Counselor Bilingual Ability, Counselor Ethnicity, Acculturation, and Mexican Americans' Perceived Counselor Credibility

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Summer2009 ■ Volume87 311©2009bytheAmericanCounselingAssociation.Allrightsreserved.

For more than 2 decades, a group of mental health provid-ers (Falicov, 1998; Javier, 1989) and researchers (Martinez & Mendoza, 1984; Ponterotto, 1987; Santiago-Rivera, Ar-redondo, & Gallardo-Cooper, 2002; Sciarra & Ponterotto, 1991) have focused on the development of culturally sensitive therapeutic approaches for the Latino/a population. The rapid increase in the Latino/a population has likely spurred research in this area. As of the last census, Latinos/as made up the larg-est minority group in the United States, representing 12.5% of the population, 58.5% of which was of Mexican decent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Moreover, Santiago-Rivera et al. estimated that Latinos/as in the United States would reach 59 million by the year 2050. Given the dramatic population increase, there is undoubtedly a high need for culturally rel-evant counseling services.

Yet despite the increase in population, Latinos/as continue to underuse psychological services (Abreu & Sasaki, 2004; Cheung & Snowden, 1990; Leong, Wagner, & Tata, 1995; López, 1981). This finding is perplexing given the increased need for services because of stress related to poverty, immi-gration, and acculturation, which can result in interpersonal conflicts and intrapersonal disorders (Comas-Diaz, 1990; Es-pin, 1987; Falicov, 1998; Lefley, 1994). Leong et al. theorized that institutional barriers and culturally inappropriate services led to premature termination of those Latinos/as who sought services. In fact, Takeuchi, Sue, and Yeh (1995) found that ethnic minorities used culturally appropriate psychological services when such services were offered.

It seems obvious that offering culturally appropriate coun-seling services would influence use. Unfortunately, little is known about what makes counseling attractive to the Latino/a population, specifically Mexican Americans. The purpose of this study was to explore the specific ingredients of culturally

appropriate counseling services that may be especially appeal-ing to Mexican American clients. Evidence from past research (Atkinson, Poston, Furlong, & Mercado, 1989; Guttfreund, 1990; Marcos & Urcuyo, 1979; Pitta, Marcos, & Alpert, 1978; Ramos-Sánchez, Atkinson, & Fraga, 1999; Sanchez & Atkinson, 1983) suggests that counselor bilingual ability and ethnicity may contribute to making counseling services more welcoming to this population.

Research on counselor bilingual ability (Altarriba & San-tiago-Rivera, 1994; Bamford, 1991; Marcos, 1976, Marcos & Urcuyo, 1979; Pitta et al., 1978; Ramos-Sánchez, 2007; Santiago-Rivera, 1995; Sciarra & Ponterotto, 1991) has indicated that bilingual counselors serve the linguistic needs of bilingual clients better than do monolingual (English) counselors. Santiago-Rivera hypothesized that having a bilingual counselor would allow clients greater freedom to conduct the session in whichever language they felt most comfortable. Language switching also engendered greater emotional expression (Marcos & Urcuyo, 1979; Pitta et al., 1978; Ramos-Sánchez, 2007; Santiago-Rivera & Altarriba, 2002), emotion applied across contexts (Santiago-Rivera & Altarriba, 2002), and access to language-specific personali-ties (Marcos & Urcuyo, 1979; Santiago-Rivera et al., 2002; Sciarra & Ponterotto, 1991). Sessions void of such emotions and of a client’s complete personality may lack critical depth. In turn, the lack of depth could have a negative impact on the effectiveness of counseling and on the perceptions of the counselor. Nevertheless, research on the effects of language on the counseling process, specifically the perceived credibility of the counselor, is sparse. Most of the studies that support the benefits of language switching have relied mainly on case studies (Javier, 1989; Marcos & Urcuyo, 1979; Pitta et al., 1978) and theoretical articles (Altarriba & Santiago-Rivera,

Lucila Ramos-Sánchez,DepartmentofCounselingPsychology,SantaClaraUniversity.CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoLucilaRamos-Sánchez,DepartmentofCounselingPsychology,SantaClaraUniversity,BannanHall226,500ElCaminoReal,SantaClara,CA95053(e-mail:[email protected]).

Counselor Bilingual Ability, Counselor Ethnicity, Acculturation, and Mexican Americans’ Perceived Counselor CredibilityLucila Ramos-Sánchez

Thisstudyexaminedtheeffectsofcounselorbilingualabilityandcounselorethnicityonclient-perceivedcounselorcredibilityandculturalcompetence.Participantswereassignedto1of4 treatmentconditionscreatedbycrossingcounselorethnicitywithcounselorlanguage.Nosignificantdifferenceswerefound.Regardingrankorderingoftheconditions,theEuropeanAmericanbilingualcounselorwasperceivedtobemoreculturallycompetentthanweretheMexicanAmericanbilingualcounselors.FindingsunderscoretheimportanceofbilingualismforEuropeanAmericancounselorswhenworkingwithbilingualMexicanAmericanclients.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Summer2009 ■ Volume87312

Ramos-Sánchez

1994; Santiago-Rivera, 1995). Few studies have investigated language switching in an experimental fashion (Guttfreund, 1990; Ramos-Sánchez et al., 1999).

In one of the few studies to examine language, Guttfreund (1990) found that participants expressed more affect in the Span-ish rather than in the English treatment condition regardless of whether Spanish was their dominant language. Unfortunately, the study did not examine language use within a counseling session. Ramos-Sánchez et al. (1999) conducted an analogue study in which participants rated the credibility of the counselor after listening to an audiotape of a counseling session in which the counselor spoke only English or English and Spanish. Even though the study found no language effect, Ramos-Sánchez et al. suggested that the lack of findings resulted from the limited use of Spanish in the bilingual treatment condition rather than from the ineffectiveness of language switching. The present study takes the next logical step by exploring language switch-ing within an actual counseling interview.

This study also examined counselor ethnicity and its influ-ence on clients’ perceptions of counselor credibility. Several studies (Atkinson et al., 1989; Coleman, Wampold, & Casali, 1995; López, López, & Fong, 1991; Sanchez & Atkinson, 1983) have indicated that Mexican American clients preferred ethnically similar counselors to ethnically dissimilar counselors, whereas other studies (Atkinson, Ponce, & Martinez, 1984; Atkinson, Winzelberg, & Holland, 1985; Franco & Levine, 1980) have found equal preference for both. López et al. argued that preference could be a function of acculturation level. In contrast, Atkinson, Wampold, Lowe, Matthews, and Ahn (1998) found that other counselor characteristics were significant as well. Because there was no clear relationship between counselor ethnicity and counselor preference, including counselor ethnic-ity in the present study was necessary because of its potential impact on perceived credibility of the counselor.

Past research (Gim, Atkinson, & Whiteley, 1990; Ramos-Sánchez et al., 1999; Ruelas, Atkinson, & Ramos-Sánchez, 1998; Sanchez & Atkinson, 1983) has also directed much attention to participant acculturation and its relationship to counselor credibility. Acculturation refers to the extent to which an individual integrates new cultural patterns from the host culture into his or her original cultural patterns (Buki, Ma, Strom, & Strom, 2003). Findings on the relationship between acculturation and counselor credibility, however, have been inconsistent. Earlier studies (Leong et al., 1995; Sanchez & Atkinson, 1983) indicated that more acculturated Latinos/as perceived the counselor as more credible than did less acculturated Latinos/as. Recently, studies (Gim et al., 1990; Ramos-Sánchez et al., 1999; Ruelas et al., 1998) assessing acculturation as a multidimensional process have found that less acculturated individuals rated the counselor more favorably and were more willing to see a counselor than were more acculturated individuals. Because of the discrep-ancy, evaluating the relationship between acculturation and perceived counselor credibility warrants further study.

In this study, I wanted to determine whether counselor bilingual ability, counselor ethnicity, and participant ac-culturation were factors that influenced clients’ perceptions of their counselors. I wanted to build on earlier case studies and analogue research by examining the effects of language switching in a field-experimental research design. Therefore, an interview was conducted in vivo with a client and a coun-selor in which the counselor alternated between English and Spanish throughout the session.

I anticipated that a counselor who alternated between Eng-lish and Spanish throughout the session (bilingual) would be rated more favorably than would a counselor who expressed himself or herself only in English. Also, given the evidence that Mexican American clients preferred an ethnically similar counselor (Atkinson et al., 1989; Sanchez & Atkinson, 1983), I expected that participants would perceive the Mexican Ameri-can counselors as more credible than the European American counselors. In addition, I hypothesized a certain rank order-ing, namely, that the Mexican American bilingual counselors would be rated as most credible, followed by, in descending order of credibility, the Mexican American English-only counselors, the European American bilingual counselor, and the European American English-only counselors. Finally, on the basis of recent findings for Mexican Americans and ac-culturation (Ramos-Sánchez et al., 1999; Ruelas et al., 1998), I expected that less acculturated Mexican Americans would perceive the counselor as more credible than would higher acculturated Mexican Americans.

MethodParticipants

Clients.Sixty-five Mexican American college students (25 men, 40 women) from a West Coast university were included in the sample. They ranged in age from 18 to 27 years with a mean of 20.04 years (SD = 1.71). Twenty-three (35.4%) of the participants were freshmen, 14 (21.5%) were sophomores, 15 (23.1%) were juniors, and 13 (20.0%) were seniors. Genera-tional status of the participants was as follows: 17 (26.2%) in first generation, 37 (56.9%) in second generation, 4 (6.2%) in third generation, 6 (9.2%) in fourth generation, and 1 (1.5%) in fifth generation since immigration. Regarding religious affili-ation, 59 (90.8%) of the participants were Roman Catholic, 3 (4.6%) were Protestant, and 3 (4.6%) selected “other.” Twelve (18.5%) participants indicated that they had previous counseling experience. Participants were recruited from an undergraduate psychology participant pool and from on-campus Latino/a stu-dent groups. Clients were paid $15 for their participation.

Overall, there were 77 potential participants; however, 5 declined to sign up for the study during the initial recruitment. Of the participants who volunteered, 2 did not show up, and 1 did not complete the study. Of the 69 participants who com-pleted the study, 4 did not correctly answer the validity check and, therefore, were not included in the analyses.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Summer2009 ■ Volume87 313

BilingualAbility,Ethnicity,Acculturation,andPerceivedCounselorCredibility

Counselors. Eight women (five Latina, three European American) in a terminal master’s counseling psychology pro-gram served as counselors in the study. Counselors ranged in age from 24 to 38 years (M = 27.50, SD = 4.87). Counselors were selected on the basis of their similarity in counseling skills and year in the program, that is, 1st or 2nd year (M = 1.25, SD = 0.46). Counselors were deemed similar in level of development and skill ability on the basis of my evaluation and grades in two counseling skills courses. Only graduate students who received an A in both courses and had not taken advanced clinical courses were invited to be counselors in the study. Also, the use of master’s-level counseling students in counseling process research was modeled from previous research (Kim et al., 2003; Li & Kim, 2004).

There were two counselors for the Mexican American bilingual condition, three counselors for the Mexican Ameri-can English-only condition, one counselor for the European American bilingual condition, and three counselors for the European American English-only condition. (The European American bilingual counselor also served as a counselor in the European American English-only condition.) The lack of European American counselors fluent in Spanish prevented the use of more than one counselor in the European American bilingual condition. Two treatment fidelity observers assessed the attractiveness of each of the counselors on a 10-point Lik-ert-type scale, with 10 being mostattractive. All counselors received ratings between 7 and 9 on the scale. Counselors were compensated $10 per session conducted.

Measures

AcculturationRatingScaleofMexicanAmericans–II(ARSMA-II;Cuellar,Arnold,&Maldonado,1995). The ARSMA-II is a multidimensional, bilingual (English and Spanish) measure designed to assess varying levels of Mexican American ac-culturation. The ARSMA-II consists of two sections. The first section, a bidimensional measure of acculturation, consists of two subscales assessing (a) American orientation (American Orientation subscale [AOS]) and (b) Mexican orientation (Mexican Orientation subscale [MOS]). The second section was added to measure marginality to the American, Mexican, and Mexican American cultures. Administered together, the instrument assesses four axes of acculturation: integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization.

The first section of the ARSMA-II consists of 30 items (13 items on the AOS and 17 items on the MOS) and measures two levels of acculturation: integration and assimilation. The 30 items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (notatall) to 5 (extremelyoftenoralmostalways). Scores for both the AOS and the MOS are computed separately by calculating the aver-age item score. High scores on either subscale indicate greater orientation toward that culture. A linear measure of acculturation is calculated by subtracting the MOS score from the AOS score. For the purpose of this study, only the first section was used. Using only the first section does not affect the psychometric

properties because the subscales are orthogonal, and the use of the first section only has been supported in previous research (Ruelas et al., 1998).

Cuellar et al. (1995) reported coefficient alphas of .83 for the AOS and .88 for the MOS. They also reported a test–retest reliability coefficient of .96 for the combined instrument. Concurrent validity of .89 was established with the original ARSMA (Cuellar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980). Strong construct validity was demonstrated through its ability to predict dif-ferences in acculturation across five levels of generation among Mexicans and Mexican Americans. For the current study, the coefficient alphas for the total scale, the AOS, and the MOS were .77, .63, and .85, respectively.

CounselorEffectivenessRatingScale(CERS;Atkinson&Wampold,1982). The CERS is designed to measure raters’ perceptions of counselor credibility. The 10-item instrument consists of four dimensions (expertness, attractiveness, trust-worthiness, and utility). Each item is rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (bad) to 7 (good). A mean score was used of all completed items to provide a global measure of client-perceived counselor credibility. Atkinson and Wampold reported an in-ternal reliability of .90 for the total scale. Concurrent validity of .80 was established with the Counselor Rating Form (Barak & LaCrosse, 1975). Coefficient alpha for the total score in the current study was .91.

Cross-CulturalCounselingInventory–Revised(CCCI-R;LaFromboise,Coleman,&Hernandez,1991). The CCCI-R assesses raters’ perceptions of the counselor’s cultural com-petence. The 20 items are based on a report of cross-cultural counseling competencies put forth by the American Psy-chological Association Division 17 Education and Training Committee (Sue et al., 1982). Respondents are asked to rate each item on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (stronglydis-agree) to 6 (stronglyagree). Content validity was established by assessing rater agreement (80%) with the counseling competencies (LaFromboise et al., 1991). LaFromboise et al. reported coefficient alphas of .78 and .95, respectively, in two different studies. The coefficient alpha for CCCI-R scores in the current study was .87.

Demographicquestionnaire. A demographic questionnaire was used in this study that included the following demographic information: gender, age, religious affiliation, ethnic identity, generational status, income, and academic class status.

Procedure

Recruitmentofparticipants. Students of Mexican descent were recruited to serve as clients from an undergraduate psychology participant pool and from three on-campus Latino/a student groups. A brief description of the study was posted for the students in the undergraduate psychology participant pool. The description for both recruitment methods indicated that the participants had to be bilingual (English and Spanish) and of Mexican descent and that they would be involved in a study to identify areas of stress for Mexican Americans on


Ramos-Sánchez

campus. Twenty-seven Mexican American students signed up and provided their telephone number or e-mail address. A research assistant visited three on-campus Latino/a student groups to solicit volunteers. Interested students provided their contact information on a sign-up sheet so a session could be scheduled. Forty-five clients were recruited using this method. During the telephone contact, participants were informed of the length of the interview (45 minutes) and of the question-naire following the session. The night before the appointment, I or a research assistant called and e-mailed the participant as a reminder of the appointment.

Trainingofcounselors. To ensure similarity between the sessions, I developed a protocol and trained the counselors in a 2-hour session. According to the protocol, counselors introduced themselves by name and gave the name of their master’s program. The counselors outlined the potential risks of counseling, provided the examples of the types of stress students could discuss, and invited the clients to start sharing. The counselors conducted the interviews using basic attending and listening skills.

The bilingual counselors returned for additional training in which they practiced language switching in a role-play session. The introduction was the same and always given in English. The counselors then alternated between English and Spanish, attempting to provide 50% of the counselor responses in Spanish.

Interviewsession. I or a research assistant met the clients when the clients arrived for the interview. Clients were in-formed that the study was interested in assessing different ar-eas of stress in their lives, they were asked to sign an informed consent, they were informed of their rights as participants, and they were randomly assigned to one of four treatment condi-tions for their interview. Counselors conducted the 45-minute interview while being observed through a one-way mirror to ensure that the script was followed, that only attending and lis-tening skills were used, and that language switching occurred in the appropriate conditions. After the 45-minute session, the

clients were escorted to another room to fill out a survey. After completion of the survey, clients were debriefed as to the true purpose of the study and were compensated $15.

ResultsPreliminaryAnalyses

A validity check was conducted to assess whether the client correctly identified counselor ethnicity and the language the counselor used in the treatment condition. Four clients iden-tified counselor ethnicity incorrectly and were eliminated from subsequent analyses, leaving 65 participants. Pearson product–moment correlations were conducted to examine correlations between dependent variables, independent variables, and client variables. As can be seen in Table 1, only the MOS was significantly positively correlated to the measure of counselor cultural competence (i.e., the CCCI-R). It was used as a covariate in subsequent analysis. Two one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to determine whether individual counselor scores differed regarding clients’ perceptions of counselor credibility and cultural competence. No significant differences emerged for either clients’ ratings of counselor credibility, F(7, 56) = 2.14, p = .06, or clients’ ratings of cultural competence, F(7, 56) = 1.89, p = .08, indicating that any differences found would be a result of either counselor ethnicity or counselor language. Findings from two additional one-way ANOVAs indicated that previous counseling experience had no bear-ing on either clients’ perceptions of counselor credibility, F(1, 64) = 2.68, p = .10, or clients’ perceptions of cultural competence, F(1, 64) = 0.30, p = .58. No differences were found between men and women on the dependent measures, F(2, 62) = 0.47, p = .62.

Finally, the same two treatment fidelity observers mentioned earlier assessed each bilingual condition to determine the per-centage of counselor responses given in Spanish. The percent-

TABLE 1

Correlations Between dependent Variables, independent Variables, and Client Variables

Variable

1. AOS 2. MOS 3. Ethnicity 4. Language 5. CERS 6. CCCI-R 7. Religion 8. Class 9. Generation10. Income

— .46* –.10 –.04 –.11 –.01

— –.09 –.19 –.18 –.01

— .07 –.12 –.13

— .11 –.11

1

— .02 .18 –.14 .04 .02 .16 .01 .22 .05

— .19 .00 .03 .35*** .04 –.08 –.54*** –.11

— –.14 –.14 –.20 –.07 .26* –.16 .01

— –.05 .09 –.02 –.12 –.03 .11

— .33*

Note. AOS=AmericanOrientationsubscale;MOS=MexicanOrientationsubscale;Ethnicity=counselorethnicity;Language=counselorlanguage;CERS=CounselorEffectivenessRatingScale;CCCI-R=Cross-CulturalCounselingInventory–Revised;Religion=participantreligiousaffiliation;Class=participantacademicclassstatus;Generation=participantgenerationlevel;Income=participantincome.*p <.05.***p<.001.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

—



age of Spanish responses was determined by dividing the total number of responses by the number of Spanish responses. The treatment fidelity observers indicated that the bilingual coun-selors gave 40% to 50% of the responses in Spanish.

PrimaryAnalyses

A 2 × 2 multivariate analysis of covariance was used to assess whether counselor ethnicity (Mexican American or European American) and counselor language (English only or bilingual) influenced clients’ perceptions of counselor credibility and cultural competence, using the MOS as a co-variate. No significant covariate, main, or interaction effects were found. See Table 2 for means and standard deviations for each condition.

Rank ordering of the conditions from highest to lowest indicated that the Mexican American English-only counsel-ors were rated the highest followed in order by the European American bilingual counselor, the Mexican American bilin-gual counselors, and the European American English-only counselors. Although these differences were not statistically significant, the sequence of treatment conditions from highest to lowest was contrary to predictions for both the clients’ per-ceptions of counselor credibility and the clients’ perceptions of cultural competence. A sample size of 160 was needed for sufficient power to detect a significant difference (Shavelson, 1988) at the p < .05 level.

On the basis of the significant correlations between mea-sures of acculturation and the dependent measures from the preliminary analysis, two hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to further assess this relationship. To evaluate the homoscedasticity, linearity, and normality assumptions, I plotted the studentized residual values against the predicted dependent variables. A concentration of residuals in the center of the scatter plot and a normal distribution of residuals dis-sipating symmetrically from the center led to the conclusion that no assumptions had been violated. In both regression analyses, AOS scores were entered in the first step to assess the level of variance accounted for, then MOS scores were added in the second step to determine whether they contributed any unique variance. As can be seen in Table 3, the overall vari-ance accounted for (R2 = .02) by the AOS or the MOS was not significant in the first regression analysis for the clients’ per-

ceptions of counselor credibility (as measured by the CERS), F(2, 62) = 0.11, p = .89. In the second regression analysis, which used clients’ perceptions of cultural competence (as measured by the CCCI-R) as the dependent measure, overall variance accounted for was R2 = .09. AOS scores did not ac-count for significant variance in the first step, F(1, 63) = 0.05, p = .82; however, MOS scores, F(2, 62) = 8.70, p = .004, added a significant change in variance (ΔR2 = .08) in the second step. Clients’ MOS scores positively covaried with clients’ perceptions of cultural competence for the counselors. Thus, the higher the Mexican orientation reported by the clients, the higher the perceived cultural competence for the counselors. Conversely, the lower the Mexican orientation reported by the clients, the lower the perceived cultural competence for the counselors. Overall, the variance accounted for by MOS scores (R2 = .08) had an effect size of .62.

DiscussionThe unanticipated findings of this study may help elucidate the complex relationship between counselor ethnicity, counselor language, and counselor credibility. Although no significant effects emerged, some of the results were consistent with those of prior literature. The lack of findings for counselor ethnicity supports the line of previous research (Atkinson et al., 1998) that indicates other factors may be more important than ethnic similarity. Furthermore, the current findings strongly support the idea that ethnically dissimilar counselors can be viewed just as credible as ethnically similar counselors. Such findings are heartening given the lack of Latino/a counselors who are able to serve the Latino/a population.

Consistent with findings of previous studies (Ramos-Sánchez et al., 1999), the current results did not support the prediction that counselor bilingual ability would influence clients’ perceptions of counselor credibility and cultural competence. Although the current study tried to address some of the limitations of the Ramos-Sánchez et al. study, use of Spanish in a counseling interview did not affect clients’ rat-ings of the counselor. This finding does not mean to imply that the bilingual ability of the counselor is not important when working with bilingual clients, but rather it could be reflective of a sampling issue. Clients were college students effectively

TABLE 2

Means and Standard deviations of dependent Variables by Condition (N = 65)

dependent Variable

CredibilityCompetence

6.49 5.13

0.60 0.78

6.14 5.03

0.71 0.35

6.07 4.99

0.97 0.54

5.93 4.68

Note. Bilingual=bilingualtreatmentcondition;EnglishOnly=English-onlytreatmentcondition;Credibility=counselorcredibility(asmea-suredby theCounselorEffectivenessRatingScale);Competence=counselorculturalcompetence(asmeasuredby theCross-CulturalCounselingInventory–Revised).

M SD M SD M SD M SD

0.99 0.39

Mexican American Counselor European American Counselor

Bilingual (n = 19) English Only (n = 16) Bilingual (n = 12) English Only (n = 18)


Ramos-Sánchez

functioning in an English-only environment; therefore, the use of Spanish in their interview may not have elicited the anticipated response.

The current results partially support the hypothesis for the rank ordering of the treatment conditions. As predicted, clients rated the European American counselors in the English-only condition least favorably. The order of the other conditions was unexpected, but noteworthy. Nevertheless, because the conditions did not significantly differ from one another, they should be interpreted with caution. Still, it was surprising that the clients perceived the Mexican American counselors in the English-only condition as most credible, followed by the European American bilingual counselor and the Mexican American bilingual counselors. These unanticipated results may indicate that counselor credibility was based on other factors related to language.

Clients’ perceptions of the European American bilingual counselor could have also affected the findings. A European American counselor who spoke Spanish may have indicated to clients that there was a core respect for the clients’ culture of origin. Such an ego-enhancing belief may have influenced how the counselor was viewed. Clients may have perceived the European American bilingual counselor as more empathetic and as trying harder to understand an ethnically dissimilar client than the European American English-only counselors. Nonetheless, it is perplexing that clients considered bilingual ability an asset for the European American counselor but not for the Mexican American counselors.

It is possible that the clients may have perceived the Euro-pean American bilingual counselor as highly educated because there was no expectation that European American counselors could speak a second language. The same perception, however, was not had of the Mexican American bilingual counselors because clients may have expected a Mexican American coun-

selor to speak Spanish. Whereas clients viewed a European American bilingual counselor as extraordinary, clients viewed a Mexican American bilingual counselor as just typical.

The language switching in the bilingual conditions could have also affected perceived credibility of the Mexican American bilingual counselors. In the bilingual conditions, counselors switched languages regardless of whether the client switched languages to ensure sufficient experience of the bilingual condition. The Mexican American counselors who spoke Spanish or continued to switch to Spanish even when the client continually responded in English may have perturbed the clients. As a result, clients may have perceived the language switching as unnatural or contrived for a native speaker. Clients may have been more forgiving of the Euro-pean American counselor (nonnative speaker) because the counselor’s use of Spanish may have been seen as empathic. This possibility may also explain why the Mexican American English-only counselors received higher ratings.

The results for acculturation support a recent trend in the literature (Gim et al., 1990; Ramos-Sánchez et al., 1999; Ru-elas et al., 1998) indicating that individuals oriented toward their traditional culture perceived the counselor more favor-ably than did individuals less oriented toward their culture of origin. This finding suggests that adherence to values within the culture may account for higher ratings by less accultur-ated Mexican Americans. Respeto, a value based on hierarchy that requires deference toward parents, elders, and authority, could have affected the results. Mexican Americans’ strong orientation toward the Mexican culture, specifically, respeto, may have contributed to clients’ high ratings of cultural competence for the counselors. Such perceptions could have a positive impact on use of counseling services. To the extent that clients’ positive perceptions of the counselors are related to help-seeking attitudes, findings could suggest that less ac-culturated individuals may have more favorable help-seeking intentions than do more acculturated individuals. It may also imply that counselors may have to work harder with highly acculturated Mexican Americans to establish credibility.

These findings should be interpreted and generalized with caution. Participants were all bilingual college students and may not be representative of all Mexican Americans. Nonetheless, this study does provide much-needed informa-tion regarding linguistic competence of ethnically similar and dissimilar counselors. Not matching the language of the participant could have resulted in nonsignificant findings for counselor bilingual ability; that is, the counselor did not wait for the client to speak Spanish first. Ramirez (1999) contended that matching the therapist’s and client’s commu-nication style is essential for a client to feel understood (p. 46). Therefore, language switching may have better results for all bilingual counselors if language matching occurs first. A small sample size may have also contributed to the lack of findings. There may have been insufficient power to detect a significant difference among the conditions. Also, the study

TABLE 3

Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses for Variables predicting Clients’

perceptions of Counselor Credibility and Cultural Competence (N = 65)

Variable

CounselorEffectivenessRatingScalea

Step1 AmericanOrientationsubscale

Step2 AmericanOrientationsubscale MexicanOrientationsubscale

Cross-CulturalCounselingInventory–Revisedb

Step1 AmericanOrientationsubscale

Step2 AmericanOrientationsubscale MexicanOrientationsubscale

.11

.10 .03

.14

.01 .32

b

.28

.28 .18

.18

.17 .11

.04

.04 .03

.02

.02 .35**

SE BB

aR2=.01forStep1;ΔR2=.01forStep2.bR2=.01forStep1;ΔR2=.08forStep2.**p <.01.



only looked at the initial session. The effects of bilingualism as an intervention may not be evident until further along in the counseling process.

The unequal numbers in the counseling conditions may have accounted for some of the findings. The European American counselor in the bilingual condition may have had naturally better skills compared with the other counselors, resulting in more favorable perceptions for the European American counselor. It is also possible that this particular counselor was more developmentally advanced. An objective structured measure of counselor ability, such as interrater assessments, would have helped reduce bias in the counselor selection process. Interrater assessment is particularly salient given that the inclusion of more than one counselor in the other conditions may have introduced other factors. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, counselors did not significantly differ in clients’ perceptions of counselor credibility.

Furthermore, the current method used to ensure that counsel-ors only used attending and listening skills may have been subject to bias. The use of an integrity checklist could have provided an objective evaluation of skills used by the counselors. Finally, low internal consistency of the AOS may have led to nonsignificant findings for this subscale. Even though the subscales of the ARSMA-II are orthogonal, only using the first section of the ARSMA-II could have affected the reliability of the results.

Limitations notwithstanding, the current findings have significant implications for counselor practice and interven-tions. The results may indicate with whom bilingual ability is most necessary when working with Mexican American clients. Even though the treatment conditions did not sig-nificantly differ from one another, it would still be beneficial for European American counselors to learn Spanish if they work with a predominantly Latino/a population. Regarding emotional issues, language switching could serve as a useful intervention to increase empathy, respeto, credibility, and persistence with Mexican American bilingual clients. This ability is particularly important because most Latino/a clients, regardless of their language status, will receive services from European American counselors. Spanish proficiency could help foster a greater working alliance, provide a deeper level of understanding, and increase the overall effectiveness of therapy with Mexican American clients.

The results also have implications for counseling research. Future research should examine why Mexican Americans who adhere to traditional Mexican culture have positive perceptions of counselors but still continue to underuse mental health ser-vices. Investigating institutional barriers such as financial re-sources or lack of community services may shed some light on this issue. More attention should be given to the relationship between counselor ethnicity and counselor bilingual ability using a larger sample size that is Spanish dominant, using real clients, and using more experienced counselors. Furthermore, conducting a study that looks at the counseling process over time, rather than over one session, may give greater insight

into behavior change and intervention acceptance of Mexican American clients. It could help explain why language switch-ing in this study was more advantageous for the European American bilingual counselor than for Mexican American bilingual counselors. Further studies should also examine the language match of the counselor and the client in addition to language switching. Taking language cues from clients may produce more positive results than just language switching alone. Overall, language switching and its effectiveness in the counseling process deserve more attention.

ReferencesAbreu, J. M., & Sasaki, H. M. (2004). Physical and mental health con-

cerns of Hispanics. In D. R. Atkinson (Ed.), CounselingAmericanminorities (6th ed., pp. 300–316). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Altarriba, J., & Santiago-Rivera, A. L. (1994). Current perspectives on using linguistic and cultural factors in counseling the Hispanic client. ProfessionalPsychology:ResearchandPractice,25, 388–397.

Atkinson, D. R., Ponce, F. Q., & Martinez, F. M. (1984). Effects of ethnic, sex, and attitude similarity on counselor credibility. JournalofCounselingPsychology,31, 588–590.

Atkinson, D. R., Poston, W. C., Furlong, M. J., & Mercado, P. (1989). Ethnic group preferences for counselor characteristics. JournalofCounselingPsychology,36, 68–72.

Atkinson, D. R., & Wampold, B. E. (1982). A comparison of the Counselor Rating Form and the Counselor Effectiveness Rating Scale. CounselorEducationandSupervision,22, 25–36.

Atkinson, D. R., Wampold, B. E., Lowe, S. M., Matthews, L., & Ahn, H. (1998). Asian American preferences for counselor character-istics: Application of the Bradley–Terry–Luce model to paired comparison data. TheCounselingPsychologist,26, 101–123.

Atkinson, D. R., Winzelberg, A., & Holland, A. (1985). Ethnicity, locus of control of family planning, and pregnancy counselor credibility.JournalofCounselingPsychology,32, 417–421.

Bamford, K. W. (1991). Bilingual issues in mental health assess-ment and treatment. HispanicJournalofBehavioralSciences,13, 377–390.

Barak, A., & LaCrosse, M. B. (1975). Multidimensional perception of counselor behavior. JournalofCounselingPsychology,22, 471–476.

Buki, L. P., Ma, T. C., Strom, R. D., & Strom, S. R. (2003). Chinese immigrant mothers of adolescents: Self perceptions of accultura-tion effects on parents. CulturalDiversityandEthnicMinorityPsychology,9, 127–140.

Cheung, F. K., & Snowden, L. R. (1990). Community mental health and ethnic minority populations. Community Mental HealthJournal,26, 277–291.

Coleman, H. L., Wampold, B. E., & Casali, S. L. (1995). Ethnic minorities’ ratings of ethnically similar and European American counselors: A meta-analysis. JournalofCounselingPsychology,42, 55–64.

Comas-Diaz, L. (1990). Hispanic/Latino communities: Psychologi-cal implications. JournalofTraining&PracticeinProfessionalPsychology,4, 14–35.


Ramos-Sánchez

Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rat-ing Scale for Mexican Americans–II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275–304.

Cuellar, I., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican American normal and clinical populations. HispanicJournalofBehavioralSciences,2, 199–217.

Espin, O. M. (1987). Psychological impact of migration on Lati-nas: Implications for psychotherapeutic practice. PsychologyofWomenQuarterly,11, 489–503.

Falicov, C. J. (1998). Latinofamiliesintherapy:Aguidetomulticul-turalpractice. New York: Guilford Press.

Franco, J. N., & Levine, E. (1980). An analogue study of counselor ethnicity and client preference. HispanicJournalofBehavioralSciences,2, 177–183.

Gim, R. H., Atkinson, D. R., & Whiteley, S. (1990). Asian-American acculturation, severity of concerns, and willingness to see a coun-selor. JournalofCounselingPsychology,37, 281–285.

Guttfreund, D. G. (1990). Effects of language usage on the emotional experience of Spanish-English and English-Spanish bilinguals. JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychology,58, 604–607.

Javier, R. A. (1989). Linguistic consideration in the treatment of bilinguals. PsychoanalyticPsychology,6, 87–96.

Kim, B. S. K., Hill, C. E., Gelso, C. J., Goates, M. K., Asay, P. A., & Harbin, J. (2003). Counselor self-disclosure, East Asian American client adherence to Asian cultural values, and counseling process. JournalofCounselingPsychology,50, 324–332.

LaFromboise, T. D., Coleman, H. L., & Hernandez, A. (1991). De-velopment and factor structure of the Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory–Revised. Professional Psychology: Research andPractice,22, 380–388.

Lefley, H. P. (1994). Service needs of culturally diverse patients and families. In J. A. Talbott (Series Ed.) & H. P. Lefley & M. Wasow (Vol. Eds.), Chronicmentalillness:Vol.2.Helpingfamiliescopewithmentalillness(pp. 223–242). Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic.

Leong, F. T. L., Wagner, N. S., & Tata, S. P. (1995). Racial and ethnic variations in help-seeking attitudes. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Thehandbookofmulticul-turalcounseling (pp. 415–438). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Li, L. C., & Kim, B. S. K. (2004). Effects of counseling style and client adherence to Asian cultural values on counseling process with Asian American college students. JournalofCounselingPsychology,51, 158–167.

López, S. (1981). Mexican-American usage of mental health facilities:Underutilization considered. In A. Baron (Ed.), ExplorationsinChicanopsychology (pp. 139–164). New York: Praeger.

López, S. R., López, A. A., & Fong, K. T. (1991). Mexican Ameri-cans’ initial preferences for counselors: The role of ethnic factors. JournalofCounselingPsychology,38, 487–496.

Marcos, L. R. (1976). Bilingual in psychotherapy: Language as an emo-tional barrier. AmericanJournalofPsychotherapy,30, 552–560.

Marcos, L. R., & Urcuyo, L. (1979). Dynamic psychotherapy with the bilingual patient. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 3, 331–338.

Martinez, J. L., Jr., & Mendoza, R. H. (1984). Chicanopsychology (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Pitta, P., Marcos, L. R., & Alpert, M. (1978). Language switching as a treatment strategy with bilingual patients. TheAmericanJournalofPsychoanalysis,38, 255–258.

Ponterotto, J. G. (1987). Counseling Mexican Americans: A multi-modal approach. JournalofCounselingandDevelopment,65, 308–312.

Ramirez, M., III. (1999). Multiculturalpsychotherapy:Anapproachtoindividualandculturaldifferences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Ramos-Sánchez, L. (2007). Language switching and Mexican Ameri-cans’ emotional expression. JournalofMulticulturalCounselingandDevelopment,35, 154–168.

Ramos-Sánchez, L., Atkinson, D. R., & Fraga, E. (1999). Mexican Americans’ bilingual ability, counselor bilingualism cues, coun-selor ethnicity, and perceived counselor credibility.JournalofCounselingPsychology,46, 125–131.

Ruelas, S. R., Atkinson, D. R., & Ramos-Sánchez, L. (1998). Counselor helping model, participant ethnicity and acculturation level, and perceived counselor credibility. JournalofCounselingPsychology,45, 98–103.

Sanchez, A. R., & Atkinson, D. R. (1983). Mexican-American cultural commitment, preference for counselor ethnicity, and willingness to use counseling. JournalofCounselingPsychol-ogy,30, 215–220.

Santiago-Rivera, A. L. (1995). Developing a culturally sensitive treatment modality for bilingual Spanish-speaking clients: Incorporating language and culture in counseling. Journal ofCounseling&Development,74, 12–17.

Santiago-Rivera, A. L., & Altarriba, J. (2002). The role of language in therapy with the Spanish-English bilingual client. ProfessionalPsychology:ResearchandPractice,33, 30–38.

Santiago-Rivera, A. L., Arredondo, P., & Gallardo-Cooper, M. (2002). CounselingLatinosandlafamilia. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sciarra, D. T., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1991). Counseling the Hispanic bilingual family: Challenges to the therapeutic process. Psycho-therapy,28, 473–479.

Shavelson, R. J. (1988). Statistical reasoning for the behavioralsciences(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sue, D. W., Bernier, J. E., Durran, A., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P., Smith, E. J., & Vasquez-Nuttal, E. (1982). Position paper: Cross-cultural counseling competencies. TheCounselingPsychologist,10, 45–52.

Takeuchi, D. T., Sue, S., & Yeh, M. (1995). Return rates and outcomes from ethnicity-specific mental health programs in Los Angeles. AmericanJournalofPublicHealth,85, 638–643.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). StatisticalabstractoftheUnitedStates:2000 (120th ed.). Springfield, MA: National Technical Informa-tion Service.

Documents

Counselor Bilingual Ability, Counselor Ethnicity, Acculturation, and Mexican Americans' Perceived Counselor Credibility