This article was downloaded by: [Bond University]On: 23 January 2015, At: 18:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Counselling PsychologyQuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccpq20

Standard posture, posturalmirroring and client-perceivedrapportChristopher F Sharpley , Jennifer Halat , TammyRabinowicz , Birgit Weiland & Jane StaffordPublished online: 01 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Christopher F Sharpley , Jennifer Halat , Tammy Rabinowicz ,Birgit Weiland & Jane Stafford (2001) Standard posture, postural mirroring andclient-perceived rapport, Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 14:4, 267-280, DOI:10.1080/09515070110088843

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515070110088843

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

RESEARCH REPORTS

Standard posture, posturalmirroring and client-perceivedrapport

CHRISTOPHER F. SHARPLEY,1 JENNIFER HALAT,2

TAMMY RABINOWICZ,2 BIRGIT WEILAND2 &JANE STAFFORD2

1Institute for Health Sciences, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, 4229 Australia;2Monash University, Victoria, Australia

abstract The relationship between client-perceived rapport (as measured from a standard-ized client) and physical mirroring and the standard counsellor posture was investigated withinterviews performed by 59 post-graduate students in counselling psychology. Videotapedrecordings were used to code counsellor posture in the categories of: total postural mirroring,mirroring of the hands and arms, mirroring of the legs, mirroring of the torso, and the frequency ofthe standard counsellor posture across each minute of the interviews. These minutes were classi� edas ‘high’ in rapport or ‘low’ in rapport as measured by the standardized client. Results indicatedthat there was signi� cantly more postural mirroring of the torso during high versus low minutes,but that the counsellor standard posture occurred signi� cantly more frequently during low rapportminutes than in high rapport minutes. However, when examined over the entire length of theinterviews, these data were able to be understood in terms of counsellor ‘� exibility’ of responserather than simply whether these postural behaviours were present or not. Implications forcounsellor training are discussed.

Introduction

Research into the predictors of effective outcomes in counselling interactions has movedover the years away from a concentration on the therapist’s theoretical orientation,treatment methods, or personal characteristics, plus the client’s characteristics (Highlenand Hill, 1984; Gar� eld and Bergin, 1986; Wilson and Barkham, 1994; Shapiro, 1996).Because of the largely inconsistent � ndings from research into these variables (Orlinsky,1989), more recently this � eld has seen a change of focus towards process variables, or

Counselling Psychology Quarterly ISSN 0951–5070 print/ISSN 1469–3674 online # 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/09515070110088843

Counselling Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2001, pp. 267–280

Correspondence to: Prof. C. Sharpley, Institute for Health Sciences, Bond University, Gold Coast,Queensland, 4229, Australia.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

what actually occurs during counselling interviews (Barkham, 1990). Perhaps the mostconsistent outcome from this research has been that it is the therapeutic relationshipwhich is the most powerful predictor of successful therapy, rather than any aspect oforientation, intervention technique or theoretical approach (Orlinsky and Howard, 1986;Shapiro, 1996). This result suggests that, while the counsellor’s skills, interventions, andtechniques are important, they are not easily extracted from the context of the interactionand the consequent working relationship which is/is not established between counsellorand client. This working relationship has been conceptualized as the common threadwhich connects many differing schools of therapy, and is termed the ‘working alliance’(Hartley and Strupp, 1983; Horvath and Greenberg, 1989; Shapiro, 1996). Evident in thepsychoanalytic and client-centred school, the working alliance has also most recently beenidenti� ed as a signi� cant factor in successful cognitive therapies (Safran and Wallner,1991; Robins and Hayes, 1993), inspite of earlier inconsistent approaches to the value ofthe working alliance in cognitive therapy (e.g. Beck and Weishaar, 1989; Ellis, 1989;Robbins and Hayes, 1993). Horvath and Symonds (1991) identi� ed three essentialfeatures of the working alliance: collaboration, mutuality and engagement. These areclearly related to interpersonal rapport, de� ned as ‘a comfortable, harmonious, andcooperative relationship between client and therapist’ (Trout and Rosenfeld, 1980,p. 180). Tickle-Degnen and Rosenthal (1987) described the theoretical nature of rapportand suggested that it had nonverbal correlates, including postural alignment and spatialorientation as being related to attention and involvement within counselling interactions.In particular, Tickle-Degnen and Rosenthal suggested that the use of synchronised andharmonious behaviours such as interactional synchrony and postural mirroring contrib-uted in major ways to the development of rapport and the effective utilization of theworking alliance within therapy. Nonverbal behaviour has also been coined the ‘relation-ship language, . . .(which) is sensitive to changes in the quality of the ongoing inter-personal relationship’ (Highlen and Hill, 1984, p. 368).

The importance of nonverbal behaviour in counselling has been noted in trainingtexts. For example, Egan (1986) stressed that clients are sensitive to both verbal andnonverbal behaviours, suggesting that counsellors adopt an open posture, lean forward,face the client squarely, make good eye contact, and remain relaxed. Ivey and Simek-Downing (1980) suggested what they called ‘the standard posture’, and recommendedthat trainee counsellors ‘mirror the body position and movements of the client to help theclient feel more at ease’ (p. 114). Cormier and Cormier (1985) stressed the counsellor’snonverbal behaviour, stating that ‘Congruence and synchrony are important ways ofcontributing to rapport and building empathy within the developing relationship’ (p. 84).Thus, two aspects of counsellor nonverbal behaviour were selected for examination in thepresent research. First, the effectiveness of the standard posture in building rapport.Second, the outcome of synchrony and postural mirroring upon client-perceived rapport.

To consider the standard posture � rst. Although much nonverbal information aboutemotion and positive regard comes from the face (Mehrabian, 1969), the adoption of aposture which includes: sitting directly facing the patient, leaning forward, and restingone’s arms on one’s legs in a symmetrical and open manner, has been associated withhighest rapport ratings of physicians given by their patients (Harrigan and Rosenthal,1983; Harrigan et al., 1985). These research � ndings have led counsellor educators to

268 Christopher F. Sharpley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

urge trainees to adopt the counsellor standard posture (CSP). Both Ivey and Simek-Downing (1980) and Egan (1986) describe this as a relaxed body posture, forward trunklean and direct eye contact. More therapy-focussed research into the effects of the CSPupon clients’ ratings of rapport and client expertness, trustworthiness, and attractivenesshas emphasized that these are largely determined by counsellors’ nonverbal behavioursincluding the CSP. However, there are also some limitations to this research. First, themeasure of counsellor effectiveness via observers’ judgments is � awed, simply because itdoes not use the client’s experience to draw conclusions (Fuqua et al., 1986). Second,Uhlemann et al. (1989) noted that the timing of the counsellor’s nonverbal needed to beconsidered when deciding how effective these were. These two issues of measurement(of the client’s assessment of rapport) and timing (of the effects of counsellor nonverbalbehaviour throughout an interview) require further investigation before reliable con-clusions can be drawn regarding the ef� cacy or otherwise of the CSP.

The other aspect of nonverbal behaviour which is under scrutiny here is that ofsynchrony and postural mirroring. Synchrony refers to the matching of body movementsand coordination of postures between two or more interacting individuals. There arevarious types of synchrony, but that which is most pertinent here is synchrony betweenpostures (as distinct to, for example, synchrony between movements). Postural mirroringis an example of synchrony between postures. One of the earliest examinations of theeffects of postural mirroring was reported by Dabbs (1969), who had a confederate mimicor antimimic a subject during an interview. Subjects who were mimicked reported theconfederate more favourably than subjects who were antimimicked. Navarre (1982)noted that subjects whose posture was copied during an interview rated themselves asmore similar to the interviewer than subjects in interviews when the interviewer adopted aneutral posture. Navarre concluded that posture sharing (i.e. mirroring) communicatesnonverbally that the interviewer shares the client’s perspective, and therefore helpsestablish rapport. Speci� c investigations of the effects of postural mirroring withincounselling situations were conducted by Trout and Rosenfeld (1980), who had trainedraters rate a videotape of actors who were interacting with subjects and who varied theamount of postural mirroring. Raters’ judgements of rapport were highest duringepisodes of mirroring than during episodes of non-mirroring. Similarly, clients whowere counselled by therapists who showed a high degree of postural mirroring rated theircounsellors as more empathic than counsellors who did not mirror their clients (Maurerand Tindall, 1983). However, LaFrance and Ickes (1981) also noted that posturalmirroring during initial meetings (of noncounselling dyads) was associated with lowerlevels of rapport, suggesting that mirroring may be too potent for use when the dyadicrelationship is new.

While both postural mirroring and the CSP may initially appear to be related, thereare clearly some conditions under which they are not. For example, when a client isanxious, sitting huddled in a chair, face down and arms and legs tightly folded, it wouldbe unlikely for an experienced counsellor to adopt a postural mirroring stance in the hopeof achieving rapport. Instead, mirroring in this situation might easily anger the client or(at the very least) engender an attitude of distrust in the counsellor. Therefore, the timingof mirroring and the type of mirroring are of major relevance in determining the effects ofmirroring within counselling interactions.

Posture and rapport 269

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

This caution may not be so necessary for the CSP. Counsellor posture is a leadingsource of communication from the therapist to the client, and may be hypothesized asbeing helpful in building rapport even within the earliest moments of interviews.However, without some kind of data collection which measures rapport (from the client’sperspective) during various segments of the counselling interview, there is no way ofdetermining whether this commonly-held belief is supported by fact.

Therefore, the present study was designed to examine two aspects of the counsellor’snonverbal behaviour—postural mirroring and standard posture—for their effects uponclient-perceived rapport. Additionally, data were collected on client-perceived rapport atone-minute intervals during the entire interview so as to be able to compare the effect ofcounsellors nonverbal behaviour at different stages of the interview process.

Methods

Participants

Counsellors. Fifty-nine volunteer trainee counsellors (47 females) aged between 21 and 60 years(Mean ˆ27.3 years) who were enrolled in a Master of Psychology degree in Counselling Psychology at MonashUniversity each completed an initial therapy interview (mean length ˆ46.5 minutes, range ˆ25.3 to 60 minutes)which was videotaped with their permission. All of these counsellors had recently passed one-semester oftraining in counselling skills based upon Ivey’s Microcounselling model (Ivey et al., 1980).

Standardized client. The standardized client (SC) refers to a research participant who is trained to present

the same problem in multiple counselling interviews and to also make minute-by-minute assessments of rapport

during therapy interviews. The SC was developed to enhance the reliable assessment of the effects of speci� ccounsellor behaviours during therapy interviews (Sharpley and Ridgway, 1992; Sharpley et al., 1994), and has

demonstrated high reliability (test-retest, alpha) and validity (construct, content), enabling it to be applied to a

range of counsellor behaviours such as verbal responses (Sharpley and Guidara, 1993; Sharpley and Heyne,1993), eye contact and forward lean (Sharpley and Sagris, 1995), and silence (Sharpley and Harris, 1995). The

present study was a further step in this programme of research.

In the present study, two female SCs were used, one aged 24 and the other aged 45. Both were graduates

of the M Psych (Counselling) at Monash University and both had at least three years practice in the � eld prior to

participating in this study. Each SC underwent 15 hours of training in: presenting a problem which was genuine

for them at the time; developing 16 key statements about the problem which were placed on cue cards and visible

to the SC (but not the counsellor) during the interview; using a � ve button device for registering their perception

of rapport at one minute points during the interviews (SCs were cued by a ‘bug-in-the-ear’ device) according to

the de� nition given by Trout and Rosenfeld (1980) as ‘a comfortable, harmonious, and cooperative relationship

between the client and the therapist’ (p. 180). The SCs were not aware of the independent variables under

investigation in this study.

Coders. Four M Psych students were trained to code counsellor nonverbal behaviour. These four raterswere female, aged between 25–36 years, and received several hours training in coding the posture variables

examined here. Two raters coded CSP, and two coded postural mirroring (PM) from a videotape of each

counselling interview taken from the side of the counsellor–SC pair so that CSP and PM were visible. Inaddition, the videotapes showed the elapsed minutes during the interview and the SC’s rating of rapport on a � ve

point scale (see below). Interrater reliability was calculated on nine videotapes, with mean agreement for CSP

being 99.97% (range ˆ99.5 to 100%), and 98.3 (85.7 to 100%) for PM.

270 Christopher F. Sharpley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

Independent variables

Counsellor standard posture was de� ned as follows:

The counsellor standard posture is de� ned according to Ivey and Simek-Downing’s (1980)de� nition of Counselor attending behaviour. This is: ‘Direct eye contact . . . slight forward trunklean, facilitative gestures indicative of attention to client, faces toward client in open position. relaxedas appropriate to situation’ (p. 54). ‘Open position’ is operationalized as limb positions which are notjoined, crossed, or turned away from the client. For example, crossed arms, or legs held together, aredeemed to be a closed posture, and therefore not in the counsellor standard posture.

Counsellor postural mirroring was de� ned as follows:

Postural mirroring can be de� ned as the adoption of the same mirror image posture in any part of thebody between two facing individuals. This means that an individual’s right side is positioned thesame as the other individual’s left side when they are facing each other. During a period of posturalmirroring brief episodes of gesturing by either individual in the dyad will be allowed. This means thatan individual may temporarily ‘leave’ the stationary mirrored position to make a facilitative gesture,and then return to the mirrored position (such gesturing is particularly apparent in hand and armmirroring). Brief deviations of gesturing of up to 10 seconds from the mirrored position will beallowed, as long as the gesturing ends with a return to this mirrored position. If the gesturingcontinues for longer than the designated 10 seconds, the mirroring is said to have ended at that timewhen the gesturing originally began. Postural mirroring is therefore to be timed from the momentthat an individual assumes mirrored position with the other individual, and to end when one of theindividuals assumes a non-mirrored position or gestures for a period of more than 10 seconds. Verybrief episodes of mirroring (less than 2 seconds) are not to be coded, as accuracy cannot be achievedusing standard speed videorecordings.

Using the second-by-second timer which appeared at the base of the video picture, raters observed and timed theoccurrence of postural mirroring for: (a) the torso; (b) the counsellor’s right leg and the SC’s left leg; (c) thecounsellor’s left leg and the SC’s right leg; (d) the counsellor’s right arm/hand and the SC’s left arm/hand; and(e) the whole body. The SC’s right hand was occupied with rapport ratings and so was not included in themirroring de� nitions.

Dependent variable

Measures of rapport.1. In-session measures: a panel with � ve buttons recessed on it and spaced so as to match the SC’s right hand

� ngers was used to record rapport as perceived by the SC. Each minute, the SC was cued by a one-secondtone in her right ear from a ‘bug-in-the-ear’ device, and the SC pressed one of the � ve buttons correspondingto her perception of rapport from very low, low, moderate, high, to very high (Sharpley and Ridgway, 1992).

2. Post-session measures: in order to provide a check on the validity of the minute-by-minute in-session ratingof rapport and to further investigate the relationship between rapport and posture, two post-session measuresof rapport were collected from the SCs. These were the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (BLRI:Barrett-Lennard, 1962), and the Bond scale of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-B: Horvath andGreenberg, 1989). As reported previously, the in-session measure of rapport correlated signi� cantly withpost-session rapport measures on the Barret-Lennard Relationship Inventory (r ˆ0.78) and the Bond scale ofthe Working Alliance Inventory (rˆ0.77) (Sharpley et al., 1994).

Procedure

Each rating pair viewed each of the 59 videotaped counselling interviews, with one rater recording the rapportratings and the other rater recording the postural data. When either CSP or PM appeared on the videotape, thetape was stopped by a remote control device and the exact timing of the posture taken. The videotape was then

Posture and rapport 271

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

started and played until the posture was observed to end, when the exact moment of stopping the posture wasnoted and precise measures of the elapsed time taken.

All procedures were approved by the Standing Committee on Ethics in Human Subject Research at

Monash University.

Results

Overall data

From the 59 interviews, 2750 one minute segments were derived, falling into thecategories of SC-rated rapport as: Very low rapport ˆ36 minutes (1.3%), Lowrapportˆ233 minutes (8.5%), Moderate rapport ˆ1328 minutes (48.29%), Highrapportˆ676 minutes (24.58%) and Very high rapport ˆ477 minutes (17.34%). There-fore, to enable reliable application of comparative statistical procedures, two groups werede� ned: ‘low rapport’, consisting of very low and low rapport minutes (n ˆ269 minutes,9.80%), and ‘high rapport’, consisting of the very high rapport minutes (477 minutes,17.34%). Thus, minutes originally rated as moderate and high rapport minutes wereexcluded from the data analysis, allowing for the comparison of two disparate groups ofone-minute data.

Five postural measures were investigated. These were: Total Postural Mirroring(TPM); Postural Mirroring Arm/Hand (PMA); Postural Torso Mirroring (PMT);Postural Mirroring Legs (PML); and Counsellor Standard Posture (CSP). Table Ishows the mean time in seconds for each of these � ve postural variables across the 59interviews, indicating that PMA was the most frequent posture and PML the leastfrequent posture noted. Table II shows these data across the low and high rapportminutes reclassi� ed as per the procedure described in the preceding paragraph. A

272 Christopher F. Sharpley et al.

Table II. Mean frequency in seconds per minute of posture variables in(reclassi� ed) high versus low rapport minutes

Posture Low rapport (1 & 2) High rapport (5)Total postural mirroring 6.55 7.80PMA: Postural mirroring-arms 4.35 4.90PMT: Postural mirroring-torso 1.34 4.08PML: Postural mirroring-legs 0.94 0.33CSP: Counsellor Standard Posture 58.64 40.53

Table I. Mean frequency in seconds per minute of posture variables across58 counselling interviews

Posture Mean SD RangeTPM: Total postural mirroring 7.33 12.69 0–60.00PMA: Postural mirroring-arms 5.21 8.12 0–33.72PMT: Postural mirroring-torso 2.21 11.11 0–60.00PML: Postural mirroring-legs 0.28 1.20 0–5.46CSP: Counsellor Standard Posture 51.63 19.19 0–60.00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

MANOVA on these data showed a signi� cant main effect (F(5, 748) ˆ22.731, p < 0.001:Wilks Lambda). Univariate analyses revealed signi� cant effects for mean PMT perminute (low rapport minutes ˆ1.34 seconds, high rapport minutes ˆ4.08 minutes:F(1,752) ˆ7.431, p < 0.01), and for mean CSP per minute (low rapport minutes ˆ58.64seconds, high rapport minutes ˆ40.53: F(1,752) ˆ109.200, p < 0.001). Thus, there wassigni� cantly more torso postural mirroring in minutes rated as high in rapport by the SCs,but signi� cantly less use of the standard posture by counsellors in high rapport minutesthan in low rapport minutes.

There were no signi� cant effects for the postural variables across groups classi� ed byeither scores on the BLRI or on the WAI-B.

Minute-by-minute analysis of data

Interview data were next examined on a minute-by-minute basis rather than entireinterviews. Low rapport minutes were compared with high rapport minutes for therelative amount (in seconds) of the � ve posture variables occurring in those minutesacross the period of the interview. That is, at minute one of all interviews, all thoseminutes which had been reclassi� ed by the procedure described above as low in rapportwere compared with those all those minutes reclassi� ed as high in rapport according tothe length of time spent in each of the postural variables, and so on for each minute up to60, giving two ‘series’ of minutes. In order to detect overt trends across the parts of theseinterviews, they were divided into ‘early’ (minutes 1 to 15), ‘middle’ (minutes 16 to 40)and ‘� nal’ (minutes 41 to 60) of the interviews. Each of the � ve posture variables isdiscussed in turn below.

Total Postural Mirroring (TPM). Figure 1 shows the smoothed graph of the secondsof total postural mirroring in high versus low rapport minutes, indicating that, during lowrapport minutes, TPM rose and dropped during the early stage of the interviews, and didso twice during the middle stage of the interviews. By contrast, TPM in high rapportminutes was less noticeable, rising from the beginning of the middle stage of theinterviews and peaking during the � nal stage of the interviews. Clearly, while there wassome similarity in TPM between high and low rapport minutes during the middle stage ofthe interviews, both the early and � nal stages of the interviews are substantially differentlyin the occurrence of TPM across minutes rated by the SCs as high versus low in rapport,suggesting that TPM is associated with high rapport during the later stages rather thenduring the early stage of these interviews.

Postural Mirroring Arm/Hand (PMA). Figure 2 shows the smoothed graph of theseconds of postural mirroring of the arm and/or hand in high versus low rapport minutes.Clearly, apart from the latter half of the middle stage of the interviews (when both highand low rapport minutes had similarly moderate levels of PMA) there are two patterns ofoccurrence for the high versus low minutes, with PMA rising and then falling sharply inlow rapport minutes during the middle stage of the interviews and thereafter remaininglow. By contrast, PMA did not peak in high rapport minutes until the � nal stage of theinterviews (while it remained low for low rapport minutes).

Posture and rapport 273

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

Postural Mirroring for Torso (PMT). Figure 3 shows the data for postural mirroringinvolving the torso, demonstrating the previously-reported signi� cantly higher levels ofPMT in high versus low rapport minutes overall. During low rapport minutes, PMToccurred in only four very brief peaks, whereas it gradually rose during the middle stage ofthe interviews for high rapport minutes and peaked during the � nal stage of interviews. Aline of best � t applied to the PMT data from high rapport minutes is also shown,

274 Christopher F. Sharpley et al.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

One-minute segments

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40S

eco

nd

s o

f m

irro

rin

gHigh rapportOutputLow rapportOutput

Fig. 1. Total postural mirroring in high versus low rapport minutes across interviews.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

One-minute segments

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Sec

on

ds

of

mir

rori

ng

Low rapportOutputHigh rapportOutput

Fig. 2. Postural mirroring in hands and arms in high versus low rapport minutes across interviews.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

indicating the acceleration in occurrence of PMT during high rapport minutes over thelast half of the interviews.

Postural Mirroring for Legs (PML). Figure 4 shows that postural mirroring for the legsof the counsellor and the SCs occurred very infrequently, with only two brief peaks during

Posture and rapport 275

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

One-minute segments

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14S

eco

nd

s o

f m

irro

rin

gOutputHigh rapportLow rapport

Fig. 3. Postural mirroring for torso in high versus low rapport minutes across interviews.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60One-minute segments

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Sec

on

ds

of

mir

rori

ng

LowOutputHigh rapportOutput

Fig. 4. Postural mirroring for legs in high versus low rapport minutes across interviews.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

the middle stage for low rapport minutes and a single peak during the same stage for highrapport minutes.

Counsellor Standard Posture (CSP). Figure 5 shows the clear and signi� cant differ-ences between CSP in high versus low rapport minutes across the three stages of theinterviews. While CSP remained relatively stable and almost constant during low rapportminutes, it was almost absent during the � rst part of the early stage of the interviews forhigh rapport minutes, and then consistently increased during the latter part of the earlystage and the remaining stages, reaching the same 100% incidence as for low rapportminutes during the last half of the � nal stage of the interviews. Thus, the earlier-observedand statistically signi� cant difference in CSP between high versus low rapport minutesappears to be principally con� ned to the early stage of the interviews and a little in themiddle stage of the interviews, but not during the � nal stage of the interviews.

Discussion

Although there was no signi� cant relationship between Total Postural Mirroring andrapport in the present study, either as measured via the in-session or post-sessionmeasures of rapport and empathy, mirroring of the torso (PMT) was signi� cantly morefrequent during minutes rated as high in minute-by-minute rapport by the SC than inminutes rated low in rapport on the same measure. In itself, this suggests that this aspectof mirroring may hold a major impact for the development of rapport engendered bycounsellors’ attempts to follow their clients by way of adopting the same postures as theirclients. Mirroring of arms and legs does not appear to be so impactful, supporting adegree of freedom in the ways counsellors use these limbs during counselling interviews,although mirroring with arms and hands (i.e. PMA, shown in Figure 2) did show the

276 Christopher F. Sharpley et al.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

One-minute segments

0

10

20

30

40

50

60S

eco

nd

s o

f st

and

ard

po

stu

re

Low rapportOutputHigh rapportOutput

Fig. 5. Counsellor standard posture in high versus low rapport minutes across interviews.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

same trend as for TPM (i.e. to increase in high rapport minutes and decrease in lowrapport minutes as the interviews reached their � nal stage).

These results for total mirroring are somewhat at odds with some previous datawhich found that overall mirroring was signi� cantly associated with rapport (e.g.Charny, 1966; LaFrance and Broadbent, 1976; Trout and Rosenfeld, 1980; Maurerand Tindall, 1983), but may be explained by the fact that those previous studies measuredrapport by either raters’ or clients’ post-session evaluations, rather than the in-session SCratings collected here. The � nding that post-session measures of rapport (i.e. the BLRIand the WAI-B) were not associated with overall postural mirroring in the present studybe explained by the fact that the SCs had been previously cued as to the degree ofrapport they experienced during the interviews (i.e. via the minute-by-minute ratings theygave) before they came to give their BLRI and WAI-B evaluations, and therefore mayhave made their BLRI and WAI-B responses with that previous evaluation of rapport inmind.

The relationship between PMT and rapport is best understood by reference to theliterature on forward lean. For example, the torso has been associated with rapport duringperiods when the counsellor leans forward (Haase and Tepper, 1972; Sharpley andSagris, 1995), the latter results being obtained within a study which used the same rapportassessment procedure as used here. Thus, torso mirroring may not intentionally bemirroring per se, but rather an aspect of the CSP (i.e. when counsellors adopt a forwardlean position) which occurred at the times of the interview that the SCs were mostengaged and therefore leaning forward themselves as an indication of their involvement inthe therapy process.

The data on the CSP were unexpected, and appear to contradict the prevailingZeitgeist. However, the unpredicted � nding that signi� cantly more minutes of the CSPwere noted during low than during high rapport minutes may be explained by reference tothe minute-by-minute data on this variable. From Figure 5, it is apparent that there aretwo secondary differences between the data for high versus low rapport minutes—those ofdirection and variability. Although precise data on the reasons for these changes was notcollected in the present study, the raw data on which Figure 5 was based (and which arerepresented by singular data points shown on that � gure) indicate that the series of highrapport minutes showed more frequent changes in mean levels of CSP than the series oflow rapport minutes, and that the changes noted were of greater magnitude in high thanin low rapport minutes. To be more precise, the series of low rapport minutes showed � vechanges of magnitude greater than two seconds after the commencement of the interview,and all of these were reductions from, or returns to, the standard 100% frequency patternwhich was predominant of the behaviour of counsellors during low rapport minutes. Bycontrast, the series of high rapport minutes was marked by 12 such changes of magnitudeof greater than two seconds, suggesting greater � exibility in the application of the CSP inhigh rapport minutes than in the low rapport minutes. In addition, the total magnitude ofthese changes in high rapport minutes (calculated by adding the total seconds variationfrom minute to minute) was 170 seconds, compared to 114 seconds variability in lowrapport minutes. Finally, in terms of the direction of the data trend, Figure 5 clearlyshows that CSP gradually increased during high rapport minutes, whereas it remained allbut stable during low rapport minutes. Together, these data argue strongly that low

Posture and rapport 277

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

rapport minutes were marked by a � xed use of the CSP, whereas high rapport minutesshowed a � exibility in the use of the CSP. This � nding adds to some previous datapublished from this research programme which argued that the most rapport-inducingapplication of basic counselling microskills such as minimal encouragers and overallverbosity (Sharpley and Guidara, 1993), eye contact and forward lean (Sharpley andSagris, 1995) and silence (Sharpley and Harris, 1995) was one in which usage was � exiblerather than static. It appears that the rigid application of so-called ‘rapport-inducing’counsellor behaviours may not be as effective in maximising the therapeutic relationshipas a use which re� ects greater ability on the part of the counsellor to � ex with the momentand spirit of the interview, thus perhaps conveying an (accurate) impression of greatercon� dence and ability.

In terms of implications for counsellor training practices, these data challenge theblanket adoption of postural mirroring by trainees. Instead, the use of postural mirroringappears to be most valuable in promoting rapport when used: (a) after the relationship ispast its beginning stages (i.e. during the middle and last thirds of the interviews); and (b)as an aspect of the CSP. As noted above and in some previous reports, counsellors whofollow rigid patterns of nonverbal behaviour (such as mirroring or the CSP) regardless ofthe emotional state of the client or the progress of the therapeutic relationship do so at therisk of reducing or impeding rapport. Instead, application of mirroring and the CSPshould be based upon a continual awareness of the client-counsellor engagement, andused to build that in conjunction with other aspects of the counsellor’s behaviour such aseye contact, verbal responses, and silence. This � nding and suggestion may be challengedby the often-quoted maxim that it is valuable to begin the interview with the CSP becausethis sends a powerful nonverbal message to the client that the counsellor is available at avery basic and consistent level. While this maxim is logical and widespread, it may be thatit is based upon counsellors’ or trainers’ ideas of what should work to enhance thetherapeutic relationship rather than data obtained from clients (or at least standardizedclients).

Overall, the data from this study support the use of the CSP, but in conjunction withsome effort by the counsellor to mediate its universal use with sensitivity to the impressionmade upon the client. Similarly, mirroring is positively related to rapport (at least in thesedata), but when it involves the torso rather than arms or legs. The torso may also beinvolved in the forward lean movement or stance adopted by successful counsellors, but itis doubtful if mirroring per se is responsible for large amounts of rapport. Instead, whencombined with the � exible use of other counsellor behaviours, both mirroring and theCSP may contribute to the building of the therapeutic alliance which, as shown previousresearch, is the sum (rather than a speci� c aspect) of counsellor behaviours whichmaximizes bene� cial outcomes for clients.

References

Beck, A.T. & Weishaar, M.E. (1989) Cognitive therapy. In R.J. Corsini & D. Wedding (eds) Currentpsychotherapies, fourth edition (pp. 285–320). Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.

Charny, E. J. (1966) Psychosomatic manifestations of rapport in psychotherapy. Psychosomatic Medicine28, 305–315.

278 Christopher F. Sharpley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

Cormier, W.H. & Cormier, L.S. (1985) Interviewing strategies for helpers, second edition. Monterey, CA:Brooks/Cole.

Dabbs, J.M. (1969) Similarity of gestures and interpersonal in� uence. Proceedings of the 77th annualConvention of the American Psychological Association 4, 337–338.

Egan, G. (1986) The skilled helper, third edition. Monteray, CA: Brooks/Cole.Ellis, A. (1989) Rational-emotive therapy. In R.J. Corsini & D. Wedding (eds) Current psychotherapies,

fourth edition (pp. 197-238). Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.Fuqua, D., Newman, J., Scott, T. & Gade, E. (1986) Variability across sources of performance ratings:

further evidence. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 33, 343–351.Garfield, S.L. & Bergin, A.E. (1986) Introduction and historical overview. In S.L. Gar eld & A.E.

Bergin (eds), Handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change, third edition (pp. 3–22). New York:John Wiley & Sons.

Haase, R.F. & Tepper, D.T. Jr (1972) Nonverbal components of empathic communication. Journal ofCounselling Psychology, 19, 417–424.

Hartley, D.E. & Strupp, H.H. (1983) The therapeutic alliance: its relationship to outcome in briefpsychotherapy. In J. Masling (ed.) Empirical studies of psychoanalytical theories (pp. 1–37). Hillsdale,NJ: Analytic Press.

Harrigan, J.A. & Rosenthal, R. (1983) Physicians’ head and body positions as determinants ofperceived rapport. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 496–509

Harrigan, J.A., Oxman, T.E. & Rosenthal, R. (1985) Rapport expressed through nonverbal behaviour.Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, 9, 95–110.

Highlen, G. & Hill, H. (1984) Factors affecting client change in counselling. In S.D. Brown & R. Lent(Eds), Handbook of counselling psychology (pp. 334–396). New York: Wiley.

Horvath, A.O. & Greenberg, L.S. (1989) Development and validation of the working allianceinventory. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 36, 223–233.

Horvath, A.O. & Symonds, B.D. (1991) Relation between working alliance and outcome in psycho-therapy: a meta-analysis. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 38, 139–149.

Ivey, A.E. & Simek-Downing, L. (1980) Counselling and psychotherapy. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.LaFrance, M. & Broadbent, M. (1976) Group rapport: Posture sharing as a nonverbal indicator. Group

& Organization Studies 1, 328–333.LaFrance, M. & Ickes, W. (1981) Posture mirroring and interactional involvement: sex and sex typing

effects. Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, 5, 139–154.Maurer, R. & Tindall, J. (1983) Effect of postural congruence on client’s perception of counselor

empathy. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 30, 158–163.Mehrabian, A. (1969) Signi� cance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status

relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 359–372.Navarre, D. (1982) Posture sharing in dyadic interaction. American Journal of Dance Therapy, 5, 28–42.Orlinsky, D.E. (1989) Researchers’ images of psychotherapy: their origins and in� uence on research.

Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 413–441.Orlinsky, D.E. & Howard, K.I. (1986) Process and outcome in psychotherapy. In S.L. Gar eld & A.E.

Bergin (eds) Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change, third edition (pp. 311–384). New York:John Wiley & Sons.

Robins, C.J. & Hayes, A.M. (1993) An appraisal of cognitive therapy. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 61, 205–214.

Safran, J.D. & Wallner, L.K. (1991) The relative predictive validity of two therapeutic alliancemeasures in cognitive therapy. Psychological Assessment, 3, 188–195.

Shapiro, D.A. (1996) Models of change in psychotherapy. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 9, 177–181.Sharpley, C.F. & Guidara, D.A. (1993) Counsellor verbal response mode usage and client-perceived

rapport. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 6, 131–142.Sharpley, C.F. & Harris, M. (1995) Antecedents, consequents, and effects of silence during cognitive

behavioural therapy interviews. Scandinavian Journal of Behaviour Therapy, 24, 1–14.

Posture and rapport 279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

Sharpley, C.F. & Heyne, D.A. (1993) Counsellor communicative control and client-perceived rapport.Counselling Psychology Quartley, 6, 171–181.

Sharpley, C.F. & Ridgway, I.R. (1992) Development and � eld-testing of a procedure for coachedclients to assess rapport during trainees’ counselling interviews. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 5,149–160.

Sharpley, C.F. & Sagris, A. (1995) When does counsellor forward lean in� uence client-perceivedrapport? British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 23, 387–394 .

Sharpley, C.F., Guidara, D.A. & Rowley, M.A. (1994) Psychometric evaluation of a ‘standardizedclient’ procedure with trainee counsellors. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 7, 69–82.

Tickle-Degnen, L. & Rosenthal, R. (1987) Group rapport and nonverbal behaviour. Review ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 9, 113–136.

Trout, D.L. & Rosenfeld, H.M. (1980) The effect of postural lean and body congruence on thejudgement of psychotherapeutic rapport. Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, 4, 176–190.

Uhlemann, M.R., Lee, D.Y. & Hasse, R.F. (1989) The effects of cognitive complexity and arousal onclient perception of counsellor nonverbal behaviour. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 661–665.

Wilson, J.E. & Barkham, M. (1994) A practitioner-scientist approach to psychotherapy process andoutcome research. In P. Clarkson & M. Pokorny (Eds), The handbook of psychotherapy (pp. 49–72).London: Routledge.

280 Christopher F. Sharpley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

47 2

3 Ja

nuar

y 20

15