Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Continuance in psychotherapy as a functionof expectations and socioeconomic status
Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Foote, Janis Elaine, 1949-
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.
Download date 24/07/2021 04:50:21
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/554914
CONTINUANCE IN PSYCHOTHERAPY AS A FUNCTION OF
EXPECTATIONS.AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
by
Janis Elaine Foote
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1 9 7 5
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
SIGNED
APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR
This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My appreciation is extended to Tucson East Community Mental
Health Center for allowing me to conduct this research a:t their facility.
I would especially like to acknowledge the advice and support given me
by Spencer McWilliams. The suggestions of Marvin Kahn and Phillip Balch
were invaluable in the design of this study and the interpretation of
results.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
. Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
ABSTRACT ........... . . . . . . . . . vi
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Clinic Policies ............... . . . . . . . . 2Therapist Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Client Characteristics ..................... . . . . . . . . 4
METHOD......................... 12
Subjects . . . . 12Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Procedure .. ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
APPENDIX A: EXPECTATIONS OF THERAPY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 -
APPENDIX B: PERCEPTIONS OF THERAPY ............. . . . . . . . . 26
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1, Social Class Differences Between Experimental andControl Subjects................. 16
2, Differences Between Experimental and Control Subjects Regarding Scheduled Second Appointment « « 16
3, Differences Between Experimental and Control SubjectsRegarding Return for Second Appointment . . 17
4, Socioeconomic Status and Scheduled Second Appointment . * 17
5„ Discrepancy Score and Scheduled Second Appointment . . . . 18
6, Socioeconomic Status and Return for Second Appointment , . 18
7„ Discrepancy Score and Return for Second Appointment „ 0 » 19
8» Socioeconomic Status and Discrepancy Score . . . . . . . . 19
v
ABSTRACT
In recent years, the issue has been raised as to why people fail
to return after an initial interview at a mental health center. The
present study investigated two variables which appear to distinguish
non-continuers from continuers in therapy: membership in a lower socio
economic class, and discrepancy between expectations and perceptions of
the therapeutic situation. A questionnaire eliciting standardized demo
graphic and historical information was administered to a total of 532
subjects at a community mental health center. Of these, an experimental
group of 340 subjects also completed a pre-interview questionnaire
recording expectation of what the therapeutic situation would be like,
and a post-questionnaire recording perceptions of the interview. No
social class differences between continuance and non-continuance were
found, and discrepancies between expectations and perceptions were not
related to continuance in therapy. Possible explanations for the discre
pancy between these results and those reported in most prior research
were discussed.
INTRODUCTION
With the increased demand by the community in recent years for
psychiatric care has come an increased interest in the effectiveness of
mental health clinics. One major area of research involves the issue of
why people fail to return after an initial interview at a mental health
center, or terminate treatment prematurely. Various studies have shown
that from 30 to 65 percent of all patients referred to facilities repre
senting a broad range of psychiatric service are drop-outs (Adler, Coin
and Yamamoto 1963; Eiduson 1968; Levinger 1960; Lorr, Katz and
Rubenstein 1958; Perlman 1960).
The investigation of this phenomenon is of importance for several
reasons. One of these is the economic waste involved. The intake pro
cess involves time, money, and the energies of the clinic staff. Accord
ing to Raynes and Warren (1971b), at a time of increasing demands by the
community for psychiatric care, and a shortage of manpower resources
available to the clinics to meet these demands, the high initial drop
out rate of patients from clinics is an indication of their failure to
provide adequate services. A more serious problem, however, involves
the fate of the people who come to a mental health facility for the first
time. This is usually a time when their motivation is high enough to
seek help. The initial contact with the agency is of crucial importance
in determining whether the person will maintain the motivation necessary
to receive the help he is seeking.
It has been suggested that such "drop-out" behavior may be due
to a number of variables and combinations of variables, including clinic
policies, characteristics of the intake interviewer, the interviewer-
clinic relationship, and characteristics of the patients and their pre
senting problems.
Clinic Policies
The clinic policy variable that has received the most attention
is that of the waiting period, i.e., the time between referral and
appointment. Although Gould, Paulson and Daniels-Epps (1970) and Paynes
and Warren (1971a) report that they have found no relationship between
the length of time between the potential client's initial call for an
appointment and appointment given, and show or no-show behavior, several
studies indicate that this factor might be involved in high initial drop
out rates (Brown 1962, Heyder 1960, Korner 1963, Maholick and Shapiro
1962, Raynes and Warren 1971b). Another clinic policy, that of ex
cessively compulsive and long-winded intake procedures, has been suggest
ed as accounting for high initial drop-out rates (Chafetz 1962, Maholick
and Shapiro 1962). Phillips (1967) has suggested that making steps in
clinical practice less discrete, simplifying evaluation, getting patients
into treatment immediately, and delineating treatment regiments and goals
might be effective in decreasing attrition, or premature termination of
psychotherapy.
Therapist, Characteristics
As Levinger (1960) points out in a research summary, there is
little available knowledge concerning the personal characteristics of
the therapist which may have an influence on the clientfs continuance
in therapy. However, some research indicates that while the thera
pists* professional training per se is unrelated to the patientfs con
tinuance, his warmth and social distance from the patient may play an
important role (Levinger 1960)„ Therapist attitudes toward patients
have also been investigated as being an important variable in continu
ance. Salzman et al. (1970) asked interviewers to complete a question
naire regarding their attitudes toward the applicant at the end of the
initial consultation. It was found that feelings of some degree of
anger on the part of the interviewer during the initial meeting were
recorded significantly more frequently toward those applicants who sub
sequently dropped out of. therapy than toward those who continued.
White, Fichtenbaum and Bollard (1964b) also concluded that interviewers*
attitudes of like or dislike toward outpatient applicants during the
initial consultation may be instrumental in the client's decision to
return for a second appointment. Lowinger and Dobie (1966) used a
questionnaire to investigate therapist attitudes towards clients in the
initial interview and also found that negative attitudes held by the
therapist significantly determined the number of return visits by out
patients for treatment. Baum, Felzer, D1 Zmura and Shumaker (1966; p. 633)
describes those therapists who have a lower drop-out rate, especially
with lower socioeconomic patients, as being "more secure, more clinically
experienced, task oriented and aware of patient needs, and who are able
to make use of a broad spectrum of psychotherapy in a flexible way.11
As Levinger (1960) points out, more research is needed concerning the
4role of therapist attitudes and characteristics play in continuance in
psychotherapy.
Client Characteristics
Among the characteristics of clients that have been investigated
..in relation to client continuance in therapy are sex (Adler et al. 1963,
Heyder I960, Kidd and Euphrat 1971, Raynes and Warren 1971a, 1971b,
Salzman et al. 1970); age (Meyer 1967, Raynes and Warren 1971b); race
(Adler et al. 1963, Meyer 1967, Raynes and Warren 1971b, Salzman et al.
1970); marital status (Adler et al. 1963, Meyer 1967, Raynes and Warren
1971b, Salzman et al. 1970); previous psychiatric care (Adler et al.
1963, Raynes and Warren 1971b) ; presenting problem (Kagen 1957, Raynes
and Warren 1971b); degree or stage of problem at time of request for help
(Gould et al. 1970); religion (Salzman et al. 1970); history of parental
loss (Raynes and Warren 1971a) ; and individual referral source (Adler
et al. 1963; Raynes and Warren 1971a, 1971b). Other patient character
istics that have been studied as possibly related to continuance in
therapy include ego defense patterns (Hoffman 1969, Lowinger and Dobie
1966); extent to which the client reports experiencing feelings and own
problems during the initial interview (Kirkner and Cartwright 1958) ;' ' >
intellectual capacity (Kagen 1957); duration of symptoms (Meyer 1967);
amount of client verbalization during the initial interview (White et al.)
1964a, 1964b); motivation for treatment (Borghi 1968, Pfouts, Wallach
and Jenkins 1963) ; anxiety and dependence (Borghi 1968); socioeconomic
class (Adler et al. 1963, Borghi 1968, Kidd and Euphrat 1971, Meyer 1967,
Overall and Aronson 1963, Salzman et al. 1970, White et al. 1964a); and
expectations of the patient concerning the therapeutic situation (Baum
and Felzer 1964, Borghi 1968, Clemes and DfAndrea 1965, Eiduson 1968;
Freedman et al. 1958, Fisher and Cohen 1972, Fisher and Turner 1970,
Goldstein 1960, 1962, Heine and Trosman I960; Kamin and Caughlin 1963;
Levitt 1966, Lorion 1973, Lorian, in press, Lorr and McNair 1964,
Overall and Aronson 1963, Perlman 1960, White et al. 1964a, Williams
et al. 1967), Among these client variables studied, three, those of
higher socioeconomic status, self-referral, and realized expectations of.
therapy seem to be consistently related to continuance in therapy. ,
Based on these studies and others, some investigators have
attempted to devise global descriptions of non-continuers in therapy.
In a summary of research findings, Shyne (1957) suggests that the
following are characteristic of people who come for help to a mental
health clinic, but don’t respond to offers of further service; lack
of acceptance of responsibility for the existence of the problem; lack
of realization of the need to participate in its solution; low motiva
tion for solution of the problem; resistance to the therapist’s explora
tions; and negative attitudes of other family members. Also character
istic of patients who tend to drop out, according to Garcia and Irwin
(1962), is the tendency to use the defense mechanisms of denial and pro
jection, and the tendency to focus on environmental pressures rather than
on personal conflicts or interpersonal relationships. Conversely, it
has been suggested by Lake and Levinger (1960) that the characteristics
of continuers at a child guidance clinic are as follows: sees the
problem himself rather than its being brought to his attention by others;
a desire to see a change in himself; higher cooperation with the counse
lor concerning the nature of the core problem. Several other investi
gators have also suggested descriptive summaries which they believe to
be helpful in distinguishing continuers from non-continuers (Carter
1969, Dodd 1970, Levinger 1960, Katz and Rubenstein 1958, Raskin 1961,
Taulbee 1958, Von Atta 1968, Wolff 1967)e
Within the research three client variables appear to distinguish
somewhat consistently between continuers and non-continuers. It has
generally been found that those individuals least likely to return to a
mental health clinic after their initial appointments are referred by a
physician or social agency rather than self-referred or referred by
significant others, e.g., family and friends (Adler et al, 1963; Raynes
and Warren 1971a, 1971b), are members of a low socioeconomic class
(Adler et al. 1963, Chafetz 1965, Levinger 1960, Overall and Aronson
1963, 1966, Raynes and Warren 1971a, White et al. 1964a), and experience
greater discrepancy between their expectations and their perceptions of
the therapeutic situation (Borghi 1968; Clemes and D'Andrea 1965,
Eiduson 1968; Heine and Trosman 1960; Lorion 1973; Overall and Aronson
1963, 1966; Perlman 1960).
The focus of this research is on two of the above variables,
socioeconomic class and expectations of therapy.
A focus of interest over the last several years has been the
quality of mental health services offered to individuals in lower socio
economic groups. These people are less likely to actively participate
in treatment programs, and remain in therapy for a shorter period of
time. Members of low socioeconomic classes are also more likely to be
seen in therapy by relatively low status counselors and to receive
somatic rather than dynamic treatment.
The most widely used technique for determining the socioeconomic
status of an individual is the Hollingshead Two-Factor Index of Social
Position (Hollingshead 1957), This instrument utilizes the factors of
occupation and education to estimate the social position of individuals
in our society. It is presumed that occupation reflects the skill and
power people possess as a function of their work, and education reflects
knowledge, as well as cultural tastes. Each factor is scaled according
to a specified system of scores, and then combined by weighing the
individual scores. Multiple correlation, techniques were used to de
termine the weights of each factor, which are 7 for occupation and 4 for
education. The combined scores are divided into a hierarchy of five
score groups. The groups are referred to as Classes I and II, repre
senting upper socioeconomic status. Class III which refers to the middle
level of status, and Classes IV and V representing the lower socio
economic groups.
Expectations of treatment as a function of social class have been
hypothesized to be related to differential continuance in therapy,
Hollingshead and Redlich (1958) present a description of the treatment
expectations held by lower socioeconomic patients in their discussion of
class factors in psychotherapy which includes the desire for practical
advice about how to solve their problems and run their lives, physical
treatment of problems, and the expectation of an authoritarian attitude
on the part of the therapist.
Other researchers have studied expectations and their relation
to continuance in therapy. The subject of mutuality of expectations
between the therapist and the patient has been investigated by Borghi
(1968), By conducting home interviews with 58 individuals who pre
maturely dropped out of therapy, he found that terminators reported
expectations of therapy which were consistently incongruent with those
of the therapist. Four kinds of incongruent expectations commonly
expressed by these individuals were unrealistic expectations, expecta
tions of advice, expectations that ,fsomething be done" about the spouse,
and expectations concerned with an answer to the question, "Am I
mentally ill?" Heine and Trosman (1960) were also interested in patient-
therapist expectations, A questionnaire devised by these investigators
to obtain information regarding the patient’s reasons for coming to the
clinic, his expectation as to the kind of help he would be offered and
how this would be given, and the degree of confidence he had that therapy
would be helpful, was administered to incoming clients at a mental health
center. They found that neither the presenting problem, nor the confi
dence in therapy held by the potential patients were related to con
tinuance in therapy. However, the expectations the client held re
garding the kind of therapy he would receive, and the method by which he
would receive it, were related to continuance. These researchers also
investigated the conceptions of therapy held by the therapist and dis
covered three modal expectation^: that the client would want a thera
peutic relationship in which he could talk freely about himself and his
problems; that he would consider the relationship as helping relieve his
discomfort5 rather than the therapist; and that he should feel some re-)
sponsibility for the outcome of therapy. These therapist expectations
are interesting in light of the fact that some investigators have found
lower-class individuals to be very uncomfortable with "talking therapies11
being more action oriented, and more likely to be seeking direct relief
of symptoms (Riessman and Goldfarb 1964, Block 1968),
Heine aind Trosman (1960) concluded from this research that the signifi
cant variable in continuance is mutual therapist-client expectations.
Clemes and D’Andrea (1965) used the questionnaire developed by
Heine and Trosman (1960) for their research on client expectations of
therapy and found that when clients experienced interviews which were
consistent with their expectations of what therapy would be like, they
tended to be less anxious than clients experiencing interviews which
were incompatible with their expectations.
Perlman (1960) and Eiduson (1968) were specifically concerned
with what happens during the intake phase of therapy. Perlman has sug
gested that applicant behavior during this period may be heavily con
ditioned by his idea of what is expected of him, and what he may in
' return expect from therapy, while Eiduson reports that intensity of
motivation and early expectancies are significant factors for therapy
continuance.
Of particular interest is a study conducted by Overall and
Aronson (1963). These investigators were interested in the expectations
of psychotherapeutic procedures of patients of low socioeconomic status
(Hollingshead and Redlich's Classes IV and V). In order to study this
10they devised a 35-item questionnaire designed to tap one of five aspects
of a therapist’s behavior: active, medical, supportive, passive and
psychiatric. This questionnaire was administered twice, immediately
preceding and at the conclusion of the initial interview. An analysis
of the results of this study indicated that the greater the discrepancy
between the expectations and the perception of the interview, the less
likely the patient was to return to the clinic after the initial inter
view for further treatment. Although these results are relevant con
cerning.the issue of why lower class patients become "drop-outs,11 they
fail to provide any information concerning why individuals who are not
members of low socioeconomic classes also terminate treatment prematurely.
In a later study, Overall and Aronson (1966) investigated the thera
peutic expectations of a comparable group of middle class individuals
and concluded that this group held expectations which differed from
those of the lower socioeconomic patients. However, they did not in
vestigate the function of the fulfillment of the middle-class group’s
expectancies in the return to treatment after an initial interview by
>these individuals.
Several recent findings have reported few social class related
differences in attitudes and expectations of therapy (Kadushin 1969,
Fisher and Cohen 1972; Fisher and Turner 1970, Calhoon, Dawes and
Lewis 1972). Lorion (in press) reports on a study in which he utilized
items from the Overall and Aronson questionnaire which discriminated
among Class III and IV and Class V and found no significant social class
differences. He suggests that the conclusion that the expectations of
11lower socioeconomic clients is significantly different or more negative
than middle or upper socioeconomic status individuals is unsupported.
The present study will investigate the Overall-Aronson findings
that the greater the discrepancy between the expectations and the per
ceptions of the interview the less likely the lower-class patient was to
return for further treatment across classes, in order to determine if
failed expectations are also an important factor in the high initial
drop-out rate of individuals of other social classes. This study will
investigate the expectations of therapy held by individuals in all social
classes, unlike the 1974 study by Lorion in which only individuals from
Classes III, IV and V were compared.
METHOD
Subjects
Subjects were selected from consecutive therapy intakes at the
two outpatient clinics of Tucson East Community Mental Health Center for
a period of one year. Only those clients who were 18 years or older and
who were new admissions to the center were included. The total sample
size was 532 subjects. Of these, 340 were experimental subjects who
completed the test questionnaire. The control group was composed of 192
clients who did not complete the test questionnaire. The control group
was used to investigate possible effects of questionnaire taking on the
scheduling of and return for a second appointment at the clinic, and
consisted of those new initiates during 13 randomly selected weeks from
the 52-week data collection period.
Instrument
The instrument used was a modified version of a questionnaire
constructed by Overall and Aronson (1963) concerning the possible be
haviors of a therapist in an initial interview, together with a ques
tionnaire eliciting standardized demographic and historical information.
The expectation questionnaire consisted of 20 questions, ten of which
were devised to tap one of five aspects of a therapist1s behavior (see
Appendix A). The categories representing these aspects are as follows.
12
131. Directive. The client is actively instructed by the therapist.
2. Medical. The focus of therapy is on the client's organic or
physical problems.
3. Supportive. An attempt is made by the therapist to put the
client at ease by avoiding charged material.
4. Non-directive. The direction of the discussion is left to the
client.
5. Insight. The focus of the therapeutic situation is on emotional
or dynamic material.
The remaining ten questions concerned the client's expectation
of his own behavior in the therapeutic situation, and consisted of
questions tapping the same five areas. An affirmative response to the
questionnaire item indicated that the client expected that the therapist,
or they themselves, would engage in that behavior in the session.
Procedure
Standardized demographic and historical information needed to
determine the social class of the client was obtained as part of the
standard clinic application for services. Each client completed the
application and questionnaire immediately preceding his initial inter
view with the therapist to obtain his expectations of the therapeutic
procedure. The expectation questionnaire was part of a larger research
project which included other information not relevant to this study.
Immediately following the conclusion of the initial interview the client
was given a post-questionnaire to record his perceptions of the interview.
14The post-questionnaire asked the patient to indicate if each of the
20 target behaviors from the questionnaire occurred during the first
session (see Appendix B).
RESULTS
Experimental and control subjects were compared on the basis of
their socioeconomic status with a chi-square analysis. The results of
this analysis (Table 1) indicated that there were no significant social
class differences between these groups.
Chi-square analyses of the differences between experimental and
control subjects regarding whether a second appointment was scheduled
(Table 2), and if so, whether it was kept (Table 3) were significant,
indicating that the administration of the questionnaire per se had no
effect on the scheduling of, or return for a second appointment.
Within the experimental group assessments of the variables of
socioeconomic status, discrepancy score, scheduled second appointment,
and return for a second appointment were performed with chi-square
analyses. No significant differences were found between socioeconomic
status and scheduled second appointment (Table 4); discrepancy scores
and scheduled second appointment (Table 5); socioeconomic status and
return for second appointment (Table 6); discrepancy score and return
for second appointment (Table 7); or socioeconomic status and discrepancy
score (Table 8).
15
16Table 1. Social Class Differences Between Experimental and Control
Subjects.
. SESI & II III ' IV V Total
Control 19(34%) 57(43%) 70(33%) 46(36%) 192
Experimental 39(67%) 75(57%) 143(67%) 83(64%) 340
Total 58 132 213 129 532
= 4.1286 with 3 df; p > .20
Table 2. Differences Between Experimental and Control Subjects Regarding Scheduled Second Appointment.
Control Experimental Total
Scheduled Second Appointment 159(83%) 288(85%) 447
No Second Appointment 33(17%) 52(15%) 85
Total 192 340 532
= .3274 with 1 df; p > .50
17Table 3. Differences Between Experimental and Control Subjects Regard
ing Return for Second Appointment.
Control Experimental Total
Return
No Return
126(79%)
33(21%).
233(81%)
55(19%)
359
88
Total 159 288 447
X2 = .1778 with 1 df; p > .50
Table 4. Socioeconomic Status and Scheduledi Second Appointment.
SESI & II III IV V Total
Scheduled Second Appointment 51(88%) 114(86%) 178(84%) 104 (81%) 447
No Second Appoints ment 7(12%) 18(14%) 35(16%) 25(19%) 85
Total 58 132 213 129 532
X2 = 2.3437 with 3 df; p >,.50
18Table 5. Discrepancy Score and Scheduled Second Appointment.
Discrepancy0-1-2 3-4 5-6 7-15 Total
Scheduled Second Appointment 71(89%) 87(85%) 63(80%) 67(85%) 288
No Second Appointment 9(11%) 15(15%) 16(20%) 12(15%) 52
Total 80 102 79 79 340
X2 = 2.5371 with 3 df; p > .30
Table 6. Socioeconomic Status and Return for Second Appointment.
SESI & II III IV V Total
Return 30(81%) 56.(86%) 96 (81%) 51.(75%) 233
No Return 7(19%) 9(14%) 22(19%) 17 (25%) 55
Total 37 65 118 68 288
x2 = 2.815 with 3 df; p > .30
19Table 7. Discrepancy Score and Return for Second Appointment.
Discrepancy0-1-2 3-4 5-6 7-15 Total
Return 58(82%) 67(77%) 54(86%) 54(81%) 233
No Return 13(18%) 20(23%) 9(14%) 13(19%) 55
Total 71 87 63 67 288
X2 = 1.8307 with 3 df; p > .70
Table 8. Socioeconomic Status and :Discrepancy Score.
SES Discrepancy0-2 3-4 5-6 7-15 Total
I & II 15(21%) . 11(12.5%) 5(8%) 6(9%) 37
III 18(25.5%) 24(27.5%) 11(17%) 12 (18%) 65
IV 23(32.5%) 32(37%) 32(51%) 31(46%) 118
V 15(21%) 20(23%) . 15(24%) 18(27%) 68
Total 71 87 63 67 288
x2 = 11.9387 with 9 df; p > .20
DISCUSSION
The present study fails to support the findings of prior studies
investigating the issue of why people fail to return after an initial
interview at a mental health center. No social class differences between
continuance and non-continuance were found, and discrepancies between
expectations and perceptions were not related to continuance in therapy.
These results suggest that prior findings and methodology must be re
evaluated.
There are several explanations for the discrepancy between these
results and those reported in most prior research. The failure of this
study to find a relation between social classes and continuance in
therapy may be accounted for by the fact that the opportunity to learn
about therapy is no longer more available to the upper classes. In
creased public exposure to mental health, through such media as maga
zines, books, movies, and television, which have increasingly presented
information regarding psychotherapy in a favorable manner, may have
resulted in increased sophistication of the lower social classes, as
well as greater acceptance of the work of mental health professionals.
Another possible explanation that must be taken into account is
that the Hollingshead Two-Factor Index of Social Position may no longer
be an adequate method by which to differentiate and classify people into
various social classes. The variables of education and occupation/may
20
21no longer be as relevant to the.determination of social status.
Weighting of the factors needs to be re-evaluated, taking into con
sideration the shortage of jobs, especially for highly educated indi
viduals in our society today.
The evaluation of additional factors in the assignment of social
position should also be considered. One such additional factor which
must be given consideration is the area from which subjects are selected.
For example, the behavior, expectations and perceptions of social class
IV people who reside in a large city, as in the Overall-Aronson research
(1963, 1966) may be extremely different from social class IV people re
siding in a smaller town or more rural area. The present study consisted
of residents of the Tucson East Community Mental Health Center catchment
area. This region is on Tucson's relatively prosperous east side, and
serves a predominately white, middle-class oriented population. The
attitudes toward psychotherapy held by social classes IV and V of this
population may be quite discrepant from the views held by lower class
individuals who have experienced life in a different city. In a recent
survey of the attitudes held by a representative sample of the population
included in the Tucson East catchment area regarding mental health
services, findings indicated that these individuals have "generally
favorable attitudes toward mental health centers, support their existence,
would use them if a need arises, and expect positive results from such
treatments" (McWilliams and Morris 1974, p. 242). The generalizability
of these findings to other populations remains to be demonstrated.
Attitudes of subjects residing in other areas, especially the class IV
and V subjects, needs to be investigated to determine if differences in
behavior, expectations and perceptions of therapy may be more a function
of characteristics of the area of residence, rather than the Hoilingshead
social status classification.
Referral source may also be an important factor in continuance
in therapy. This variable may achieve added importance when considered
in relation to the area from which the subjects are selected. Involun
tary clients, e.g., those referred through the courts, may be more
prevalent in larger cities. These clients may be less motivated and
less willing to continue in therapy, regardless of consistent or in
consistent expectations and perceptions, than are voluntary clients who
are actively seeking help with their problems. An investigation of
source of referral across studies conducted in different areas is neces
sary to determine if this variable is a factor in over-all continuance
in psychotherapy (Lorian, in press). Support for this hypothesis may be
found in a recent investigation of factors associated with length of
stay in psychotherapy of lower socioeconomic status clients from a barrio
neighborhood in Tucson (Kahn and Heiman 1974). The results of this study
indicated that one characteristic of lower socioeconomic clients who
stay long term in treatment versus lower socioeconomic status clients
who do not, is self-referral. According to Kahn and Heiman (1974, p. 5),
"an increased proportion of self-referral or self-help seeking behavior
on the part of these longer staying patients, suggests that motivation
for help and perhaps also enough knowledge and sophistication to know
where and how to seek it are important."
23A further explanation for the discrepant results is that previ
ous studies may have confounded race with socioeconomic status. Al
though this factor has not been found to be significantly related to
continuance in therapy, the factor of race must be taken into account,
as differing expectations, perceptions and levels of continuance in
therapy may be more a function of differing cultures, rather than differ
ent occupations and different levels of education. For example,
Overall and Aronson (1963), using Black subjects found a relationship
between socioeconomic status and continuance in therapy, whereas Lorion
(1973) and the present study, using predominately Caucasian sucjects
failed to find such a relationship.
The suggestion that differences among socioeconomic groups may
be more ones of degree than of kind (Baum and Felzer 1964; Clemes and
D1Andrea 1965; Hollingshead and Redlich 1958; Lorion, in press) needs to
be investigated. According to this viewpoint, little is initially known
about therapy, how it works, how long it continues, or what is appro
priately discussed during therapy sessions, by people of all socio
economic classes. The understanding of psychotherapy may be a gradual
process which is acquired at different rates by people of varying social
classes (Garfield 1971). Such differences of degree may not have been
reflected in the type of research so far conducted.
APPENDIX A
EXPECTATIONS OF THERAPY
DO YOU THINK YOUR THERAPIST WILL
1, Talk about why you behave the way you do?
2c Give you medication?
3, Give you advice?
4, Expect you to do most of the talking?
5, Sympathize with the trouble you are having?
6, Ask about personal, sensitive problems?
7» Give you a physical exam?
8. Tell you what is causing your trouble?
9c Try to understand how you feel about things?
10. Show you that things aren’t as bad as they seem?
DO YOU THINK YOU WILL
1. Talk about your thoughts and feelings?
2. Talk about your aches and pains?
3. Ask your therapist to tell you what’s wrong
with you?
4. Listen more than you will talk?
5. Try to get your mind off your troubles?
24
6, Talk about how you get along with people?
7. Talk about past illnesses and operations?
8„ Ask your therapist to tell you what to do
to solve your problems?
9. Help to figure out your own solutions to ,
problems?
10, Avoid talking about things which would upset
you?
APPENDIX B
PERCEPTIONS OF THERAPY
YES
DID YOUR THERAPIST
1, Talk about why you behave the way you do?_________ ___
2/ Give you medication? ___
3, Give you advice? ___
4, Expect you to do most of the talking? ___
5, Sympathize with .the trouble you are having? ___
6, Ask about personal, sensitive problems? ___
7, Give you a physical exam? ___
8, Tell you what is causing your trouble? ___
9, Try to understand how you feel about things?______ ___
10. Show you that things aren't as bad as they seem? ___
DID YOU
1. Talk about your thoughts and feelings?____________ ___
2. Talk about your aches and pains?__________________ ___
3. Ask your therapist to tell you what's wrong,
with you?
4. Listen more than you will talk? ___
5. Try to get your mind off your troubles? __ _
26
6. Talk about how you get along with people?
7. Talk about past illnesses and operations?
8. Ask your therapist to tell you what to do
to solve your problems?
9„ Help to figure out your own solutions to
problems?
10. Avoid talking about things which would upset
you?
REFERENCES
Adler, Leta, Marcia Coin and Joe Yamamoto. "Failed Psychiatric Clinic Appointments.California Medicine„99:388-392, 1963.
Baum, Eugene and S. B. Felzer. "Activity in Initial Interviews with Lower Class Patients." Archives of General Psychiatry, 10: 343-353, 1964.
Baum, Eugene, S. B. Felzer, T. L. D1Zmura and E. Shumaker. "Psychotherapy, Dropouts and Lower Socioeconomic Patients." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,36(4):629-635, 1966.
Block, H. S. "An Open-ended Crisis-oriented Group for the Poor Who are Sick." Archives of General Psychiatry, 18:178-185, 1968.
Borghi, John H. *"Premature Termination of Psychotherapy and Patient- therapist Expectations." American Journal of Psychotherapy, 22(3):460-473, 1968.
Brown, G. I. ^Waiting Lists, Rational or Rationalization." Journal of the Indiana Medical Association, 55:499, 1962.
Calhoon, L. G., S. Dawes and P. M. Lewis. "Correlates of AttitudesToward Help Seeking in Outpatients." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38:153, 1972.
Carter, Ross E. "Judging Initial In-patient Behavior." Psychological Reports, 23(1):247-250, 1969.
Chafetz, M. E. "Establishing Treatment Relations with Alcoholics." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 134:395-408, 1962.
Chafetz, M. E. "The Effect of a Psychiatric Emergency on Motivation for Psychiatric Treatment." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 140(6):442-448, 1965.
Clemes, Stanley and Vincent D1Andrea. "Patient Anxiety as a Function of Expectation and Degree of Initial Interview Ambiguity." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29(5):397-404, 1965.
Dodd, Jack. "A Retrospective Analysis of Variables Related to Duration of Treatment in a University Psychiatric Clinic." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 151(2):75-84, 1970.
28
29Eiduson, Bernice T. "Retreat from Help," American Journal of Ortho
psychiatry, 38(5):910-921, 1968,
Fisher, E. H, and S, L, Cohen. "Demographic Correlates of Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 39:70-74, 1972.
Fisher, E. H. and J. Turner. "Orientations to Seeking Professional Help," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35:79-90, 1970.
Freedman, N., D. M. Engelhardt, L. D. Hankoff, B. S. Click, H, Kaye,J. Buchwald and P. Stark. "Dropout from Outpatient Psychiatric Treatment." A.M.A. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry,80:657, 1958.
Garcia, R. A. and 0. Irwin. "A Family Agency Deals with the Problem of Dropouts." Social Casework, 43:71-75, 1962.
Garfield, S. L. "Research on Client Variables in Psychotherapy." InA. E. Bergin and S. L. Garfield (eds.) Handbook of Psychotherapyand Behavior Change. New York: Wiley, 1971. '
Goldstein, A. P. "Therapist and Client Expectation of PersonalityChange in Psychotherapy." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 3:180-184, 1960.
Goldstein, A. P. "Participant Expectancies in Psychotherapy."Psychiatry, 25:72-79, 1962.
Gould, Roger L., Irene Paulson and Louise Daniels-Epps. "Patients Who Flirt with Treatment: The Silent Population." American Journal of Psychiatry, 127(4):524-529, 1970.
Heine, Ralph W. and Harry Trosman. "Initial Expectation of the Doctor- patient Interaction as a Factor in Continuance in Therapy." Psychiatry, 23:275-278, 1960.
Heyder, D. W. "A Contribution to Overcoming the Problem of WaitingLists." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 35:772-778, 1960.
Hoffman, Harvey E. "Scanning the Counseling Readiness Scale." Perceptual and Motor Skills, 29(2):645-646, 1969.
Hollingshead, A. B. Two-Factor Index of Social Position.' .New Haven: Privately Published, 1957.
Hollingshead, A. B. and F. C. Redlich. Social Class and Mental Illness. New York: Wiley, 1958.
30Kadushin, C. Why People Go To Psychiatrists. New York: Atherton, 1969.
Kagen, L. "The Shortrterm Case in a Family Agency." Social Casework, 38:296, 1957.
Kahn, Marvin W. and Elliott Heiman. "Factors Associated with Length of Stay in Treatment of Patients from a Barrio Neighborhood Mental Health Service: A Cross-Validation." Paper presented at American Psychological Association Meeting, New Orleans, 1974.
Kamin, I. and J. Caughlin. "Subjective Experiences of OutpatientPsychotherapy." American Journal of Psychotherapy, 17:660-668, 1963.
Katz, Martin and Eli Rubenstein. "Remainer Patient Attributes and Their Relation to Subsequent Improvement in Psychotherapy." Journal of Consulting Psychotherapy, 22:411-413, 1958.
,Kidd, Aline H. and Judith L. Euphrat. "Why Prospective Outpatients Fail to Make or Keep Appointments." Journal of Clinical -Psychology, 27(3):394-395, 1971.
Kirkner, L. and K. Cartwright. "Success and Failure in Client-centered Therapy as a Function of Initial Therapy Behavior." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 22:329-333, 1958.
Korner, H. "Abolishing the Waiting Lists in a Mental Health Center." American Journal of Psychiatry, 120:1097-1100, 1963.
Lake, M. and G. Levinger. "Continuance Beyond Application Interviewsat a Child Guidance Clinic." Social Casework, 47:515-519, 1960.
Levinger, George. "Continuance in Casework and Other Helping Relationships: A Review of Current Research." Social Work, 5:40-51.1960.
Levitt, E. E. "Psychotherapy Research and the Expectation-Reality Discrepancy." Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice. 3:163-166, 1966.
Lorion, R. P. "Socioeconomic Status and Traditional Treatment Approaches Reconsidered." Psychological Bulletin, 79:263-270, 1973.
Lorion, R. P. "Social Class, Treatment Attitudes and Expectations." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, in press.
Lorr, M., M. Katz and E. Rubenstein. "Prediction of Length of Stayingin Therapy." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 22:321-327, 1958.
31Lorr, M„ and D» M. McNair, "Correlates of Length of Stay in Psycho
therapy, " Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20:497-504, 1964,
Lowinger, P, L, and S, Dobie, "Attitudes and Emotions of the Psychiatrist in the Initial Interview," American Journal of Psychotherapy, 20:17-34, 1966,
Maholick, L, and P, Shapiro, "Changing Concepts of Psychiatric Evaluation," American Journal of Psychiatry, 119:233-236, 1962,
McWilliams, Spencer and Larry Morris, "Community Attitudes About Mental Health Services," Community Mental Health Journal, 10(2): 236-242, 1974,
Meyer, Eugene, "Contractually Time-limited Psychotherapy in an Outpatient Psychosomatic Clinic," American Journal of Psychiatry, 124(4):57-68, 1967,
Overall, B, and H, Aronson, "Expectations of Psychotherapy in Patients of Lower Socioeconomic Classes," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 33(3):421-430, 1963,
Overall, B, and H, Aronson, "Treatment Expectations of Patients in Two Social Classes," Social Work, 11(1):35-42, 1966,
Perlman, H, "Intake and Some Role Considerations," Social Casework, 41:17, 1960, '
Pfouts, J, F,, M, S, Wallach and J, W, Jenkins, "An Outcome Study of Referrals to a Psychiatric Clinic," Journal of Social Work, 8:79-86, 1963.
Phillips, E, Lakin. "Attrition: A Perplexing Clinical Problem." Psychological Reports, 20(1):26, 1967.
Raskin, A. "Factors Therapists Associate with Motivation to EnterTherapy." Journal of Clinical Psychology, 17(1):62-65, 1961.
Raynes, Anthony and Gayle Warren. "Some Characteristics of 1Drop-outs? at First Contact at a Psychiatric Clinic." Community Mental Health Journal, 7(2):144-150, 1971a.
Raynes, Anthony and Gayle Warren. "Some Distinguishing Features ofPatients Failing to Attend a Psychiatric Clinic After Referral." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41(4):581-588, 1971b.
Riessman, F. and A. Goldfarb. "Role-playing in the Poor." Group Psychotherapy, 17:36-48, 1964.
32
Salzman, Carl, Richard Shader, Dorothy Scott and William Binstock."Interviewer Anger and Patient Drop-out in a Walk-in Clinic." Comprehensive Psychiatry, 11(3):267-273, 1970.
Shyne, Ann. "What Research Tells Us About Short-term Cases in Family Agencies." Social Casework, 38:224, 1957.
Taulbee, E. "Relationship Between Certain Personality Variables andContinuance in Psychotherapy." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 22:83, 1958.
Von Atta, A. E. "Relationship of Personality Characteristics to Persistence in Psychotherapy." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32:731-733, 1968.
White, Alice, Leonard Fichtenbaum and John Dollard. "Evaluation ofSilence in Initial Interviews with Psychiatric Clinic Patients." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 139(6):550-557, 1964a.
White, Alice, Leonard Fichtenbaum and John Dollard. "Measure for Predicting Dropping Out of Psychotherapy." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28(4):326-332, 1964b.
Williams, H. V., R. E. Lipman, E. H. Uhlenhuth, K. Richels, L. Covi and J. Mock. "Some Factors Influencing the Treatment Expectations of Anxious Neurotic Outpatients." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 145:208-220, 1967.
Wolff, Wirt. "Psychotherapeutic Persistence." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31(4):429, 1967.