Advertisement

Effects of Genetic Counselor Self-Disclosure: an Experimental Analog Study

  • Brianna Volz
  • Kathleen D. Valverde
  • Steven J. Robbins
Original Research

Abstract

The complex nature of self-disclosure poses challenges for genetic counselors in clinical practice. We examined the impact of genetic counselor self-disclosure on observer perceptions of the counselor. In an online analog study, 123 participants watched a 3-minute video of a simulated genetic counseling session. For half the participants, the video showed the counselor disclosing that she had a family medical history similar to the patient (direct personal disclosure). For half the participants, the counselor revealed her experience with other patients (direct professional disclosure). Half the participants in each video condition read that the patient had discovered personal information about the counselor during a pre-session web search (indirect personal disclosure); half read that the patient learned of the counselor’s FAQ webpage for prospective patients (indirect professional disclosure). Participants in the direct personal disclosure conditions gave higher ratings to the counseling relationship on an abbreviated version of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory and rated themselves more likely to see the counselor compared to those in the direct professional disclosure conditions. The content of the indirect disclosure conditions (personal or professional) had no effect. Brief, direct, verbal disclosure of session-relevant personal information by a genetic counselor appears to enhance the counselor-patient relationship and increase the likelihood of patients returning to the counselor.

Keywords

Self-disclosure Genetic counselor self-disclosure Genetic counseling relationship Genetic counseling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science Degree from Arcadia University by Brianna Volz. The authors would like to thank Andrea Formen and Janice McDuffy for their assistance in the production of the genetic counseling videos.

Author Contributions

All three authors contributed substantially to the conception and design of this study and approved the final version to be published. Brianna Volz was solely responsible for the acquisition of data. Brianna Volz and Steven J. Robbins were jointly responsible for the analysis and interpretation of data. Steven J. Robbins wrote the original manuscript draft and made the requested revisions. All three authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Funding Information

Financial assistance for the study was provided by the genetic counseling training program at Arcadia University.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Brianna Volz, Kathleen Valverde, and Steven J. Robbins declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human Studies and Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Supplementary material

10897_2018_283_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (45 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 45 kb)

References

  1. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arroll, B., & Allen, E.-C. F. (2015). To self-disclose or not self-disclose? A systematic review of clinical self-disclosure in primary care. British Journal of General Practice, 65, e609–e616.  https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X686533.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Audet, C. T. (2011). Client perspectives of the therapist self-disclosure: Violating boundaries orremoving barriers? Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 24, 85–100.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2011.589602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balcom, J. R., McCarthy Veach, P., Bemmels, H., Redlinger-Grosse, K., & LeRoy, B. S. (2013). When the topic is you: Genetic counselor responses to prenatal patients’ requests for self-disclosure. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22, 358–373.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9554-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett, M. S., & Berman, J. S. (2001). Is psychotherapy more effective when therapists disclose information about themselves? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 597–603.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.4.597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1962). Dimensions of therapist response as causal factors in therapeutic change. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76, 1–36.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1981). The empathy cycle: refinement of a nuclear concept. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 91–100.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.28.2.91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (2015). The relationship inventory: a complete resource and guide. Retrieved from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/arcadia/detail.action?docID=1956433.
  9. Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 599–614.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.599.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Carney, D. R., Colvin, C. R., & Hall, J. A. (2007). A thin slice perspective on the accuracy of first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1054–1072.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Elliott, R., Bohart, A. C., Watson, J. C., & Greenberg, L. S. (2011). Empathy. Psychotherapy, 48, 43–49.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022187.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Farber, B. A., & Doolin, E. M. (2011). Positive regard. Psychotherapy, 48, 58–64.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fluckiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wampold, B. E., Symonds, D., & Horvath, A. O. (2012). How central is the alliance in psychotherapy? A multilevel longitudinal meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 10–17.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025749.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Grecco, E., Robbins, S. J., Bartoli, E., & Wolff, E. F. (2013). Use of nonconscious priming to promote self-disclosure. Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 311–315.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702612472176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gross, W. F., & DeRidder, L. M. (1966). Significant movement in comparatively short-term counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 13, 98–99.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gurman, A. S. (1977). The patient’s perception of the therapeutic relationship. In A. S. Gruman & A. M. Razin (Eds.), Effective psychotherapy: a handbook of research (pp. 503–543). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  19. Henretty, J. R., Currier, J. M., Berman, J. S., & Levitt, H. M. (2014). The impact of counselor self-disclosure on clients: a meta-analytic review of experimental and quasi- experimental research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 191–207.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Horvath, A. O., Del Re, A. C., Fluckiger, C., & Symonds, D. (2011). Alliance in individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 48, 9–16.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022186.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolden, G. G., Klein, M. H., Wang, C.-C., & Austin, S. B. (2011). Congruence/genuineness. Psychotherapy, 48, 65–71.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022064.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kurtz, R. R., & Grummon, D. L. (1972). Different approaches to the measurement of therapist empathy and their relationship to therapy outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 106–115.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Leone, K., Robbins, S. J., & Morrow, M. T. (in press). Using clay sculpting to prime readiness to chance: an experimental analog study. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association.Google Scholar
  24. Malin, A. J., & Pos, A. E. (2015). The impact of early empathy on alliance building, emotional processing, and outcome during experiential treatment of depression. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 445–459.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2014.901572.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Marchese, M. H., Robbins, S. J., & Morrow, M. T. (2018). Nonconscious priming enhances the therapy relationship: an experimental analog study. Psychotherapy Research, 28, 183–191.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2016.1158434.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. McCarthy Veach, P., LeRoy, B. S., & Bartels, D. M. (2003). Facilitating the genetic counseling process: a practice manual. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. McDaniel, S. H., Beckman, H. B., Morse, D. S., Silberman, J., Seaburn, D. B., & Epstein, R. M. (2007). Physician self-disclosure in primary care visits: enough about you, what about me? JAMA Internal Medicine, 167, 1321–1326.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.12.1321.Google Scholar
  28. Myers, D., & Hayes, J. A. (2006). Effects of therapist general self-disclosure and countertransference disclosure on ratings of the therapist and session. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 43, 173–185.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.43.2.173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norcross, J. C., & Wampold, B. E. (2011). Evidence-based therapy relationships: research conclusions and clinical practices. Psychotherapy, 48, 98–102.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Paine, A. L., McCarthy Veach, P., MacFarlane, I. M., Thomas, B., Aherns, M., & LeRoy, B. S. (2010). “What would you do if you were me?” Effects of counselor self-disclosure versus non-disclosure in a hypothetical genetic counseling session. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19, 570–584.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-010-9310-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Redlinger-Grosse, K., McCarthy Veach, P., & MacFarlane, I. M. (2013). What would you say? Genetic counseling graduate students’ and counselors’ hypothetical responses to patient requested self-disclosure. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22, 455–468.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9568-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Resta, R., Biesecker, B. B., Bennett, R. L., Blum, S., Hahn, S. E., Strecker, M. N., & Williams, J. L. (2006). A new definition of genetic counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Task Force report. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15, 77–83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-9014-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomas, B. C., McCarthy Veach, P., & LeRoy, B. S. (2006). Is self-disclosure part of the genetic counselor’s clinical role? Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15, 163–178.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-006-9022-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Watkins, C. E. (1990). The effects of counselor self-disclosure: a research review. The Counseling Psychologist, 18, 477–500.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000090183009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ziv-Beiman, S. (2013). Therapist self-disclosure as an integrative intervention. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 59–74.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Genetic CounselingArcadia UniversityGlensideUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyArcadia UniversityGlensideUSA

Personalised recommendations