Options
Theoretical orientation, empathy, and attribution bias of helping professionals in Singapore
Author
Ho, Kar Woon
Supervisor
Tan, Soo Yin
Abstract
Empirical studies suggest that helping professionals (HP) are more likely to attribute the causes of a client’s problem to internal/personal causes over external/situational causes even in the presences of clear external causes. This has been referred to as the attribution bias. Seventy-one HP and 97 non-therapist professional (NT) participants were recruited for the study. Participants were given a vignette describing a client facing financial concerns and presenting with symptoms of Adjustment Disorder. All participants were asked to complete the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI, a measure of trait empathy) and evaluate the causes of the fictitious client’s problem using the Clinical Attribution Scale and the Causal Dimension Scale – II. HP participants were also asked to complete the Theoretical Evaluation Self-Test, a measure for the level of endorsement to different theoretical orientations. The results indicated that (i) There was no different in the perception of locus of the problem between the HP and NT participants; (ii) The HP participants had a stronger tendency than the NT participants to perceive the client as having personal control over the cause of the problem; (iii) Endorsement of Psychodynamic and Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) orientations was found to be related to an increase in the perception of client having control over the problem (iv) Endorsement of CBT was further related to a reduction in the perception of the problem being under the control of people other than the client; (v) Endorsement of Pragmatic Case Management and Ecosystem approaches was predictive of a reduced perception of client having personal control; (vi) Self-reported perspective taking ability as measured by IRI was found to be related to an elevated level of perception clients having person control over the problem. These findings highlighted the need for practitioners to be more aware of their expectations of their clients and to monitor incongruences in causal attributions. Training to prevent attribution bias needs to be considered.
Date Issued
2016
Call Number
BF636.6 Ho
Date Submitted
2016