March 2012, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 1-24
Date: 14 Sep 2010
The Perceived Credibility of Two Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy Rationales for the Treatment of Academic Procrastination
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
The present study examined the perceived credibility of two versions of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), specific and general, in the treatment of academic procrastination. A total of 96 university students rated treatment plans for their potential effectiveness which also included manipulations of two further variables: (1) the expertness level of the prospective counselor (expert vs. non-expert) and (2) whether the treatment was presented as an empirically supported treatment (EST) or non-empirically supported treatment (non-EST). The findings revealed a significant interaction between counselor expertness and EST status for the specific REBT rationale, but not for the general REBT rationale. As expected, participants’ credibility ratings of the specific REBT rationale were higher when a prospective counselor was described as expert as opposed to non-expert. However, this was only for the non-EST description. Contrary to predictions, when the specific REBT rationale was presented as an EST, treatment credibility was lower when counselor expertness was high compared to low. The findings have implications for clinical practice in respect to what information should be provided in treatment rationales and warrant further investigations into how specific REBT treatment is perceived.
Addis, M. E., & Jacobson, N. S. (2000). A closer look at the treatment rationale and homework compliance in cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 313–326.CrossRef
Angle, S. S., & Goodyear, R. K. (1984). Perceptions of counselor qualities: Impact of subjects’ self-concepts, counselor gender, and counselor introductions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 576–579.CrossRef
Barak, A., & LaCrosse, M. B. (1975). Multidimensional perception of counselor behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 471–476.CrossRef
Bernstein, B. L., & Figiolo, S. W. (1983). Gender and credibility introduction effects on perceived counselor characteristics. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 506–513.CrossRef
Borkovec, T. D., & Nau, S. D. (1972). Credibility of analogue therapy rationales. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 3, 257–260.CrossRef
Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling good: The new mood therapy. New York: William Morrow & Co.
Corrigan, J. D., Dell, D. M., Lewis, K. N., & Schmidt, L. D. (1980). Counseling as a social influence process: A review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 395–441.CrossRef
Dryden, W., Dancey, C., & Goldsmith, P. (1990). The status of expectancy-arousal theory: Comparative credibility of systematic desensitization and rational-emotive therapy in the treatment for anxiety about study. Psychological Reports, 66, 803–809.PubMed
Dryden, W., David, D., & Ellis, A. (2009). Rational emotive behavior therapy. In K. S. Dobson (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive-behavioral therapies (3rd ed., pp. 226–276). New York: Guilford.
Dryden, W., Hurton, N., Malki, D., Manias, P., & Williams, K. (2008). Patients’ initial doubts, reservations and objections to the ABC’s of REBT and their application. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 26, 63–88.CrossRef
Ellis, A. (1980). Rational-emotive therapy and cognitive behavior therapy: Similarities and differences. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4, 325–340.CrossRef
Ellis, A., & Knaus, W. J. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. New York: Institute for Rational Living.
Goates-Jones, M., & Hill, C. E. (2008). Treatment preference, treatment-preference match, and psychotherapist credibility: Influence on session outcome and preference shift. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 45, 61–74.CrossRef
Heppner, P. P., & Claiborn, C. D. (1989). Social influence research in counseling: A review and critique. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 365–387.CrossRef
Heppner, P. P., Wampold, B. E., & Kivlighan, D. M. (2008). Research design in counseling. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Howell, D. C. (2007). Statistical methods for psychology (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Hoyt, W. T. (1995). Antecedents and effects of perceived therapist credibility: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 430–447.CrossRef
Kazdin, A. E., & Krouse, R. (1983). The impact of variations in treatment rationales on expectancies for therapeutic change. Behavior Therapy, 14, 657–671.CrossRef
LaCrosse, M., & Barak, A. (1976). Differential perception of counselor behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23, 170–172.CrossRef
Lichtenberg, J. W. (1997). Expertise in counseling psychology: A concept in search of support. Educational Psychology Review, 9, 221–238.CrossRef
Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1980). Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness, and supporting arguments on persuasion: A case of brains over beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 235–244.CrossRef
Merluzzi, T. V., Banikiotes, P. G., & Missbach, J. W. (1978). Perceptions of counselor characteristics: Contributions of counselor sex, experience, and disclosure level. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 479–482.CrossRef
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Osarchuk, M., & Goldfried, M. R. (1975). A further examination of the credibility of therapy rationales. Behavior Therapy, 6, 694–695.CrossRef
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243–281.CrossRef
Rokke, P. D., Carter, A. S., Rehm, L. P., & Veltum, L. G. (1990). Comparative credibility of current treatments for depression. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 27, 235–242.CrossRef
Roth, A., & Fonagy, P. (2005). What works for whom? A critical review of psychotherapy research. London: Guilford Press.
Schmidt, L. D., & Strong, S. R. (1970). “Expert” and “inexpert” counselors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17, 115–118.CrossRef
Strong, S. R. (1968). Counseling: An interpersonal influence process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 15, 215–224.CrossRef
Strong, S. R., & Dixon, D. N. (1971). Expertness, attractiveness, and influence in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18, 562–570.CrossRef
Strong, S. R., & Schmidt, L. D. (1970). Expertness and influence in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17, 81–87.CrossRef
Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2006). When credibility attacks: The impact of source credibility on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 684–691.CrossRef
UCLA: Academic Technology Services, Statistical Consulting Group (2009). Statistical Computing. Retrieved 26 September 2009 from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/faq/threeway_hand.htm.
Wiggins, J. S. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles of personality assessment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wollersheim, J. P., McFall, M. E., Hamilton, S. B., Hickey, C. S., & Bordewick, M. C. (1980). Effects of treatment rationale and problem severity on perceptions of psychological problems and counseling approaches. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 225–231.CrossRef
- The Perceived Credibility of Two Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy Rationales for the Treatment of Academic Procrastination
Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy
Volume 30, Issue 1 , pp 1-24
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Specific REBT
- General REBT
- Treatment credibility
- Counselor expertness
- Empirically supported treatment
- Academic procrastination