i:

«1?.

a r
.9 .. . . .l
is i... t... . £55..
5:2. 1.3... .
. . . I "my?!
.. J . :5? I \L
. . 4....“1. a .
‘ . o

g :; wrath."
.311” $0,353.”..s‘ahhu
.. “Walt: .in‘a.
.- itch.“ 41.5.? In»... .3:
~n’ 1 — E".
l 12;..- ~ Q 1 i
411.. e :5

.. i... “.2...
. .s a...

.
”I; . ‘. .....:N
... v 9 .r...mm.,.&§i..u...m 5.
ca . inwaflwdm. .
hawkiuénau
7:351..- 1.1.3..
I (41's,... ‘3‘ “‘0?"
5.5% fl...
6.: an.
...
L1... v.11). :
3 ju‘hfiulans

.. ,
.l m- .
.1 ..ii.:..
ziltirzuus. \if.
i...x....u§..vw|1 3'.
13.3).»5

 

r5: 9....
. .3. 9.. ... .. Ia}...
. 2dr. I..r{.~x...M.tt.x. “5.9... « ear.
. .Ir- . I .
I.” . gaugfiuwfluvmfihv , I.
an.“ Hummus WWW»
11!. to:
.mp3}...
5.33:? :1???
1km . 7v... flu.h..¢.z’ fit...“
«39¢. “affiniilzfiuvk
.33)

{135...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c i‘.

. . g .u.. N:
.13.. -. ..
.22. 5...... .

 

 

 

 

 

j... .
1:11)... . .{l
A. la, . u...

\ F
. :
{1. 1)..
5a.!) ’51.,- .
.l at?

 

on...

33%; _

f. 2.. a 2.x, .

.51. a." .3...

 

LIBRARY ._,
"" Michigan State ’
University

  
    

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
A STUDY OF COMMUNICATION ACCOMMODATION THEORY
WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER CLIENTS

presented by
ELIZABETH M. MURRAY JOHNSON

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Ph.D. _ Communication
degree In __ _ _ . __
l / Major professor
12/ 10/01

Date

MCI/inn. All‘ 1' A ' I" 'nrr ~, , . . 0.1 1

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

wwaam®

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRCIDatoDInpes-ms

A STUDY OF COWUNICATION ACCOMMODATION THEORY
WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER CLIENTS

BY

Elizabeth M. Murray-Johnson

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PH[LOSOPHY
Department of Communication

2001

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF COMMUNICATION ACCOMMODATION THEORY
WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER CLIENTS

By

Elizabeth M. Murray-Johnson

Communication Accommodation Theory posits that the demonstration of accommodative
behaviors by individuals in an interaction leads to positive evaluations of the interaction
as well as positive evaluations for those performing the accommodation. Domestic
violence counselors who were trained in accommodation behaviors were compared
against a wait-list control group to determine if demonstrations of verbal and nonverbal
accommodative behaviors would increase their shelter clients’ ratings of counselor
perceived accommodation, improve counselors’ ratings of perceived liking, similarity,
empathy and trust by their clients, increase clients’ willingness to continue therapy and
enhance clients’ amount of self-disclosure during therapy. Results indicated that clients in
the counselor-trained accommodative behavior condition did perceived their counselors
to be significantly more accommodative than those clients in the wait-list control group.
Clients in this condition also reported a greater willingness to continue therapy, increased
counselor trust, and more self-disclosure. No differences were found for the evaluations
of counselor perceived liking and empathy between the conditions. Client counselor
similarity was achieved through a group by age interaction. This dissertation is an
important first step in understanding how actual accommodation fimctions in the

counseling setting.

Copyfight by
ELIZABETH M. MURRAY-JOHNSON
2001

To Jefl‘, my husband and best friend, who taught me to believe in my dreams;
To Rita, my beautiful daughter, who taught me there is more to life than work;
To Barbara, my amazing and loving mother, who taught me to believe in myself.
To all the survivors of domestic abuse, you have not been forgotten.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without all of the loving support of
my family, fiiends, colleagues, mentors, and angels watching over me these past six
years. To all of you I shall remain eternally grateful for the sacrifices you have made on
my behalf.

Special acknowledgments go to Jeff, my husband, for all of his loving support
through the grad school process, understanding my stressfirl fits, providing backrubs, a
listening ear, cleaning the apartment, cooking meals, and bringing flowers when I don’t
deserve them. Knowing and loving you has made me a better person, for which I am
gratefirl. I also acknowledge Rita, my beautiful daughter, who at three months has no clue
why she got the crazy mommy.

Special thanks go to Kim Witte-Kimm X Jayne, my fiiend, mentor, and adviser,
for teaching me almost everything there is to know about being in academia. Vlfrthout
your constant encouragement in everything I undertook, support for testing the
boundaries of research practice, and an occasional slap on the wrist for split infinitives, I
would never be a professor. Your guidance has been invaluable to my education and your
friendship has been invaluable to my growth as a person and spiritual being. For all of
these things, I am forever in your debt.

I wish to thank my parents, Barbara and Joe, for instilling in me the value of a

good education, the courage to dream big, and teaching me life’s important lessons.

I also wish to thank my sister, Katie, who serves as my fashion police, has a good
sense of humor and keeps my perspective on life in check.

I also need to thank Jean, my aunt, who loves me like a daughter and really
understands what it is like going to graduate school for such a long time, and Jim, my
uncle, for being like a father to me. Thank you for your support!

Special thanks also goes to my committee members Kelly Morrison, Mary
Bresnahan, and Chuck Salmon for their invaluable advice on this document. Kelly, you
are an incredible teacher and friend, and I appreciate all of your mentoring and personal
support over the past six years. Mary, thank you for all of the years of research and
fiiendship together, you are one of the few people who has seen me at my best and worst
(even 24 hours after giving birth). Chuck, thank you for teaching me the fine art of article
writing, fiiendship and encouragement to apply to Ohio State. Without that little (okay,
big) push, I never would have ended up with such a dream job!

Special thanks also goes to Sandi Smith who is solely responsible for me going to
graduate school in the first place. I’m not sure you knew what you had bargained for, but
I deeply appreciate our fiiendship. Thank you for being a formal and informal mentor for
me over these years.

A big thank you also goes to all my fiiends who keep me laughing and loving life
(and know nothing about communicationl): Jessica Shill-Novak, Francesca DeMars,
Jennifer Jamison, Kate Weiner, Rich Santos, Rich Hem, Jennifer and Jill Lukovich,
Karyn Procter, Mary Weishaar Wall and Rob Wall, Dave and Tayna Reynolds, Brentt

Smith, Jayna Erickson, Karen Mauck, Sam Bitonti, Tricia VanderWest, and Tina Daisy.

Huge thanks also goes to my fellow commies for great talks, meals, and mugs of
beer: Anne Hubbell, Wen-Ying Liu, Jen Heisler, Jen Butler, Janet Lillie, Celeste F arr,
Mike Burke, Ryan Goei, Lisa Massi, Merissa Ferrara, Gina Pongetti, Amy Johnson,
Lauren Levin, Matt Stoner, and Carma Bylund for sticking with me even during the crazy
times.

Thank you as well to all of the faculty in the Department of Communication for
your knowledge and dedication to us as people as well as graduate students.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge the Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan
Foundation for funding the grant that made this dissertation possible. I also wish to thank
the survivors of abuse who were willing to come forward and tell their stories, and open
their hearts to someone, despite their pain. Through your gracious Sharing of information

we hope to make the world a better place.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................ xi
KEYS TO SYMBOLS OR ABBREVIATIONS ....................................... xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1-4
CHAPTER 2
COMMUNICATION ACCOMMODATION THEORY ........................... 5-37
Convergence ................................................................................. 6
Divergence .................................................................................... 9
The Process of Accommodation .......................................................... 13
Incorporation of Nonverbal Behaviors .................................................. 16
Forms of Accommodation .................................................................. 16
Strategies used for Accommodation ..................................................... 18
Criticisms of Communication Accommodation Theory .............................. 21
Moving Outside the Traditional Realm of Communication Accommodation
New Focus on the Clinical Setting ............................................... 25
Pragmatics of Counseling to Access Clients’ Frames of Reference ................. 27
Clients Willingness to Pursue Therapy .................................................... 3O
Perceptions of Accommodation .......................................................... 32
Evaluations of Accommodative Behaviors ............................................. 34
CHAPTER 3
METHOD ............................................................................ 38-57
Study Design ............................................................................... 38
Participants ................................................................................. 38
Recruitment of Counselors ................................................................ 45
Recruitment of Shelter Clients ............................................................ 45
Procedure .................................................................................... 46
Intervention .................................................................................. 47
Communication Accommodation Behaviors used in the Experimental
Training Workshop .............................................................. 47
Nonverbal Coding Scheme ............................................. 48
Verbal Coding Scheme .................................................. 48
Premeasure .................................................................................. 49
Manipulation Checks ...................................................................... 50
Coordination of Study Materials ......................................................... 51
Client Pretest Measure ..................................................................... 51
Abusive Behavior Inventory Form .................................... 51
Counselor Jourmls ......................................................................... 52
Client Journals .............................................................................. 52

viii

Posttest Measures .......................................................................... 52

Communication Accommodation Strategies Scale ............................... 54
Perceived Accommodation Scale ................................................... 5 5
Comfort Scale ......................................................................... 55
erlingness to talk with Counselor Again ......................................... 55
Perceived Liking ...................................................................... 56
Perceived Similarity .................................................................. 56
Perceived Empathy .................................................................. 56
Perceived Trust ....................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSES ........................................................ 58-75
Statistical Analysis ......................................................................... 58
Journal Analysis ............................................................................ 58
Manipulation Checks ...................................................................... 61
Hypothesis one ............................................................................... 63
Hypothesis two .............................................................................. 66
Hypothesis three ............................................................................. 66
Hypothesis four ............................................................................. 72
Hypothesis five ............................................................................... 73
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 76-91
Summary of Findings ........................................................................ 76
Implications for Counselor .................................................................. 86
Limitations ..................................................................................... 88
Conclusion .................................................................................... 90
REFERENCES ................................................................................ 92-102
APPENDICES .............................................................................. 103-145
Appendix A: Pre-Intervention Shelter Telephone Survey ........................... 103
Appendix B: Pre-Intervention Shelter Telephone Survey Script .................. 105
Appendix C: Informed Consent for Shelter Clients .................................. 106
Appendix D: Informed Consent Experimental and Wait-List Counselors..... . .. 108
Appendix E: Experimental and Wait-list Counselor Survey ......................... 109
Appendix F: Experimental and Wait-list Control Client Pretest ................... 110
Appendix G:Experimental and Wait-list Control Client Posttest ................... 114
Appendix H: Counselor Journal Instructions .......................................... 120
Appendix 1: Client Journal Instructions ............................................... 121
Appendix J: Client and Counselor Debriefing Sheet ................................. 122
Appendix K: Workshop Information for Experimental Group Counselors ....... 123
Appendix L: Experimental Counselor Workshop Registration Form ............. 125
Appendix M: Building Bridges Workshop Materials .............................. 126
Appendix N: Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior Accommodation Checklist ....... 144

Appendix 0: Cheat Sheet for Communication Accommodation Behaviors. . . 145

ix

TABLE 1.

TABLE 2.

TABLE 3.

TABLE 4.

TABLE 5.

LIST OF TABLES

Domestic Violence Counselor Descriptive Data .............................. 43
Domestic Violence Survivor Descriptive Statistics .......................... 44
Items Dropped from the Pretest and Posttest Measures ..................... 53

T-tests of Counselor Verbal and Nonverbal Accommodation
Behaviors from the Training Workshop ....................................... 61

Assessment of Counselor’s Ability to Produce Actual
Accommodative Behaviors Means and
(Standard Deviations) for 9 timed intervals .................................. 62

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. The Process of Communication Accommodation ........................... 11

FIGURE 2. Figure 2. Sociolinguistic Stances of the Communication
Accommodation Process (Coupland, Coupland, Giles and
Henwood, 1988, p. 28) ........................................................... 12

FIGURE 3. Figure 3. Attuning Strategies of Communication Accommodation
(Coupland, Coupland, Giles and Henwood, 1988, p. 28) .................... 15

KEYS TO SYMBOLS OR ABBREVIATIONS

BCBSMF = Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation
CAT = Communication Accommodation Theory

DV = Domestic Violence

IAT = Interaction Adaptation theory

IP = Interpersonal position

MSU = Michigan State University

SAT = Speech Accommodation Theory

(*) = Reverse-scored questionnaire items

xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Prior studies utilizing Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) (Giles, ’
Mulac, Bradac & Johnson, 1986), have established that convergent behaviors are
preferred in communicative interactions over divergent ones (Ball, Giles, Byme, &
Berechree,1984;Bourhis, 1985; Bourhis & Giles, 1977; Bourhis, Giles, Leyens, &
Taijfel, 1979; Coupland, 1984; Giles & Street, 1985; Giles & Smith, 1979; Hewstone &
Giles, 1986; Natale, 1975b; Purcell, 1984; Scotton, 1985; Street, 1982; Street, Brady, &
Putnam, 1983; Welkowitz & Kuc, 1973). Convergent behaviors refer to those behaviors
that are produced by a person to match or closely approximate another’s behaviors.
Divergent behaviors refer to those behaviors that are produced by a person to
demonstrate uniqueness or difference with another person. The use of convergent and
divergent behaviors is at the heart of Communication Accommodation Theory.

For example, Street (1983) demonstrated that matched speech rates or convergent
speech rates enhanced sales dialogue exchanges between Franco-Canadian and English-
Canadian speakers. In another example, Jones, Gallois, Barker and Callan (1994) found
that the matching of utterance length and pause latency between students and their
instructors reduced the length of the discussion time. Similar studies have been conducted
assessing posture (Condon & Ogston, 1967), head nodding and facial afi‘ect (Hale &
Burgoon, 1984), vocal intensity (Natale, 1975b), and information density (Aronson et. al.,
1987). Overall, there is a broad contention that matching, or making a close
approximation to another’s communicative behaviors, provides the impetus for firrther
collaboration, as well as positive evaluations of the individuals performing the
convergence (Ball, Giles, & Hewstone, 1985).

1

While Communication Accommodation Theory explains why individuals should
be motivated to accommodate one another (due to improved communication efliciency
and social approval) (Giles, 1973; Giles, Mulac, Bradac & Johnson, 1986), there have
been conceptual challenges to the theory. One criticism leveled against the theory is that
most studies using CAT do not test if the accommodation behaviors are perceived during
an interaction. Most studies have assumed that accommodation behaviors are perceived
because the interaction continues; however, this may or may not equate with participants’
actual perceptions of accommodation (Gallois & Giles, 1998). This paper attempts to
answer this question by conducing a field study in which perceived accommodation is
measured between domestic violence counselors and their shelter clients.

The counseling context is chosen for this dissertation because a greater
understanding of the accommodation processes may be a powerfiil predictive tool for
counselors interested in measuring client progress (F errara, 1991). This setting is ripe for
assessment because communication is the mechanism by which diagnosis occurs and
treatment is delivered. Counselors use communication to engage their clients and then to
access their frames of reference, enabling the counselor to determine which thoughts,
beliefs, and feelings require change. And, without accommodation on some
communicative level, there is a chance that communication confusion, attribution
dificulties, or relational breakdown could ensue (Pederson, 1999). Hence,
communication accommodation becomes a necessary correlate of the counseling process,
whereby counselors and clients must accommodate one another to understand each

other’s frame of reference for counseling to occur.

Domestic violence counseling is a sub-specialty of this domain. Domestic
violence counselors perform a free, short-term service (less than two weeks) to those
individuals who seek the shelter of a domestic violence program. Often, the clients who
need support are those living with an abusive partner and need counseling to change their
thoughts about being a victim of violence as well as to create new behaviors to remain
safe fiom the violence (Jory & Anderson, 1999). Testing communication accommodation
in this context may provide greater understanding of how domestic violence shelter
counselors are able to meet their clients’ needs by accessing their clients’ flames of
reference through the accommodative process. It may also provide insight regarding how
receptive the shelter clients’ are to their domestic violence counselors’ therapeutic
ofi‘erings once that flame of reference is accessed. This study is a vehicle for extending
Communication Accommodation Theory in this setting.

This dissertation explores how communication accommodation between
counselors and their clients afi‘ects client appraisals of the interaction (i.e., do they
perceive accommodation) as well as their evaluation of their counselor in terms of
perceived liking, similarity, empathy and trust. This study also assesses whether or not
the demonstration of accommodative behaviors by the shelter counselors afi‘ects their
clients’ willingness to continue the counseling sessions and how much the clients’ self-
disclose to their counselors during the sessions.

To test these outcomes, 32 domestic violence shelter counselors from the State of
Michigan domestic violence shelters received two days of communication
accommodation training with an additional 32 shelter counselors placed in a wait-list

control condition. Then, the shelter counselors fi'om both groups interacted with 88

‘4‘”
.. ".

Ir
.0.
.'

domestic violence shelter clients (45 experimental condition and 43 in the wait-list
control condition) and collected a client posttest survey rating both the interaction with
the counselor (i.e., perceived accommodation and willingness to continue counseling
sessions) and the counselor (i.e., ratings of perceived liking, similarity, empathy, and
trust) as well as journal writing about their abuse experience (i.e., self-disclosure).

To accomplish these purposes, this first chapter reviews and analyzes selected
literature and studies on Communication Accommodation Theory and the counseling
process as it relates to domestic violence. The review and analysis form the basis for the
study and formulating the hypotheses. Chapter 2 presents the methods used in conducting
the study. Then, the findings of this study are presented in Chapter 3. Finally, Chapter 4
discusses the important findings and presents implications for Communication

Accommodation theory and practice in the counseling domain.

CHAPTER 2: COMMUNICATION ACCOMMODATION THEORY

Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT), developed by Giles, Mulac,
Bradac and Johnson (1986), was originally born out of Speech Accommodation Theory
(SAT) (Giles, 1973). In its initial formulation, SAT was concerned with the phenomenon
of interpersonal accent convergence in initial job interview situations. From his initial
observations, Giles (1973) found that successful job interviewees used accent mobility
with their interviewers to gain a second interview. This finding led to subsequent studies
by Giles, Taylor and Bourhis (1973) and Giles and Powesland (1975) that found people
altered their communication style depending on with whom they were interacting. Prior
to these studies, it was assumed that language use was a function of social class and child
rearing and it could not be altered once a style had been mastered (Labov, 1966).

Giles’ (1973) Speech Accommodation Theory focuses on the social cognitive
processes affecting individuals’ perceptions of themselves in their surroundings and their
communication behaviors. The theory seeks to clarify the motivations underlying, and
constraints operating on, speech shifts during social interactions and the consequences of
enacting those behaviors. Giles (1973) demonstrated the value of merging social
psychological concepts with speech diversity concepts to understand communication in
social settings.

Over time it became apparent that Speech Accommodation Theory needed to be
reformulated to address it’s shortcomings. First, the theory only explained linguistic
convergence or divergence; it did not address nonverbal convergence or divergence.
Second, the theory only recognized the production of convergent behaviors as
accommodating and divergent behaviors as contra-accommodation. This dichotomy

5

represented only a small portion of the range of strategies available to individuals to
communicate. Third, SAT did not explain how individuals produced convergent or
divergent behaviors (i.e. the specific steps needed to perform convergent or divergent
behaviors). Hence, Communication Accommodation Theory was constructed to address
each of these three areas. At this time, the difi‘erent concepts of Communication
Accommodation Theory are examined.

Convergence

According to the theory, convergence is the process whereby individuals “adapt to
the other’s communicative behaviors in terms of a wide range of linguistic/prosodic/non-
verbal features” (Giles & Coupland, 1991, p. 61). It demonstrates a speaker’s desire for
social approval, communication efficacy, and a shared self-presentation with the other
person (Giles et. al., 1986). Convergence can be mutual in that two speakers can choose
a speech pattern that is complementary, or non-mutual, meaning that only one speaker
chooses to use speech that is complementary to the other. Further, convergence can occur
as a result of another’s overt behavior, or the perception of another’s style as suggested
by a belief, expectation, or stereotype. For example, one can choose to converge to
another’s pause length because the behavior is enacted, or because s/he perceives that it is
expected of him or her due to social roles or power (i.e., either the belief alone or
stereotyping is affecting the perception which results in the behavior). Individuals can
also choose to converge their speech pattern partially or firlly, depending on the social
climate or context. For example, if someone exhibits a speech rate of 75 words per
minute, s/he could move fully to the other’s speech rate of 150 words per minute or

partially converge and speak at a rate of 100 words per minute. Finally, convergence can

occur uni-modally or multi-modally (Giles & Johnson, 1987). Individuals can choose to
accommodate or converge only one speech behavior, such as accent, or many behaviors
at the same time, such as rate, vocal intensity and accent.

SAT proposes that convergence reflects an individual’s need for social integration
or identification of another or a group, or need for communication efliciency. That is, the
greater the need for one of these desired outcomes, the more convergent behaviors should
be enacted. For example, the motivation to be similar to another person (i.e., the need for
identification with someone), which is derived from Byme’s (1971) attraction-similarity
postulate, should lead to greater coordination of communication behaviors to influence
the other’s attitudes and behaviors related to perceptions of similarity. At the same time,
the converse should also occur. Those who perceive themselves as similar should be
motivated to perform those behaviors which instantiate their similarity. This outcome was
demonstrated by Welkowitz, F eldstein, Finkelstein and Aylesworth ( 1972) who found
that individuals who perceived themselves as similar converged in their vocal intensity
more than those individuals who did not perceived themselves as being similar. This was
tested through random pairing in a laboratory experiment. Hence, converging one’s
language behaviors because of the need for social approval, identity or communication
efficiency can lead to further convergence as the performed behaviors reifythe
perceptions they create.

Yet, a person’s convergence abilities are limited to his or her behavior repertoire
or the skills needed to perform a particular convergence. To demonstrate convergence
behaviors, a person must have the ability to identify that the other’s behavior is currently

similar or different fiom one’s own; and second, to recognize how to adjust their

language to create a desired effect on the other person (Giles et. al., 1986). If a person
does not possess the skills to demonstrate a convergence behavior, then even if they are
motivated, the convergence can backfire and lead to negative instead of positive
perceptions or behaviors. Thus, it is crucial that individuals understand how to perform
convergences that are deemed appropriate in the context in which they are offered.

For those individuals who both possess the motivation and the skill to create a
convergent behavior, they next need to be able to decode the other person’s language and
behaviors to determine which behaviors should be chosen for convergence and then sent
in a response message (O’Keefe & Delia, 1985). [Note: This is not to suggest that all
behaviors are performed or evaluated consciously with fiilly awareness. Behavior is
organized and processed at many levels simultaneously, it can be intended, yet, involve
low cognitive processing (Berger & Rolofi‘, 1980)]. Often, context plays a large role in
determining which behavior or behaviors should be chosen for convergence. For
example, Bradac and Mulac (1984) found that when a “powerfirl” speaker attempted to
match the “powerless” verbal style of another speaker, the “powerfirl” speaker was
evaluated poorly. Instead the “powerfirl” speaker received a much more favorable
evaluation for continuing their “powerful” style. As a result, convergence must be used
when the rewards or benefits of the behavior far outweigh the costs and are appropriate to
the social context under scrutiny.

During this decoding process it is not unusual for individuals to choose different
convergent behaviors. For example, Thakerar, Giles and Cheshire (1982) found that high
status speakers converged to low-status speakers by means of slowing down their speech

rates to enhance communication efficiency. In contrast, low-status speakers standardized

their accents and increased their speech rates to be perceived as competent in the eyes of
the high-status speakers. Thus, as long as individuals possess both the skill and
motivation to perform convergent behaviors, CAT says that individuals choose those
behaviors for convergence if they are considered socially appropriate.

Divergence

Divergence, in contrast, is defined as a person’s desire to not adjust his or her
personal communication style to accommodate others. The most recognizable form of
divergence is speech maintenance, also known as passive non-responsivity (i.e., not
attending to the conversational other) (Bourhis, 1979). Divergent communication
demonstrates the speaker’s desire to present a contrasting self-image, to dissociate from
others, or be viewed as different from another person’s speech behavior (Giles et. al.,
1986). Similar to convergence, divergence can also occur as a result of an overt speech
manifestation or be based on a belief, expectation or stereotype. Divergence can occur
partially or firlly, as well as uni-modally or multi-modally. In addition, the divergences
chosen in a given encounter are a function of an individual’s goals and repertoire for
carrying out the divergent behavior.

Sometimes, an individual will choose divergence or speech competition when
they identify a conversational other as a representative of a different social group.
According to Tajfel and Turner (1979), individuals are more likely to perceive others as
belonging to an out-group when specific behaviors are assumed to belong to members of
that out-group. Yet, what is considered a prototypical speech pattern of an in-group or

out-group may be quite incorrect from an objective standpoint (Turner, 1982). Thus,

speakers must use caution when assigning beliefs or stereotypes to communication
interactants where artificial divergences can occur.

In other situations, divergent behavior may be used to create order and meaning in
the communicative interaction. By highlighting differences, individuals come to
understand that they are not the same and interactions should be treated with respect and
decorum (Giles et. al., 1986). In particular, divergences can occur to improve one’s
communicative behavior and bring it in line with what is customary, according to the
prevailing social norms and roles expected in a particular setting. Hence, divergent
strategies, like convergent ones, are subjected to the social context, participants’ ‘

repertoire, and goals for the interaction as seen in Figures 1 and 2.

10

Figure 1. The Process of Communication Accommodation

 

 

 

 

4 Transacting Contextual Systems

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-
Interaction
Mediators

e. g.
Individual

difl'erences,
social
identity

 

 

T

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interactim
Mediators
e.g.
Individual
difl‘erences,
social
identity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Within the Interaction
A’s state B’s state
Interpersonal goals Interpersonal goals
a And Psychosocial And Psychosocial q
Orientation Orientation
INDIVIDUAL
FACTORS
ENCODING
v PROCESSES V
V Addressee focus Addressee focus “—
Interactional Interactional
strategies strategies
Labeling other Labeling other
a +—
Attributions Attri utions
v v
POSTINTERACTIONAL CONSEQUENCES
EVALUATION EVALUATION
OUTCOMES OUTCOMES
Cognitive and Cognitive and
Behavioral Behavioral

 

 

ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENCODING AND DECODING CON VERGENT AND

DIVERGENT STRATEGIES OF SELF AND OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3300
v8.83: 595 T1 3:35
8888282 Ilv mooaaccotom 93
8885 252$ 8338 e
3%
"888.8% ,
8 586% 8:385 %
rL 8E§§EE8 A .
«zoom 088823 .§_ .3558 Refine—oaokméoom
38m 882m
E 8888:—
...xmhzoo All. ,
m88>8§
8 58650 :owficoto
£1 88888 -
«Gama—o . 8.5a
Boom 08863- . _ 73 8&2onommmesom
38o 858m . . ¢
“mad 8:885
.6880
98.825 £30 g
8888808< “:35 moocuscofiom 92‘
IV , v 382% 5338
”23352

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an .o .32 €838: o8 8:0 .2288 .8388
388m comueuoEEo8< 838338800 2: «0 825m cumming—£00m .N oSmE

12

 

 

1’7

The Process of Accommodation

Whether convergence or divergence is sought in an interaction (although this
study focuses on convergence), the process of accommodation is the same. Figures 1 and
2 show the process of communication accommodation. When two individuals enter into
an interaction with one another, both of them first attempt to assess the psychological
state, goals and motivations of the other. This occurs because it is understood that pre-
interaction mediators exist that can affect how the interaction is generated as well as
played out (Coupland & Coupland, 1990). Pre-interaction mediators are individual
difi‘erences, social identity and group membership, and personal preferences for
communication style and pattern. They are used to determine the amount of motivation
an individual has to engage in an interaction as well as to extract information to be
successfirl in the accommodation process. Without some information about the
communicative other, an interaction is likely to disintegrate before the accommodation
process has a chance to occur because of the likelihood of embarrassment and/or social
reprimand for inappropriate behaviors (Giles & Coupland, 1991).

Through the use of pre-interaction mediators, each person creates and sends
communication messages that match the other’s perceived psychological state, perceived
goals, and perceived motivation for the interaction (Coupland, Coupland, Giles, &
Henwood, 1988). The ability for each person to be understood is a function of how easy it
is for the messages to be interpreted both verbally and nonverbally. Linguistically,
concentration is placed on how easy is to interpret the message (e.g., vocabulary and
jargon), the appropriateness of the discourse sent (e. g., topic selection and development),

and the extent to which s/he can gain interpersonal control through the interaction (e.g.,

13

role flexibility) (Coupland & Coupland, 1990). Once the message is received, the other
participant is given the opportunity to react to and evaluate both the message and its
sender. The process continues with each person taking turns sending and receiving
messages, determining the appropriateness of the messages sent, and evaluating the
interaction as well as each another. Communication Accommodation Theory argues that
the most successful interactions occur when both individuals mutually accommodate (i.e.,
converge) each other’s communication behaviors. Hence, accommodation is an ongoing
event concerned with the adaptation behaviors that stem from each person’s motivations,

goals and skills for carrying out the process.

14

 

 

 

 

 

8:886 28 98:8 wgvoz

mmHCm—Hgm
ACME/HOD
. fiZOmMmmmmE/n

 

 

 

 

 

8888898588

882 22 88 s 888..

 

 

 

 

80808-83-lo8.w
m8888888ml88h
8.88888 82----228

mmHCmHgm
E§m0<z<2
mmMDOUmHQ

 

 

 

 

 

882

8888380 @850 2 m88§<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8888800

3888:: £850 3 $5882

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

858°.tom

38:85 9850 8 8:883.

 

 

 

 

8888 8.56 oaocos mammagm
8888 88% 8882 5839888
38882
8588 88898
888380 888088
08808 08508868

 

mDUOm mmmmmmn—a

 

 

 

 

Gm d .33 .8o38m 88 8:0 68880 85888 80888884‘ 8808:8800 .8 momwouahm 8832 .m 08E

 

 

15

IncorporaLtion of Nonverbal Behaviors

Communication Accommodation Theory gives the foundation for the study of
both verbal and nonverbal components of a communication interaction. The verbal
components that have been studied include: pronunciation and speech rate (Giles, 1973 ),
dyadic adaptation (Burgoon, Stern & Dillman, 1993 ), lexical diversity (Bradac, Mulac &
House, 1988), speech rate (Webb, 1970), pause and utterance duration (Woodall &
Burgoon, 1983), pitch patterns (Gregory, 1983, 1997), song registers (Yaeger-Dror,
1994) and speech latency (Natale, 1975b). The nonverbal components that have been
studied include: gaze (Mulac, Studley, Wiemann, & Bradac, 1987), facial expression
(Hale & Burgoon, l984——although not associated with CAT initially), and body language
(Patterson, 1995). Although nonverbal behaviors are being tested in the same context as
the verbal ones, little research to date has examined the combinations of verbal and
nonverbal communication behaviors involved with convergence and divergence. While it
is not the goal of this study to elucidate these combinations, it is important to recognize
that greater use of complementary verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors
strengthen an individual’s ability to demonstrate convergence or divergence in an
interaction (Giles, et. al., 1991).

Forms of Accommodation

Individuals can choose to take one of four stances when engaging in a
communication interaction: accommodation, over-accommodation, under-
accommodation or contra-accommodate (Coupland et. al, 1988; see Gallois, Franklin-
Stokes, Giles, & Coupland, 1988, for additional elaboration see Figure 2).

Accommodation refers to one or both individuals in an interaction converging in some

16

form verbally or nonverbally to one another. Together, the individuals construct a
fiinctional communication pattern that incorporates both of their individual
communication styles (Giles et. al., 1986). Over-accommodation occurs when one person
accommodates another through the use of stereotypes. For example, if someone interacts
with a much older person and believes that all older people are hearing-impaired, then he
or she may talk louder, regardless of the older person’s actual hearing ability. Under-
accommodation, in comparison, occurs when an individual maintains his or her own
style, despite the potentially negative impact it could have on other individuals. Using the
same example, suppose the older person did have a hearing impairment. In this instance,
the under-accommodating individual would choose to not modify his or her volume or
pitch to make it easier for the older person to hear him or her, even if this could cause
detriment to an interpersonal relationship. Contra-accommodation, occurs when an
individual takes special effort to ensure style differences exist between himself or herself
and others. Again, using the above example, the contra-accommodating individual might
make his or her volume softer and thus, more difficult to understand for the older person.
According to Coupland, Coupland, Giles and Henwood (1988), and Gallois, Franklyn-
Stokes, Giles and Coupland (1988), different forms of accommodation can be used
during a single interaction, depending on the goals for the encounter. Yet, only
accommodation, a sign of convergence, traditionally receives positive evaluations for the
goals of social approval, communication emciency or identification (Street, Brady &
Putnam, 1983; Edwards & Noller, 1993; Giles, Henwood, Coupland, Harriman &

Coupland, 1990).

17

§_t;a_t_e_gies Used for Accommpdaiign

While convergence and divergence have been labeled as approximations to the
accommodation process, individuals can use a variety of strategies to attune their
communicative behaviors. Attuning refers to the process of individuals making minor
speech modifications during an interaction to make their communications more
understandable or easier to interpret. Coupland, Coupland, Giles and Henwood (1988)
identified these attuning strategies as interpretability, discourse management and
interpersonal control. See Figure 3.

Interpretability, discourse management and interpersonal control affect how well
a person is able to attune to another’s communication pattern. The rationale behind the
attuning strategies is that Communication Accommodation Theory is inherently receiver-
focused and therefore attuning is necessary for effective communication (Coupland et.
al., 1988; Giles, Coupland & Coupland, 1991). When the strategies are used during an
interaction, they enable both people to modify their verbal and nonverbal behaviors so the
convergences are deemed efi‘ective. In communicative play, each employed attuning
strategy is based on one person’s interpretation of another’s prior behavior. Using the
prior example of speaking with an older person who may or may not have a hearing
impairment, the other person could choose to modify his or her volume or pitch, an
interpretability strategy to improve the interaction, or modify the amount of information
contributed in each dialogue turn, a discourse management strategy. Another alternative
would be giving the older person “control of the floor” so s/he could clarify the prior
information discussed, which is an interpersonal control strategy. Thus, the attuning

strategies support message receipt because each person’s contributions can be endorsed

18

and understood through back-channeling or more explicit communication behaviors
(Coupland et. al., 1990). At this time, each strategy is further reviewed.

Interpretability strategies require speakers to attend to their partners’
interpretability competence or ability to understand. Ofien, interpretability comes into
play because our ability to understand another is based on our group memberships (e. g.,
ethnicity or education). Hence, interpretability is a function of group membership; we
modify our behaviors based on the common ground we can find with others. Prior
research on the interpretability strategy has found that individuals who make their speech
less complex, use a slower speech rate, more pauses between speaking turns, and keep
the selection of topics to the familiar, are more likely to have their communication
messages deciphered correctly by others because it reduces the disparity between
individuals’ group memberships (Giles & Coupland, 1991; Jones et. al., 1999; Williams,
Giles, Coupland, Dalby & Manasse, 1990). Each sub-attuning strategy (e. g., pitch or
speech rate) can be used alone or in combination during an interaction.

Discourse management strategies refer to how individuals select and develop
topics, manage conversational turns, and handle conversational breakdown to meet their
interaction goals (Gallois et. al., 1995). They often interact with interpretability strategies
to enhance an interaction by structuring talk so that it facilitates greater understanding
and further discussion. Discourse management refers to a broad set of options individuals
have in interactions, which include: offering more tum-taking, eliciting information,
repairing prior turns that were evaluated as inappropriate or face threatening, or
supporting the other person’s face needs (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Giles, et. al., 1991).

Hamilton (1991) and Jones and colleagues (1999) have found that the use of questions,

19

the monitoring turn length, and longer speech latencies greatly improve discourse
management. Subcategories of discourse management exist, including: field (i.e., the
content of talk), tenor (i.e., management of position and face) and mode (i.e., the
structure of talk), but they are not addressed in this dissertation.

The last strategy, interpersonal control, refers to use of communicative behaviors
to maintain a single role or change roles during an interaction (Gallois, Giles, Jones,
Cargile, & Ota, 1995). Too much or too little interpersonal control can be negative
because a person may either feel their identity has been taken over by the group or they
are not a unique individual. Yet, a balance between the two extremes can be positive if it
establishes a shared identity with someone. Jones and colleagues (1999) found that
perceptions of interpersonal control heighten with longer conversational turns, increased
interruption, and faster speech rates.

The easier it is for participants to interpret one another’s verbal messages, share in
the constructed discourse, and have moderate levels of interpersonal control, the more
likely convergence or accommodation is to occur (Coupland et. al., 1991). However,
even if both parties desire convergence, one or both parties may perform this task
inappropriately. As there are four stances of accommodation, four attuning strategies also
exist (Coupland et. al., 1988). Individuals can demonstrate successful attuning that brings
them psychologically closer together, and enhances communication efficiency and
identity maintenance. Under- or over-attuning occurs when one person utilizes the
strategies in a manner that is perceived as inappropriate. For example, over-clarifying or
over-simplifying conversation can be viewed as patronizing. Finally, contra-attuning is

possible in which one person deliberately uses the strategies inappropriately or counter to

20

what is needed to develop communication efficiency, social approval or identity
maintenance. As these four attuning outcomes have not been thoroughly evaluated in
prior research, only the attuning strategies themselves (i.e., interpretability, discourse
management and interpersonal control) will be explored.

Overall, the inclusion of nonverbal behavior, the addition of the forms of
accommodation and the strategies used to attune during interactions significantly
strengthened the theoretical framework since its initial inception. With the inclusion of
these additional components, it becomes possible to capture a broader range of
perceptions and experiences individuals have in their interactions, as well as to ground
the motives and methods by which accommodation occurs.

Criticisms of Communication Accommodation Theog

Although Communication Accommodation Theory has been used over the past 20
years as a framework for understanding how accommodation is used to reach the goals of
social approval, identity, and communication efficiency, it has been criticized by the
authors of Interaction Adaptation Theory (IAT) (Burgoon, Stern & Dillman, 1995).
Before identifying the criticisms, however, I will review the similar footholds in terms of
assumptions and basic definitions of IAT and CAT.

IAT is similar to CAT in that it presupposes that similar styles of verbal and
nonverbal communication are necessary to develop meaning and ground a shared
experience. Individuals need to be motivated to engage in a conversation and each
person’s behavior is dependent on the expectations of appropriateness in a social context.
IAT likewise seeks to explain how communicators adjust and adapt behavior to one

another. IAT emphasizes adaptation, which enables individuals to match or mirror

21

another’s behavior and create accommodation. Individuals who maintain divergent
behaviors demonstrate non-adaptation or non-accommodation (Burgoon, Stern &
Dillman, 1995). Further, IAT acknowledges that adaptive or non-adaptive behaviors can
be unidirectional or mutual, partial or fill], and uni-modal or multi-modal. However, this
is where the similarity between the two theories ends.

IAT introduces two terms that form the basis for CAT’s largest criticism:
interpersonal reciprocity and interpersonal compensation. The term reciprocity is defined
as “a response in a similar direction, to a partner’s behaviors with behaviors of
comparable functional value” (Burgoon, et. al., 1995, p. 129). Interpersonal reciprocity
refers to the “process of behavioral adaptation in which one responds in a similar
direction to a partner’s behaviors of comparable functional value” (Burgoon, Dillman &
Stern, 1993, p.302). The term compensation has been defined as “a response with
behaviors of comparable functional value but in the opposite direction” Burgoon, et. al.,
1995, p. 129). Interpersonal compensation refers to the “process of behavioral adaptation
in which one responds with behaviors of comparable fimctional value but in the opposite
direction” (Burgoon, Dillrnan & Stern, 1993, p. 302). According to CAT, the terms
convergence and divergence refer to the adoption of behaviors that become more similar
or more different to that of a partner. IAT’s criticism of CAT is that CAT does not
measure if the convergent and divergent behaviors (reciprocity and compensation) are
‘behaviorally contingent’. CAT assumes that all communicative activities are contingent
because their production during an interaction is based on the continuous reactions of
individuals. According to IAT, however, if convergent and divergent behaviors are to

identified as behaviorally contingent, then each enacted behavior must be exactly linked

22

to the prior communication turn of the other. Without this link, CAT studies could be
examining people’s reactions to socially prescribed situational norms, instead of how
people are affected by others’ communication patterns (Burgoon et. al., 1995). This study
attempts to overcome this criticism by measuring convergence/accommodation behaviors
that meet the definition of behavioral contingency.

A second criticism of CAT arises fi'om the motivation for behavior. CAT
maintains that accommodation is driven from one or a combination of three goals: social
approval, identification and/or communication efiiciency. IAT, in contrast, argues a
biological basis for communication behavior. According to Burgoon, Stern and Dillman
(1995), humans are predisposed to coordinating their behaviors. In other words, the
matching of behaviors is due to synchronized efforts needed for survival. As a result, they
are semiautomatic. Thus, humans do not need to think about the behaviors undertaken in
a given interaction. Communication Accommodation Theory differs in the driving
mechanism for behavior in that enacted behaviors are intentional. CAT does not
subscribe that all behaviors are the result of highly managed self-presentations; rather,
some level of awareness is present. While this dissertation is unable to determine if
behaviors are biologically-based or not, it does attempt to uncover whether or not the
individuals are of their behaviors during an interaction.

A third criticism by IAT is that CAT argues for behaviors determined by the
social context. According to CAT, if an individual is motivated to engage in an
interaction, then the individual uses the social context as a guide for the appropriateness
of the behavioral display. IAT, in comparison, argues that a person has an interaction

position that afi’ects his or her behavior. The interaction position (IP) is based on three

23

types of factors which are a person’s requirements (R), expectancies (E) and desires (D)
for engaging in the interaction (Burgoon et. al., 1995). Requirements refer to a person’s
physical and psychological needs that must be satisfied. These are identified as basic
needs for food, water, clothing, shelter, and safety/ security. Expected factors refer to
current social norms as well as idiosyncratic expectations based on the history of the
relationship. For example, different behavioral expectations exist for those individuals
dining at an upscale restaurant than at a fast food place. Finally, desires refer to a
person’s personal preferences, goals and plans for engaging in the interaction. When
combined, the RED reflect the psychological, social and personal factors that both
facilitate and constrain the production of certain behaviors. According to IAT, if the RED
are congruent with one another, then it is immaterial which of the three factors is
afl’ecting the interaction; otherwise, IAT makes it possible to know the factor affecting
interaction, which CAT is unable to distinguish.

In fairness to CAT, the theory does account for pre-interaction mediators, such as
each person’s psychological state for entering the interaction (labeled as requirements)
and their goals (labeled as desires). However, CAT contends that these pre-interaction
factors afl‘ect the shape and form of the behavior and not the behavior itself. For example,
most individuals would believe that it is inappropriate to interrupt someone When they are
talking and it is this belief of appropriateness that has led to the one person talks at a time
rule. An occasion in which this rule is violated though would be afl‘ected by pre-
interaction mediators (e. g., length of interruption, size of speech contribution during the
interruption. Hence, this dissertation will measure some pre-interaction mediators, such

as interaction effects due to sex, culture/race, socioeconomic status and motivation (i.e.,

24

desire) that affect behavior deemed appropriate in the given social context. In addition,
this dissertation is able to control for IAT’s expectancies as the population under study
consists of first-time interaction (i.e., no history effects) in a narrow context (i.e.,
domestic violence counseling).

In summary, many of the criticisms of CAT from the theoretical fiamework of
IAT can be controlled in this dissertation. First, behavioral contingency can be measured
to ensure that the behaviors enacted by one partner are reflective of another’s behaviors
and not the mere process of reciprocity in a social interaction. Second, there is
measurement of behavioral awareness to assess that behaviors are not a product of
semiautomatic functioning. And third, many of the pre-interaction mediators (RED) that
form IAT’s interaction position are either measured or controlled for to determine what
type of effect they have over behavior in a given social context. At this time, the
discussion turns to the social context itself and rationale follows as to why
Communication Accommodation Theory is an appropriate framework for studying this
setting.

MovigngEOutsirde the Traditiong Realm of Communication Accommodation

New Focus on the Clinical Setting

The majority of CAT research has focused on inter-group accommodative
relationships. The studies often involve individuals from different cultural or ethnic
groups, or individuals from sub-groups that differ on a particular communication
characteristic (e. g., the use of slang language). To date, research has been extended to
language attitudes among Australians (Ball et. al, 1984), code switching in Montreal

(Bourhis & Genesse, 1980), linguistic diversity among halo-Australian and Greek-

25

Australian bilinguals (Callan & Gallois, 1982), intergenerational talk (Coupland, et. al.,
1988; Coupland et. al, 1990), style shifting in Cardiff (Coupland, 1980), accent
differences among US. natives versus immigrants (Gallois & Callan, 1985), speech
evaluation differences between aborigines and white talk (Gallois, Callan, & Johnstone,
1984), differences between US. Afiican American and Caucasian speech patterns
(Hewitt, 1986), accent difi‘erences between English and Mexican American speech (Ryan
& Carranza, 1975), lexical differences among ethnic Hawaiian groups (Yum & Wang,
1983), differences in North American versus British English (Shockey, 1984), language
stereotypes of Hong Kong (Bond, 1985), language divergence among doctors and nurses
(Bourhis, Roth & McQueen, 1988), language difference among the US. and Japan
(Hildebrandt & Giles, 1984; White, 1989), language use of Chinese bilinguals (Pierson &
Bond, 1982), speech evaluations between adults and children (Street, 1983), and
language accommodation among Israeli groups (Yaeger-Dror, 198 8). When combined,
they present an impressive array of the different populations and contexts explored
through the use of Communication Accommodation Theory. However, no study to date
has evaluated the communication behavior of counselors and clients using this
fi'amework.

This begs three questions, “Is Communication Accommodation Theory an
appropriate theoretical fi'amework for informing us about the client and counselor
relationship, especially in domestic violence counseling?” Second, “Do domestic
violence survivors perceive the accommodative behaviors of their counselors?’ ’ and
third, “How does it afi'ect client perceptions of counselor liking, similarity, empathy, and

trust?” It is this author’s opinion that CAT provides the vehicle for answering these

26

questions. The discussion first turns to the two areas in which Communication
Accommodation Theory functions in counseling. These include: (a) assistance with the
pragrnatics of counseling to access clients’ frames of reference and (b) clients’
willingness to pursue therapy. Then perceptions and evaluations of accommodation are
discussed.

The Pragmatics of Counseling to Access Clients’ Frames of Reference

Communication Accommodation Theory is appropriate for studying the
counseling session because it enables counselors to engage clients during therapy by
accessing their frame of reference. According to Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson (1967)
how language is used to create particular meanings is the art of pragmatics. Each message
contains both a content-level as well as relational-level that gives information about the
interaction itself as well as about the individuals. In terms of the content, a
communication message refers to what information is being conveyed. The relationship-
level, in comparison, refers to meta-communication, or how one communicates about
communication. Meta-communication can be either verbal or nonverbal. While the
content-level of a message can transmit any type of information on any number of topics,
the relational-level of the message conveys how the message should be understood based
on how the individual feels about him or herself and the communicative partner. For
example, if a client says to a counselor, ‘you are a good person”, the content-level
information being conveyed is that the person in question is believed to be a morally
upstanding person. On the relational-level, information has been conveyed that the client
not only thinks the counselor is “good.” Using a nonverbal example, a smile may answer

a content-level question, but also provide relational information about those involved in

27

the discussion. It is this form and function of communication that serves as the vehicle for
developing lasting interpersonal interactions because the act of communication itself
enables individuals to create meaningful relationships between informational items and
those exchanging the information (W atzlawick, Beavin & Jackson, 1967).
Communication Accommodation Theory assists in the pragrnatics of domestic
violence counseling by providing a communication framework for how counselors can
accommodate their clients’ content-level and relational-level messages. In order to help
domestic violence clients overcome the psychological scars of abuse, counselors need to
construct messages that promote an atmosphere of acceptance and mutuality in order to
get their clients to discuss their abusive experiences (F errara, 1991). As survivors are
often afi'aid to communicate because of retaliation of their abusive partner or spouse, they
pay particular attention to the verbal and nonverbal behaviors displayed during the
counseling interaction. According to Mearns and Thome (1988), demonstrating
behavioral congruence as a counselor is desired because it conveys the message that it “is
not only is it permissible to be genuine in one’s behaviors, but that it is desirable to be
oneself’ (p. 14). Counselors who are able to behave similarly to their client demonstrate
social approval and validate client identity. When clients do not perceived their counselor
as superior, chants are more likely to discuss both their issues and the resources available
to deal with those issues (Means & Thorne, 1988). This may be due to clients perceiving
a balance of power in the client-counselor relationship. Thus, by teaching domestic
violence counselors how to be accommodative, survivors of abuse may be more likely to
feel safe in exploring their thoughts, beliefs and feelings about the violence in their lives

and how it has impacted them. These outcomes are considered to be foremost in the

28

domestic violence counseling arena because without engagement, there can be no healing
(Webb, 1992).

If counselors are unable to produce a content and relational message congruent
with their client’s frame of reference, then misunderstanding and the misinterpretation of
the message can occur. The penalty for such misunderstanding can be severe, leading to
negative evaluation of the interaction itself as well as the persons involved (Gallois et. al.,
1988; Giles et. al., 1986). It can also lead to clients becoming reticent, resisting therapy,
or leaving the interaction all together (F errara, 1991). Communication accommodation
theory prevents these disasters fiom occurring by enabling counselors to create messages
acceptable to the client through the attuning strategies of interpretability, discourse
management and interpersonal control as well as accommodative nonverbal behaviors.
Hence, teaching counselors how to communicate with clients is essential; it is not enough
for counselors to only know what to say, or the general meaning ascribed to a client’s
messages. Counselors need communication accommodation to aid clients’ understanding
of the self, and their relation of self to the world and their counselor.

As this dissertation involves counselors with first-time clients, it is inappropriate
to test clients’ ability to fully deal with their abuse because they often unaware of the
emotional scars created by the abuse (Johnson, Crowley, & Sigler, 1992). However,
client discussion about details of their abusive experiences may be an appropriate first-
step for counselors to access their clients’ frames of reference (Whiteman, Fanshel, &
Grundy, 1987). According to Whiteman, Fanshel, and Grundy (1987), talking through the

ordeal is an important first step in cognitive-behavioral interventions that help abused

29

individuals to attribute less negative meaning to an experience. This leads to the
following hypothesis:

H1: Counselors who are trained to produce both verbal and nonverbal
communication accommodation behaviors are more likely to engage clients in their
stories about their abuse than counselors who are not trained in verbal and nonverbal
communication accommodation behaviors as measured through journal writings.

Clients’ Wflh’agess to Pursue Therapy

A second rationale for the importance of Communication Accommodation Theory
in the counseling context is that it helps counselors in keeping clients in therapy. In
counseling, most clients enter the interaction perceiving less power than their counselor
(Mearns, 1993). It does not matter if actual power differences exist between the
individuals or involved groups; the perception of that power imbalance is enough to
affect the interaction (Giles et. al., 1988). A counselor’s responsibility then is creating a
manageable equilibrium so chants perceive their communicative contributions as
meaningfirl and not a waste of the counselor’s time (Kelly, 1994).

Counselors can rely on the principles of Communication Accommodation for
helping clients attain feelings of social approval, identity maintenance, as well as
communication efficiency. That is, counselors can produce messages to make clients feel
those goals are attainable. Communication Accommodation assists in this process by
providing a mechanism for achieving manageable equilibrium in the counselor-client
relationship. Using a cross-cultural example to illustrate this point, Kinkaid, Yum,
Woelfirl, and Barnett, (1983) conducted a study analyzing the convergence behaviors

between native Hawaiians, who were perceived to have more power, than immigrant

3O

Koreans in Hawaii. The authors found that the native Hawaiians converged with Korean
behavior to create successful conversational interactions. The Korean immigrants, who
considered themselves a subordinate group to the Hawaiian natives, were able to find
power through the majority group’s demonstration of accommodation. In reference to
counseling, counselors who show accommodation to the clients they serve may be able to
create the same effect. Thus, the creation or restoration of power between dissimilar
individuals may create the perception that both groups of individuals are accessible, and
their communicative messages possess social worth.

Client feelings of social worth are critical for gaining the client’s willingness to
pursue therapy. According to Mearns (1993), the development of social worth is
considered a core condition of the counseling process. When clients make
communication contributions during therapy, they are constantly concerned with face-
issues (Gofl‘man, 1959). Face refers to an individual’s self-presentation in a given
context, and it is generally assumed that most social beings strive to present a positive
face or self-image (Goffman, 1959). Through the process of communication, counselors
have the opportunity to ratify their clients’ messages, on a relational-level, even if the
content of the message is considered destructive (Mearns, 1993). For example, if clients
communicate to their counselors’ salf-responsibihty for their relational abuse, counselors
can demonstrate accommodation to the clients’ feelings and behaviors, without validating
the perception itself. If, on the other hand, counselors do not acknowledge their client’s
feelings, then chants tend to behave that not only are their communications not vahdated,
but that they themselves are not vahdated (Kelly, 1994). Similar to low power perception

groups, once chants perceive a lack of social worth, they often find no reason to continue

31

the interaction, and hence, this becomes reflected in their lack of willingness to continue
therapy. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H2: Counselors who are trained in verbal and nonverbal communication
accommodation behaviors are more hkely to have chants wilhng to continue therapy than
those counselors who are not trained in verbal and nonverbal communication
accommodation behaviors.

Perc_eptions of Accommodation

When counselors demonstrate accommodative behaviors, the question still
remains as to whether or not their chants perceive the accommodation as it was intended.
The reason this question has not been answered in prior CAT studies is that one’s actual
accommodative behavior is based on one of three variables: the other’s actual behavior,
the perception of the other’s behavior, or the anticipation of the other’s behavior (often
stereotyped behavior) (Giles at al., 1986). When an individual modifies his or her
behavior based on the other person’s actual behavior, an assumption is made that
accommodation has occurred because of the existence of measurable behavior, also
known as productive performance (Coupland, at. al., 1988). In the other two situations in
which behavior is perceived or anticipated, accommodation is assumed to occur based on
interpretive competence, or an individual’s abihty to possess receptive competence and
than anticipate the next behavioral move (Coupland at. al., 1988). Moreover, when an
individual modifies his or her behavior, such as in convergence, it is a sign that there is a
need to be met in terms of social approval, identification or communication efliciency.
The greater the degree of convergences, the more it is assumed that the social actors are

being cooperatively productive in reaching the goal or goals. Yet, in making such a broad

32

assumption, CAT falls prey to the criticism lobbied by IAT regarding behavioral
contingency.

As previously mentioned, IAT argues that all enacted behaviors should be a
function of behavioral contingency (Burgoon at. al., 1995). The pranrise of behavioral
contingency states that an individual’s behavior is in direct response to another’s and not
merely the reciprocity norm derived in a social context. Hence, by not measuring
perceived versus actual behavior using the CAT framework, it is possible that the prior
studies have not demonstrated convergent behaviors as a result of the accommodation
process, but various outcomes of reciprocity. Given the irnportanca of the counselor-
chent relationship in domestic violence counsehng, this dissertation measures perceived
accommodation in an attempt to verify social actors perceive the behavioral
accommodations of others. Thus, the following hypothesis is offered:

H3: Clients who interact with counselors trained in verbal and nonverbal
communication accommodation behaviors are more hkely to perceive accommodation
than those chants who interact with counselors not trained in verbal and nonverbal
communication behaviors.

As the attuning strategies of interpretability, discourse management and
interpersonal control also serve to facihtate the accommodation process, it is important to
demonstrate that their use does affect the perception of accommodation. Two prior
studies have identified some of the individual behaviors that display these attuning
strategies as well as perceptions of accommodation (Jones at. al., 1999; Murray-Johnson,
2001). This dissertation seeks to verify that attuning strategies are produced more often

when accommodative behavior occurs. This leads to the following hypothesis:

33

'ij _._l '

H4: Counselors who are trained in verbal and nonverbal accommodation
behaviors are more hkely to produce the attuning strategies of interpretability, discourse
management and interpersonal control during client interactions than counselors who are
not trained in verbal and nonverbal accommodation behavior.

Evaluations of Accommodative Belrayiors

Given that CAT specifies the processes of perception and evaluation, it is useful
to determine how the production of accommodation behaviors afl‘ects the evaluations a
chant has for one’s domestic violence counselor. Prior research, although not always
using the CAT framework, has demonstrated that behavior adaptive to another’s style
produces the evaluations of hking (Byme, 1971; Putnam & Street, 1984), attractiveness
(Dabbs, 1969), predictability (Berger & Bradac, 1982), intelligence (Triandis, 1960), and
similarity (Coupland, 1980; Welkowitz at. al., 1972). However, it is not known whether
or not these favorable evaluations would extend to domestic violence counsehng given
the emotional state of the client receiving therapy.

Often, when abused persons seek counseling, they come to a shelter unsure of the
counselor because their interpersonal relationships have been violated by the acts of
abuse (Hutchinson, & Hirshel, 1998). This lack of comfort affects chents’ help seeking
behavior. Wauchope (1988) reported that it may take more than ten episodes of violence
before help seeking exceeds 50%. And even then, domestic abuse survivors are most
hkely to seek only legal help for physical protection (e.g., pohce) but not counsehng for
the emotional scars. Ferraro and Johnson (1983) and Mitchell and Hodson (1983) have
found that this lack of help seeking is related to the devastating feehngs of inferiority and

self-worth caused by the abuse. As a result, some domestic violence chants are severely

34

disconnected in their personal relationships and with the outside world (Campbell, 1989;
Miller 1988). However, Loeska and Bark (1983) argue that counselor skill determines the
ease and speed with which communication involvement is developed.

According to Giles and colleagues (1986), most accommodation behavior is
motivated by the desires of self-presentation and the need to extend social influence
through those individual self-presentations. As CAT postulates that individuals have
behefs about what behavior is appropriate in a given context, it also irnphes that
individuals have behefs about what constitutes ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ behavior. As
counselors are aware of appropriate counsehng behavior, it should follow that counselors
who demonstrate accommodation would be rewarded with positive client evaluations.

For example, when counselors engage in accommodative behaviors, they
demonstrate how they can be similar to the chant. By finding common ground with a
chant, the chant may perceive their counselor as similar in other personal attributes or
characteristics (Kelly, 1994). In addition, the use of convergent behavior can also have
the tendency to promote hking between individuals (Byme, 1971). As people continue to
adapt their behaviors in a mutually responsive manner, it shifts the focus of an interaction
fi'om the ‘ a” position to the “we” position which fosters sohdarity (Johnson at. al.,
1992; Pederson, 1999). Thus, it would not be unusual for chants to develop hking for
their counselors or rate their counselors as hkeable for performing these behaviors.

Accommodation has also been known to foster positive evaluations of empathy or
communication responsiveness (Daly, Vangehsti, & Daughton, 1988). Empathy serves to
“cement social relations” (Oatlay & J ohnson-Laird, 1987, p. 46) between counselors and

clients by creating a positive atmosphere for interaction (Segrin, 1998). Under these

35

conditions, chants experience maximum self-exploration, self-understanding, and
articulation of feehngs (Carkhuff & Baranson, 1977). Empathy has been described as a
multidimensional concept that incorporates four sub-dimensions: perspective taking,
emotional contagion, empathic concern and fictional involvement (Stiff, Dillard, Somera,
Kim & Sleight, 1988). For this study, empathy is limited to the sub-dimensions of
perspective taking and empathic concern. Perspective taking is defined as one person’s
ability to adopt the viewpoint of another (Carkufi‘& Traux, 1967). Empathic concern is
defined as a person’s ability to possess general concern for the welfare of another without
paralleling the other’s experience (Stiff at. al., 1988). Both perspective taking and
empathic concern reduce the stigma associated with abuse by reframing the experiences
without assigning blame to the chant (Hutchinson & Hirchel, 1998).

Finally, accommodative behaviors can affect trust because adaptation signifies a
measure of interdependence in the interaction. Interdependence is defined as the situation
where the interests of one person in the relationship cannot be achieved without the
rehance upon another (Rousseau at. al., 1998). Hence, interdependence promotes risk-
taking as partners estabhsh a willingness to be vulnerable with their shared information
due to the confident expectation it will not be violated. Domestic violence counselors
depend on their chants to accept risk and vulnerabihty with sensitive information to build
interdependence. Counselors can promote this shared understanding by validating the
survivors’ nonculpabihty for their abuser’s behavior (Austin & Dankwort, 1999), by
supporting the ‘Vve” concept in accommodative communication behavior (N ozick, 1989),

and by sharing in the rewards of their interaction (Lafollette & Graham, 1986). As a

36

result, accommodative behavior can motivate further investment in the relationship to
enhance counselor-client interaction.

Given that similarity, hking, empathy and trust can enhance relational cohesion,
social integration, identity maintenance and improve communication emciency (all goals
of the counsehng interaction to encourage chant involvement and maintain therapy) the
following hypothesis is offered:

H5: Counselors who are trained in verbal and nonverbal communication
accommodation behaviors are more hkely to receive high ratings of chant perceived
counselor similarity, hking, empathy and trust than those counselors who are not trained

in verbal and nonverbal communication accommodation behaviors.

37

CHAPTER 3: METHODS
Study Desiga: An experiment was conducted with randomly assigned domestic violence
shelters to the training session and their domestic violence counselors randomly assigned
to either the experimental condition or wait-list control. The independent variables taught
in this training workshop were the accommodation of verbal and nonverbal
communication patterns. The dependent variables include: ghant-rated variables of
counselor perceived similarity, hking, empathy, and relational trust, as well as
perceptions of counselor accommodation, and chant wilhngness to pursue therapy.
Counselors fi'om both conditions were asked to collect paper-and-pencil surveys of their
the initial counsehng session with first-time clients as well as keep a journal of their
interactions with those chants. Clients were also asked to write their thoughts of their
interaction with their counselor in a separate sealed journal.

Below is a brief description of what the study looks hke:

 

Pretest Intervention Immediate Posttest

Trained Counselors (N=33) X 01
Wait-list Control (N=32) 02
Chants of intervention (N=45) 03 x 04
Clients of control (N=43) 05 06

01,02 = counselor assessment of demographic information and abuse experiences

03, 05 = chant survey assessment of demographic information and abuse experiences

04, 06 = chant surveys and journals measuring hking, similarity, empathy, trust, perceptions of
accommodation and willingness to continue therapy, as well as counselor journals commenting on the
interaction experience

X = intervention (counselors trained)

x = chants of trained counselors

 

Participgts: All domestic violence shelters in the State of Michigan (N=51) were invited
to participate in this study, of which 32 chose to participate. One half of the shelters
(N =16) were invited to a two-day training workshop with two counselors attending fiom

each shelter (N =33, one shelter brought three counselors). Counselors from the wait-list

38

control condition were told they would participate in a later training session (N=3 2).
Regardless of the condition in which shelters were randomly assigned, each shelter was
asked to enhst at least five shelter chants to participate in the study. Shelter chants could
be residents or nonresidents of the shelter (i.e., seeking support services or counsehng but
not staying overnight), but needed to be at least 18 years of age, have been in relationship
with the abuser for at least six months, and have been abused within the past six months.
Due to the high attrition rates (3 0%) of shelter chants for therapy, more than four times as
many chants as needed were recruited for this study.

Counselors who received workshop training (N =33) were female (although male
counselors were invited) ranged in age from 24 to 57 (M =31), and were ethnically
identified as Caucasian (N = 25), Afiican American (N=5), Hispanic (N=2) and Native
American (N=1). Most counselors had been in their profession from 4-7 years, practicing
at their shelter for an average of 4 years, and reported servicing an average of 11-20
chants per week or between 26 and 75 clients per month. Shelter counselors reported
receiving an average salary of less than $3 0,000 per year. The education of the counselors
varied widely with some reporting only a high school degree (N = 4), some college (N =
4) or an associates degree (N =2), bachelors degree (N=16), or masters degree (or masters
degree in progress) (N = 7). Most counselors reported that there was some education
provided on counsehng through their shelter, but the training was not continuous. While
some counselors reported that there was no training ofi‘ered through their shelter (N = 9),
many reported that some training was offered once every three months (N = 6) to six
months (N = 5). Only the largest shelters with the most resources provided training on a

monthly (N = 9) or weekly basis (N = 4). Approximately halfof the experimental training

39

counselors were also prior survivors of abuse (N = 1 8), reporting the abusive relationship
lasting one to three years in length, having been terminated more than five years ago, and
involving physical abuse (N=18), emotional abuse (N=16), sexual abuse (N=11),

financial abuse (N=12), and fiequent threats (N=13). Twelve counselors reported seeking
counsehng themselves to deal with their own abuse issues.

Counselors who were in the wait-hst control group (N=32) were also female and
ranged in age from 22 to 49 (M =33), and ethnically labeled as Caucasian (N = 22) and
Afiican American (N=9), and Hispanic (N=1). Most counselors also reported being in
their profession fi'om 4-7 years, had been practicing at their shelter for an average of 4
years, and reported servicing an average of 11-20 chants per week or between 26 and 75
chants per month. Shelter counselors in the wait-fist control also reported receiving an
average salary of less than $30,000 per year, although four individuals reported receiving
between $30,000 and $40,000 per year. The education of the counselors also varied
widely with some reporting only a high school degree (N = 5), some college (N = 4) or an
associates degree (N =3), college degree (N=l4), or masters degree (or masters degree in
progress) (N = 6). Most counselors reported that there was some education through their
shelter, but training was not continuous. While some reported that there was no
counsehng training ofl‘ered through their shelter (N =12), many reported that there was
some training offered once every three months (N = 6) to six months (N = 7). Again, only
the largest shelters with the most resources provided training on a monthly (N = 5) or
weekly basis (N =2). Approximately half of the wait-hst control counselors were also
prior survivors of abuse (N =16), reporting the abusive relationship lasting one to three

years in length, having been terminated more than five years ago, involving physical

4o

abuse (N=16), emotional abuse (N=16), sexual abuse (N=9), financial abuse (N=11), and
fi'equent threats (N =14). Nine counselors reported seeking counsehng themselves for
deahng with their own abuse issues.

Overall, the shelter clients ranged in age from 19 to 53 with a mean age of 27
years. Chants reported their ethnicity as Caucasian (N=49), African-American (N=28),
Hispanic (N=6), Asian (N=2), and other (N=3). All of the chants were female, mostly
describing heterosexual abuse by a male partner (N =84), although a few did seek shelter
assistance due to same sex abuse (N=4). A majority of the chants reported receiving an
income of less than $30,000 per year (N=56), while some received $30,000-$40,000
(N=20) and the remaining made $41,000 to $50,000 (N=12) per year.

Almost 41% of the chants identified their current relationship as their first abusive
one (N =36). Of the 52 chants who had experienced domestic violence before, 24 reported
it was their second abusive relationship, 13 reported having had three to five abusive
relationships and 15 reported experiencing six to ten prior abusive relationships.
Approximately 44% of the population reported being with their current abusive partner
for more than seven years (N=3 9), with 18 reporting they had been with their partner four
to six years, 14 reporting being with their partner one to three years and 14 reporting
being with their partner less than one year, but more than six months (3 chants did not
answer the question). For most of the population surveyed, the abuse had been occurring
for less than one year (N=34) or one to three years (N=30), although 23 reported
experiencing abuse for four to six years and four (N =4) reported experiencing abuse for

more than seven years.

41

The vast majority had children with their abusive partner (N =63), of which 51
were reared by the chant and partner. Most chants reported their children not being
abused by the partner (N=46). Of those children who were reported as being abused by
the chent’s abusive partner, 45% of clients reported that their children had received some
counsehng to overcome the abuse (N =28).

Approximately 85% of the clients surveyed in this study (N=74) reported staying
at the shelter, 8% reported hving with their partner (N =6), 5% reported hving with other
family members (N =4), and 2% reported hving with fiiends (N =2). Of those who
reported staying at the shelter, 70% reported that it was their first time staying at any
shelter and at that particular shelter (N =60). The remaining chants reported staying at a
shelter one to three times (N=20) with several reporting staying at a shelter more than 10
times (N=8). Most clients coming to the shelter reported wanting assistance with safety
plan development, self-protection, understanding patterns of abuse, parenting support,
and abuse documentation.

There were no significant differences between the two groups in term of either
physical abuse (t (1,87) = .276, p.=.784) or emotional abuse reported (t (1,86) = 1.12,
p.=.234. There were also no significant differences between the two groups in term of
length of relationship with abusive partner t (1,86) = .872, p.=.366, shelter use (t (1,85) =
.808, p.=.432, prior counseling t (1,85) = .167, p.=.842, number of prior abusive
relationships t (1,86) = .768, p.= .577, age t (1,87) = 1.09, p.=. 192 or income t( 1,87) =

.467, p.= 648.

42

TABLE 1

Domestic Violence Counselors Descriptive Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experimental Condition 'Wait-List Control
Number of Participants 33 32
Mean Age 31 33
Age Range 24-57 22-49
Education High school (4) High school (5)
Some college (4) Some college (4)
Associates (2) Associates (3)
Bachelors (16) Bachelors (14)
MA/MA in progress (7) MA/MA in progress (6)
Salary as a counselor Less than $30,000/year Less than $30,000/year;
Four indicate $30,000-
$40.000/year
Ethnicity Caucasian (25) Caucasian (22)
Afiican-American (5) African-American (9)
Hispanic (2) Hispanic (1)
Native American (D
Years of Practice as a 4-7 years on average 4-7 years on average
Counselor

 

Years of Practice at Shelter

4 years on average

4 years on average

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of chants serviced 11-22 chants/weak 11-22 chants/week
week/month 26-75 chants/month 26-75 chants/month

How often is education No training (9) No training (12)

provided at your shelter? One to three months (6) One to three months (6)
Every six months (5) Every six months (7)
Monthly (9) Monthly (5)
Weekly (4) Weekly (2)

Are you are prior survivor Yes (18) Yes (16)

of abuse? No (15) No (16)

Ifyes, how long did abusive One to three years One to three years

relationship last? (average)

How long ago did you More than five years ago More than five years ago

experience this abusive

relationship? (average)

Types of abuse Physical (18) Physical (16)

experienced? Emotional (16) Emotional (16)
Sexual (11) Sexual (9)
Financial (12) Financial (11)
Threats (I 3) Threats (14)

Did you seek counsehng for Yes (12/18) Yes (9/ 16)

your own abuse? No (6/18) No (7/18)

 

43

 

TABLE 2

Domestic Violence Survivor Dascri 've Statistics (Across Conditions)

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Participants 88 (45 in experimental condition)
(43 in wait-hst control)
Mean Age 27
Age Range 19-53
Education I-hgh school (4)
Some college (4)
Associates (2)
Bachelors ( l6)
MA/MA in progress Q
Ethnicity Caucasian (49)
Afiican—American (28)
Hispanic (6)
Asian (2)
Other (3)
Yearly income Less than $30,000 (56)

$30,000-$40,000 (20)
$41,000-s50,ooo (12)

 

 

 

Where are you currently hving? Shelter (74)
Partner (6)
Family members (4)
Friends (2)
Ifstaying at a shelter is this your first visit? Yes (60) No (18)
Ifnot, how many times have you been to a One to three times (20)

shelter? (any shelter)?

More than 10 times (8)

 

Why do you come to a shelter?

Safety, support, protection, document
abuse, understand abuse, parenting support

 

 

 

 

First abusive relationship? Yes (36) No (52)

Ifnot, record prior experiences? Second abusive relationship (24)
Three to five (1 3)
Six to ten (15)

How long have you been with your current Less than one year (14)

partner? One to three years (14)
Four to six years (18)
More than seven years (39)

How long has abuse been occurring in this Less than one year (34)

relationship? One to three years (30)
Four to six years (23)
More than seven years (4)

 

Do you have children with this partner that
are livingwith you currently?

Yes (63) No (25)

 

 

 

 

Areyour children being abused? Yes (17) No (46)
Ifyes, lmve your children received Yes (8/17) No (9/17)
counseling?

 

44

 

Recruitment of Counselors: Each shelter across the State of Michigan received a pre-
workshop phone survey where they were asked to provide basic information about the
operation of their shelter (i.e., number of chants served, number of counselors, types of
services offered, counselor training, size of shelter, and types of abuse counseled) for a
new booklet being created about MI shelters. During the telephone survey, either a
counselor or the shelter director was probed further about the training counselors received
with the question, “Does your shelter provide communication training for your
counselors?” Ifthe respondent was unsure of what this question meant, they were
provided with the following response, “ Some shelters talk with their counselors about
what verbal and nonverbal behaviors help counselors reach chants during the counsehng
process. Does your shelter provide this type of assistance?” Despite clarifying the
question, all shelters reported they did not provide communication training. Thirty-two
shelters reported interest in participating in a study that would involve communication
training. Counselors were told that if their shelter was wilhng to participate, they would
receive all of the materials, $100 for the shelter plus the cost of postage for materials sent
between the shelter and Michigan State University, as well as communication training
within the next six months (funding provided by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan
Foundation Grant). Shelter counselors or directors were not told they would be randomly
assigned to either the experimental or wait-list control condition.

Rmrjtment 9f Shelter Clients: Shelters and their counselors were told that chants who
chose to participate in the study would be asked to fill out a survey and write briefly in a
journal about their interaction with their counselor. For their participation, chants would

have their names placed in a weekly drawing for cash prizes ranging from $50 to $150

45

per week, with a total of approximately $1,000 distributed over the course of the study
(firnding provided by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation Grant). To protect
the identity of clients, counselors were told that chant would be assigned numbers and the
primary investigators would never know the chants names unless they won a cash prize
(i.e., the name was needed to firrnish a check for the cash prize). Those winning a cash
prize would have their checks mailed to the shelter so that no address for any chant
would be on record. Counselors were also assured that the information provided by their
chants would remain in a locked file cabinet of the primary investigators.

Procedure: One counselor at each shelter (for both the experimental and wait-hst control)
was asked to coordinate the materials coming to and leaving the shelter during the study.
This person was responsible for the collection of surveys, journals maihng of materials,
and correspondence with the lead investigator (i.e., Murray-Johnson).

All counselors and participating clients first received and signed informed consent
letters. Next, all participants (both counselors and chants) took a short survey which
asked about demographic information and assessed abuse experiences. Then, counselors
from both conditions would interact with their chant for the duration of a typical
counsehng session, ranging fiom 30 to 60 minutes. Each counselor was asked to meet
with five chants during the study. Immediately after the session, each of five chants was
asked to complete posttests and write briefly in the journals about the experience. If
chants were going to stay at the shelter, they were instructed to immediately complete the
posttest, but to continue writing in their journal after each meeting with the counselor (if
this was acceptable to them). Chants who were not staying at the shelter were asked to

turn both the journal and the posttest in once they were completed. Chants from both

46

conditions were immediately debriefed at the end of the counseling session. Counselors
were debriefed at the conclusion of the study.

Intervention: The two counselors from each shelter randomly assigned to the
experimental training condition were invited to attend a “Building Bridges: Improving
Communication with Chants” workshop. The workshop taught verbal and nonverbal
communication strategies associated with Communication Accommodation theory. The
workshop was held at the Okemos Comfort Inn and Suites in Okemos, Michigan from
8am until 5pm both days, incorporating both mini lecture and practice sessions, under the
training direction of the lead investigator and co-investigator (i.e., Kim \Vrtte) for this
study. The workshop was free to domestic violence counselors, including meals and an
overnight stay (firnded by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation). Primary
training facihtator, Lisa Murray-Johnson has done research with the independent and
dependent variables of interest. Dr. Kim Witte, co-facilitator, has been trained
extensively in the independent and dependent variables of interest and is certified and
hcensed in specific communication accommodation strategies. At the end of the
workshop, counselors were rated on their accommodation skills by two trained coders.
Counselors also received a participation certificate, a sealed envelope containing chant
pretests and posttests, and chant and counselor journals.

Communication Accommodation Behaviors used in the Experimental Mtg
Workshop. Convergent verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors were based on
Murray-Johnson’s (2001) coding scheme for accommodative behaviors (attributed to
Jones and colleagues (1999)). Jones and colleagues (1999) identified 11 nonverbal

behaviors for coding, including turn length, response latency, speech rate, short pause and

47

long pause fiequency, interruption frequency, simultaneous speech frequency, smihng,
laughing, nodding, gesturing while speaking and hstening, and dominant posture (see
Jones at. al., 1999 for details). For verbal behaviors, the authors chose a selective analysis
and measured behaviors by topic. Some of the topics were developed inductively from
the data while others used a standard process. Topics coded were topic management,
shared viewpoint, topic content, analysis of open and close-ended questions and self-
disclosure (see Jones et. al, 1999 for details).

Nonverbal Coding Scheme. In this study, counselors were tested for convergence
on nonverbal behaviors of dominant posture, nodding, speech rate, gesturing while
speaking or hstening, smiling, and eye gaze. Dominant posture was defined as the extent
to which participants oriented their body towards one another when sitting, such as
slouching, side tilts, and/or straightness of physical fi'ame. Nodding was defined as a
continuous up and down movement of the head in sync with the other. Speech rate was
defined as how many syllables participants spoke during the length of a turn, by the
length of a turn, no more than one minute in length. Gesturing was broken down into two
categories: gestures with the hands, or arm/ shoulder region, to better assess the types of
movements made by individuals in sitting positions. Gestures were identified by the
extent to which both participants use the same or similar continuous gestures for touch,
clasping, shrugs, or resting. Smihng was defined as a relaxation of the facial features, or
upturn of the lips or mouth

Verbfloding Scheme. Study counselors were also assessed on convergent
verbal communication moves for topic management, in terms of topic selection and

development, back-channehng, vocabulary, vocal pitch, and vocal flexibihty. Topic

48

selection referred to one person selecting a topic for discussion and the other person
nodding that that topic was acceptable. Topic development was defined by participants
desire to add information or share an Opinion on the subject matter presented. Back-
channehng was defined as actively responding to the topics with a brief vocal response,
such as ‘uh-huh”, ‘yes”, and “I see”. Vocabulary was defined as same or similar use of
words by partners during the conversation. Vocal pitch was defined as the use of same or
similar tonal frequency when speaking, which included adjustments for answering and
asking questions. Vocal flexibihty referred to the use of appropriate tempo for moving
between speech turns and speech pauses.

The operationalization of each behavior is listed in the Appendices. Although
J ones and colleagues (1999) used the time unit of one minute for analysis and then coded
the first three minutes and last three minutes of an interaction, counselors were assess
every twenty seconds for three minutes of an interaction during the training workshop.
This was done for two reasons: first, to provide a thorough assessment of how verbal and
nonverbal behaviors are organized over a period of time, and second, to assess not only
how one person behaved, but also both partners verbal and nonverbal behavior as a
dyadic unit.
Emma: Counselors were asked to only collect data fiom chants who Were new to the
shelter. This was done to prevent differences in attachment between counselors and
chants. To ensure that only stranger chants were used, counselors were to ask chants if
they had ever been to the shelter before. Ifthe responses was “no”, then the chant would
be invited into the study. If the response was ‘yes”, then the counselor was asked to

assess how well the counselor and chant knew one another from “1” equals “not at all” to

49

“7” equals ‘Very muc ”. Ifthe counselor could report a score greater than “2” (“barely”),
than they would not invite the chant into the study.

Manipglation ghacka: There were several manipulation checks conducted in this study.
First, an assessment was made to determine that the counselors who attended the
experimental training workshop were able to produce the communication accommodation
behaviors taught during the workshop. To this and, each counselor was paired with
another counselor at the beginning and and of the workshop for twenty-five minutes and
asked to have a conversation on a topic of their choice. During this time, two trained
coders watched each pair and rated them on their abihty to converge (match) their verbal
and nonverbal communication patterns with one another for three minutes. Coders were
undergraduate and graduate communication students (N = 8, 4 sets of two coders each)
who had conducted coding for a prior communication accommodation study.

A second manipulation check was used to assure that counselors who participated
in the experimental workshop continued to practice those behaviors before engaging
chants in counsehng sessions with them. The counselors were asked to practice
performing convergent behaviors for 10 hours and asked to keep a page in their journal
for recording these practice hours. Although the counselors were told to be honest in
their appraisal of time spend (i.e., they would not be punished for performing less than
ten hours), the primary investigators took notice of both the hours and manner the hours
were recorded (i.e., using the same pen or no change in writing style for documentation).

A third manipulation check was conducted during this study to ensure that chants
engaging in the counsehng session were motivated to participate in therapy. Chants were

assessed for motivation to engage in the interaction with their counselor with three

50

questions, “I am looking forward to talking with this counselor”, “I feel motivated to talk
with this counselor”, and “I feel that I am going to have a good interaction with this
counselor today”. Answers were recorded on a 7-point scale from “1” equals “strongly
disagree” to “7” equals “strongly agree. Confirrnatory factor analysis was performed on
this scale using Hamilton and Hunter’s CFA program (1998). All of the items met the
criteria for content, internal consistency and parallehsm. No items were dropped from
this scale due to the error table produced. The scale’s coefficient alpha was .90.
Coordination of Study Materials: One counselor at each shelter received two sets of
materials: one set for themselves, and one set for each of their five chants. In each set of
materials, there was a pre-numbered pretest, posttest and envelope corresponding to
chant numbers, plus the informed consent letter and debriefing sheet. In addition, each
counselor received one copy of the cheat sheet for communication accommodation
behaviors. Packets were numbered for each participating shelter, and counselor from each
shelter (i.e., counselor #1 or #2). Email and phone calls were made to the counselor to
remind them to fill out their materials and send them back to Michigan State University.
Chant Pretest Measures: Shelter chants were asked their age, sex, salary, race, education,
number of children, hving arrangements, use of counseling services, and types of abuse
experienced in their relationship using the Abusive Behavior Inventory Form (Shepard &
Campbell, 1992) Index. The Index was subjected to Hamilton and Hunter’s CF A program
(1988). Individual items were assessed for content intamal consistency and parallehsm.
As all items met the criteria, no items were dropped from the scale.

Abuse Index: The Abusive Behavior Inventory Form (Shepard & Campbell,

1992) was used to determine the range of physical (10 items) and psychological

51

behaviors (20 items) used by the abusive partner on the chant in the relationship. The 30-
item scale is anchored on a five-point Likert scale from (1) equals “never” to (5) equals
‘Very frequently”. Physical abuse items ranged from “pushed, grabbed or shoved you” to
“threatened you with a knife, gun, or other weapon”. The psychological abuse items
include the sub-categories of emotional abuse (i.e., humihation or degradation—“told
you that you were a bad parent”), isolation (i.e., restriction of social contact—“stopped
you or tried to stop you from going to work or school”), intimidation (i.e., fiightened with
actions or gestures—“said things to scare you”), threats (i.e., harm to self or others—
“used your children to threaten you”) and use of male privilege (i.e., comphance
demanded based on patriarchal entitlement—“ended a discussion with you and made the
decision himself’). Prior studies using the scale have reported rehabihties ranging from
.71 to .91 (cite here). Coefficient alpha for the scale is .85.

Counselor Journals. Counselors in both the experimental and control conditions were
asked to describe their initial encounter with each chant. Counselors in the experimental
condition were also asked to report if they noticed their accommodative behaviors having
an affect on their chants.

Chant Journals. Chants were asked to specify their reason for seeking the services of the
domestic violence shelter (in general) and than answer one question in their journal. The
question posed was, “What thoughts do you have about the counselor you just spoke with
and your counsehng session with that counselor?”

Postteat Maasuras: Both counselors and chants received the following scales in their
posttests to measure the independent and dependent variables described above. All scales

used in the posttest measurement underwent confirmatory factor analysis. The CFA was

52

 

conducted using Hamilton and Hunter’s CF A program (1988) that assesses individual
items for content, internal consistency and parallelism. Items that did not meet these
criteria were dropped. The table below shows the items that we dropped from each of the
scales used in this study.

For text brevity, each of the scales and their individual items are listed below.

Items that were reverse-scored are denoted with they symbol C“) after it.

TABLE 3

Items dropped from Pretest and Posttest Measures.

 

 

Pretest Measure

Abusive Behavior Inventory Form (Sheppard & Campbell, 1992):
No items were dropped from this scale

Posttest Measures

Perceived Liking Scale:
No items were dropped from this scale

Perceived Similarity Scale:
Q19. “Our outlook on hfe is similar.”

Perceived Empathy Scale: Perspective-Taking (Barrett-Lennard, 1962):
Q25. “This counselor connects with me.”

Perceived Empathy Scale: Emotional Concam (Barrett-Lennard, 1962):
Q30. “The counselor I talked to treated me hka a fiiend.”

Perceived Trust Scale:
Q38. This counselor was not sincere.

Communication Accommodation Strategies Scale (Jones et. al., 1994):
Q45. “The counselor was on common ground with me.” (Interpretabihty)
Q47. “The counselor tried to find common ground with me.”
(Discourse Management)
Q58. “The counselor made it hard for me to know how to behave.”
(Interpersonal Control)

 

 

53

Communication Accommodation Strategies Scale: A revised version of the
Communication Accommodation Scale (Jones at. al., 1994) was used to measure the
interpretability, discourse management and interpersonal control between the counselor
and chant. The 18-item scale has six statements per dimension, on a 7-point scale,
anchored with “1” equals “not at all” to “7” equals ‘ ery”. Interpretability includes the
statements that the other’s language was “easy to understand”, “too fonnal*”,
“appropriate for our conversation”, “easy to relate to”, “ambiguous/not clear*”, and “on
common ground with mine”. Discourse management determined how a person behaved
conversationally, including the statements: “did all the talking”, “treated me like a
conversational equal”, “tried to find common ground with me”, “let me turn the topic in a
new direction”, “made it easy for me to expand on a topic” and “used appropriate
language for our conversation”. Interpersonal control asks how control and role
flexibihty contribute to dialogue as demonstrated by ranking the following statements:
“demonstrated respect for me”, “talked down to me*”, saw information from my point of
view”, “emphasized power*”, “made it hard for me to know how to behave”, and “let me
express myselfin different ways”.

This scale was revised in two ways. Jones and colleagues (1994) initially
intended the scale for use between faculty and students, so introduction hnes were
changed fiom this “faculty” to this “counselor”. Second, the original scale contained the
statements “did not move an inch toward the faculty/ student” and “tried to take the
faculty’s/student’s power”. These were replaced with the statements, “made it easy for

me to expand on a t0pic” and “let me turn a topic in a new direction”, both indicative of a

54

 

speaker’s communicative ability in a stranger interaction. Coefficient alphas were .82 for
interpretability, .88 for discourse management and .82 for interpersonal control.

Perceived Accommodation Scale. A 12-item perceived accommodation scale was
created to assess the extent to which chants thought their counselor was accommodating
to them The 7- point Likert scale was anchored with “1” equals “strongly disagree” to
“7” equals “strongly agree” with statements focusing on how the chant “felt about the
counselor you communicated with during the conversation”. Chants rated how
“connected”, “' -sync”, and “responsiveness” they felt talking with the counselor, as well
as how “ easy it was to communicate”, whether the counselor “behaved hke she was
interested in my opinions”, if person was “attentive to my communication needs”,
“listened to what I had to say”, “tried hard to cater to my needs”, “treated me hke a
friend”, “seemed to understand me”, “did not match well in communication*”, and
communicated hke they did not hke me*”. Coefiicient alpha for the perceived
accommodation scale was .90.

Comfort. An eight-item scale was created to measure the chant’s level of comfort
with the counselor. Participants rated counselors on how “secure”, “safe”, “tense",
“comfortable”, “distant“ and “relaxed” they felt with them, as well as chents’ beliefs
about counselor’s abihty to “relate to me” and “unwind during conversation”.

Coeficient alpha for the comfort scale was at .92.

Wflagaaas to talk with the agunselgr again. A one-item response was asked of
chants to determine how greatly their communication skills affected willingness to
engage with the confederate again. A seven point Guttman scale was used to assess their

strength of preference for the confederate, ranging from “I never want to talk to this

55

"’

counselor agarn , “I would prefer not to talk with this counselor again”, “It doesn’t matter
if I talk to this counselor again or not”, “It would be okay if I talked to this counselor
again”, “ I would like to talk to this counselor again”, “I want to talk to this counselor
again”, and “I can’t wait to talk to this counselor again”.

Perceived Liking. Six items were asked of clients to determine counselor
perceived hking. A seven point Likert scale was used to assess their degree of liking for

“l ,3

the counselor with anchors from equals “strongly disagree” to “7” equals “strongly
agree”. Statements were, “I like this counselor”, “this counselor is hkeable”, “this
counselor is easy to hke”, “this counselor is pleasant”, “I don’t like the counselor I talked
to*”, and “this counselor was enjoyable. Confirmatory factor analysis produced a
coefficient alpha =.90.

Perceived Simim Six items were asked of chants to determine counselor
perceived similarity. The same seven point Likert scale described above was used to
assess their degree of similarity. Statements included, “I am similar to this counselor”, “I

8

am hke this counselor”, “this counselor shares similar opinions’ , “this counselor shares
similar interests”, “this counselor is completely difi‘erant from me*”, and “our outlook on
life is similar”. Confirmatory factor analysis produced a coefficient alpha =86.

Perceived Emmthy, Empathy has been operationahzed with the Barrett-Lennard
Relationship Inventory (BLRI) (Barrett-Lennard, 1962) to measure counselor perceived
empathy. The 32-item scale consists of 16 positively and negatively worded item
statements describing client perceptions of the counselor’s perspective taking, empathic

concern, fictional involvement and emotional contagion. A 10-item revised BLRI is used

for the present study, which includes only the perspective taking and empathic concern

56

constructs. Prior studies using the questions from these two constructs have been deemed
vahd with reported rehabihties in the 62-87 range (Barrett-Lennard, 1962, 1964).

Five items were asked of chants to determine counselor perspective taking. The
same seven point Likert scale described above was use to assess their level of perspective
taking. All statements began with the “the counselor I talked to” and were completed
with the following phrases “understands me”, “understands how I view the world”, “takes
no notice of my perspective“, and “could sense what I was feehng”. Confirmatory factor
analysis produced a coefficient alpha of. 86.

Five items were also asked of clients to determine how accommodative behaviors
afi‘acted perceptions of counselor empathic concern. The same seven point Likert scale
described above and statement beginning phrase was use to assess their level of empathic
concern. Statements were completed with the following phrases: “seamed concerned
about how I was feelin ”, “seamed interested in my well-being”, “understood my feelings
without becoming affected herself’, and “seemed more concerned about her feehngs than
mine".” Confirmatory factor analysis produced a coefficient alpha =. 84.

Perceived Trust. Nina items were asked of chants to determine counselor
perceived trust. The same scale as described above (hking) was used. The statements
included, “I trust this counselor”, “this is a counselor who can keep information private”,
“1 can talk about my fears with this counselor”, “this counselor won’t repeat what I told
her to others”, “I feel I can trust this counselor”, “I think this counselor is trustworthy”,
“this counselor was not sincere in our conversation*”, “this counselor would keep private

information confidential”, and “I kept information from this counselor*.” Confirmatory

factor analysis produced a coeflicient alpha =84.

57

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

Statistical Analysis. Data collected from the counselor surveys and chant pretests and
posttests were assessed using SPSS for Windows: Statistical Package for the Social
Social Sciences. Differences between the experimental training workshop condition and
wait-fist control were compared with T-tests. ANOVA and ANCOVAs were also used to
assess difl'erencas due to age, education, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, prior abuse,
types of abuse experienced, length of abuse, and prior counsehng.

Setting alpha and beta at their conventional standards of .05 (one-tailed) and .80
respectively, a minimum of 28 counselor-chant dyads were needed to adequately assess
significant difi‘erences between the groups following the intervention (Cohen, 1988).

To adjust for unequal cell sizes, the regression approach to analysis of variance was used,
‘Vvhere each cell mean is given equal weight regardless of its sample size” (Tabachnick

& Fidell, 1989, p. 340). A 5% level of significance is used for all tests, and multiple
range tests were also conducted (e.g., Tukay b) to assess significant difierences between
groups when there were more than two groups.

Journal Analysis: Post-hoe analyses of the journals were conducted by the primary
investigator (i.e., Murray-Johnson) and two undergraduate coders. Journals were
analyzed turn by turn using an adaptation of Bales’ (1970) Interaction Process Analysis
(IPA) developed by Burris, Gallois, Woodall, & Markel (1979). The IPA was initially
developed as a method for observing interaction in small face-to-face groups. It focuses
on the process of interactions in addition to the interaction’s content. This coding scheme

was apphed to the written journals of this study. The IPA provides a standardized set of

58

 

 

categories for classifying behaviors. The first six categories reflect socioemotional

activities, including behaviors that focus on interpersonal relationships. These behaviors

include the showing of sohdarity, showing tension, tension release, agreement,

disagreement, and demonstrations of antagonism. The other six categories focus on task

activities based on what individuals in a group or dyad are doing. These behaviors

include giving or asking for suggestions, opinions, and information, and how the

discourse was managed based on whether the giving and asking for suggestions,

information and opinions was shared. Through the use of the IPA it is possible to h
determine the extent to which participants are responsive to one another by used of self-

disclosures and dyadic roles.

To measure perceived accommodation, a subset of the IPA was used. From the 12
available categories, four were chosen based on their relevance to this study. These
include: showing of sohdarity, showing antagonism, and agreement and disagreement.
The question asked of each chant “What thoughts do you have about the counselor you
just spoke with and what thoughts do you have about your counsehng session with that
counselor?” was broken down into these six areas for analysis in an attempt to recognize
the verbal and nonverbal behaviors that were demonstrations of perceived
accommodation. The same question was also analyzed by counselors with substitution of
the word “counselor” for “chant.” It should be noted that not all of the verbal and
nonverbal behaviors were coded from the journals; rather, only the behaviors coded were
those in which counselors received training.

As some of the behaviors uncovered in this study could be coded through multiple

IPA categories (i.e., a smile for agreement could demonstrate sohdarity) each behavior

59

was coded twice. First, a behavior was coded for content that was reciprocated or
between clients and counselors (i.e., both the counselor and chant smiled) and second for
its relational-level meaning (i.e., the smile indicated solidarity). Hence, the IPA was
primarily used for relation-level meaning, given its socioemotional and task categories.

For a verbal or nonverbal behavior to be designated to a particular category,
stringent definitions of each term were identified. Each behavior was first identified as a
positive or negative reaction of the other dyadic partner. Once positivity or negativity was
estabhshed, behaviors were then coded by agreement or disagreement. Agreement refers
to a demonstration of behavioral convergence. This means that the counselor or chant
attempted to make their behavior more similar to the other. Disagreement refers to a
demonstration of behavioral divergence. For this study, over-accommodation, under-
accommodation, and contra-accommodation were not separately coded but lumped into
the behavioral divergence category. Inter-coder agreement on the coding scheme was
acceptable at .87.

The journals were also analyzed for common abuse themes, and the amount of
detail of their abuse (e.g., self-disclosure). The content was coded by dyad for each new
topic discussed in reference to the IPA categories of giving and receiving information,
suggestions and opinions. For this study, these categories were sirnphfied into two steps.
First, it was asked whether or not information was given by a counselor or chant (i.e.,
yes/no) on a particular topic and second, if information was provided, then it was coded
on a one (httla information) to five (highly informative) scale. The inter-coder agreement

for this portion of the coding scheme was acceptable (kappa=.89) (Cohen, 1988).

60

Manipulation Checks. There were several manipulation checks for this study. First, an

assessment was made to determine if counselors could approximate the verbal and

nonverbal communication accommodation behaviors taught during the training

workshop. T-tests were conducted to assess if counselors could perform the

accommodative behaviors during their counseling interactions. All counselors were able

to produce the verbal and nonverbal behaviors they were taught during the Building

Bridges Workshop. The tables below list the t-tests for each behavior and the means and

standard deviations for each behavior.

TABLE 4

T-tests of Counselor Verbal and Nonverbal Accommodation Behaviors
from the Training Workshop

 

 

 

 

Group 1 Verbal accommodation

Vocal rate T(32) = 10.01, p<.001 (M1=2.27, SD=.85 ), (M2=4.48, SD=.62)
Vocal pitch T(32) = 8.22, p<.001 (M1=1 .91, SD=.77 ), (M2=3.6l, SD=.75)
Vocabulary T(32) = 7.55, p<.001 (M1=2.27, SD: .95), (M2=3.9l, SD=.97)

 

Topic selection

T(32) = 8.53, p<.001

(Ml=2.55, SD: 1.14) (M2=4.56. SD=.67)

 

Topic development

T(32) = 13.13. p<.001

(Ml=l.78, SD: .82), (M2=4.12, SD=.78)

 

Back-channel

T(32) = 5.19, p<.001

(Ml=2.72, SD=.85),

(M2=3.73, SD=.69)

 

 

Vocal flexibility

 

T(32) = 9.60, p<.001

(Ml=l.84, SD=.80 ) (M2=3.96, SD=.9l)

 

 

Group 1

Nonverbal accommodation

 

Posture

r (32) =7.53, p<.001

(M1=2.42, SD=1.43),

(M2=4.54, SD=.79)

 

Hand

'r (32) :9. l6, p<.001

(M1=1.45, SD=.71),

(M2=3.60, SD=1.00)

 

Noddifi

T(32) = 6.64. p<.001

(M12257, SD=1.45),

(M2=4.27, SD=.72)

 

Arm

T(32) = 8.39. p<.00l

(M1=2.01, SD=1.34).

(M2=4.06, SD=.71)

 

Smilifi

T(32) = 4.98, p<.001

(Ml=2.78, SD=1.26),

(M2=4.00, SD=1.06)

 

 

Eye

 

T(32) = 6.63, p<.001

(M1=2.82, SD=1.23),

(M2=.4.57, SD=.86)

 

*Means represent number of actual matches of behavior during 9 timed intervals of 20
seconds each between two counselors

 

61

 

 

 

Assessment of Counselor’s Ability to Produce Actual Accommodative Behaviors

TABLE 5

Means and (Standard Deviations) for 9 timed intervals

(3 minutes @ 20 seconds per interval)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before Workshop Training

Convergence Divergence Can’t tell
Vocal rate 2.27 (.85) 2.24 (.61) .48 (.61)
Vocal pitch 1.91 (.77) 2.36 (.61) .66 (.65)
Vocabulary 2.27 (.95) 2.06 (.67) .67 L60)
Topic selection 2.55 (1.14) 1.85 (.97) .66 (.14)
Topic development 1.78 (.82) 2.63 (.83) .63 (.69)
Back-channel 2.72 (.85) 1.87 (.70) .40 (.61)
Vocal flexibility 1.84 (.80) 2.18 (.91) .94 (.71)
Posture 2.42 (1.43L 2.24 (1.27) .36 (fl)
Hand 1.45 (.71) 2.87 (1.07) .63 (.49)
Nodding 2.57 (1.45) 1.96 (1.28) .45 (.56)
Arm 2.0fi134) 2.36 (1.27) .64 (.61)
Smiling 2.78 (1.26) 1.91 (1.15) .36 (.74)
Eye 2.82 (1.23) 1.61 (.94) .57 (.76)

After Workshop Training

Convergence Divergence Can’t tell
Vocal rate 4.48 (.62) .45 (.50) .45 (.50)
Vocal pitch 3.61 (.75) 1.06 (.49) .33 (.48)
Vocabulary 3.91 (.97) .85 (.72) .24 (.43)
Topic selection 4.56 (.67) .40 (.65) .07 (.24)
Topic development 4.12 (.78) .72 (.72L .15 (.36)
Back-channel 3.73 (.69) .75 (.70) .51 (.50)
Vocal flexibility 3.96 (.91) .60 (.61) .43 (.61)
Posture 4.54 (.79) .40 (.65) .05 (.49)
Hand 3.60 (1.00) 1.30 (.86) .09 (.29)
Nodding 4.27 (.72) .61 (.63) .12 (.41)
Arm 4.06 (.71) .94 (.72) .00 (.00)
Smihng 4.00 (1.06) .88 (.92) .12 (.33)
Eye 4.57 (.86) .30 (.58) .12 (.30)

 

 

 

 

 

 

62

 

 

A second manipulation check was conducted to determine if the counselors who
participated in the experimental counseling session practiced the same or a similar
number of hours, which could have affected their ability to produce accommodative
behaviors during a counseling session. In counselor journals, the 33 counselors from the
training workshop self-reported 13.2 practice hours, with a range from 8 to 15 practice
hours before beginning the study. Approximately 75% of the counselors practiced more
than requested 10 hours (N=27). None of the journal entries appeared suspect by the
primary investigators for inappropriate reporting of practice hours.

A third manipulation check was done to assess client motivation to engage in
counsehng with the therapist. T-tests were conducted to determine if there were
differences in chant motivation across both conditions at the beginning of the interaction.
No differences were found in client motivation across the two conditions T (1,87) =1.37,
p.=.542. (M1= 5.14, s.d.=.25; M2=4.94, s.d.=.26) Thus, it was assumed that chants in
both groups were equally motivated to participate in their chant-counselor session.
Hymthesis 1. Chant and counselor journals were analyzed to determine if counselors
who were trained to produce both verbal and nonverbal communication accommodation
behaviors were more or less hkely to engage chants in telhng their counselors.

The content themes across the journals could be divided into numerous
categories, including: types of physical abuse (e.g., “he came after me with a gun”)
(N=57), types of emotional abuse (e.g.,“ I can’t tell how many times he told me I was
worthless”) (N=-44), threats to self (e.g., “one day he says he’s gonna do it”) (N=19),
threats to children (e.g., “he hasn’t hit them yet, but you never know”) (N=8), fear for self

and child safety (e.g., “I don’t want nothing to happen to my babies”) (N=31), family or

63

fiiend involvement (e.g., “my sister wants me to leave him”) (N=24), impact on hfe (e.g.,
“it’s been very rough the last 3 years”) (N=21), methods for avoiding violence (e.g., “I
just stay away”) (N= 14), methods for accessing help (e.g., “I can here (to the shelter)
because of a fiiend who drove me”) (N=11), and caring about the abuser (e. g. "without
the occasional shp-ups (i.e., abuse) he’s great”) (N=19). There did not appear to be any
differences across the groups in terms of content across the groups. Chants from the
workshop trained and wait-hst control group were equally as likely to provide a response
fi'om one of the above categories as the reason for seeking shelter assistance.

As there did not appear to be differences by groups, the journals were again
analyzed for content by their length of abuse and number of abuse experiences in relation
to the Abusive Inventory conducted in the pretest measure. Chants who had been abused
more than three years were more hkely to provide information about emotional abuse
(N=13), threats to self (N=18) and care for the abuser (N=16) than those who had been
abused for a shorter length of time. For chants who had responded through the inventory
multiple abuse experiences, these individuals were more hkely to report on concerns for
their children (N=22) and where to access help (N=9).

Although clients were prompted to discuss their primary reason for seeking the
services of a shelter, many chants chose to discuss in depth the details of their abuse
(N=-46). To control for differences between those who had multiple abuse experiences
versus a single abuse experience, these were separately analyzed. Journals were also
separately analyzed for short-term (less than three years) or long-term (more than three

years) abuse.

In the provided pre-marked hned journals, chants in the experimental condition
who had a single instance, short-term abuse experience (N=34; E=16, C=18) were
compared with the same population in the control group. Within this group,
approximately 215 statements were made that contained information which could be
coded as providing httle information about their abuse experience (“1”) or a great deal of
information (“5”) about their abuse experience in terms of self-disclosure. Chants in the

experimental group provided more information about their abuse than those in the control

 

condition (M_l=3.56, s.d.=.43, me. 14, £13.55). Thus, chants in the experimental
condition appeared to be more willing to discuss their abuse in general as compared to
the chants in the control condition.

Chants who had experienced multiple-abuse in the short-term (i.e., less than three
years but with more than one partner) (N=27; E=15, C=12) had 189 abuse statements
which could be coded on the one to five scale. Chants in the experimental group again
produced greater information statements about their experience than those in the control
group (M_l_=3.32, s_.d.=.25; fl=2.77, fl.=.39). Finally, chants who experienced abuse
with multiple partners over the long-term (i.e., more than three years) were analyzed
(N=24; N=14, C=10). Approximately 350 coded statements reveals that the amount of
information disclosed to counselors did not differ between the experimental and control
groups (11414.66, a3.=.56, M2_=4.23, fl.=.61).

Overall, H1 is partially consistent with the data. Chants in the experimental group
were more wilhng to be engaged by their counselors in telhng their abuse stories if they

were either single-instance or multiple-instance but short-term abuse experiences. There

65

were no differences in information disclosures by those female chants who had
experienced multiple-abuse, long-term abuse.

Hypothesis 2. When assessing the extent to which accommodation was perceived
through a single item which measured the chent’s wilhngness to see the counselor again
in another interaction, chants in the counselor workshop trained condition reported
greater willingness to continue therapy than those chants who interacted with non-
workshop trained counselors T (1,87) = 4. 59, p>.001 (M_1 =5.73, 5415.89, _M_2 = 4.10,
_s_.g.=1.33). Clients in the counselor workshop trained condition were most hkely to
report “I would like to talk with this counselor again” (N =27) or “I want to talk with this
counselor again” (N=12) and “It would be okay to talk with this counselor again” (N=6).
Chants in the counselor non-workshop trained condition were most hkely to report “It
would be okay if I talked with this counselor again” (N=20), “It doesn’t matter if I talk to
this counselor again” (N=14) and “I would prefer not to talk with this counselor again”
(N=5). Seven chants, however, did report that they “ would hke to talk with this
counselor again”. Thus, H2 was consistent with the data.

Hypothesis 3. T-tests were conducted to assess if chants who interacted with
counselors trained in verbal and nonverbal communication accommodation behaviors
were more hkely to perceive accommodation than those chants who interacted with
counselors not trained in verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors. The results
indicated a significant difference between the groups T (1,87) = 4.12, p=.05 (M1601,
ag.=.66; fl=426, gg.=.70) such that the chants in the experimental group did perceive
shghtly greater accommodation than those in the control group. Further analysis

conducted with AN OVA revealed a group by first-time abuse experience interaction (F

66

 

(2,85) =5.55, p>.05, n2 = .08. Chants for whom this was their first-time abuse experience
were more hkely to perceive accommodation than those for whom it was their second or
greater abusive relationship. An interaction of group by education interaction was also
indicated F (2,84) = 6.32, p>.05, n2 = .07. Chants who possessed a bachelor’s degree or
masters education were also most hkely to perceive the accommodative behaviors of their
counselor. There were no other main or interaction efl‘ects indicated in the data.

In analysis of the journal question, “What thoughts do you have about the
counselor you just spoke with and what thoughts do you have about your counsehng
session with that counselor?”, responses were analyzed by group association, number of
abuse experiences and the length of reported abuse. As previously described, journal
statements for both counselors and chants were rated twice. First, they were coded as
being a positive or negative statement regarding the counselor or chant (by the other
party). Overall, most of the client responses were coded as positive 357 as opposed to
negative 63. Counselors responded in a similar fashion. Two hundred and twenty
counselor statements were coded as positive and 71 statements were coded as negative.
Second, statements were coded for their socio-emotional action. Of the 357 positively
coded chents’ statements, 296 demonstrated some form of agreement or behavioral
convergence with the counselors’ statements. For example, one chant wrote “my
counselor repeats what I say using my words to make sure that I am on track with her.”
Another chant reported, “she (my counselor) was willing to share my experiences. She
even sits hke I do on the floor.” Similarly, the counselor wrote, “she seemed more
relaxed with me/less tense when I started to sit like her” and “she is becoming more

responsive to my questions when I talk hke her.” The 61 positive statements that did not

67

.I'l.

indicate agreement were often reports of unreciprocated behavior, not a sign of
disagreement or behavioral divergence. For example, one chant wrote “she really
encouraged me to be honest and then hstened to me with out making me feel bad or
uncomfortable for saying the stuff. I think I smiled for the first time all week.” When
reading the counselor’s interpretation of the session, there was no mention of the smile or
some of the behavioral techniques that led to the chent’s smile.

In analyzing these statements by group, length of abuse, and number of abuse
experiences, chants who had experienced first-time, short-term abuse (less than 3 years)
reported 90 convergence statements. When this number was firrther analyzed by group
placement, 53 convergence statements were attributed to the experimental group and 37
convergence statements were attributed to the control group. Those who were identified
as multiple-abuse, short-term abuse experience chants, reported 182 convergence
statements. Of the 182 convergent behavior statements, 101 convergent statements were
attributed to chants in the experimental group and 81 convergent statements were
attributed to the control group. Finally, in the multiple-abuse, long-term chants reported
185 convergent statements. Approximately 98 convergent statements were identified
from the experimental group and 87 convergent statements were identified in the control
group. Thus, it appears that women who had a single-instance, or multiple-abuse, short-
term experience were more hkely to report convergent statements over those women who
experienced multiple-abuse, long-term abuse experiences.

Seventy-one of the counselors’ statements and 63 of the chants’ statements were
negative. Of the 71 counselors’ statements, 49 indicated disagreement or behavioral

divergence. From the 63 chant statements, 41 indicated disagreement or behavioral

68

divergence. One example of divergence came fiom a chant who had endured more than
four years of abuse. She wrote, “after about 20 minutes the counselor smiled at me. My
hfe is falhng apart and she smiles.” The counselor noted the discrepancy in her own
journal, “I smiled at the woman and she became very angry. I felt I had to start over again
gaining her trust.” Of the 21 disagreement statements identified in counselor journals
and 21 disagreement statements in the chant journals, only seven matched between the
dyads. That is, only seven of the disagreements were marked by both counselors and
chants over the same event as illustrated above. The remainder of these statements
appeared to be one-sided in that something bothered the counselor or chant but did not
make their feehngs known. To illustrate this different form of disagreement, one
counselor wrote, “I don’t know if my chant hked me very much. I really tried to connect
with her but she didn’t want to participate in the session.” In reading the chent’s journal
and analyzing her posttest there was no mention of the chant not hking her counselor.
When analyzing these negative statements by group, by number of abuse
experiences and length of abuse, first-time, short-term chants reported 12 negative
statements of which 4 were reported in the experimental group and 8 were reported in the
control group. Those chants who reported multiple-abuses, short-term reported 23
negative statements of which 10 were reported in the experimental group and 13 were
reported in the control group. Finally, in the multiple-abuse, long-term category, 28
negative or disagreement statements were made by chants. Twelve of these statements
were in the experimental group and 16 were in the control group. Thus, only single-
instance, short-term abuse experience chants in the experimental group were less hkely to

produce divergent statements than women in the other groups. Women who experienced

69

multiple-instance, short-term and multiple-instance, long-term abuse did not appear to
differ in the number of divergent behavior statements produced.

An additional analysis was conducted on the journals for an indirect test of
behavioral contingency. As shelter chants and counselors could not be observed directly
because of anonymity concerns, the author attempted to match convergent and divergent
of chants and their counselors. Recall that IAT’s concept of behavioral contingency
assumes that one person’s behavior is the cause of another’s and it is not the result of
other indirect or external influences. In addition, the behavior recognized as contingent
must be of comparable firnctional value, either reciprocal towards the behavior or as
compensation and a reaction to it.

In the experimental condition, across the counselor and chant dyads, there were
121 acts that could be identified as behaviorally contingent. Of these 121 acts, 89 were
identified as being interpersonally reciprocal. An example of a interpersonal reciprocity
behavior that was contingent was, “At first, she was nervous so I sat the way she did (the
chant), waiting for her to start (talking), and then after a few moments she seemed to
relax and took a deep breath to get rid of the tension” (counselor journal) and “my
counselor thankfirlly wasn’t all proper so I felt hke I could relax right away “ (chant
journal). Another example was, “I told (the counselor) some bad jokes and she seemed to
respond to them” and “once she started telling jokes 1 gave her some of mine so she
wouldn’t have old material” (chant journal). Approximately 32 of the behaviors
identified were interpersonally compensated. An example of interpersonal compensation
was, “the chant was talking so softly that I moved my chair forward” and “she (the

counselor) got to(o) close so I talked while walking” (chant journal).

70

In the control condition, there were 54 acts that could be identified as
behaviorally contingent. Of these 54 acts, 38 were interpersonally reciprocal. An example
of interpersonally reciprocity was “when she thought I understood her, she (the chant)
smiled” (counselor journal) and “I really hked my counselor, she made me feel good
about myself. She got me to smile for the first time in weeks” (client journal). Similar
interpersonal compensation behaviors were seen as in the experimental condition, such as
“she (the counselor) kind of was staring me down, so I spent most of the conversation not
looking at her” (client journal) and “she was having a diflicult time talking about her
abuse. . . .she wouldn’t even look at me” (counselor journal).

Given the congruence between counselor and chant journals, there appears to be
some awareness of the enactment of these behaviors. This is congruent with CAT’s
premise that even if behaviors are processed at different levels, there is some low lying
awareness of their existence. However, there is no way to determine if these behaviors
are based on reciprocity norms or IAT’s genetic basis. This author leaves this question
open to firture research. Thus, although there is no way for certain to determine if
perceived accommodation is a function of the enactment of interpersonally reciprocated
or compensated behaviors between clients and their counselors, convergent behaviors
were produced more often in the experimental condition over control condition.

To ensure that perceived accommodation was not a measure of perceived comfort
with the counselor, t-tests were also conducted. Chants in the experimental group did not
report greater comfort with their counselor than those chants in the control group, given
the positive ceihng effect for the variable T(1,85) = .287, p=.723. (M1=5.43, s._d.=.52;

M2_=5.41, gg.=.61). However, chants in both conditions reported strong perceptions of

71

comfort. Hence, this study is unable to determine how perceived comfort affected the
ratings of perceived accommodation, given the strength of its reported value.

Thus, H3 was partially consistent with the data. Chants in the experimental
condition were more hkely to produce convergent statements signifying perceived
accommodation than chants in the control condition but only for single-instance short-
term abuse. There were no difl'erences for women who had experienced multiple-
instance, long-term abuse for behavioral convergence or divergence in the control and
experimental groups. Women who had experienced multiple-instance, short-term abuses
produced more convergent statements in the experimental group over the control group,
yet there were no difi’erences in the number of divergent statements. Further, this author
is unable to determine the extent to which perceived comfort affected client and
counselor statements related to perceptions of accommodation.

Hypothesis 4. T-tests were conducted to determine if counselors who were
trained in the verbal and nonverbal accommodation behaviors were more hkely to
produce the attuning strategies of interpretability, discourse management and
interpersonal control during chant interactions than counselors who were not trained in
verbal and nonverbal accommodation behavior. Analyses revealed that counselors in the
experimental condition did demonstrate greater interpretabihty strategies than those
counselors in the control condition T(1,84) = 9.67, p>.001 (ML=5.83, s._d.=.66;
_M_2=4.8 1 , §_._d_=l.1). However, there was no difi‘erence between counselors in the
experimental and control conditions in terms of discourse management T(1,83) =1.29,

p=.294 (1m =5.2o, s.d.=.68, M2=5.00, s.d.=.90) or role flexibility T(l.83) =.495, p=.486

 

(M1=4.31, g_d_=.25, fl=4.25, g.=.46). Only chants who possessed a bachelor’s degree

72

or masters (or masters in progress) experienced role flexibihty with their counselor F

(1,34) = 9.56, p>.01,112 = .10 (M.l= 4.68, $231; ma=395, s.d.=.42). A weak trend was

 

detected for role flexibility for those experienced their first abusive relationship but it was
not significant F(1,34) = 3.94, p=.06 (M1=4.06, _s_._d.=. 19; _M_2.=3.85, _s_._d.=.21). There were
no other main efi'ects or interactions evident.

Hence, H4 was partially consistent with the data. Chants in the experimental
group experienced greater counselor attuning strategies of interpretability than the control
group, but not discourse management or role flexibility, with the exception of those who
were highly educated.

Hypothesis 5. T-test were conducted to assess if counselors who were trained in
the verbal and nonverbal communication accommodation behaviors were more hkely to
received high ratings of chant perceived counselor similarity, hking, empathy and trust
than those counselors who were not trained in verbal and nonverbal communication
accommodation behaviors. Results indicated that there was no difference between groups
for counselor perceived hking T(1,84) = .657, p=.542. amass, ea.=.43; m=5.74,
sA.=.56), due to a ceihng effect for the variable. Chants in both groups reported high
perceived hking for their counselors. AN COVA analysis also found that comfort

significantly influenced hking F( 1,85) = 16.45, p>.001, n2 = .14 (Ml.=5.20, s.d.=.32,

 

@461, sp.=.48). There was also a weak education by group interaction such that those
clients who had at least a bachelors degree liked their counselor more than those chants
with less education F(1,21) =3.12, p.=.05, n2 = .05 M=6.02, s_.d.=.31; _M_2=5.54,

ad.=.36).

73

There was also no difference between groups in terms of counselor perceived

similarity t(1,83)=.62, p=.546 M426, s.d.=.84; M2=4.08., ad.=.83). Chants in both

 

groups perceived their counselors to be of less than average similarity (scale mean = 4.5).
However, there was an age by group effect in that those chants who were closer in age to
their counselor perceived greater similarity F(1,42) = 13.81, p>.01, n2 = .10 (M1=548,

_s_.d.=.43; M2_=4.64, s.d.=.68). To control for similarity in victimization, counselors were

 

asked not to tell their chants if they had also been previously abused in a relationship
during the first interaction. All counselors reported that they did not tell their chants
about their abuse history. An AN OVA confirmed that shelter counselors did not reveal
this information during the first interaction as there was no difl‘erence in perceived
similarity between those chants who interacted with previously abused counselors over
those who had no prior abuse history (F (1, 79) = 1.32, p=.587 (_M_1_=3.56, _s_._<_l_.=.49;
fl=3.87, ad.=.4l). In most instances, chants did not perceive their counselors to be
former survivors of abuse themselves.

In assessing chant perceived empathy, there were no difi‘erences between the
groups F (1,85) = .637, p=.537 (_hfl = 4.52, s_.d.=.43; & = 4.41, s_.d.=.61). Chants
perceived their counselor to possess an average amount of empathy during the
interaction. As empathy was composed of counselor perceived perspective taking and
counselor perceived emotional concern, each of these variables were analyzed separately.
There were no differences evident in counselor perceived perspective taking between the
experimental and control groups T(1,85) = .609, p=.456 (Ml=504, §,Q1_=.82;M2_=4.93,
s_.d.=.71. Chants in both groups thought their counselors were able to ahgn themselves

with their perspective during the interaction. However, there was a group by previous

74

shelter stay interaction F (1,24) = 3.92, p=.05, n2 = .048 Chants who had been to a
shelter before did perceived the counselor in the experimental group as more able to
demonstrate the client’s perspective taking than a counselor with whom they had

previously interacted. There were also no differences between the groups in terms of

emotional contagion T(1,85) = 1.32, p=. 187 Ml= 5.27, s.d.=.49; _M_2 = 5.02, s_.d.=.52).

 

Clients in both groups believed that their counselors seemed genuinely able to understand
their feehngs without becoming emotionally involved in the conversation. There were no
other main effects or interactions indicated with ANOVA or AN COVA analyses.

When assessing counselor perceived trust, significant differences were evident
between the two groups T(1,84) = 4.36, p>.05 (L_41= 6.28, ad.=.49; _M_2= 5.41, ag.=.61).
Chants in the experimental condition reported greater trust for their counselor than those
chants in the control group. No other main efi‘ects or interactions were indicated with
ANOVA or ANCOVA analyses.

Thus, H5 was not consistent with the data. No differences were reported between
the conditions for perceived hking, similarity and empathy. The variable of perceived
trust was the only one for which a significant difference was obtained between the

experimental and control conditions.

75

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Summof Results
This dissertation explored the communication accommodation proposition that
accommodation is perceived when accommodative behaviors are performed. Although
this has been assumed in prior studies, this dissertation was the first to measure its
existence. In addition, the behaviors enacted during counselor-chant interaction were
identified as contingent and not a mere exchange based on the norm of reciprocity. This
dissertation also explored the evaluation of accommodative behaviors in terms of
counselor perceived hking, similarity, empathy and trust. Chants in the counselor trained
communication accommodation condition did report greater trust in their counselor but
no difi‘erences were reported between the two groups for counselor perceived hking,
similarity and empathy. In addition, counselors’ accommodation was tested to see if it
affected chant wilhngness to continue counsehng. Communication accommodation led to
increased chant reports of greater willingness to continue therapy. It also led to more
exphcit and longer joumaling of chant abuse stories.

The participants in this study were quite typical of the domestic violence
population. Forty one percent of the women were first time chants at any shelter; this was
in hne with the 50% first-time shelter use rate (Hotaling, et. al., 1992). Their age,
education and ethnicity were also in hne with typical domestic violence survivors
characteristics: many of them were young (i.e., mean age was 27), their education level
varied from a high school diploma to higher education, and their ethnicity was reflective
of their geographic region (i.e., Michigan has a high Caucasian population). In addition,

these women experience a wide diversity of abuse experiences ranging from the physical,

76

emotional, and sexual to the financial. Yet, one interesting characteristic of these chants
was their number of prior abusive relationships.

Approximately 52 of the 88 chants reported at least two and as many six to ten
prior abusive relationships. One or two abusive relationships would not be unusual for
these women, however, six to ten abusive relationships suggests a behavioral pattern.
And, many of these women had reported repeated use of shelters. According to Strube
and Barbour (1984) one third of the women in shelters return to their partners within
several weeks of an abusive event, and were back in the shelter in approximately two
months for repeated support. Hutchinson and Hirschel (1998) have also found that most
women leave their abusive partner five times before engaging in active and dehberate
changes for permanent relationship abandonment. While it is possible that many of these
women were not ready to actively deal with decisions of relational termination or able to
engage the partner in behavior modification counseling, it is equally as hkely that the
counsehng they received at previous shelters was not efi‘ective. A lack of effective
counsehng is both time-consuming (i.e., counsehng takes longer), expensive (i.e.,
keeping counselors employed to service the same person repeatedly reduces shelter
resources) difficult (i.e., client may leave counseling without progress). As this study
demonstrated that communication accommodation was successfirl in engaging chants in
counseling, it is recommended that counselors need to actively manage their presence
when they are with their chants.

Those counselors who received the communication accommodation training
workshop appeared to have a wider skill base or communication repertoire from which to

access their chents’ frame of reference as demonstrated by the clients posttests and

77

journals. This could be the result of some counselors being more adept in interacting
with their chants, or particular training and education in counsehng they have received. It
would be interesting to track these newly trained counselors over time to deterrnina if the
use of communication accommodation during therapy speeds up the healing process by
engaging chants more actively in counseling and thus, helping these women make faster
decisions about their desire to remain in these abusive relationships. To strengthen these
results, it would also be important to measure different areas of a counselor’s training in
an efi‘ort to exphcate which counsehng behaviors produced the effects obtained in this
dissertation.

In terms of the journal writings, clients across all conditions were very
forthcoming with information to counselors about their abuse histories. While chants who
had experienced single-instance or multiple-instance abuse in the short-term
demonstrated differences between the control and experimental groups, no differences
were reported for those chants in the multiple-instance, long-term abuse category. It is
hkely that the chants in the single-instance and multiple-instance, short-term abuse
categories have not been as psychologically damaged by the abuse as those in the
multiple-abuse, long-term abuse category and this is why the communication skills of the
counselors may have impacted their behavioral responses. However, chants in the
multiple-instance, long-term abuse category produced highly informative statements
regarding their abuse. This suggests that these chants were active participants in the
therapy process and already willing to continue counsehng regardless of the variables

under study.

78

Yet, this author must caution that the outcomes obtained could be a firnction of
individual difi‘erences (i.e., those chants in the experimental condition enjoyed writing
more than those in the control condition). It is possible that their responses were a
summary of what they had communicated to their counselor and not a reflection of the
communication skills under study.

For the most part, the information contained in the accounts across both
conditions was similar. This could be the result of only asking one long question (2 parts)
about the interaction to not burden the chants as they are beginning therapy. It is also
plausible that chant journal accounts are only a reflection of what counselors were able to
access in their chants during the session. Hence, as the context of the interaction was
narrowly scripted, clients may have only reported those pieces information that were
sahent. Thus, even though some of the clients in the experimental condition appeared to
be more engaged in telling their stories, the journals only identify part of the interaction
between chants and their counselors.

Hypothesis two argued that counselors use of accommodative behaviors would
increase a chents’ wilhngness to continue therapy. Those chants in the experimental
condition did report greater willingness to continue therapy over those in the control
condition. This finding demonstrates that the use of accommodative behaviors by an
individual signals to the other that they possess social worth, which in turn, afi‘ects their
motivation to continue the interaction. According to CAT, this motivation is central to an
individual wanting to pursue an interaction firrther. Counselors, through their behaviors,
were able to create some level of motivation with their chants. J ones and colleagues

(1994) found that accommodative behavior increased ratings of interaction continuance

79

between students and their lecturers during grade discussions. This study was unable to
determine if motivation affected interaction continuance as this dissertation did not
involved scripted behaviors between the pair as J ones and colleagues (1994) had done in
their videotape stimulus. Future studies involving the counseling setting, especially
longitudinal ones, should attempt to discern if accommodative behaviors affect, and to
what extent they afi‘ect, the length of the interaction between counselors and their chants,
and if this impacts reports of willingness to continue therapy or actual continuance of
therapy. Still, it was positive to learn that even in the control condition chants
demonstrated some level of willingness to continue therapy. This indicates that even
though accommodation does influence wilhngness, most counselors possess enough skill
to entice chants into thinking they should continue therapy after a first session (i.e., “it
would be okay to meet with this counselor again”).

Hypothesis three argued that verbal and nonverbal accommodation behavior by
counselors would result in perceived accommodation by chants. The data seem to suggest
that chants do perceive accommodation through both the questionnaire and their journal
writings. This finding overcomes the previous shortcomings of many CAT studies which
assume that accommodation is perceived by individuals if they enact a behavior that is
reactive (either convergent or divergent) to another. It does not, however, answer the
criticism of IAT regarding behavioral contingency. While chants and counselors
appeared to have an awareness of these behaviors as evident through both sets of journal
writings, this finding is an important first step for both clarifying that perceived

accommodation exists as well as how perceived accommodation can be measured.

80

Moreover, it was important to identify that those individuals for whom it was their

first abusive relationship were more receptive to the counselor’s accommodation
behaviors. This finding reinforces other studies that demonstrate the effects of long-term
abuse. According to Gelles and Straus (1990), domestic violence creates psychological
trauma in their victims. It affects how they think and react to others, often resulting in
lower self-esteem, depression, anxiety, stress and psychological entrapment (Gelles,
1976; Gelles & Straus, 1988; Harnberger & Potente, 1994). Perhaps, those clients who
were previously abused were too self-absorbed in unpacking their abuse experiences to
recognize their counselors’ use of accommodative behaviors. However, it is also possible
that some counselors were more adept at making their chants feel comfortable. Although
a path model was not conducted on this data, it is hkely that perceived comfort leads to
greater openness to the counselor and receptivity to the counselor’s behaviors. Future
studies should utilize a thought listing task after the counsehng session to determine what
chants were thinking about during the interaction and if they were focused on the
conversation and the counselors’ role during the interaction.

Another important finding was that there was an education by group efi‘ect in that
chants with more higher education were more receptive to the counselor’s
accommodation behaviors. It is possible that education may make chants more aware of
their communicative behaviors and/or made them more adaptive in their communication
repertoires. Future studies should examine if education enhances both participant
awareness and participant behavior adaptation, and the extent to which education affects

the amount of perceived accommodation one experiences during an interaction.

81

Finally, as the journal accounts demonstrated far more accommodation than came
across in the survey results, this author contends that the operationahzation of perceived
accommodation should be strengthened in its measurement. Although the scale used in
this study did generate the outcome of perceived accommodation and had been used in a
prior study (Murray-Johnson, 2001), additional outcomes such as personal interviews or
greater questionnaire structure should be used to access the level of both quantity and
quahty of perceived accommodation. One example of this would be to further
differentiate the relationship of comfort to perceived accommodation. In this study, both
groups reported similar levels of comfort that were scaled as above average. Hence, this
study can only assume that feehngs of comfort by chants did affect the perceived
accommodation of counselors; yet, one can not estabhsh the extent to which comfort
influenced the chants’ perceived accommodation ratings.

Hypothesis four argued that counselors who had used more attuning strategies
would be rated higher in terms of interpretabihty, discourse management and role
flexibihty than those counselors who did not use these strategies as widely in their
sessions. Only one of the three results was obtained; counselors in the experimental group
did reported significantly higher ratings of interpretabihty by their chants than those
counselors in the wait-hst control group. Discourse management and role flexibility of
counselors were rated to be very similar across the two groups. The discourse
management strategies displayed by counselors were very strong, probably attesting to
their professional counsehng training and/or years of experience as a counselor.
Interpersonal control strategies (i.e. operationalized as role flexibihty) results were only

average, and most hkely a function of this study’s interaction being a first-time

82

interaction for both participants, and the scope of the interaction hmited to unpacking the
chants abuse experience.

Although this study was unable to determine which specific accommodative
behaviors contributed to these findings, it was encouraging to learn that most counselors
already have adequate interpretability, discourse management and interpersonal control
strategies to use in their counsehng interactions. Again, it was found that education
played a significant role in enhancing receptivity of one of the strategies; namely, role
flexibility. Chants who possessed at least a bachelor’s degree rated counselors higher in
their use of interpersonal control strategies than those in the control group. However, the
ratings still hover around the average (i.e., M=4.68 as compared to scale M=4.5). Yet,
these results are encouraging when compared with chants who possess less education and
rated their chants well below average (M=3 .9). Thus, use of interpretabihty, discourse
management and role flexibihty do assist counselors in demonstrations of
accommodative behavior with chants. Future studies should determine the extent to
which these strategies also assist in developing perceptions of accommodation in this
population.

Finally, Hypothesis five argued that counselors in the experimental condition who
were trained in accommodative behaviors would be evaluated more positively than
counselors in the wait-hst control condition in terms of chant perceived liking, similarity,
empathy, and trust. Results indicated that there were no difi‘erences in perceived hking as
both sets of counselors were highly hked by their chants. This could be the result of
chants feehng that they were vahdated and socially supported by their counselors in

terms of their abuse experienced (Johnson, Crowley, & Sigler, 1992). It could also be the

83

effect of chants feeling comfortable with their counselors, despite it being a first-time
interaction (as demonstrated by the AN COVA results).

In terms of similarity, it was interesting to find that the majority of shelter chants
did not perceive themselves to be similar to their counselors, despite many similarities
across the groups in terms of victimization, education, socioeconomic status and prior use
of counsehng. Only age served as a factor to affect perceived similarity in that those who
believed themselves to be the same as their counselor thought their counselor was more
similar to them. Comfort with the counselor did not affect the outcome of similarity as it
did with the variable perceived hking.

One reasons chants may not have perceived themselves as similar to their
counselors could be that they were entering the shelter in a state of crisis. While most
chants may have hked their counselor at the end of their first session, many may not have
thought about what could have made them similar. In addition, as this study controlled
for actual similarity by asking shelter counselors not to divulge their prior abuse
experience, telling this information to clients may arguably help to increase these ratings.
However, these findings do not to suggest that counselors share their sensitive histories
with chants during a first interaction. It may be better to first understand the chent’s
frame of reference and then use this information to determine if telling this information
would serve as a benefit to the chant.

There were no difl‘erences in terms of perceived empathy due to perceived
perspective taking or emotional contagion or the effects of both variables. Chants in both
conditions behaved their counselors possessed an above average ability to demonstrate

perspective taking as well as demonstrate emotional concern. This could be the result of

84

counselor training, counselor experience and/or the population under study.
Accommodative behaviors did not appear to influence the outcomes of this variable. Yet,
it was interesting to note the interaction effect created by condition and prior shelter use.
Clients who used shelters before behaved the current counselors were more empathic
than their previous ones. This could be the result of a counseling recency effect in which
the most recent interaction is rated as more preferred than a prior interaction. Yet, as this
study was unable to track these clients abuse and counseling use history, the counselors
in both conditions may or may not have been more empathic. This author contends that
this interaction efi‘ect must be analyzed in future studies.

Despite the lack of difi‘erences in the variables of hking, similarity and empathy
between the two groups, a significant difference was found for the trust variable. Chants
in the experimental condition were far more hkely to trust their counselors than those
chants in the wait-hst control condition. Yet, the levels of trust were relatively high
between both conditions demonstrating that even in a first- time interaction, domestic
violence chants are willing to place some level of trust in their counselors.

Surprising, the variable of comfort did not afi‘ect the outcomes of trust. Trust
appeared to be solely influenced by the performance of accommodation. This is a
valuable contribution to both the domestic violence as well as communication
accommodation hterature. Ifthe use of accommodation behaviors by counselors
improves the outcomes of trust, then counselors may be able to rely on trust to motivate
change in chant cognitions. It may have the potential to increase the number of
counsehng sessions for treatment by improving chant retention. In terms of the

communication accommodation hterature, trust may be used to improve communicative

85

goals between of heterogenous individuals or homogenous individuals operating in
specific contexts (e.g., doctor-patient communication).
Mions for Counselors

The results obtained in this study demonstrate that communication
accommodation may be one tool for counselors to use to engage their chants in an
interaction. There are several irnphcations generated from these findings. First,
counselors need to carefirlly assess their chents’ educational background. Those clients
who possessed higher education (i.e. college and beyond) are more hkely to respond
favorably to the accommodative behaviors than those chants who have less education.
Second, counselors’ must attend to their chents’ age if perceived similarity is a goal of
the encounter. Counselors are more hkely to achieve perceived similarity if they are
within several years of their chents’ ages. Third, counselors must pay attention to chents’
prior use of shelter services. Those chants who had used a shelter’s services before were
more apt to perceive counselor empathy than those who had not. Thus, counselors must
understand how demographic information can greatly assist them in finding connections
with their chants to make counsehng sessions more productive.

As noted in the results, counselors did not tell their chants about their own prior
victimization that, if discussed, could have positively influenced this outcome.
Unfortunately, many of the counselors with whom the investigators interacted during this
study, did not appear to be reticent with chants on this issue. In fact, many candidly
admitted that they often used this information as an icebreaker for subsequent

interactions. It is hkely that counselors should continue to present this information if they

86

behave that their clients would benefit fi'om knowing it (i.e., increase perceived
similarity).

The accommodative behaviors generated in this study for one-on—on interactions
should be used cautiously in a group setting. Although group therapy is a very productive
method for providing chants with social support, peer mentoring, and information about
how to reduce violence and increase self-sufficiency (Blau & Long, 1999), directing
accommodation behaviors in group counsehng can be difiicult at best. While it is
possible to focus accommodation behaviors at one or two individuals simultaneously, not
accommodating everyone could lead to chant perceptions of isolation or counselor lack
of interest. Again, this is in reference to CAT’s concern about power differentials in a
communication relationship. If recalled, it is enough for a perception of a power
difi‘erence for individuals to perceive their communication contributions as having less
social worth. If counselors demonstrate accommodation to say halfthe group, this could
be very detrimental to the other half; it could slot down chant progress, increase reticence
or have chants and therapy all together. Thus, it is recommended that counselor-chant
accommodation remain a therapeutic tool for only dyadic interactions.

Finally, it appeared that counselors’ who modified their verbal and nonverbal
behavior to be convergent with their clients’ created greater bonds of trust with them.
This meant chants were wilhng to take greater risks in self-disclosing information to their
counselors (i.e., vulnerability). Through the act of self-disclosure it increased
interdependence between the counselors and their chants because chants perceived that
their information would not be divulged. Although this study could not determine if

perceived accommodation led to greater comfort that built the bonds of trust,

87

accommodation influenced stronger trust between counselors and their chants. If
communication accommodation behavior is able to improve trust in such a short period
of time, it is recommended that counselors pay attention to how their verbal and
nonverbal displays affect their chants. As trust can be build through communication
activities, it can also be damaged by poor attempts or inappropriate behavior displays
during interactions.

Limitations

The results of this study must be interpreted cautiously given the hmitations of
performing field research. There were many variables that could not be controlled in
working with this population (i.e., number of prior relationships, shelter use, types of
abuse experienced) and any number of them could have enhanced or reduced the effects
found in this study. Although several limitations have already been discussed, additional
factors bear mentioning.

First, there was a strong selection bias for both the counselors as well as their
chant. Shelters were allowed to select which counselors were able to attend the
experimental training or participate in the control condition. Some of the counselors in
the experimental condition were very experienced (i.e., 15 years) while others were sent
to the training to improve their skills (i.e., the shelter had identified these counselors as
having a deficit in their role as a counselor). Thus, the results might have been different
with a different set of counselors. Similarly, the chants who chose to participate may
have done so for different reasons (i.e., altruism or potential monetary compensation).
Their motivation may not have been to engage in the counsehng interaction (i.e., in hne

with Communication Accommodation Theory’s motivations of social approval, identity,

88

and communication efficiency) but to win a lottery drawing. With a difl'erent set of
participants, the results of this study may have been altered.

Second, there was little abihty to control any of the counselors’ actual behavior
during the study. As the investigators were unable to observe the interactions due to
chant anonymity and confidentiality, there is no way to determine how many or which of
the accommodative behaviors were most effective in producing the study’s outcomes.
There was also an inabihty to control counselors’ content-level and relational-level
messages. It is possible that some of the results were due to other counselor behaviors
and not a product of the experiment itself. Thus, the investigators hesitate promoting a
large shift in counselor behavior until the behaviors can be further analyzed in another
study.

Third, the outcomes produced in this study can not be generalized to other
populations or other contexts. The chants were women who predominantly experienced
heterosexual abuse. It is not known how same sex violence (i.e., male-male or female-
female) or female-male violence counseling would differ. Moreover, all of the counselors
were females and it is know known if cross-sex interactions would have produced
different results. According to Pederson (1999), male counselors sometimes take a
different stylistic approach to counsehng; often, there is less time spent on discussing the
issues and more time spent on creating methods to solve them. Thus, future studies
focusing on communication accommodation need to utilize different p0pulations within

the counsehng setting to determine if the results obtained in this study can be rephcated.

89

Conclusion

Overall, this dissertation focused on the used of verbal and nonverbal
accommodative behaviors by counselors in the domestic violence counsehng arena to
produce perceived accommodation in clients as well as create positive evaluations for the
counselors by their clients. It was found that the production of accommodative behaviors
by counselors did increase chant perceptions of accommodation as well as increase chant
perceptions of counselor trust. These results are important for build rapport during the
interaction which is central for creation a counseling ‘relationship’ (Pederson, 1999).
According to Pederson (1999), by synchronizing “a sense of language and reahty in
which people can communicate there can be cooperative social influence processes that
evolve over time” (p.5). Communication accommodation is the method by which
counselors develop this sense of shared language and reahty. In accessing their chents’
fiame of reference they can engage the chant in the interaction and renew that chent’s
motivation to jointly participate in the dialogue. Over time, one would expect that the
chants also begin to share in the language of their counselors, although this was not the
direct focus of this study. Hence, the use of communication accommodation can be a vital
tool for helping counselors and clients merge their behaviors in a manner that is both
appropriate and acceptable to the other.

Future studies need to uncover how long it takes clients and counselor to agree
upon the accommodative behaviors most important for their interaction. In addition,
participant observation of these interaction would be beneficial for determine how
accommodation afi‘ects the quantity and quahty of self-disclosure by a chant. This

dissertation was a first step in highlighting the important of perceived accommodation in

90

 

the counsehng context as well working with a vulnerable population that could benefit

from the use of accommodative behaviors to begin the healing process.

91

REFERENCES

Aronsson, K., Jonsson, L., & Linell., P.(1987). The courtroom hearing as middle ground:
Speech accommodation by lawyers and defendants. Journal of ngage and

Social Pachologyfi, 99-116.

Austin, J .B., & Dankwort, J. (1999). The impact of a batterers’ program on battered
women. Violence Against Wommi 25-42.

Ball, P., Giles, H., & Hewstone, M. (1985). Interpersonal accommodation and situational
construals: An intergrative fomrahsation. In H. Giles & R St. Clair (Eds), Recent
advances in langaage, communication and social pgchology. (pp. 263-286).

London: Lawrence Erlbaum,

Bah, P., Giles, H., Byme, J .L., & Berechree, P. (1984). Situational constraints on the
evaluative significance of speech accommodation: Some Austrahan data.
International Journfl of the Sociology of Language, 46, 115-130.

Barrett-Lennard, G.T.(1962). Dimensions of therapist response as causal factors in
therapeutic change. Paychologig Monpgrapha 76, No. 43, 562-569.

Berger, C.R., & Bradac, J .J . (1982). Language and social knowledge. London: Edward
Arnold.

Berger, C.R., & Roloff, ME. (1980). Social cognition, self-awareness, and interpersonal
communication. In B. Dervin & M.J. Voight (Eds), Proggess in communication
sciences (Vol 2, pp. 1-50). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Blau, G.M., & Long, D. (1999). Prediction, assessment and treatment of family violence.
In. R.L. Hampton (Ed), Family violence (2“l edition). (pp. 309-337). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

Bond, M.H. (1985). Language as a carrier of ethnic stereotypes in Hong Kong. Journal of
Social Psychology, 125, 53- 62.

Bourhis, KY. (1985). The sequential nature of language choices in cross-cultural
communication. In R. Street & J. Capella (Eds), Saguence and pattern in
communiaative behavior. (pp. 120-140). London: Edward Arnold.

Bouhris, KY. (1979). Language in ethnic interactions: A social psychological

approach. In H. Giles & B. St. Jacques (Eds), Langaage and eth_nic relations.
flip. 117-141). Oxford: Pergamon.

92

 

Bouhris, R.Y., & Genesse, F. (1980). Evaluative reactions to code-switching strategies in
Montreal. IN H. Giles, W.P. Robinson & P.Smith (Eds), Language: Social

psychological paramives. flip. 335-343). Oxford: Pergamon.

Bouhris, RY., & Giles, H. (1977). The language of inter-group distinctiveness. In H.

Giles (Ed), Language, ethnicity, and interggoup relations. (pp. 119-135).
London: Academic Press.

Bourhris, RY., Giles, H., Leyens, J .P., & Taijfel, H. (1979). Psychohnguistic
distinctiveness: Language divergence in Belgium. In H. Giles & R St. Clair
(Eds), Language and sucial psychology. (pp. 158-185). Oxford: Blackwell.

Bourhis, RY., Roth, S., & MacQueen, G. (1988). Communication in the hospital setting:
A survey of medical and everyday language use amongst patients, nurses and
doctors. Soaial Science and Medicine. 24. 1-8.

Bowker, LB. (1988). The effect of methodology on subjective estimates of the
differential effectiveness of personal strategies and help sources used by battered
women. In G.T. Hotahng, D. Findkelhor, J.T. Kirkpatrick, & M.A Straus (Eds),

Coping with family violence: Research and pohcy perspectives. (pp. 80-93).
Newbury Park, CA; Sage.

 

Bradac, J .J ., & Mulac, A. (1984). Attributional consequences of powerful and powerless

speech styles in a crisis-intervention context. Journal of Language and Social
Ps cholo 3 1-19.

Bradac, J .J ., Mulac, A., & House, A. (1988). Lexical diversity and magnitude of
convergent versus divergent style-shifting: Perceptual and evaluative

consequences. Language and Communigatiop, 8, 213-228.

Brown, J. (1997). Working toward freedom from violence: The process of change in
battered women. Violence Against Women. 3. 5-26.

Brown, R, & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeneas: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burgoon, J.K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration
and apphcation to immediacy behaviors. Cpmmunicatipn Monoggaphs,55, 58-79.

Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984). The funmamental topoi of relational commnication.
Communication Monographs, 51, 193-214.

Burgoon, J .K, Buller, D.B., & Woodall, W.G.(1996). Nonverbal communication:
unsppken dialogue (2nd edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

93

 

 

Burgoon, J .K., Dillman, L., & Stern, LA. (1993). Adaptation in dyadic interaction:
Defining and operationahzing patterns of reciprocity and compensation.
Communication Theory, 3, 295-315.

Burgoon, J .K., Stern, L.A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Intemersonal adaptation: Dyadic
interaction patterns. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Byme, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Byme, M.E., Clore, G. L., & Smeaton, G. (1986). The repulsion hypothesis: On the

nondevelopment of relationships. Journal of Personalig and Social Psychology,
5_1, 1 156-1 160.

Callan, V.J., & Gallois, C. (1982). Language attitudes of the Italo-Austrahan & Greek
Austrahan bilinguals. International Journal of Psychology, 17, 345-358.

Campbell, J .C., (1989). A test of two explanatory models of women’s responses to
battering. Nursing Research. 38. 12-24.

Carkhuff, R., & Berenson, B. (1980). Thu at pf halping IV. Amherst, MA: Human
Resource Development Press.

Carkhuff, R., & Traux, C. (1967). Towards counseling and paychotherapy: Training and
practice. Chicago: Aldine.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Condon, W.S., & Ogston, W.D. (1967). A segmentation of behavior. Journal of
Paychiatric Research. 5. 221-235.

Coupland, N. (1984). Accommodation at work: Some phonological data and their
irnphcations. International Joumm of the Sociolpgy of Lanmage,46, 49-70.

Coupland, N. (1980). Style-shifting in a Cardiff work-setting. Language in Society. 9.
1-12.

Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1990). Language and later hfe. In H. Giles & W.P.
Robinson (Eds), Handbook of language and social psychology. (pp. 451-468).
Chichester: Wiley.

Coupland, N., Coupland, J ., Giles, H., & Henwood, K. (1988). Accommodating the
elderly: Invoking and extending a theory. Language in Society. 17. 1-41.

Cox, J .W., & Stoltenberg, C .D. (1991). Evaluation of the treatment program for battered
wives. Joumal of F amily Violence. 6. 395-413.

94

 

Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirabihty independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

Daly, J .A., Vangehsti, A.L., & Daughton, SM. (1987). The nature and correlates of
conversational sensitivity. Human Communication Research, 14, 167-202.

Edwards, H., & Noller, P. (1993). Perceptions of overaccommodation used by nurses in

communication with the elderly. Journal of Language and Social Paychology, 12,
207-223.

Ferrara, K. (1991). Accommodation in therapy. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland,

(Eds). Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics.
(pp. 187-223). New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

Ferraro, K.J., & Johnson, J .M. (1983). How women experience battering: The process of
victimization. Social Problems 30 325-339.

 

Floyd, K. (1999). To match or not to match: Effects of behavioral congruence on
interpersonal connectedness. The Jourual of Socfl Psychology, 139, 309-322.

Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (1988). Communication accommodation and the prototypical
speaker: Predicting evaluations of sohdarity and status. Language and
Communication, 8, 271-283.

Gallois, C., & Callan, V.J. (1985). Situational influences on perceptions of accented

speech. In J .P. Forgas, (Ed), Language and social situations (pp. 159-193). New
York: Springer-Verleg.

Gallois, C., Callan, V.J., & Johnstone, M. (1984). Personahty judgements of Austrahan
Aborigine and white speakers: Ethnicity, sex and context. Journal of Language
an_d Social Psychology, 3, 39-57.

Gallois, C., Barker, M., Jones, E., & Callan,V. (1992). Intercultural communication:
Evaluations of lecturers and Austrahan and Chinese students. In
S. Iwawaki, Y. Kashima, & K. Leung (Eds,), Innovations in cross-cultural
paychology. (pp. 86-102). Amsterdam: Swets & Zaithnger.

 

Gallois, C., Franklyn-Stokes, A., Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1988). Communication
accommodation theory and intercultural encounters: Intergroup and interpersonal
considerations. In Y.Y. Kim & W.B. Gudykunst, (Eds), Theories of intercultural

communication. (p. 157-185). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

95

 

Gallois, C., & Giles, H. (1998). Accommodating mutual influence in intergroup\
encounters. In M. Palmer & G.A. Barnett (Series Eds), & G.A. Barnett
(Vol.Ed.), Mutual influence in interpersonal communication: Theory, and
research in cognition, affect and behavior. Progress in communication scienaa,
(pp. 135-162). Stamford, CT; Ablex.

Gahois, C., Giles, H., Jones, E., Cargile, A., & Ota, H. (1995). Accommodating
intercultural encounters: Elaborations and extensions. In R. Wiseman (Ed),
Intercultural communication theory (pp. 115-147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gelles, R]. (1999). Family violence. In. RL. Hampton (Ed), Family violence.
(pp. 1-33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gelles, RJ. (1976). Abused wives: Why do they stay? Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 38, 659-668.

Gelles, RJ., & Straus, MA. (1990). The medical and psychological costs of family
violence. In M.A. Straus & R.J. Gelles (Eds), Physical violence in Amean

families: Risk factors and adaptations to violerma, (pp. 1-22). New Brunswick,
NJ :Transaction Pubhshing.

Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobihty: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics,
fl. 87-105.

Giles, H., Bourhis, R, & Taylor, D. (1977). Toward a theory of language in ethnic group

relations. In H. Giles (Ed), Language, ethnicig, & interggoup relations. (pp. 42-
65). London: Academic Press.

Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Languaga: Contexts and coumquences. Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.

Giles, H., Coupland, J ., & Coupland, N. (1991). Accommodation theory:
Communication, context and consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N.
Coupland, (Eds). flats of accommodation: Developments in applied
appiohnguigics. (pp. 1-67). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Giles, H., Coupland, N., Williams, R. & Leets, K. (1991). Integrating theory in the study
of minority languages. In R. L. Cooper & B. Spolsky (Eds), The influence of
language on culture and thougm (pp. 113-136). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Giles, H., Henwood, K., Coupland, N., Harriman, J ., & Coupland, J. (1990). The social
meaning of RP: An intergenerational perspective. In S. Ramsaran (Ed. ), Studies
in the pronounciation of English: A commemorative volu_me in honour of AC.

Gimson. (pp. 212-224) London: Routledge.

96

‘3’...-

Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1987). Ethnohnguistic identity theory: A social psychological
approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 68, 66-99.

Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J ., & Johnson, P. (1986). Speech accommodation theory.

In M. McLaughlin (Ed), Communication yearbook 10. (pp. 86—101). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Giles, H., & Powesland, P. (1975). Spaech style and social evaluation. London:
Academic Press.

Giles, H., & Smith, R, (1979). Accommodation theory. In H. Giles & R St. Clair (Eds),
Lauguaga and social pfichology. (pp. 179-199). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Giles, H., & Street, R. (1985). Communicator characteristics and behavior. In M.L.

Knapp and GR Miller (Eds), Handbook of interpersonal communication. (pp.
205-261). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

unseen—q

Giles, H., Taylor, D.M., & Bourhis, R. (1973). Toward a theory of interpersonal
accommodation through speech: Some Canadian data. Language in Sociagz, 2,
177-192.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of selfin everyday hfe. New York: Doubleday.

Gregory, SW. (1983). A quantitative analysis of temporal symmetry in microsocial
relations. Americam Sociolochal Review. 48, 129-135.

Gregory, S.W., Dagan, K., Webster, S. (1997). Evaluating the relation of vocal
accommodation in conversational partners’ fundamental frequencies to
perceptions of communication quahty. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 21 23 ~43.

 

Gudykunst, W. (1985). The influence of cultural similarity and type of relationship on
uncertainty reduction processes. Communication Monographs,52, 203-217.

Hamberger, L. K., & Potente, T. (1994). Counsehng women arrested for domestic
violence: Irnphcations for theory and practice. Violence and Victims__9,125-138.

 

Hamilton, HE. (199]). Accommodation and mental disabihty. In H. Giles, J. Coupland,
& N. Coupland (Eds), Contexts of accommodation. (pp. 157-186). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.

Harwood, J., Giles, H., Ryan, E. B., Fox, 8, & Wilhams, A (1993). Patronizing young

and elderly adults: Response strategies in a community setting. Journal of Apphed
Communication. 2L 211-226.

97

Henwood, K., Giles, H., Coupland, J ., & Coupland, N. (1993). Stereotyping and afi’ect in
discourse: Interpreting the meaning of elderly, painful self—disclosure. In D.M.
Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds), Affect, cogitiorr and stereogrping: Interpretive
processes in goup perpaption. (pp. 269-296). San Diego, CA: Sage.

Hewitt, R. (1986). Whita mlk black talk: Inter-rapial fiiandship and communication
among adolescents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hewstone, M., & Giles, H. (1986). Social groups and social stereotypes in intergroup
communication: Review and model of intergroup communication breakdown. In
W.B. Gudykunst (Ed), Intergroup communication (pp. 10-26). London: Edward
Arnold.

Hildebrandt, N., & Giles, H. (1984). The Japanese as subordinate group: Ethnohnguistic
identity theory in a foreign language context. Anthropological Liaguistma. 25.
433-466.

Hogg, M. (1985). Mascuhne and feminine speech in dyads and groups: A study of speech
style and gender sahence. Journal of Language and Social Psychologyd, 99-112.

Hotahng, G., Straus, M., & Lincoln, A. (1989). Intrafarnily violence and crime and
violence outside the family. In L. Ohlin & M. Tonry, (Eds), Familyviolence. (pp.
33-66). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

Hutchison, I.W., & Hirschel, J .D. (1998). Abused women. Violence Against Womm 4,
436-456.

Johnson, I.M., Crowley, J., & Sigler, RT. (1992). Agency response to domestic violence:
Services provided to battered women. In EC. Vrano (Ed), I_n_t_imam_vi_olmc_a:
Interdispiphnary perspectives (pp. 191-201). Washington: Hemisphere.

Jones, E., Gallois, C., Barker, M., & Callan, V. (1994). Evaluations of interactions
between student and academic stafi‘: Influence of communication
accommodation, ethnic group and status. Journal of Language and Social

Pachology, 13, 158-191.

Jones, E., Gallois, C., Callan, V., & Barker, M. (1999). Strategies of
accommodation: Developing a coding system for conversational interaction.
Journal of Language and Social Behavior.18 123-152.

Jory, B., & Anderson, D. (1999). Intimate justice H: Fostering mutuahty, reciprocity, and
accommodation in therapy for psychological abuse. J oumal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 25, 349-363.

Kelly, E.W., Jr. (1994). leationahip-centered counseLng: An integration of art and
science. New York: Springer Pubhshing Company.

 

98

p

Kincaid, D.L., Yum, J .O., Woelfill, J ., & Barnett, GA. (1983). The cultural convergence
of Korean immigrants in Hawaii. An empirical test of a mathematical model.

Qualiry and Quantig, 18, 59-78.

Labov, W. (1966). The social strafification of English in New York City. Washington,
DC: Center for Apphed Linguistics.

Lafollette, H., & Graham, G. (1986). Honesty and intimacy. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 3, 3-18.

Linell, P. (1991). Accommodation on trial: Processes of communicative accommodation
in courtroom interaction. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland, (Eds).
Contexts of accommodation: Developments in apphed sociohnguistics. (pp. 101-
130). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Loeska, D.R., & Berk, SF. (1983). The work of shelters: Battered women and initial calls
for help. Victirnology, 7, 35-48.

Mearns, D. (1993). The core conditions. In W. Dryden (Ed), Questions arid answers in
counselhng in action (pp. 1-4). Newbury Park: Sage.

Mearns, D., & Thoma, B. (1988). Person-centered counselling in action. London: Sage.

Miller, J .B. (1988). Connections, disconnections and violations. (Working paper No. 3).
Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Paper Series.

Mitchell, RE., & Hodson, CA. (1983). Coping with domestic violence: Social support
and psychological health among battered women. American qumal pf
Consulting Psychology, 11, 629-654.

Mulac, A., Studley, L.B., Weirnann, J.M. & Bradac, JJ. (1987). Male/female gaze in '
same sex and mixed-sex dyads: Gender-linked difi‘erences and mutual influence.
Human Cpmmunication Research. 13. 323-343.

Murray-Johnson, L. (2001). Measuring perceived communication accommodation in
interpersonal communication interactions. An unpubhshed manuscript.

Natale, M. (1975b). Social desirability as related to convergence of temporal speech
patterns. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 827-830.

Nozick, R. (1989). The examined life: Philosophical meditations. New York: Simon &
Schuster.

99

Pederson, P. B. (1999; Hidden messages in culture-centered counselirm: A triad training
model. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Oatley, K., & Johnson-Laird, RN. (1987). Towards a cognitive theory of emotions.
@gritiormaud Emption. 1, 29-50.

O’Keefe, B.J., & Deha, J .G. (1985). Psychological and interactional dimensions of
communication development. In H. Giles, & R St. Clair (Eds), Recent advances

in language. communicamon and social psychology. (pp. 41-85). London:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

 

Okun, RF. (1987). Effective helpirm: Interviewing and counselirrgtechnigues. (3rd
edition).Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Patterson, ML. (1995). A parallel process model of nonverbal communication. Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior. 19. 3-29.

Pierson, H.D., & Bond, M. (1982). How do Chinese bilinguals respond to variations of

interviewer language and ethnicity? Journal of Langu_age and Social Psychology,
1,_123-140.

Purcell, AK. (1984). Code shifting in Hawaiian style: Children’s accommodation along

decreohzing continuum. International Journal of the Sociology of nguage,46,
97-1 14.

Putnam, W., & Street, R. (1984). The conception and perception of noncontent speech
performance: Irnphcations for speech accommodation theory. International
Journal of the Sociolmy of Language, 46,97-114.

Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, RS., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all:
A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Manmemenj Review, 23. 393-404.

Ryan, E.B., & Carranza, M. (197 5). Evaluation of reactions of adolescents toward
speakers of standard Enghsh and Mexican American accented Enghsh. Journal. of
Personath and Social Psychology, 31, 855-863.

Scotton, CM. (1985). What the heck, sir: Style shifting and lexical coloring as features of
powerful language. In RL. Street, Jr. & N. Cappella (Eds), Smuence and pattern
in communication behavior (pp. 103-119). London: Edward Arnold.

Shepard, M.F., & Campbell, J .A. (1992). The abusive behavior inventory: A measure of
psychological and physical abuse. Jourml of Interpersonal Violence. 7, 291-305.

Shockey, L. (1984). All in a flap: Long-term accommodation in phonology. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46, 87-96.

100

Sheppard, B.H., & Sherman, D. M. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general
imphcations. Academy of Management Review. 23, 422-437.

Street, RL. (1991). Accommodation in medical consultations. In H. Giles, J. Coupland,
& N. Coupland, (Eds). Contexts of accommodation: Developments in apphed
sociohnguistics. (pp. 131-156). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Street, R L., Jr. (1982). Evaluation of noncontent speech accommodation. Language and
Communication. 2. 13-31.

Street, RL., Brady, R.N., & Putnam, W.B. (1983). The influence of speech rate
stereotypes and role of similarity on hsteners’ evaluations of speakers. Journal of
Langu_age and Social Psychologyal, 37-56.

Street, R. & Giles, H. (1982). Speech accommodation theory: A social cognitive
approach to language and speech behavior. In M. Roloff & C.R Berger (Eds),
Social cognition and communication. (pp. 193-226). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Stiff, J .B., Dillard, J .P., Somera, L., Kim, H., & Sleight, C. (1988). Empathy,
communication and pro-social behavior. Communication Monographs, 55,
198-213.

Strube, M.J., & Barbour, LS. (1984). Factors related to the decision to leave an abusive
relationship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 837-844.

Strube, M.J., & Barbour, LS. (1983). The decision to leave an abusive relationship:
Economic dependence and psychological commitment. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 45. 785-793.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, LS. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. (3rd edition).
Northridge, CA: HarperCollins.

Taijfel, H., & Turner, J .C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G.

Austin & S. Worchal (Eds), The social s cholo of inter ou relations.
(pp.33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Thakerar, J .N., Giles, H., & Cheshire, J. (1982). Psychological and hnguistic parameters
of speech accommodation theory. In C. Fraser & K.R. Scherer (Eds), Advances

in the social paychology of language. (pp. 205-255). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Triandis, RC. (1960). Cognitive similarity and communication in a dyad. Human
Relations 13 175-183.

 

101

Turner, J.C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel
(Ed), Social identiry and intergroup behavior. (pp. 23-39). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J .H., & Jackson, DD. (1967). Pragmatics of humm
communication: A study of inttmtctional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes.
New York: Norton & Norton.

Wauchope, BA. (1988, March). Help-seeking decisions of battered women: A test of
learned helplessness and two stress theories. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Eastern Sociological Association. Philadelphia, PA.

Webb, J .T. (1970). Interview synchrony: An investigation of two speech rate measures in
an automated standardized interview. In A.W. Siegrnan & B. Pope (Eds), Studies
in dyadic communication. (pp.55-70). Oxford, NY: Pergamon.

Welkowitz, J ., & Kuc, M. (1973). Inter-relationships among warmth, genuineness,
empathy, and temporal speech patterns in interpersonal attraction. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 472-473.

White, S. (1989). Backchannels across cultures: A study of Americans and Japanese.
Language in Society. 18, 59-76.

Whiteman, M., F anshel, D., & Grundy, J .F. (1987, November-December). Cognitive-
behavioral interventions aimed at anger of parent at risk of child abuse. Social

Work, 21, 469—474.

Wilhams, A., Giles, H., Coupland, N., Dalby, M., & Manasse, H. (1990). The
communicative contexts of elderly social support and health: A theoretical model.
Health Communication. 2.123-143.

Woodall, W.G., & Burgoon, J .K. (1983). Talking fast and changing attitudes: A critique
and clarification. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 8 126-142.

 

Yaeger-Dror, M. (1994). Linguistic analysis of dialect “correction” and its interaction
with cognitive sahence. Language Variation and Change, 5, 189-224.

Yaeger-Dror, M. (1988). The influence of changing vitahty on convergence toward a

dominant hnguistic norm: An Israeh example. Language and Communication. 8.
285-306.

102

APPENDD( A

Pre-Intervention Shelter Telephone Survey

Person Completing Form

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contact’s Name: Title:

Director’s Name: (if different) Number of Counselors: __
Shelter Name County

Mailing Address

theL J Faxf ) Email

 

 

 

 

About the individuals who are counselors at your shelter....

Are your counselors pa_id for their time? __ Yes __ No

How many hours a week does each counselor spend with chants ? A month? __
How many clients does each cormselor work with, on average?
On average, how 1mg (time period) does each counselor see a chant?
Whatis the rateofretum formostofyour chants? (# oftimes)

 

About the training your counselors received..."

Did they have training before coming to your shelter? Yes/Number _ No/Number

If Yes, where did they receive their training? Degree program Another shelter _
Certificate Program Govemment/(fed/state/local) Organimtion Domestic Violence
Prevartion Program other

IfNo, what steps did your shelter take to provide training?

 

About how many hours of training did they receive?

 

How long ago did this training occur? _ 6 months, _year _1-4 years _~__5+ years
About how many total hours did you train your counselors?
Do your counselors receive communication training? Yes No (circle one)

Ifyes, please describe training:

 

Ifyes, how many hours of training has been received in this area?

 

103

In what areas of abuse/prevention were they trained? Can you name some specifically? (Let them
tell you and just check ofi’ all that apply; if they can’t tell you, ask fiom the checkhst)

Cycles of Violence Patterns of Abuse Homosexual/Transgendered Violence

_ Safety Plans _ Emotional support __ Legal suplm

__ Shelter services _ Parenting help _ Child care

_ Safety at work __ Behavioral change __ Battering behaviors

__ Mutual abuse __ Marital counseling_ Substance use and abuse
__ Male abuse _ Self-protection _ Building rapport with a chant

If you were to provide additional training to your staff counselors, would you consider
strategies that:

build counselor-chant rapport

build the chant’s skill development

build the chent’s emotional processing (e.g., overcome blocking)

monitor chant progress through new behavior measures

(GO TO SCRIPT FORM)
(F ill this in after the phcrre call)
Was the shelter interested in coming to the training? _ Yes _ No _Not sure

Ifno, what reason was indicated?

 

If unsure, when might they know about participation?

 

Was the shelter receptive to the mail survey? _ Yes No

Ifnot receptive, what reason was indicated?

 

Additional Comments:

Please mark here once mail survey has been sent to the shelter. Date:

 

For reminders to return survey: Call back _#1; _ #2; #3; #4

 

 

104

APPENDIX B

Pre-Intervention Shelter Telephone Survey Script

Introduction: Hello, this is calling from Michigan State University. The reason I am calling
is that Michigan State has received a grant from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation
to better understand how counselors assist those facing domestic abuse. We would really like
your support in this project. Do you have about five minutes for us to talk?

Yes: Wonderfirl. I have a few short questions to ask you before telling you more about the grant.
No: Is there a time later today or tomorrow that would be more convenient for you?

Date and Time: when person can be reached again?

 

Call back _#1; _ #2; #3; #4 Date completed:

 

(GO to DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER FORM)

Thank you for answering these questions. The reason we are so concerned with counselor training
is that Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan wants to help shelters update the commrmication
skills used to help counselors build rapport with their clients. Our go_al is to m_akeyour job ea_si_er
and more effective.

To accomplish this goal, we were wondering if your shelter would be interested in participating in
a study that would involve the communication skills of your counselors. Do you think this is
something your shelter would be interested in?

Yes: Fabulous. What we will do now is send flu a survey, in a self-addressed stamped envelope

with questions similar to what you just answered. We ask gag you return your sters within two
weeks so we can discuss the next §t_ep in the process in March. You will receive more information

in the mail next week.

No: Do you have a barrier that is preventing your participation? (IF yes, mark it down here)

Is there anything we at Michigan State can do to make it possible for your shelter to join the
others around this state in this study? Needs we can help them with:

 

Ifyes,Iwillcontactthegrantsupervisorandseeifwecanmeetthoseneeds.

Ifno, may we still send you a survey sothatyour shelter needs can be accounted be addressed
and included in a report that may affect fiiture funding for Michigan shelters?

Thank you very much for your time. We greatly appreciate your support of this project and

continued work to help so survivors of violence. (If they are coming, thank them for their
participation). Have a nice day.

105

APPENDIX C
Informed Consent for Domestic Violence Female Clients

The purpose of this research is to find out how communication with your counselor can
make a better counseling experience. We would like you to participate in taking a pretest
before your counseling session and then a posttest afterward. Ifyou choose to participate
in this study, your total time commitment will be less than 30 minutes.

Your participation is completely voluntary, and you may choose to not participate at all.
You may refirse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions during
the study. You may choose to discontinue the surveys at any time. If you ch_oose not to
participate it will not affect any of the services that you will receive g this s_helter.

There are very few risks for participation if you should choose to join this study. We
understand that you may feel uncomfortable discussing your experiences with your new
counselor as part of the therapy process. You may also find yourself having positive or
negative attitudes towards your counselor that could affect your desire to continue
counseling. We have attempted to overcome these risks by talking about them with your
counselor and she is prepared to help you every way possible. By answering today’s
pretest and posttest, we hope to gain answers about how counselors can better help you
through this counseling experience.

The counselor with whom you will interact with has also been asked to participate in this
study and sign a consent form similar to yours. The shelters at which you are residing has
also agreed to participate in this study. They will receive a one-time payment of $100 for
their participation even if no clients choose to participate. Ifthe counselor with whom
you are interacting has pressured you to participate in this study, you are to report her
behavior to the shelter Director. If you choose to participate it should be of fi'ee choice.

Ifyou chose to participate, the counselor you will speak to will not have access to any of
your answers at any time during this study. Once you complete the questionnaires, we ask
that you put them back in the sealed envelopes provided to you and hand them to the
counselor, who will then immediately give them to the shelter Director. The shelter
Director will hold these materials until they are sent back to Michigan State University.
During the time that the shelter Director possesses these materials, they will be kept in
either a locked cabinet or locked drawer. No one else will have access to your responses.

To protect you, we ask that you do not put your name anywhere on the materials
associated with the study. Your pretest and posttest will be pre-numbered in a sealed
envelope. The numbers that you were given on your pretest and posttest have been
recorded along with your name by the shelter Director. Only the shelter Director will be
aware of whose name matches with each set of materials. You counselor can not see your
pretest and posttest. They are for your eyes only.

106

 

Once the data is sent to Michigan State University, the data collected will be kept in a
locked file cabinet that only can be accessed by those listed below. There will be no way
for us to contact you after this study, unless you wish to received the results that will then
be mailed to the shelter. All data collected will be used in aggr_egate form; this means that
there will be no way to matfich you with you; answers after the studyis completed.

All of your answers on the pretest and posttest are completely anonymous. Please answer
all questions truthfully and completely. If you choose to participate, your client number
will be entered into a lottery for the duration of the study. Ifyour number is drawn, the
shelter will be contacted and only then will your name be provided for a check to be
written. One cash prize of $50 and $100 each will be awarded a week. Your check will be
sent to the shelter as we will not have any contact information for you. The shelter you
are at will give you the check. The cash prizes provided for this study are sponsored by
the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation.

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. Ifmy client number is drawn in the weekly
lottery, I agree to Michigan State University writing a check to the shelter at which I am
located from which I will receive payment for participation. (Note: Ifat the Alpina or
Ironwood shelters only, MSU will write a check to you directly, hence, agreeing to
participate in this study means that your name would be released for the check to be
written to you.)

Ifyou have any questions or concerns related to your rights as a participant in this
research study, please contact Ashir Kumar, Chair of the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects: telephone 517-355-2180, or email
<ucrihs@msu.edu>.

Name: Date:
Shelter:

 

 

 

If you would like to obtain copies of the results or have questions regarding this study,
please contact:

Kim Witte, Ph.D. Lisa Murray-Johnson

460 Communication Arts & Sciences 460 Communication Arts & Sciences
Michigan State University Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824

(517) 355-9659 (517) 355-9659

107

APPENDIX D
Informed Consent Experimental and Control Condition Counselors

The purpose of this research is to find out how survivors of violence are affected by their
experiences. We would like your participation in a short study that will talk about this
important topic. If you choose to participate in this study, your total time commitment
will be approximately less than 5 hours.

Your participation is completely voluntary and may choose not to participate at all. You
may refirse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions during the
study. You may choose to discontinue the experiment at any time.

To protect you, we ask that you do not put your name anywhere on any materials
associated with the study. Data collected will be treated with the strictest confidence, held
only by the primary investigators, and kept in a locked cabinet in the Department of
Communication. All daaa collected durflfihe study will only be use in aggregate form;
this means thmhere will be no way to match you with your answers after the study is

completed.

If you choose to participate, you will be asked to fill out a series of questionnaires and
write in a journal three days a week regarding your attitudes, opinions, and thought about
domestic abuse. Your questionnaire and journal entries will be returned in a series of
sealed envelopes, of which no one but the primary researcher will have access. We ask
that you only photocopy the pages in the journal provided to keep your information
anonymous.

All answers on the questionnaire are completely anonymous. Please answer all questions
truthfully and completely. If you choose to participate, you will receive $100 in a check
written to your shelter, plus the cost of postage. This study will be conducted for eight
weeks. The study will be discussed more fully at its completion, and at that time, you
may ask additional questions.

I voluntarily agree to participate in the described study.

Name:
Date: Shelter :

 

 

 

If you would like to obtain copies of the results or if you have questions regarding this
study, please contact:

Kim Witte, Ph.D. Lisa Murray-Johnson, MA.

467 Communication Arts & Sciences 468 Corrununication Arts & Sciences
Michigan State University Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, MI 48824

(517) 355-9659 (517) 355-3480

Thank you. We greatly appreciate your assistance in this important study.

108

APPENDIX E
Experimental and Wait-List Control Counselor Survey

Part 1. Please answer the following demographic information below about yourself.

1. Sex: 3. Male b. Female

2. Age: a. 18-25 b. 26-34 c. 35-44 (1. 45-
54 e. 55+

3. Ethnicity: a. Caucasian b. Afiican American c. Hispanic d. Asian

e. Native American f. other

 

4. Curran salary: a. <$30,000 b. $30,00-S40,000 c. 341,000-355,000 d.$55,000+

 

5. Years as a counselor: a. 1-3 years b. 4-7 years c. 8-15 years d. 15+
6. Years at current shelter: a. < 1 year b.1-4 years c. 5-10 years d. 10+
7. Number of clients/week: a. <10 b. 11-20 c. 21-30 d. 31-50

8. Number of charts/month: a. <25 b. 26-75 c. 76-100 d. 101-150

9. Number of crisis calls/month: a. <25 b. 26-75 c. 76-130 d. 131-200+
10. Continuing education at shelter? a. Yes No

11. Ifyes, how often:

 

12. Highest education attained: a. high school b. college degree c. masters degree d. other

13. Ifother, please specify:

 

14. Have you been a victim of abuse? a. Yes b. No
If you answered “yes” to the question above, please answer the following:
15. How long were you in the relationship: 3. <1 yr b. 1-3 yrs o. 4-6 yrs d. 7+yrs

16. Types of abuse experienced: (circle all that apply)
a. physical b. emotional c. sexual d. financial e. threats

17. Were childrm also subjected to abuse: a. Yes b. No

18. Type of abuse experienced (circle all that apply):
a. physical b. emotional c. sexual d. financial e. threats

19. Did you seek counseling for your abuse: a. Yes b. No
Thank you for your time!

109

APPENDIX F

Experimental and Wait-List Control Client Pretest

Part 1. Please answer the following demographic information below about yourself.

 

 

 

 

1. Sex: a. Male b. Female
2. Age: a. 18-25 b. 26—34 c. 35-44 d. 45-54 e. 55+
3. Current salary: a. <$12,000 b. $13,00-$20,000 c. $1,000-$30,000
d.$31,000-$40,000 e. 41,000-50,000 f. 351,000-360,000 g. 60,000+
4. Ethnicity: a. Caucasian b. African American c. Hispanic d. Asian
e. Native American f. other
5. Are you staying at this shelter? a. Yes b. No
6. If no, where are you living? a. with partner b. other family c. friends d. neighbors
e. co-workers f. church g. other
7. Been to this shelter before: a. Yes b. No
8. Ifyes, how many times: a. 1-3 times b. 4-6 times c. 6-10 times d. 10+ times
9. Been to other shelters before: a. Yes b. No If yes, name
10. Ifyes, how many times: a. 1-3 times b. 4-6 times c. 6-10 times (1. 10+ times
11. Had counseling before a. Yes b. No
12. Ifyes, how ofien:
13. Participate in group counseling: 3. Yes b. No
14. Ifyes, how ofien:
15. Which of the following services have you received at this shelter? (check all that apply)
Understanding violence Learn patterns of Abuse Same sex violence
Safety Plan development Emotional support Legal support
Shelter stay Parenting support Child care support
Safety at work Behavioral change Substance abuse
Self-protection info Medical attartion Document abuse
16. Highest education attained: a. some high school b. high school degree c. some college
d. college degree d. vocational e. masters education
17. Is this your first abusive relationship? a. Yes b. No

110

 

 

18. Ifno, how many have you had? a. 2-3 b. 4-5 c.

6-10

d. 10+

19. How long have you been with partner? a. <1 year b. 1-3 year c. 4-6 years d. 7+years

20. How long has abuse occurred? a. <1 year b. 1-3 years c. 4-6 years d. 7+years

 

 

 

21. Do you have children with partner? a. Yes b. No
22. Do your childrm live with you? a. Yes , b. No
23. Were children also abused? a. Yes b. No
24. Have children received counseling? a. Yes b. No
25. I am excited about talking with this counselor.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
26. I feel motivated to have a conversation with this counselor.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4- 5 6 7 Agree
27. I feel that I am going to have a good interaction with this counselor today.
Strongly 513008”
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree

Part 11. Below is a list of behaviors that many women report have been used by their partners or
former partners. We would like you to estimate how ofien these behaviors occurred during t_h_e_
past six months. Circle the number that corresponds to how often these behaviors occurred. Use

the scale below:
1=Never =Rarely 3=Sometimes 4=Often

28. Called you a name or criticized you
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently

29. Tried to keep you from doing something you wanted to
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently

30. Gave you angry stares or looks
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently

31. Prevented you from having money for your own use
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently

32. Ended a discussion with you and made the decision himself
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently

33. Threatenedto hit or throw something at you
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently

111

5=Very Frequently

34. Pushed grabbed or showed you
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently

35. Put down your family and friends
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very F requently

36. Accused you of paying too much attention to someone
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently

37. Put you on an allowance
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very F requerntly

38. Used your children to threaten you
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently

39. Became upset because a household chore was not done whern he wanted or the way it should
be

 

Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very F requerntly
40. Said things to scare you

Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequerntly
41. Slapped, hit or punched you

Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently
42. Made you do something humiliating or degrading

Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently
43. Checked up on you

Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very F requerntly
44. Drove recklessly when you were in the car

Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very F requerntly
45. Pressured you to have sex in a way you didn’t want or didn’t like

Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently
46. Refused to do housework or childcare

Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequerntly
47. Threatened you with a knife, gun or other weapon

Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently
48. Spanked you

Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently

49. Told you that you were a bad parennt
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequently

50. Stopped you or tried to stop you from going to work or school
Never 1 2 3 4 5 Very Frequerntly

112

51. Threw, hit or smashed something you owned

Never 1 2 3 4
52. Kicked you

Never 1 2 3 4
53. Physically forced you to have sex

Never 1 2 3 4
54. Threw you around

Never 1 2 3 4
55. Physically attacked the sexual parts of your body

Never 1 2 3 4
56. Choked or strangled you

Never 1 2 3 4

57. Used a knife, gnm, or other weaporn fiom you

Never 1

2

3

4

113

5 Very Frequently

5 Very Frequently

5 Very Frequently

5 Very Frequently

5 Very Frequently

5 Very Frequently

5 Very Frequently

APPENDIX G
Experimental and Wait-list Control Client Posttest
Thank you for participating in today’s study. Please answer the following questions; there

are no right or wrong answers. We are very interested in your opinions about the
conversation you just had.

Part 1. Please indicate the degree to which the following statements reflect with how yap
feel about the counselor you comflmicated with toga Use the scale below:

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Somewhat Disagree 4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Somewhat Agree 6 = Agree 7 = Strongly Agree

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perceived Likipg

l. I like this counselor.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

2. This counselor is likable.

Strongly 5110081)’
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

3. This counselor is easy to like.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

4. This counselor is enjoyable.

Strongly SW}!
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

5. This counselor is pleasant.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

6. I did not like the counselor I talked to.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree
Comfort with the ounselor

7. I felt really comfortable with this counselor.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

8. I could establish a fi'iendly relationship with this counselor.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

114

9. This counselor would not fit into my circle of friends or acquaintances.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. I did not match well with the counselor I talked to.

Strongly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. I felt safe communicating with this counselor.

Strongly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. I felt comfortable talking with this counselor.

Strongly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. I felt relaxed with this counselor.

Strongly -

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perceived Similm

14. I am similar to this counselor.

Strongly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. I am like this counselor.

Strongly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. We share lots of similar opinions.

Strongly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. We share similar interests.

Strongly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. The counselor I talked to is completely different fi'om me.

Strongly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perceived Empathy—Pegpective taking

19. This counselor understands me.

Strongly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. This counselor nmderstands how I view the world.

Strorngly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

115

Strongly
Agree

Strongly

Strongly
Agree

Strongly

Strongly
Agree

Strongly

Strmgly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

Strorngly
Agree

Strongly

Strongly

Strorngly

"fl'

21. This counselor takes no notice of my perspective.

 

 

Strongly SW8”
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
22. This counselor could sense what I was feeling.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree

Perceived Empathy-Emotional Concern
23. The counselor I talked to seemed concerned about how I was feeling during the

 

 

 

 

conversation.
Strorngly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
24. The conmselor I spoke with genuinely seemed irnterested in howl experienced the interaction.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
25. The counselor I talked to understood my feelings without being affected herself.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
26. The conmselor I talked to is more concerned about her feelirngs than mine.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
Perceived trust

27. I trust this counselor.

 

 

 

 

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
28. This conmselor tells the truth.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
29. This is a counselor who could keep secrets.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
30. 1 can talk about my fears with this counselor.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
31. This counselor won’t repeat what I tell her to others.

Strorngly Strongly

 

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree

116

F .

32. I feel that I can trust this counselor.

 

 

 

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
33. I think that this counselor is trustworthy.

Strorngly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
34. I think this counselor would keep private information confidential.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree

Attuning Strat_egies Scales: integpretabilay' - , discourse management and interpersonal contra!
(in respective order)

 

 

Part 11. Please indicate the degree to which the following statements reflect with how m feel
about the counselor you communicated with today. Use the scale below:

1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Somewhat 4 = Neutral or couldn’t tell
5=Ofien 6=Mostly 7=Always
This counselor’s language was .

 

35. Easy to understand

Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

36. Too formal

Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

37. Appropriate for our conversation

Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

38. Easy to relate to

Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

39. Was ambiguous] not clear

Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always
When we talked, this counselor .

 

40. Did all of the talking
Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

41. Treated me like an equal
Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

42. Let me turn the topic irnto a new directionn
Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

117

e

43. Made it easy for me to expand on a topic
Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

44. Used appropriate belnaviors for our conversation
Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

During our conversation, this counselor

 

45. Demonstrated respect for me
Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

46. Talked down to me
Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

47. Saw information from my point of view
Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

48. Let me express myself in different ways (i.e., as a student, friend, acquaintance, etc.)
Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always
Perceived Accommodatiorn Scale

Part III. Please indicate the degree to which the following statements reflect with how you feel
about the counselor you communieated with today. Use the scale below:

l=StronglyDisagree 2=Disagree 3=SomewhatDisagree 4=Neitheragreenordisagree
5=SomewhatAgree 6=Agree 7=StronglyAgree

49. I felt really connected with this counselor.

 

 

 

 

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
50. I felt I could relate to this counselor.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
51. I felt “in sync” with this counselor.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
52. I felt that corrnnunicating with this cormselor took no effort.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree
53. I could be myself around this counselor.

Strongly - Strongly

 

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree

118

54. I felt tense talking with this counselor.

 

 

 

 

Strongly Strongly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree

55. I felt this counselor tried hard to cater to my needs.

Stronngly Strongly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree

56. I felt that this counselor was very attentive to my communicatiorn needs.

Strongly Strongly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 . 7 Agree

57. It was clear from the way this counselor responded that she really listened to what I had
to say.

Strongly Strorngly

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree

Willingaess to race with the counselor again

Part IV. Please inndicate the degree to which you would be willing to talk with this counselor

E

58. Place a check (3) next to the statement you most agree with.

I never want to talk this counselor again.
I would prefer to not talk with this counselor again.

It doesn’t nnatter if I talk to this counselor again or not.
It would be okay to talk this counselor again.

I would like to talk with this counselor again.

I want to talk with this conmselor again.

I can’t wait to talk with this conmselor again.

119

APPENDIX H
Counselor Journal Instructions

Journals: Each journal is numbered so no names will be used for data collection. The
numbers seen on the inside of each journal corresponds to numbers we have given to: (a)
your shelter (#01-1 9), (b) counselor (#01 or 02) and client served (#01-05). Through this
numbering system we will be able to tell where the information came from and fiom
whom (the counselor). Clients are finlly protected because we will never meet them and
will never have krnown their names. Counselors are protected because there is only one
list that specifies this information which is kept in a locked file by Kim and Lisa.
Information released will never be associated with a particular shelter or counselor.

Counselor Journafi

1. Following this conference, we are asking the counselors to practice matching and
mirroring behaviors for about 5 hours with difi‘erent people. Do not tell them what
you are doing! Those you practice with can be fi'iends, family members or other
counselors who have not attended this workshop. Write down how many hours you
practiced (honestly) on the first page of your journal. If you practice less than 5 hours,
that is fine but we need you to tell us.

To document praLtice hours: provide dates and amounts of time. Please be honest.

a. We also ask that you document in your journal, your thought about the interaction
you have with each client. Please describe what you see as their issues, your
ability to connect with this person, and how you think the client views you after
this first interaction. If you meet again with the client we ask that you continue to
use this journal to track any changes that you identify with your clients in terms of
behavior, feelings expressed about abuse, or feelings the client expresses about
your and your counseling relationship.

To document these areas per client: Please mber your clients (#1-5) in the journal and
provide the information above with a blank page between each client’s information. This
way we will know you have completed your thoughts about a particular person. You do
not need to write a lot of information for each section, just enough so that we can gain an
appropriate perspective of the client’s situation, your involvement and progress that has
been made in each area (if any). If you choose, you can substitute your notes fi'om a
session for the journal, just staple copies of the notes to the page(s). We ask that you
write about each clien_t__ after each interaction. If you meet witha clien_t once per weak, we
will expect one entry. If the client is residiagat the s_helter, we ask that you document
information two or three times aaweefls changes are noticed. Please write in the journal
for two weeks (unless they leave the ahelter).

120

APPENDIX I
Client Journal Instructions

Thank you for participating in this research, we value your thoughts and life experiences
related to domestic violence. Your shelter counselor will provide you with a journal so
you can write your thoughts about your counseling session with this counselor.

When you open your journal, you will see that it is numbered in the upper left-hand
comer. Journals are numbered so we will not be able to determine who you are; we will
only krnow what shelter you are at in the State of Michigan. This was done to protect your
identity from other people. Everything you write will be held in the strictest confidence

by two people at Michigan State University. We will use your information to teach others
about domestic violence and find methods to help others in situations similar to your

own.

In the journal you have received, please answer the following question:

“What thoughts do you have about the counselor you just spoke with
and your counseling session with that counselor?”

To answer this question, you may want to describe what you shared with your counselor
and how that counselor made you feel in that sharing process. Was there anything in
particular that you noticed about the counselor that made it easy or difficult for you to
talk to them? What would have made communication easier? Do you feel you were
honest with the counselor? Did you feel comfortable with this counselor? Would you be
willing to speak with this counselor again, why or why not?

Directions

a). If you meet with this counselor anaa, write in the journal immediately after
completing the pretest and posttest, place the seal in the nniddle of the journal after you
are finished, and give it back to the counselor who will mail it to Michigan State
University.

b). If you are stay at the shelter, we ask that you answer the same question after each
session. Please provide dates for multiple entries. Please place the seal on the journal
when you are finished and give it to the counselor who will mail it back to Michigan
State University.

Once you have completed the pretest, posttest and journal, your number will be sent to
Michigan State University for entry into the weekly cash prize drawing. If you number is
drawn, the shelter will be contacted with the winning number. They will let us krnow who
to make the check out to and verify the address where it should be sent. Individuals at
Michigan State University will not have personal contact with prize winners to protect
them and their information.

121

APPENDIX J
Debriefing Form for Counselors and Clients

Thank you for participating in this study. We appreciate your time and attention to this
important matter. The purpose of this study was to determine how counselor
communication skills affect perceived liking, similarity and empathy between counselors
and clients. Second, we wanted to determine the extent to which perceived liking,
similarity and empathy lead to increased relational trust between counselors and clients,
as well as increased client self-disclosure.

At the end of this study you are to speak with the Director of the shelter you are at for a
finrther debriefing. This person will allow you to switch counselors if you have been
made uncomfortable as a result of this study. You may also contact those investigators
listed below with any questions.

All data collected during the study will only be use in aggregate form; this means that
there will be no way to match you with your answers after the study is completed. In
addition, all of the materials associated with the study will be held with the strictest
confidence, held only by the primary investigators, and kept in a locked cabinet in the
Department of Communication.

If you have any fiirther questions regarding your rights as a subject of research, please
contact Ashir Kumar, Chair of UCRIHS at Michigan State University at 517-3 55-2180.

Ifyou would like to receive results of this study or have further questions for the primary
investigators listed below, please fill out the following information so we can contact you
directly. Or, if you choose to contact us, our information is listed below.

 

 

 

Name:
Phone Number:
Kim Witte, Ph.D. Lisa Murray-Johnson, MA.
467 Communication Arts & Sciences 468 Communication Arts & Sciences
Michigan State University Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing, NH 48824
(517) 355-9659 (517) 355-3480

Thank you again. We greatly appreciated your assistance

122

APPENDIX K
Workshop Information for Experimental Group Counselors

“BUILDING BRIDGES: COMMUNICATING WITH CLIENTS”

A two-day, fig workshop to enhance communication skills with clients:
0 Focus on how to build rapport with clients through verbal and nonverbal
communication
Discuss the nature of trust in interpersonal encounters
Explore individual learning styles and communication systems for receiving
messages

0 Teach skills for working with different communication system from your own
0 Teach skills for actively engaging non-responsive clients
0 Discuss repeated behavior patterns and working with behavior change
0 Demonstrate anchoring techniques for clients new decision-making behaviors
o Roundtable discussion of issues affecting shelters

Workshop Presenters:

Kim Witte, Ph.D.: Kim has been a Professor in the Department of Communication at
Michigan State. She has undertaken hundreds of hours of addition training to be certified
to ofi‘er this type of workshop. Kim’s focus is using communication to enhance decision-
making and behavioral choice as it afi’ects personal health and wellness. She has spent
her life’s work educating other professionals on how to get the most information,
compliance and satisfaction out of an interpersonal encounter.

Lisa Murray-Johnson, M.A.: Lisa finishes her Ph.D. in May and will be an Assistant
Professor at Ohio State University this Fall. She has worked with MSU Safe Place

domestic violence shelter for five years in various roles and irnitiated the relationship with
Blue Cross and Blue Shield to firnd this workshop.

WHY:

Communication is how we build bridges between people! What one says and how one
communicates has a direct efi‘ect on how clients think about and relate to the world. As a

counselor, mastery of communication is critical. We want to help you in your jobs.

 

This type of workshop has been popular with business professionals, managers, sales and
marketing agents, therapists, and public relations personnel for years, but they are
expensive! Similar workshops often charge more than 8500-81000 for each person to
participate. We know this is unreasonable, especially for non-profit and volunteer
organizations, who do the most good in a community, with the fewest resources. The
Department of Communication at Michigan State University and Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Miclnigan view this workshop as our way to assist in your daily interaction with
clients.

123

WHO:

We invite both degree-certified counselors and in-house trained counselors to this
workshop. The cost will be picked up for two counselors from each organization. This is
what the grant allows. However, if more are interested in attending, we will provide a
cost estimate for participation.

WHEN AND WHERE:
COMFORT INN AND SUITES (DATE TBA)
OKEMOS, MI (3 MILES FROM MSU CAMPUS)
9AM TO 5PM

Hotel Amenities include:

0 Exercise facility
Indoor swimming pool
Cable television
In room coffee pots/tea service
Free local calls
Free meals (paid by MSU)

Directions to the Comfort Inn and Suites:
Comfort Inn & Executive Suites

2209 University Park Drive
Okemos, MI 48864
Phone 517.349.8700 Fax 517.349.5638

From the East: Take I-96 West to Exit 110 (Okemos Road), turn right onto Urniversity
Park Drive where the Comfort Inn and Suites are located (500 feet).

From the South: Take Route 127 North to US 96E to Exit 110 (Okemos Road), and turn
left going over the bridge towards Okemos. On your right side is University Park Drive
where the Comfort Inn is located (500 feet).

From the West: Take I-96 East to Exit 110 (Okemos Road) and turn left going over the
bridge towards Okemos. On your right side is University Park Drive where the Comfort
Inn is located (500 feet).

From the North: Take 127 South to I-96 East to Exit 110 (Okemos Road), and turn left

going over the bridge towards Okemos. On your right side is University Park Drive
where the Comfort Inn is located (500 feet).

124

APPENDIX L
Experimental Counselor Workshop Registration Form
BUILDING BRIDGES: COMMUNICATING WITH CLIENTS

COMFORT INN AND SUITES (DATE TBA)
2209 University Park Drive
OKEMOS, MI
9AM TO 5PM

 

Conference Registration Information
D YES. We would love to participate DNO. We are sorry but can not participate.

Counselor # 1:

 

 

 

 

Name: Badge Name Preference
Job Title:

Shelter:

Fax Number: Phone Number:

 

 

Room Preference: Smoking '3 Non-Smoking 1:]
Dinner Meal Choice: Vegetarian Lasagrna 1:1 Braised Beef Tips CI (select one only)

Counselor #2:

 

 

 

 

Name: Badge Name Preference
Job Title:

Shelter:

Fax Number: Phone Number:

 

 

Room Preference: Smoking {:1 Non-Smoking [3
Dinner Meal Choice: Vegetarian Lasagrna 1:1 Braised Beef Tips 1:] (select one only)
Do you prefer to Share a room with a counselor from your organization? Yes or No
PLEASE FAX YOUR REGISTRATION TO:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ATTN: Lisa Murray-Johnson
Fax: (517)432-1192; Phone: (517) 355-3480

Additional questions??? Please phone number above or email Lisa at: mu rrayglgfimsu. edu
We’ll fax back continuation of your room arrangements and meals.

 

125

l.

APPENDIX M
Building Bridges Workshop Materials

    

COMMUNICATING WITH

DONIESTIC ABUSE SURVIVORS:
A TRAINING WORKSHOP

 

Comfort Inn, Okemos, Michigan
9am - 5pm

Workshop Created/Presented by:
Lisa Murray-Johnson, M.A.
Kim Witte, Ph.D.

Workshop Sponsored by:
The Department of Communication
Michigan State University

Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation

126

Building Bridges Workshop Agenda

Morning Session:
8:30am-9: 15am:

9: 15-9230am:

9:30am-10200am:

10:00am-10:45am:

10:45am-l 1:00am:
11:00am-12z30pm:

Day 1 Events

Conference Registration

Welcome and Introduction to Building Bridges Workshop (Lisa)

0 Kim and Lisa’s background, purpose of workshop

0 Dumping your to-do list
Being a good communicator
o sender, receiver and bi-directional messages
0 we, as communicators, have agenda in our minds of the

content of the message we plan to send, not how to
communicate

0 better communicators tailor messages to fit the receiver’s
perception, receiver’s words and the intention of your
message

0 active listening and awareness of perception are key (Ex. 1)

Introduction of Conference Participants

How to be a good communicator and develop rapport with others
0 Pair up with someone you have just met and develop

rapport

Morning Break

Discussion of communication accommodation Skills

Why igacwmmoclantion so importa_nfi

o How your brain uses language depends on how you view the
world, your use of verbal and nonverbal communication and
how you process interactions with others.

0 Accommodation enhances interpersonal attraction plus: (1)
comfort, (2) increased listening, (3) trust, (4) moving fiom
‘Stranger’ qualities to ‘kinship’ or ‘fiiendship’, and (5) a bond,
leading to better mutual understanding of thoughts and
processing

0. It creates patterns of influence in therapy; counselors needs to
take infornnation in, process and give information back to
client... in a way to let the client know that the counselor is
processing all information (matching versus mismatching
communication behaviors)

o Consciously- following speech patterns, being
understandable, listening, non-verbal body language that is
apparently conveying attentiveness

o Unconsciously- the “feeling” one gets when they are with
other people who they feel comfortable around

0 Moving from the unconscious to conscious state

127

 

 

o Unconscious activation: through the five senses: touch,
taste, Sight, hearing, smell- the first four of which are
plausibly alterable

Communication is based on response that you get through feedback. You will never truly
krnow their interpretations, you can just “learn” your client as best as you possibly can.
Just because your intention is ‘Sr” does not mean the clients interpretation will match ‘Sr”
0 1‘It position: your own point of view through your
thoughts, feelings and processing
0 2"d position: seeing the world through the eyes of
another person- using all 5 senses
3“1 position: disassociate yourself from own thoughts
and feelings and those of which whom you are
interacting. You are an objective observer

“Leam your client.” The quicker that you can read the people you are working with, the
more conscious cues you learn to interpret. When the conscious cues become second
nature, you can focus more on revealing unconscious cues and characteristics
Exercise # 2: Calibrating yourself with others
Exercise # 3: Working with the styles
12:30pm-lz30pm: Lunch
1:30pm-3:00pm: Leanning how to matching and mirroring of accommodative styles
Exercises #4, # 5 and # 6: More work with verbal communication style
3 : 00pm-3: 15pm Afternoon break
3: 15pm-4:00pm Adding paralinguistic cues to verbal communication Style
Paralingpistic cues
0 Vocal pitch: the tonality of the voice
0 Vocal rate: how fast you are Speaking
0 Vocal pace: how you use your voice to lead others in
conversation
Exercises # 7 and # 8: Verbal and paralinguistic communication style
4:00pm-5:00pm Introduction to nonverbal communication (Kim)
Nonvemal Communication
0 According to communication experts (Mehrabian/
Burgoon)
0 7-10 % of what people take in are verbal words
0 30-40 % are non-verbal qualities of voice (tone,
pitch, rate, volume, etc.)
0 50-60 % are non-verbal qualities of body language
Immrtant nonverbal behaviors
o Posture
0 Breathing
0 Body movement: head/neck, arms/hands, legs/feet
o Facial Expression: eyes, eyebrows, cheeks and mouth
Exercises # 9 and # 10: Working with nonverbal communication styles
End of session
Dinner served 5:15-5:30pm

128

Building Bridges Workshop Agenda

Day 2 Events
Morning Session:
9:00am-9:30 am: Recap Day 1 activities and answer questions
9:30am-10245am: More on rapport building (Kim and Lisa)

0 Levels of Matching:

o (1) content, match what the client wants to talk about

0 (2) words, match client word style

0 (3) word sequence/ sentence structure, tag question ending
(It iS nice out, isn’t it?) or starting with run on sentences in
Speaking turn

0 (4) non-verbal vocal cues, pitch, tone, rate of Speech,
volume, volume change, pitch change fi'om beginrning of
statement to end (end down or up pitch)

0 (5) non-verbal body language, sitting style, arm position,
shoulder movement, eye movement, eye contact
positioning, eyebrow movements, alterations in sitting
position, slouching, upright, head tilt, etc.

o (6) size of phrases, “chunk size”- compare run-on
statements to small blurbs

o (7) value matching, if the person is Speaking of something
you do not particularly like, match with personal
experience that is similar so that you have something to talk
about

0 makes the person feel as though you are listening
and including in conversation

o (8) gestures, hand movements (K), outlirning of motions
and/or descriptives (V)

(9) key words of each verbal communication style
(10) incidentals (breathing, breaths per nninute, eyebrow

cues, etc.)
Exercise # 11: Building rapport

 

The nnind does not process negative language
Stay away from the word “don’t” in conversation

o The word “but” gives the impression that something in the
previous statement was either wrong, in your nnind,
disagreed with, or you have something better to say...
leaves a bad impression (or starts with a bad impression for
the statement upcoming, and then the content of the
message iS not heard)
The word “should” implies persuasion or direction
You want to give autonomy and freedom of choice
Give encouragement, but do not use the word “try”.
Substitute the word "when,” for the word “if’

129

o if- means that it is a request, maybe, possibility
0 when- distinct time frame, expectation, set goals,
mutual understanding
0 Use tag questions to clarify information “I think so, don’t
ou?”
Exercise # 12: Wirking on Verbal matching and mirroring
10:45m-11100am: Morning break
11:00am-12:30pm: Putting it all together
Exercises # 13 & # 14: Verbal, nonverbal, and paralinguistic styles
12:30pm-1:30pm: Lunch break ‘

1:30pm—2:30pm: Counselor evaluation of verbal and nonverbal communication
2:30pm-2:45pm: Afternoon break

2:45pm—3200pm: Hand out materials to counselors for data collection
3:00pm-4z30pm: Discussion of counselor duties for data collection

4:30pm-5100pm: Wrap-up workshop and final comments
End of session

130

E)GERCISE # 1

Active listening

 

 

 

 

PB MB BB Table Dog Child Drum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How many :‘f’s ” (are there in this sentence?

FEATURE FILMS ARE THE RESULT OF YEARS OF

SCIENTIFIC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE

EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.

 

 

 

 

 

131

EXERCISE # 2

Calibrating Yourself with Others
The purpose of this exercise is to help you become aware of the verbal and nonverbal
behaviors that accompany a person’s answers:
1. Ask a partner 10 questions that you believe will get a yes response.

How does this person respond verbally and nonverbally?

2. Ask a partner 10 questions that you believe will get a no response.

How does this person respond verbally and nonverbally?

3. Ask a partner 10 questions that will produce neither a yes or no response.

How does this person respond verbally and nonverbally?

Do this exercise again choosing three different memories you have. Tell your partner the
subject of your memory and have them ask you the same set of questions above and see
how you respond verbally and nonverbally. Then switch and redo the exercise with the
partner.

132

 

 

EXERCISE # 3

Different Communication Styles

Please read the following paragraph and then identify the communication style.

“I had a dream last night where a black asphalt road was bringing me close to the
edge of a big town. I suddenly realized that there was a big thunderstorm brewing. The
air hung heavy and close all around me and I could feel my lungs straining with every
breath I took. My skin seemed to tingle in anticipation. Soorn, I was able to feel the cool,
moist tongue of the breeze running before the storm the storm began to lap insistently at
my face and neck.”

“I was only about a block from the first house when the thunderstorm began in
earnest. I started running when icy mist tickled my upper arms and I shivered. I couldn’t
run anymore as the Sidewalk became a slippery goo and the rain penetrated my shoes,
soaking them. At once, I felt in touch with nature and felt no need to run from the storm.
The rain cleansed my sweating back.”

What is the person’s communication style?

If asked to continue this story, what words would you choose and why? How could you match and

mirror their style?

133

EXERCISE # 4

More on Communication Styles

The purpose of this exercise is to help you become aware of the verbal and nonverbal
behaviors that accompany a person’s communication style:

Ask a partner the following questions and determine what communication style the
person is using to answer them. Then switch and redo the exercise.

H

8.

9.

. What is your earliest childhood memory?

Can you tell me about a funny experience?

. What is your favorite food and why?

Can you describe your favorite vacation?

. Who have been the most influential people in your life?

Can you tell me about an important goal you have set for yourself?
How do you imagine yourself in 10 years?
What are the three most important characteristics a person can have?

How do you find beauty or pleasure in your life?

10. What is your favorite Sport or hobby?

In answering these questions, this person used communication

style.

 

Describe why you believe this person uses this style:

' 134

 

 

EXERCISE # 5

Accommodation Exercises

 

The purpose of this exercise is to help you become aware of the verbal and nonverbal
behaviors that accompany a person’s communication style:

Directions: In pairs have one person read the following statements while the other marks
the verbal and nonverbal (including paralingnnistic behaviors) that are used. Then switch
roles and redo the exercise. What do you observe? We will discuss answers as a group in
a few nninutes.

1. I’m afraid I don’t have a very good memory of my mom. We were never very close.

 

2. I don’t see myself in school; that’s for sure. I picture myself having a job.
3. I would walk to the end of the line to the music of my classmates’ laughter.

4. Mom and Dad were always yelling at each other. I hate for people to nag and scream,
so I tune them out.

5. I always looked up to my older brother. He was a 6 foot tall guy with brown
twinkling eyes and blond hair.

6. Grandpa used to tickle us grandkids until tears rolled down our cheeks. He gave the
warmest hugs as he’d swoop us off the carpet.

7. It is hard for me to picture being single for very long, I get lonely when I see people
holding hands.

8. Our big, white house had a huge yard with red, pink and yellow roses in the fi'ont.

9. Dad’s harmonica playing soft melodies on quiet sunnner nights is one of my favorite
memories.

10. My grandma said it is bad to gossip, so I don’t do it but I still listen to it.

135

EXERCISE # 6

More on Accommodation

Below is a list of topics for you to talk about with a partner. Select one person to start on
the topic and then match and nnirror their verbal communication style. Then switch and
redo the exercise.

Topics

Shoes

Flowers

Ice cream
Furniture

Heaven

Music concerts
Books

Movies

Football

Divorce
Childbirth
Getting a cold/flu
Famous people
Someone you admire

Guidelines
1. Use 3 of the topics listed above, and speak completely in a accommodative

communication style.

2. Use 3 of the topics listed above, and Speak completely in an overaccommodative
communication style.

3. Use 3 of the topics listed above, and speak completely in a counteraccommodative
commurnication style.

4. Have one person talk in their own style on a topic. Can you identify their style?
Switch topics with the same person talking. Did their style change based on the topic?

136

EXERCISE # 7

 

More on Paralinguistics
Talk with a partner for several nninutes about any topic. Write down what you observe for
the following categories, then switch positions.
1. How fast is this person talking?

2. Does the voice go up or down when asking questions?

3. Does the voice go up or down when finishing a sentence or giving an answer?

 

4. Does the person change their Speed of talk depending on the topic? What types of
changes can be observed?

5. When the person talks, does this person talk in chunks or provide long
answers/questions?

6. Who talks more during the interaction? How does this person use their voice to
signify it is your turn to talk?

7. Are there any vocal habits that you can identify (i.e., clearing throat constantly,
humming through their words, etc.)?

8. How do their vocal patterns nnirror facial expression? (we’ll get to this next)

137

EXERCISE # 8

Paralinguistic Calibration

Use Exercise #7 to help you with this activity.

1.

Discuss what you learned about your partner through the activity. What behaviors did
you have that were similar or different?

Share in a supportive manner what vocal habits might be problematic and why. For
example, constantly clearing the throat may become distracting and appear as an
interruption to the conversation.

Share with your partner the vocal habits that appeared to be positive to enhance the
conversation. For example, did the person use a relaxed vocal tone which is soothing
on the ears?

Get into a group with two or four other maple and discuss one another’s
paralinguistic styles. What similarities and differences can you identify? Generate a
list that can be Shared at the end of tlnis exercise.

In your group, pair off with a different partner and talk with them for a few minutes.
Attempt to match and nnirror their paralinguistic Style. Without telling your partner,
then switch into a mismatch form after several nninutes. See how the partner reacts to
your mismatches. After a few more nninutes talk about how you both feel when
someone matches versus mismatches your vocal style.

Vocal style similarities Vocal style differences

138

EXERCISE # 9

Cheat Sheet on Accommodation

Practice with a partner for the next few nninutcs not talking but matching and nnirroring
their nonverbal communication behaviors, using the chart below.

 

Nonverbal Accommodation

 

Dominant Posture

Sitting Similar to one another

Slouching, sitting upright. tilting to
the side

 

Hand movement

Similar movement of hands

Touch body holding hands/objects.
resting hands in lap, cracking
knuckles, pointing at
people/objects

 

 

 

 

 

Arm/Shoulder movement Similar movement of upper Shoulder shrugs, relaxed
body while sitting shoulders, stretching, flexing

muscle, shaking our arms

Nodding Similar movement of head Direction head is facing, head
tilting, head nodding or shaking,
neck cracking, shaking out hair,
neck strain

Smiling Similar lower face expression Snniling or comer in sides of
mouth (open or closed)

Eye Gaze Similar eye expression Looking toward or away from

 

 

person, closed eyes.

 

 

Verbal Accommodation

 

Vocabulary

Choosing sinnilar words to
describe items/people/events

Same vocabulary, jargon

 

Topic Selection

Agreement to Stay on same
topic or move to a new one

Invite to change subject

 

Topic Development

Agreement to add more details
to topic or abandon it

Describe items/people/events

 

 

 

 

Vocal Rate Same tempo of Speech Fast, Slow or moderate rate
Vocal Pitch Similar use of voice frequency High or low, voice cracking with
when talking emotion, normal changes when
askifllanswer questions
Vocal Flexibility Same rhythm of Speech Synchronized pattern of talk and

 

 

pauses during or after talk turn

 

What did you learn about this person? How did it feel to interact with them without
talking? Did you notice repetitive behaviors or did they constantly change?

139

 

 

EXERCISE # 10

Nonverbal Communication
With your partner, choose a topic to discuss. The topic can be from Exercise # 6.

1. Spend 4 or 5 nninutes carrying on a conversation with this person on the topic and
write down what you observe below.

2. Switch topics and repeat the process. How does their nonverbal style change?

First Pass: Second Pass:
Posture: Posture:
Breathing: Breathing:
Hand movement: Hand movement:
Arm/ shoulder “movement: Arm/ shoulder movement:
Leg/hip movement: Leg/hip movement:
Foot movement: Foot movement:
Head/neck movement: Head/neck movement
Mouth/cheek expression: Mouth/cheek expression:
Eye/eyebrow expression: Eye/eyebrow expression:

3. Look at the behaviors you have marked above, begin a new topic and begin to match
and nnirror those behaviors used by your partner.

4. If feeling confident, continue to repeat the process but adding matching and nnirroring
of paralinguistic cues. (rate, pitch, pacing)

5. Iftirne is still available, continue to move from topic to topics, but begin to add verbal
communication styles.

140

10.

EXERCISE # 11

Building Rapport

Get into groups of four to Six people and have one person read the following
statement. Monitor verbal, nonverbal and paralanguage behaviors that accompany
these statements. Iftirne allows, switch the person who reads the statements and
continue to monitor accompanying behavior.

. “Don’t make a mess” and “be a good boy” were my mother’s favorite sayings.

I couldn’t see very well at the swimnning pool without my glasses so I memorized the
color of my fiiends’ swimming suits. I had some embarrassing moments when the
color of the suit did not match the face when I was close enough to see who it was.

. First, I’d clear out a bunch of buildings and then plarnt some green grass and colored

flowers. I’d feel great about it.
I felt like all the demands of my work were closing in on me.

There was a scratch at my door, then the door creaked as it opened and my heart beat
with fear as I heard my name whispered.

Painting is a hobby of mine. I like mixing colors, playing with different shades and
irntensities of the colors.

Dancing is one of my greatest emotional releases, moving to the different rhythms.
That dream was so vivid the way white ghosts appeared with glowing green eyes.

My first car purred like a tiger and as far as I was concerned, the louder the better.
That sound was the only way I could get back to the frustrations in my life.

She had long, rich brown hair, olive-colored skin, and eyes that seemed to notice
everyone but me.

Work out any disagreements among the group and agree on each answer to these
statements. We will discuss them in a few moments.

B.

Have two people in the group pair up, and have them begin a conversation. At any
point during the conversation, others in the group can request the pair talk in a visual,
auditory, kinesthetic, or any combination style. After five minutes, switch the talking
pair with others in the group until everyone has been in the hot seat.

141

EXERCISE # 12

Putting It All Together

From this point forward, do not be overly obvious (if you have been) about moving from
one style to the other. Talk in a normal conversational voice, and maintain awareness that
your partner in this exercise may move between conversational Styles.

A. Using the chart below, one quickly realizes that communication style is one method
to matching and mirroring another to build rapport. Choose which partner will lead
this exercise. Have a conversation with a partner attempting to account for
vocabulary, topic selection, topic development and role flexibility (we’ll explain).
Incorporate communication subtly during this conversation noting changes in your
partner’s behavior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Verbal

Accommodation:

Vocabulary Choosing Similar words to Same vocabulary, jargon
describe items/people/events

Topic Selection Agreement to stay on same Invite to change subject
topic or move to a new one

Topic Development Agreement to add more Describe
details to topic or abandon it items/people/events

Role Flexibility Talk about the self multiple Self seen as parent, child,
ways during conversation friend, worker, survivor,

etc.
Communication style Match verb by visual, Visual: See, look, picture,

auditory or kinesthetic type colors, light/dark,
describing visual settings
Auditory: Hear, sound,
explain, spell out, said,
describing hearing settings
Kinesthetic: Feel, touch,
gut feeling, becoming,
tlninking, describe
kinesthetic setting

 

 

 

 

 

B. Go back over the list discussed in lecture about how certain words can be problematic
during a conversation. Get into a group with four to Six people and have them listen for
those words that can affect a client’s response to information. Repeat the activity
remembering to switch the Speaking pair and who is leading the conversation.

142

EXERCISES # 13 & #14

The Finale

A. Role play the following scenarios with another person, attempt to keep track of the
person’s
verbal, nonverbal and paralinguistic communication styles. Remember, that as a
counselor you will be following the client’s lead. Pair up with another group and have
them record your ability to match the other person or persons verbally, nonverbally
and paralinguistically.

Scenario # l: A repeat client has just come back to the shelter because her ex-
partner will not stop his stalking behaviors. She has been threatened repeatedly
with body harm and is nearly hysterical because of a violent note left on the hood
of her car.

Scenario # 2: You get a crisis call at the shelter (verbal and paralinguistic only)
from a young mother who says her partner has just hit her for the first time. She is
not sure if she is in an abusive situation or not. As you gather information from
her, she admits that she has had forced sex on several occasions. Convince her to
come to the shelter.

Scenario # 3: You are on your way to a meeting and you hear two clients arguing
over something (pick an item). One client is much more dominant in the argument
than the other and using their body to demonstrate how strongly they feel. Figure
out how to diffuse the interaction and persuade the more dominant client to calm
down without alienating the other client.

Scenario # 4: You have just walked down to the kitchen area when a client who
has been doing much better lately, seems very depressed. She has been through a
difficult custody battle with her husband. Although it seems like she will win full

custody, she is worried about her ability to provide for them.

B. Have the group provide feedback on your skills. Have the person who was the “client”
comment on which behaviors made her feel most comfortable with you (a good sign of
rapport). Switch partners in the group and repeat the activity.

143

APPENDIX N

Verbal and Nonverbal Communication Accommodation Checklist

For each of the behaviors below, place an (X) in the match or mismatch column each
time during the interaction a match or mismatch occurred. If you couldn’t tell, place your
(X) in the third column.

Match = demonstrating the identical behavior or a very similar behavior as the client
Mismatch = demonstrating a dissimilar or opposite behavior as the client

Verbal/Paralingistic Communication

Counselor/Counselor Match Counselor/Counselor Match Can’t tell

 

Vocal Rate

 

Vocal Pitch

 

Vocabulary

 

Topic
Selection

 

Topic
Development

 

Back-channel

 

Vocal
Flexibility

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonverbal Communication

Counselor/Counselor Match Confederate/Subject MisMatch Can’t tell

 

Dominant
Posture

 

Hand/Wrist
Movement

 

Arm
Movement

 

Nada-iii

 

Smiling

 

Eye Gaze

 

 

 

 

 

 

144

 

 

APPENDIX 0

Cheat Sheet for Communication Accommodation Behaviors

 

Nonverbal
Accommodation

 

Dominant Posture

Sitting similar to one another

Slouching, sitting upright. tilting to
the side

 

Hand movement

Similar movement of hands

Touch body holding hands/objects.
resting hands in lap. cracking
knuckles, pointing at
people/objects

 

 

 

 

Arm/Shoulder movement Similar movement of upper Shoulder shrugs. relaxed
body while sitting shoulders, stretching, flexing

muscle, shaking out arms

Nodding Similar movement of head Direction head is facing, head
tilting, head nodding or shaking,
neck cracking, shaking out hair,
neck strain

Smiling Similar lower face expression Smiling or comer in sides of
mouth (open or closed)

Eye Gaze Similar eye expression Looking toward or away from

person, closed eyes.

 

 

Verbal Accommodation

 

Vocabulary

Choosing similar words to
describe items/people/events

Same vocabulary, jargon

 

 

 

 

Topic Selection Agreement to stay on same Invite to change subject
topic or move to a new one
Topic Development Agreement to add more details Describe items/people/events
to topic or abandon it
Vocal Rate Same tempo of speech Fast, slow or moderate rate
Vocal Pitch Similar use of voice frequency High or low, voice cracking with

when talking

emotion, normal changes when
asking/answer questions

 

Back channel

Similar acknowledgement of
contributions to talk

Use of “hmm”, “uh-huh”,
“ es/no”, etc.

 

 

Vocal Flexibility

 

Same rhythm of speech

 

Synchronized pattern of talk and
pauses durilg or after talk turn

 

145

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

lllillllllflllllllljllllllllllllflllll