Using Values Clarification in Counseling Settings

Values clarification began as a counseling tool. Raths's famous seven questions about values have their origin in Socratic questioning and also owe a debt to Emerson and Dewey. Numerous strategies have been developed for the learning of values awareness. Counselors have found the clarifying question helpful in individual counseling, and they discovered clarifying strategies useful in individual and group counseling. Furthermore, values clarification has been used successfully to personalize instruction. Finally, the counselor can take advantage of values clarification for personal and professional growth. The question of research in values clarification is addressed. Leona Tyler , in reaction to this article, recalls other techniques for values discrimination.     

Uncertainties about the new Strong Interest Blanks

Many SVIB materials were published in 1969, and the new men's and women's revisions are now largely complete. Because these inventories are such fundamental instruments for vocational counseling, the revisions merit careful examination at this point. Consideration is given to necessary technical information, the Basic Interest Scales, new occupational scale reference groups, scale development and validation, an illustrative scale, and other factors. Because the SVIB's are more complex than ever, and involve uncertainties yet to be resolved, they need to be approached with caution.     

Bulimic Beliefs: Food for Thought

Individuals suffering from bulimia nervosa share a characteristic pattern of thinking which needs to be understood if effective treatment is to take place. This article presents these beliefs, gathered by clinical experience and a review of the literature, in a format which describes each belief, discusses the common causes for its development, and suggests therapeutic interventions.     

BRIDGING DIFFERENCE THROUGH DIALOGUE: A CONSTRUCTIVIST PERSPECTIVE

Differences in culture invariably underpin the communication failures and misunderstandings that lead to social conflict and dissension. In contemporary organizations, for example, conflicts in values between different occupational groups have the potential to create significant organizational dysfunction. Equally, however, bridging between these conflicts may present an opportunity for organizational learning and insight. Dialogue provides a means of bridging between such differences, but it is notoriously difficult to implement. In this article, we explore the potential of Personal Construct Theory as a way into dialogue. We illustrate our argument with the results of a workshop that involved senior managers and clinicians from a large public hospital.     

Refusals and Rejections Designing Messages to Serve Multiple Goals

This experiment was conducted to test a rational model of the elaboration of themes found in rejection messages. The experiment involved a situation in which a candidate for membership in an organization must be rejected by an agent of the organization. The model proposed that five themes would be found in the rejection messages, elaborated selectively as a function of the relationship between organizational agent and candidate (friend vs. stranger) and the basis for the rejection (qualified vs. unqualified candidate). The experiment was replicated with American and Japanese participants in the role of organizational agent; no differences due to nationality were anticipated. Results showed partial support for the initial rational model, but the findings also pointed toward two key revisions of the hypothesized model: First, two new themes in rejection messages were identified; and second, there were substantial differences in the way Americans and Japanese elaborated themes to serve their goals.     

UNDERSTANDING SELF-OTHER AGREEMENT: A LOOK AT RATER AND RATEE CHARACTERISTICS, CONTEXT, AND OUTCOMES

This study investigated (a) the relative importance of a number of biographic (e.g., age, race, gender) and contextual (e.g., span of control, functional area) variables and their interactions on self-other agreement and (b) the relationship between self-other agreement and outcome variables such as performance and compensation. Usable data were collected from 3,217 managers and their multi-source raters in 527 organizations. Multivariate regression procedures (as opposed to categorization procedures) were used to determine the sources of rating disagreement. Results indicated that a significant portion of variance in self-other ratings was accounted for by the set of background/context variables. Self-other agreement was also related to performance, compensation, and organizational level, though rating patterns differed.