
measures of cognitive style. Multivarjate Research. 2, 47-58.

 

 

Neimeyer, G.J., Prichard, S., Lyddon, W.J., & Sherrard, P.A.D. (1993). The role
of epistemic style in counseling preference and orientation. Journal of Counseling &
Development. 21, 51 5-523.

 

Parker, LR. (1995). Measuring feminism and feminist frameworkLs: An
evaluation of extant and supplementagg measures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Montana, Missoula, MT.

Peplau, A.L., & Conrad, E. (1989). Beyond nonsexist research: The perils of
feminist methods in psychology. Psycholpgy of Women Quarterly 13 379-400.

’_’

Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexisg. Little Rock, AR: Chardon
Press.

Polkinghorne, DE. (1984). Further extensions of methodological diversity for
counseling psychology. Journal of Counaelirrg Psychology, _3_1, 416-429.

127

Polkosnik, M.C., & Wisenbaker, J .M. (1986). Multiple regression research
methods: A primer for student affairs professionals. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 21, 166-172.

Ricketts, M. (1989). Epistemological values of feminists in psychology.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, M, 401-415.

 

Riger, S. (1992). Epistemological debates, feminist voices: Science, social
values, and the study of women. American Psychologiat, ﬂ, 730-740.

Royce, J .R. (1964). The encapsulated man: An interdisciplinary search for
meaning. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand.

Royce, J.R., Coward, H., Egan, E., Kessel, F., & Mos, LP. (1978).
Psychological epistemology: A critical review of the empirical literature and the
theoretical issues. Genetic Psycholpgy Monographs. 22, 265-3 53.

 

Royce, J .R., & Mos, LP. (1980). Psycho-Epistemolog'cal Proﬁle manual.
Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta Press.

Royce, J.R., & Powell, A. (1983). Theory of personality and individual
differences: F actora. systemsaand processes. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Scarr, S. (1985). Constructing psychology: Making facts and fables for our
times. American Psycholog'gt, 39, 499-512.

Schacht, T.E. & Black, DA. (1985). Epistemological commitments of behavioral
and psychoanalytic therapists. Professigral Psychology: Research a_n__d metice. _1_6_, 316-
323.

Schmidt, L.D., & Meara, NM. (1992). Ethical, professional and legal issues in
counseling psychology. In 8D. Brown, & R.W. Lent (Eds), HmdbooLof counseling
psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 56-96). New York: Wiley.

 

Scott, S. (1985). Feminist research and qualitative methods: A discussion of
some of the issues. In R.C. Burgess (Ed), Issues in educational research: Qualitative
methods (pp. 67-85). Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.

 

Sherif, CW. (1987). Bias in psychology. In S. Harding (Ed), Feminism &
Methodolgy (pp. 37 -56). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Sherwin, S. (1989). Philosophical methodology and feminist methodology: Are

they compatible? In A. Garry & M. Pearsall, (Eds), Woman, knowledge, and realigy:
Explorations in feminist philosophy (pp. 21-36). Boston: Unwin Hyman.

128

Smith, B. (1990). Racism and women's studies. In G. Anzaldua (Ed), Making
face, making soul (pp. 25-28). San Francisco: Aunt Lute Foundation Books.

Smith, E.R., Ferree, M.M., & Miller, F .D. (1975). A short scale of attitudes
toward feminism. Representative Research in Social Psychology, (_B_, 51-56.

Soltis, JP. (1981). Education and the concept of knowledge. In J .F. Soltis (Ed),
Philosophy and education. Eightieth YembooBof the National Society for the Study of
Edugrpionﬁart 1). (pp. 95-113). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Spence, J .T. & Helmreich, R. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their
psychological dimensions. correlates. and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.

 

Tuttle, L. (1986). Encyclopedgr of feminism. New York: Facts On File
Publications.

Unger, R.K. (1983). Through the looking glass: No wonderland yet! (The
reciprocal relationship between methodology and models of reality). Psychology of
Women Quarterly, §, 9-32.

Unger, R.K. (1985). Explorations in feminist ideology: Surprising consistencies
and unexamined conﬂicts. Imag'nation. Cogpitionﬁ and Personality, 5, 395-403.

Unger, R.K. (1990). Imperfect reﬂections of reality: Psychology constructs
gender. In RT. Hare-Mustin & J. Marecek, (Eds), Making a difference: Psychology and
the construction (igender (pp. 102-149). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Unger, R.K., Draper, R.D., & Pendergrass, ML. (1986). Personal epistemology
and personal experience. Journal of Social Issues. 512, 67-77.

Wampold, B.E., & Freund, RD. (1987) Use of multiple regression in counseling
psychology research: A ﬂexible data-analytic strategy. Journal of CounselingPsycholpgy,
33, 372-3 82.

Weathers, P.L., Furlong, M.J., & Solorzano, D. (1993). Mail survey research in
counseling psychology: Current practice and suggested guidelines. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 49, 238-244.

Wittig, MA. (1985). Metatheoretical dilemmas in the psychology of gender.
AmericapPsycholqgisa, ﬂ, 800-811.

 

Wylie, A. (1992). Reasoning about ourselves: Feminist methodology in the social
sciences. In E.D. Harvey & K. Okruhlik (Eds), Women and reaspp (pp. 225-244). Ann
Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

129

 

HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
31293013902949