Chapter Two: Literature Review
Before considering the specific requirements of a theory of counseling, another issue needs to be addressed briefly for the sake of clarity. What is the relationship between a theory of personality and a theory of counseling? Patterson (1986) maintained that a clear distinction between the two was not possible. He avowed that distinguishing among theories of counseling, theories of personality, or even theories of learning and theories of behavior was difficult.
Patterson (1986) did, however, suggest that theories of counseling might best be looked upon as the bigger picture. He stated that "every theory of counseling has, and must have, a theory of personality and of learning behind it" (xxiv).
Lewis' (1970) discussion of these matters adds clarity to the potentially great confusion. Though maintaining that the relationship among theories of personality and theories of counseling are ordinarily very close, he pointed out helpful differences. He warned, however, that few writers make a distinction and many use the terms interchangeably. He proposed "a theory of personality attempts to explain the client as a person, accounting for his behavior in a wide variety of situations. A theory of counseling . . . is concerned only with the on-going events of the counseling situation" (emphasis his, p. 28).
Because of the confusion between the terms "personality theory" and "counseling theory," they will essentially be used interchangeably. However, counseling theory will be the term used most often.
What kind of requirements are there in determining whether a set of beliefs comprises a counseling theory? Burks and Stefflre (1979); Ewen (1980); George and Cristiani (1986); Hall and Lindzey (1970); Hansen, Stevic, and Warner (1977); Patterson (1986); Rychlak (1973); and Ryckman (1978) are among those who have discussed or proposed criteria by which a theory of counseling or personality should be evaluated.
Patterson's (1986) discussion is an excellent summary of various authors' ideas. It is more broad- based than the others examined, and actually applies to the evaluation of any theory. Yet, Patterson's discourse would, hopefully, be implicitly followed in all theories. For him, a good theory has:
1. Importance: "applicable to more than a limited, restricted situation" and "should have some relevance to life or to real behavior."
2. Preciseness and Clarity: "understandable, internally consistent and free from ambiguities" and the theory is easily related to practice.
3. Parsimony or Simplicity: (long held as a characteristic of a good theory) "contains a minimum of complexity and few assumptions."
4. Comprehensiveness: "should be complete, covering the area of interest and including all known data in the field."
5. Operationality: "concepts must be precise enough to be measurable." Patterson, however, noted this was lacking in most theories.
6. Empirical Validity or Verifiability: "supported by experience and experiments that confirm it" and "must generate new knowledge."
7. Fruitfulness: "the capacity . . . to lead to predictions that can be tested, leading to the development of new knowledge."
8. Practicality: "useful to practitioners in organizing their thinking and practice by providing a conceptual framework for practice," thus, they can "move beyond the empirical level of trial-and-error application of techniques to the rational application of principles" (p. xx-xxi). Patterson noted that none of the present theories meet all the criteria listed above.
While setting forth a comparison of the different theories, with the goal of guiding a therapist into eventually developing his/her own personal theory, Hansen et al. (1977) divided the basic components of all counseling theories. They are: (a) personality development, (b) behavior change, (c) end product, and (d) role of counselor.
Personality development, according to Hansen et al. (1977) is, logically, derived from a theory of personality. One needs not only to know how both normal and maladaptive personality develop, but also has to state a belief regarding the nature of humankind.
How does the behavior of a person change? This is the question which needs to be addressed under the second category of behavior change.
The third component is what Hansen et al. (1977) calls the end product of a theory. It states what the goals of counseling are for the therapist and will, in some way, denote what behaviors are desirable and what behaviors are undesirable.
The role of the counselor states how one will interact with the client. One's theoretical frame of reference determines the kinds of techniques a therapist uses and whether any diagnostic materials will be used.
George and Cristiani (1986) also denoted four core areas of a counseling theory: (a) view of human nature, (b) key concepts; (c) process and goals; and (d) counseling techniques. Though the main headings are different from the criteria by Hansen et al. (1977), each virtually matches the categories presented by them. The only difference is that under the heading of key concepts (which is equal to the behavior change category listed by Hansen et al.), George and Cristiani state that a unique theoretical model, which makes the overall theory distinct, is discussed here.
Ewen (1980) proposed a content-oriented criterion for theories of counseling that is more comprehensive than those mentioned already. It is comprised of: (a) the basic nature of human beings; (b) the structure of personality; (c) the development of personality; (d) further applications; and (e) evaluation.
The basic nature for Ewen has to do with the motivational and influential aspects of behavior. It asks such questions as: "Are we selfish and willful? [Are we] socially oriented and considerate of others?" (p. 5).
The theoretical model(s) used to define people is (are) what is looked for in the structure of the personality. The development of the personality denotes how one evolves or matures over time.
Ways in which the previous information are applied in the counseling setting and interaction of the client and counselor are what falls under the broad category of further applications. Such issues as the goal of therapy and the reasons why the client is maladjusted, as well as a theorist's views on dreams and a wide range of other subjects, are also included in this section.
The evaluation segment looks at the theory in terms of usefulness, general impact, and unique contributions made by the theory. Also included in this section is the empirical research that has been done to assess the theory.
Rychlak (1973) has developed an approach which is somewhat similar to the previous. It is an improvement in certain ways, yet it has a slight drawback. He developed seven questions which are divided into two categories: (a) personality theory and (b) psychopathology and psychotherapy.
Within the first category are four questions:
1. Structural constructs: What is the essential structure of personality?
2. Motivational constructs: On what basis does this structure act or behave?
3. Time perspective constructs: Does this structure change over time, and if so, in what way?
4. Individual differences constructs: How does one account for the variety of human behavior among different individuals?
Under the category of psychopathology and psychotherapy, the theory would need to address the following three issues:
5. Theory of illness: How does a personality "get sick" or "become maladjusted" or "begin behaving in an unrewarding fashion"?
6. Theory of cure: How does the therapist go about curing, resolving, or controlling (changing) this condition?
7. Therapeutic techniques: Does he/she have any unique procedures in his/her approach distinguishing him/her from other psychotherapists?
These criteria by Rychlak lack something very important which was included in the previous requirements, an evaluation segment. Certainly, for a theory to be beneficial, it has to provide evidence to support its usefulness.
Burks and Stefflre's (1979) criteria have an evaluation component and essentially contain the same strong points of Rychlak's. They have presented "substantive elements in theories of counseling," (p. 23) that have areas which are to be explicitly discussed within any counseling theory. They are: (a) assumptions regarding the basic nature of people; (b) beliefs regarding learning theory and change in behavior; (c) a commitment to certain goals of counseling; (d) a definition of the role of the counselor; and (e) evidence supporting the theory. The specific issues which might be discussed under each of the headings are (pp. 23-25, 317-329):
1. Assumptions regarding the basic nature of people: This would include discussing whether one viewed people as innately good or evil; the issue of free will versus determinism; and how pliable people people were--the effect of genetic elements and the environment on the human condition.
2. Beliefs regarding learning theory and change in behavior:
Which behaviors are determined biologically and are therefore less likely to change and which behaviors develop as a result of experience or learning and may therefore be changed by a process of unlearning or relearning . . . is learning furthered by a general atmosphere or by specific stimulus-response situations? (p. 24).
Additionally, one's views on how change comes about and how this change is best accomplished would be addressed here.
3. A commitment to certain goals of counseling: Clear and explicit statements are to be made about goals; if the term "mental health" is used, it should be defined precisely; and defining how one can tell the client has improved since coming to counseling is important.
4. A definition of the role of the counselor: Discussing how one's role is carried out through the process and techniques of counseling; whether one deems diagnosis as important; views on testing, case history, and screening interviews; ideas on the counselor's use of interpretation, advice, and persuasion; how the values of the counselor influence the client; views on the use of homework (i.e., is the counselor the sole helping person?); the basic counseling style; how special issues like dependency of a client and communication problems are dealt with; and any other elements which may define the counselor's role.
5. Evidence supporting the theory: This includes illustrative case material showing how the theory functions for a given case and any research that has been done on the theory.
This author believes Burks and Stefflre's (1979) criteria are the most complete and well articulated of the requirements of a theory of counseling. Therefore, they will be used to test the beliefs and writings of Richard D. Dobbins.
Abstract | Chaper 1 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 |
Return to Mental Health Issues
Return to O'Flare's Mega Land
Send questions or comments to: oflare@usa.net