CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
KFFECTS OF CLIENT PHYSICAL ATTRA.CT::VENESS
IN PSYCIWTHER,.\.PY
A thesis submitted in pa.rti.al sntisfsetJon of the rer:p.dx\?.ments
fm.· che degree of Master of Arts in
Education, Educati.vtt<ll Psychology,
Counseling a.nd Guidimce
by
Dennis D. O'Connell
The thesis of Dennis D.
--77-------------------------~------------
'
J
Dr,,.
(J
~Toe
is approved:
o~connell
------
•
HcNa1r
Dr. Marvin Chernoff
California State
Univer~ity,
ii
Northridge
Tl\BI"E OF COl.:1TEN'l'S
Paue
--~--
List of 'I'a.bles.
Acknowledgments .
v
Abstract.
vi
Chapter
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Purpose of Study .
Introduction .
St.a'cement: of Problem .
1
Description of Study •
Limitations of Study .
2
3
Survey of Related Research .
5
1
1
Desi.gn and Procedures.
15
Subjects .
15
Desigr1 .
15
Procedu.r·e.
16
H.esuJ. t:s.
18
c()11C.:J..1J.sl.on
20
•
Smmna.ry.
20
Dir;cussion •
20
r.'l1 tu.re
F~esea.:t"ch.
J~eferencf::S ~
26
.!\.ppendices.
30
Apr-en.di. X A. :
.
Po
lipper.Clix ,,_,
~ape
?ranscript .
Eval~1ation
1..:1
::t
Form
31
34
LIST OF TABLES
Table
I~
Summary of Group Means.
.
.
• • • • .
• •
19
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Joe NcNair
for the awareness and knmvledge he has offered me in my
growth during these past two years.
Also, much thanks
to Stephanie Tombrello for her patience in sitting for
the innumerable slides taken, and to Ray Thomson and
Susie Sholin for their support during hectic times.
v
ABSTRl1.CT
EFFECTS OF CLIENT PHYS ICl\L ATTRACTIVENESS
IN PSYCH01'HER.l>.PY
bv
..£
Dennis D.
o~connell
Education, Educational I'cychology, Counseling end Guida.nce
The purpose of the study was to investigate effects
of the client's physical attractiveness upon therapeutic
percept.ion and attraction in psychotherapy.
'J.'wenty-s.i.x
second year graduate students in the Counseling and
Guidance program at California State University,
Northridge enrolled in two Ethics classes served
subjects.
Each class was split randomly into two groups.
Each group list.ened to a five-mj_m:rte presumed therapeu·tic
. t eract1.on
'·
1.11
,. v:hile v:i.ewi.ng five slides taken du::insr
interact.ion.
One group
i!1
t.h.;;~
each class viewed slides of a
physically attractive client, the other group in each
class viewed slides of a physically unattractive client.
Th0 audio tape was the sarne in each group.
.After each
presentation, the client Kaa evaluatad on indices
measuring therapeutic perception and attraction.
It was
hypothesized that the physically attractive client would
vi
receive higher positive responses in areas of therapeutic
perception and attraction.
Results indicated that
significantly higher (p<.OS) positive responses were given
to the physically attractive clien·t in the area of therapeutic attraction, but indicated no significant
differences in the area of therapeutic perception.
vii
CHAPTER I
PURPOSE OF STUDY
Introduction:
Physical characteristics, including physical
attraci.:iveness, have long been associated with temperment
and personality characteristics.
From Hippocrates and
Galen to Sheldon, scientific attempts have linked physical
characteristics and personality structure.
Sheldon was
perhaps the first to extensively study physical structures
and personality characteristics.
A.l though much of his
work has since been discredited, more recent research in
body-oriented psychotherapies, such as Bioenergetics and
Neo-Reichian therapy, place greaJc emphasis on physical
characteristics, and their relationship to character
analysis.
Statement of Problem:
The research involving physical attractiveness in
psychothsrapy is fairly consistent with results indicating
tha-r.: physically attractive clients benefit from higher
therapist attraction, better relationship quality, and
bet.ter prognoses.
However, there is no consistePcy in
explanations given for these results.
two vie•,..Jpoints emerge.
From these studies
The first viewpoint indicates that
1
since physically attractive individuals receive more social
rewards, they are more likely to be better-adjusted as
clients.
The second viewpoint hypothesizes that: the more
favorable therapy experience that the physically attractive
clients receive is due to preferential treatment by the
t:herapist.
Research relating physical attractiveness and
personality characteristics is minimal and inconclusive
at best.
In addition, the ma.jorit.y of studies on effects
of c1ien·t physical attra.c·tiveness do not isolate t.he
variable of physical attractiveness alone.
There is no
evidence to support either of the above two viewpoints.
This study used second year graduate students at
California State University, Northridge, enrolled in the
counseling and guidance program.
'l'·~tm
cla~>ses
v,:ere
measured, and subjects were randomly dividea into two
groups in each class.
Each group viewed five slides of
a client in a p:r:esu:med therapeutic session, v.1hile listen-
ing to the audio portion of the sesslon.
lasted five minutes.
The presentation
One group viewed a physically
attractive client, the other group viewed a physically
unattractivs client.
identical.
The tRpes played to
e~ch
~roDp
After the presentation, each group was
asked to evaluate the client on a number oi indices
were
3
measuring therapeutic perception a_nd attraction.
Two hypotheses v1ere presented:
1) 'l'he physically
attractive client would be perceived more favorably
therapeutically, as compared to the physically
unattractive client, and 2) the physically attractive
client would be a more desirable client to work with,
compared to the physically unattractive client.
Limitations of Study:
As noted in the Introduction, there are two viewpoints explaining the more positive therapy experience
that physically attrac·tive clients receive.
The first
viewpoint states that due to more positive socializat.ion,
physically attractive clients are more well-adjusted.
The
second viewpoint attributes the results to preferential
treatmeni: by the therapist.
In effect, this study is
point.
the
te~ting
the second view-
The major limitation of this study is that if
hypothe~>es
are confirmed, the results would not dis-
prove the first viewpoint.
At best, it could be said
that even though physically attractive clients may be
better adjusted, they do receive preferential treatment
by the the:r:apist.
A non-significant result would give
indirect support to the first viewpoint.
Secondly, although the subjects are doing paraprofessional counseling, they are not expetienced
4
therapists.
Research using professional therapists as
subjects may yield different results.
Finally, in order
to control for extraneous variables, such as differences
in personality characteristics that may be evident in
physically
attr~ctive
vs. unattractive clients, an
experimentai design was used in which subjects observed
the therapeutic interaction, and were not a part of it.
The impressions given by them were made from a brief
interaction, and although research indicates first
impressions often endure, it is possible that over a
period of time in a direct, face-to-face setting, effects
of physical attractiveness become minimized.
CHAPTER II
SURVEY OF RELATED RESEARCH
Research in the area of physical attractiveness has
surfaced only in the past decade.
Prior to this, there
has been a professional disinterest in this field.
A
small po:r:tion of the research has been done on t.he effects
of physical attractiveness in psychotherapy.
Research in
related areas has contributed to the understanding of
physical attractiveness and its effects on interpersonal
attraction, attribution of personality characteristics and
beha'.d ora1 evaluation.
The professional disinterest in physical attractive7
ness a.nd .:Li.:s effects is slc\v1y lif·ting.
Aronson (1969) be·-
~undemocratic"
nature
of such research, which runs contrary to the popular
no~ion
lieves this attitude to be due to the
that hard work and mot:ivation can accomplish nea:r.:ly anything.
Also, he believes that social psychologists might.
fear that beauty is more than skin deep.
Another notion
holds that different conceptions of beauty and differences
between the sexes in evaluating physical attractiveness
makes t.he value of any research in this area dubious.
1~is
hypothesis has been disproved by numerous researchers
who found a i1:igh conse!lS!lS arnong judges estLmat.irg physical
at:tractiV(·mess.
Berscheid, Dion, Walstor, and Lewis (1971)
5
6
report a .70 interjudge correlation, while Kopera, Maier,
and Johnson (1971) found a correlation of .93 between
male and
femal<~
judges.
Similar results have been obtained
by Murstein (1972) and Caviar and Dokecki (1971).
Younger
judges of ages 7 to 12, and non-college subjects of varying socioeconomic status also show a high consensus as
reported by Cross and Cross (1971) and Iliffe (1960).
This research supports the hypothesis tho_t concep-·
tions of physical attractiveness are formed at an early
age, and endure.
Considering the widespread efforts of
the cosmetic industry and advertising media, these results
are not surprising.
The socialization process includes
t.he internalization of society 1 s mores and values and research indicates that the effects of physical attractiveness are formed along with the concept itself.
Dion and
Berscheid (1974) found that among nursery school children
4.4 to 6.1 years of agei physically unattractive boys were
significantly less popular than their more attractive
classraates.
Attractive g·irls were significantly less popu-
lar in the younger group (4.4 to 5.4 years), and significant.:ly more popular in the older group.
The authors
suggest that socialization and the ability to evaluate
physical attractiveness could account for the result with
the girls.
Both sexes who were unattractive were signi-
ficantly more likely to be chosen as "scary" by their
pecr:s, and were also seen as being more independent.
7
Numerous studies have explored attitudes toward
obese individuals.
Results indicate similar negative
attitudes being formed at early ages.
Lerner and Gellert
(1969) report that five and six year olds expressed significantly more dislike for pictures of obese peers, as
compared to average or thin peers.
in this study.
(Staffieri,
Faces were not shown
These findings are corroborated by others
1967~
Strongman and Hart, 1968; Wells and
Siegel, 1961) who show consistent negative attitudes and
stereotypes toward obese individuals.
These stereotypes
include physical weakness, laziness, ugliness 1 loving
physical comfort
and eating, sloppiness, and extroversion .
.As with obese individuals, stereotypes about those
who a.:r.e physically attractive are numerous.
In a study
by Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972), students were given
three photos of peers and asked to evaluate them on a
number of personality characteristics, as well as to predict marital competence, occupational status and happiness.
The results indicate a widespread positive effect toward
attractive stimulus persons.
In each of the above pre-
dictive dimensions, attractive stimulus persons scored
significantly higher.
Miller (1970a) displays similar
results, and in another study (1970b), found that physicalJy att.ractive stimulus persons were perceived to possess a
higher degree of inner control on Rotter 1 s internalexternal control dimension.
This is similar to Dion and
8
Berscheid's finding that attractive children were seen as
being more independent.
While children are subject to their peers' attitudes
and stereotypes about their level of physical attractiveness, they are likely to be the target of adults'
jections as well.
Female
colleg~
pro~
students were given
pictures of a second grader, with a description of a
transgression committed by ·the child.
The college students
were then asked to evaluate the likelihood of past and
future transgressions, undesirability of the act itself,
intensity of punishment indicated, and respond to openended questions on how the child usually behaved, and
the child cOimnitted the transgression.
~vhy
In addition, the
nature of the transgression was changed to form mild/
severe and personal/impersonal conditions.
found that "the severe transgn:-:ssion of an
Dian (1972)
a.t~tractive
child is less likely to be seen as reflecting an enduri.ng
position towards antis6cial behavior"
of an unattractive child..
found. in
(p. 207) than that
Although no differences were
punishment recom."Tlended, the transgression itself
was viewed less negatively when committed by an attracJcive
child.
Similar adult bias was found by Clifford and Walster
(1973).
In this study, four hundred teachers from differ-
ent schools wexe given a summary report card of a fifth
grade student, and a picture of the child.
The teachers
9
were asked for their professional evaluations of the
child's I.Q., social status, scholastic potential, and
the parents' attitudes towards school.
Despite the sub-
stantial background information given, teachers rated
physically attractive children significantly higher in
all the dimensions listed above, 'as compared to the
physically unattractive children in photographs.
In heterosexual dating behavior, research indicates
that physical attractiveness has more influence than
students would care to admit.
Walster, Aronson, Abrahams,
and Rottmann (1966) report that of measures of personality,
social skills, intelligence, and physical attractiveness,
only the latter was significantly related to heterosexual
liking and desire for future contact in an initial dating
situation.
Similar results have been obtained by Brislin
and Lewis (1968) and Tesser and Brodie (1971}.
In addition to physical attractiveness, attitude
similarity has been found to be an' important determinant
of interpersonal attraction.
In a study by Stroebe,
Insko, Thompson, and Layton (1971), students received a
completed ai:ti tudinal questionnaire by a peer of the
opposite sex with the peer's picture attached.
Attitude
similarity and physical attractiveness were manipulated.
The students indicated their liking for the stimulus
person, and their desirability as a. work, dating and
mari·tal partner.
Both male and female students responded
10
more favorably to all four questions as attractivenss
and attitude similarity of the stimulus person increased.
Similar results were obtained with same sex stimulus
persons, in regard to interpersonal attraction (Byrne,
London and Reeves, 1968).
In heterosexual evaluations
made by male college students, attractive co-eds were
given significantly higher evaluations on essays allegedly
written by them (Landy and Sigall, 1974).
These studies show a consistent positive correlation
i ·•··
among physical attractiveness, interpersonal attraction,
and behavi6ral evaluation.
The reaearch indicates that
effects of physical attractiveness are strongest in
opposite-sex peer relationships.
Since 1971, a few
studies have examined the effects of physical attractiveness in psychotherapy.
Others carry direct implications.
In data presented by Cash, Begley, McCown, and Weise
(1975), undergraduate students were shown a videotaped
self-presentation of a. presumed counselor.
The students
were asked to record their impressions of the counselor
on a number of traits, and his expected helpfulness in
fifteen personal problems.
The only variable manipulated
was the physical att.racti veness of the counselor.
Cash .•
et al. found that the attractive counselor was generally
perceived more favorably, and was expected to be of greater
help in eight of the fifteen problems.
Cash (1974} also examined effects of physical
11
attractiveness upon self-disclosure.
Cash found more
disclosure to attractive strangers of the same sex, and
more favorable self-presentations to strangers of the
opposite sex.
In research within the therapeutic process,
McClernan (1973) found significant correlations between
the occurrence of sexual feelings and the relationship
quality for the client.
Physical at.tractiveness was
reported to be the best indicator for sexual feelings.
The research by McClernan, Cash and others previously mentioned indicates that the physical attractiveness of the therapist can influence the client's liking,
perception of ability, and willingness to disclose.
The
majority of these studies have used subjects untrained
in interpersonal processes and perception.
Ideally,
therapisi.:s are aware of their biases and are not affected
by the attractiveness of the client.
However, evidence
exists implying that the attractiveness of the client
does influence therapeutic perception, relationship
quality, and outcome of the therapy.
Barocas and Vance (1974) examined the relationship
between attractiveness of clients and clinical evaluation
by their counselors in a university counseling center.
Counselors' retrospective attractiveness ratings were
related to initial clinical status, final clinical status,
and prognosis.
Significant results were obtained in all
categories except for femRle counselors' ratings of initial
12
and final clinical status for male clients.
it was
pos~ible
In this study,
that counselors' retrospective attractive-
ness ratings were too biased, due to the fact that
attractiveness ratings by counsslors and by the counseling
center's receptionists correlated positively only for
female clients.
Nevertheless, Barocas and Vance believe
that the therapeutic perception was likely to be valid,
considering research indicating that when young,
physically unattractive individuals receive biased treatment by adults, and are less popular.
The position held by Barocas and Vance contrasts
that of Caviar and Glogower (1973).
In their study, the
physical attractiveness of both client and therapist
·were rated and correlated with the number of sessions held
in an outpatient clinic.
involved.
Only male therapists were
A significant interaction effect was obtained
with .female clients only.
Highly attractive therapists
had significantly more number of sessions with highly
attractive female clients, as did average attractiveness
therapists with average attractiveness female clients.
This result, they believe, is congruent with findings that
people tend to form heterosexual relationships with those
of similar attractiveness levels (Caviar and Boblett,
1972; Murstein, 1972).
With these results in mind, Caviar and Glogower
ad~ise
therapists to be aware of the effects of physical
13
attractiveness, and to attempt to minimize these effects
in the therapeutic relationihip.
Similarly, Goldstein
(1971) addresses the issue of YAVIS and non-YAVIS
clients, i.e., those clients who are young, attractive,
verbal, intelligent, and successful.
The YAVIS client
is most typically preferred, while the therapeutic
relationship with the non-YAVIS client often Yesults in
a quick termination.
Finally, research by Scheflen (1965} indicates that
quasi-courtship behavior occurs in psychotherapy, and
serves to facilitate rapport, and to maintain and
regulate the relationship.
This quasi-courtship behavior,
which is rnost often nonve:rbal (e.g., preening, posi i:ioning
for courtship) both is and is not personal; is and is not
sexual.
Most therapists were not aware of such behavior,
and often reacted defensively when informed of it.
In conclusion, there is ample evidence to support
the hypothesis that an individual's attractiveness affects
others' liking and perception of him/her.
These effects
have been noted as early as four years of age, and they
endure through adulthood.
In psychotherapy, the
physical attractiveness of both client and therapist has
been correlated with more "successful" therapy, in terms
of relationship
quali~y
for the client and prognosis.
With respect to the client, two orientations 1 outlined
previously, emerge.
The first assumes that physically
14
attractive individuals have received more social rewards
v7hen young.
These rewards were in the form of peer
popularity, positive adult attitudes and expectancies,
and a more nurturant socialization process.
As clients,
they are more likely to be better adjusted and to receive
positive social responses.
The second orientation postulates that differences
in relationship quality and prognosis for physically
attractive clients arise more from the therapist's own
bi.as, and that this bias interferes with the therapist's
perception of and relationship with the client.
According to Berscheid and Walster (1973), in their
review of the literature on physical attractiveness,
there is minimal research that deals directly with
effects of physical attractiveness upon personality,
s~lf
concept, or happiness.
Although it appears that
attractive clients experience more successful therapy,
i t is not known vlhet.her this success can be attributed
to better personal adjustment of the client, or to
preferential treatment by the therapist.
CHJ\PTER I I I
DESIGN AND PROCEDURE
Subj~cts:
The subjects were tvJenty-six second year graduate
students, enrolled in the Counseling and Guidance
at California State University, Northridge.
The study
was conducted in a required course in Ethics.
subjects were male, nineteen were female.
progra~
Seven
Fifteen were
over thirty years of age, eleven were under thirty.
I?esJ-gn:
The variable of physical attractiveness was manipulated in two conditions:
attractive male client.
unattractive male client and
The relative attractiveness of
the two clients was validated by five independent judges,
measured on a scale of one to nine.
The attractive male
was r:at.ed 7.1, the unattractive male 3.1.
The same female
therapist was used in both conditions.
Five slides of each client were selected from a
simulated therapy session.
These slides were matched as
closely as possible to eliminate variables other than
physical attractiveness.
A five-minute
peutic interaction was designed.
both conditi6ns.
rehearse~
thera-
This tape was used in
The content of the tape concerned the
15
16
client's difficulties at work.
(See Appendix for tape
transcript.)
A one-page
evalu~tion
form was made, consisting of
seven therapeutic indices (insight, warmth, openness,
happiness, intelligence, capacity for growth, and how
much the subject 'l'.vould like to vmrk wit:h this client).
These indices were measured on a seven-point scale.
Also,
an open-ended question was incl11ded (what are the underlying processes occurring?).
The indices of insight,
warmth, openness, happiness, intelligence, capcity for
grov,rth, and the open-ended question were measurements of
therapeutic perception.
The question "how much would you
like working with this client?" was the measure of
therapeutic attraction.
In addition, questions regarding
age range, sex and major
~Jere
included.
(See Appendix
for: a copy of the evaluation form.)
Procedure:
With prior approval of the instructor, subjects were
approached at the end of their Ethics class, and were told
that the experimenter was gathering data for his Master's
thesis.
It was explained that the thesis was concerned
with differences in therapeutic perception beh.reen first
and second year students in the Counseling and Guidance
prog-r.:=:tm.
minutr~
It was stated that ·they would be shm·m a five-
tape and slide presentation of an actual therapy
17
session.
After the presentation, they were told that they
would evaluate the client.
The subjects were told that for statistical purposes, the class would be divided into two groups.
Going
around the room, every other subject was assigned to the
second group.
After the subjects were divided, the
second group left t.he room and the presentation began for
the first group.
At the end of the first presentation,
the subjects in the first group were given evaluation
forms, and were told to leave the room while the second
group viewed the presentation.
Both groups were asked
not to confer with each other while completing the
evaluations.
When both presentations were completed,
the entire class was reunited and told the true nature of
the experiment.
The experiment was performed on the two classes in
one night, thus eliminating any feedback to subjects in
the second class.
To insure random design, the first
group in the first class viewed the physically unattractive client, while the first group in the second class
viewed the physically attractive client.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
A bvo-tailed t-test
used in analyzing the data,
\<Tas
the summary of v.1hich appears in Table 1.
No si9nificant
differences between the two groups (physically attractive
vs. unattractive) were recorded for the first six
questions measuring therapeutic perception.
difference (df
=
24, t
question number seven
=
A significant
2.11, p < .05) was obtained for
("How much w:Ju.ld you like to ¥70rk
with this client?"), which was the index of therapeutic
at-.tra.ction.
Data was further analyzed and resulted in no
significant.: difference£. between male and female subjects 1
or between subjects over and under 30, on any question.
On question eight, the unstructured question, no major
differences were found between groups in terms of'
positive vs. negative responses, or depth of analysis.
A th ir:d class was measured in this study, but was
not included in the statistical analysis due to extraneous
varic.bles ccr.tamina·ting the random desig"n.
eicht.:.
-'
~~ubi
.....
ects in the
sc~con<l
Five of" the
group
- - could not be
uE.~ed:
Three left b.;;,fore the study \vas fin.ished, and twc \<Jere
non-counseling and guidance students.
18
19
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF GROUP MEANS
~~estion
Attractive
Client
Unattractive
Client
1. Insight
3.83
3.43
.40
2. Warmth*
4.25
4.14
-.11
3. Openness*
3.42
3.50
.OS
4. Happiness
3.42
2.57
.85
5. Intelligence
3.75
3.36
.39
6. Capacity for
Growth
5.42
4.93
.49
7. How much
subject would
like working
with client
5.08
3.71
1.37**
Difference
* Lmv score indicates higher amount of trait. ·
** p < .05.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
Summary:
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
effects of physical attractiveness of the client upon
therapeutic perception and attraction in psychotherapy.
Subjects used were in the second year of the Counseling
and Guidance program at California State University,
Northridge, and were enrolled in two Ethics classes.
In each class, subjects were divided randomly into
two groups.
One group viewed slides of a physically
attractive client, the other group viewed slides of a
physically unattractive client, in a prestmed therapy
session.
Both groups listened to the same audio tape of
a five-minute therapeutic interaction between the client
and therapist viewed on the screen.
The subjects· then
rated the client on a number of indices measuring therapeutic perception and attraction.
Although no significant differences were found
bet:ween groups on indices of therapeutic perception, there
v.Tas a significant difference
(p < • 05} bet:.ween the groups
on the index of therapeutic attraction.
Discussion:
In reviewing the results, the nonsignificant
20
21
differences between groups in therapeutic perception
elicits several interpretations.
Since the subjects were
viewing the presentation, and not in the therapeutic
interaction themselves, there exists a certain degree of
detacrm1ent from the process.
This detachment usually
facilitates a more objective response.
Results may have
been different had the subjects evaluated a client first
hand, rather than viewing the interaction.
Another possibility is that in regard to perceptual
skills, subjects relied more on the audio portion of the
presentation.
Related to this hypothesis is the concept
of subliminal perception, and its effects in the evaluation.
·Unconsciously, subjects may have had st. ereotypic
reactions to the client, but were not able to consciously
express them on the indices of therapeutic perception.
To
do so may have been incongruent with their self-concept
of being objective and nonjudgemental.
In addition, only
male clients were used in this study, and the majority
of subjects were female.
Prior research has found that
effects of physically attractive female clients upon male
therapist perception and attraction far exceed any other
dyadic form.
In any event, the fact that there were no
significant rlifferences in therape11tic perception strengthens the belief that the slides of the physically attractive
and unattractive clients were adequately matched to
eliminate factors other than physical attractiveness.
22
Finally, the lack of significant results in therapeutic perception may be taken at fabe value:
The
physical attractiveness of the client has little effect
upon therapeutic perception.
Even if this is the case,
the significant results in therapeutic attraction carry
direct implications to relationship quality and outcome
of the therapy.
The results of this study, combined with
prior research, indicate that by virtue of physical
attractiveness alone, an attractive client is more likely
to experience a better therapeutic relationship, and
benefit more from the experience.
In addition; the
preferential treatment given an attractive client by the
therapist may be the sole reason for this improved
relat.ionship.
Based on this research, it is believed that therapists need to be more aware of their own biases.
often the most obvious is taken for granted.
Too
The stereo-
types and projections that the therapist carries into the
session will set limitations upon his/her effectiveness.
In making an initial impression of a client, a therapist
will often attempt to form a Gestalt from the limited bits
of information given to him.
This information represents
only a few hours of interaction in the client's lifetime.
'l'he need ·to form a Gestalt often arises from the thera-pist';:~
own anxiety, in which he/she. seeks to bind the
anxiet:y by imposing a structure, with implicit assumptions
23
attached, about the client.
The structure and assumptions
may be, in fact, untrue, and depending upon the therapist's
rigidity and needs, may or may not be altered in sessions
to come.
There is much evidence to suggest that initial
impression formation often endures.
The structure and assumptions that the therapist
makes are often closely related to how much the therapist
likes the client.
From personal experience, the researcher
has observed this innumerable times at staffing conferences
on patients in a psychiatric hospital, and in supervisory
sessions at a paraprofessional counseling center.
In terms of actual therapy, the physically attractive
client may enjoy a therapeutic honeymoon period,
The
ther a pi-:st-±-s-par-t-±-a-1-ly-respondi-ng-to-h~i.:-sf-her--prejee"!:!--iens ,
and depmtding upon the needs and level of consciousness
of the therapist, the time will come when he/she is confronted with his/her projections.
At this point, the
therapist must come to terms with who the client really
is.
This often results in a letdown, for both the thera-
pist and the client, who probably has never seen beyond
others' projections as well.
Much sensitivity, openness,
and awareness of the processes involved is needed at this
point, and can potentially be the springboard to a more
intimate relationship.
For the physically unattractive client, the therapist needs to be acutely aware of his/her own biases, and
24
if the therapeutic relationship is one of much distance,
the therapist _must ask how much of the distance is being
created by him/herself.
The samP mechanisms ·that occur
with therapists also occur with clients.
It is likely
that physically attractive therapists have more work to
do in dealing with the clients' projections and
transferences.
Beyond the effects and implications of physical
attractiveness in psychotherapy previously rated, the
most significant by-product appears to be avoidance of
contact; avoidance of intimacy.
As long as we respond
to our o¥m stereotypes, myths, and projections, we lose
sight of the other, and never make full contact.
There
are numerous rationalizations for this avoidance, both
in and out of therapy, but they remain rationalizations
at best..
Intimacy is a strong, moving force, which
brings up many fears, and so, many remain detached,
intellectual, or in the "therapist" position.
Such
therapists find it easier to make assumptions that are
not checked out, to respond to the "client" instead of
the individual, or to relate to an image of their own
projections without realizing it.
Among other factors, how one looks is a powerful
stimulus that can unlock personal myths, unmet needs, and
unresolved conflicts.
With all of the sophisticated
techniques a.nd diverse therapeutic styles, it is easy to
25
lose sight of what is most apparent, and if the research
on physical attractiveness in psychotherapy carries any
message, perhaps i t is to pay more attention to the
obvious.
Future Research:
Extensive research is needed in the area of
attractiveness in psychotherapy.
areas need further examination.
~hysical
Specifically, three
The first area involves
physical attractiveness and personality characteristics .
.Research in the area is minimal, and what exists is
inconclusive.
Since research indicates that physical
attractiveness affects social· re\vards, how does this
affect personality 1 and hmv does the individual compensa·te?
Secondly, more research validating results of this
study is needed.
Too much of t.he existing research uses
ex-post facto observations, and has too many uncontrolled
variables.
Research with female clients js needed.
Finally, more research involving the physical
attractiveness of the therapist is needed, and how this
interacts with the client's physical attractiveness.
Effects of therapist physical attractiveness upon therapeutic style, and relationship quality with clients needs
to be examined.
REFERENCES
Aronson, E. Some antecedents of interpersonal attraction.
In W. J. Arnold and D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska
~mposium on motivation.
Lincoln, Nebraska:
University of Nebraska Press, 1969, 143-177.
Barocas, R. and Vance, F. L. Physical appearance and
personal adjustment counseling. Journal of Counseling
?sycho~~gy, 1974, ~1, 96-100.
Berscheid1 E., Dion, K. K., Walster, E., and Walster, G.W.
Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of
the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 1971, l' 173-189.
Berscheid, E., and Walster, E. Physical attractiveness.
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
psychology (Volume 7). New York: Academic Press,
1974.
Brislin, R. W., and Lewis, S. A. Dating and physical
attractiveness: Replication. Psychologj.cal Report::~,
1968, 22, 976.
Byrne, D., London, 0., and Reeves, K. The effects of
physical attractiveness, sex, and attitude similarity
on interpersonal attraction. Journal o£ Pe~sonalit~,
1968, 36, 259-271.
Cash, T. F. Self-disclosure in the acquaintance process:
Effects of sex, physical attractiveness, and approval
motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
George Peabody College, 1974. Cited by Cash, T. F.,
Begley, P. J., McCown, D. A. and Weise, B. C. When
counselors are heard but not seen: Initial impact of
physical attractiveness. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1975, 22, 273-279.
Cash, T. F., Begley, P. J., McCown, D. A. and Weise, B. C.
When counselors are heard but not seen: Initial
impact of physical attractiveness. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1975, 22, 273-279.
Caviar, N. and Boblett, P. J. Physical attractiveness of
dating versus married couples. Proceedings of the
26
27
80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological
1972, l, 175-176 (Sununary).
-----
Assoc]~tion,
Caviar, N. and Dokecki, P. R.
Physical attractiveness
self concept: A test of Mead's hypothesis.
Proceedings of the 79th Annual Convention of t h e - American Psychologicai~ss~iation;-1971, ~~ 319-320.
Caviur, N. and Glogower, F.
Effec-ts of physical
attractiveness of therapist and client on number of
psychotherapy sessions.
Proceedings of the 8lst
Annual Convention of the Anlerican Psychological
Associat.ion_, 1973, ~' 1069-1070.
-Clifford, M. M. and Walster, E.
The effect of physical
~ttractiveness on teacher expectation.
Sociology o~
Education, 1973, 46 (Spring), 248-258.
Cross, J. F. and Cross, J. Age, sex, race and the
perception of facial beauty.
Development.al
Psyc_!lology, 1971, 5, 433·-439.
Dion, K. K.
Physical attractiveness and evaluations of
children's transgressions.
Journal of Personality
and Social P._sychology, 1972, _24, 207-213.
Dion, K. K. and Berscheid, E.
Physical attractiveness
and peer perception among children.
Sociometr~, 1974,
}_]_, 1-12.
Dian, K. K., Berscheid, E. and Walster, E. What is
beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social
Psyc?ology, 1972, 24, 285-290.
Goldstein, A. P.
Psychotherapeutic attraction.
York:
Pergamon Press, 1971.
New
Iliffe, A. H.
A study of preferences in feminine beauty.
British J"ournal of Psychology, 1960, 51, 267-273.
Kopera, A. A., Maier, R. A., and Johnson, J. E.
Perception
of physical attractiveness:
The influence of group
interaction and group coaction on ratings of the
attractiveness of photographs of women.
Proceedings
of t.he 79th Annual Convention of 'the AmeriCan
Psychological Assoe;iatioii-, 1971, _§_,- 317-318.
Landy, D. and Sigal, H.
Beauty is talent:
Task evaluation
as a function of the performer's physical attractiveness.
J·ou.rnal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1974, 29-,.299-304.
.
-~
28
Lerner, R. M. and Gellert, E. Body build identification,
preference and aversion in children. Developmental_
Psychology, 1969, 1, 456-462 •
.~cClernan, J. L.
Implications of sexual attraction
(feeling) in the counselor-client relationship.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern Mississippi, 1973. Cited by Cash, T. F.,
Begley, P. J., McCown, D. A. and Weise, B. C. When
counselors are heard but not seen: Initial impact
of physical attractiveness. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1975, 22, 273-279.
Mill~r,
A. G.
Role of physical attractiveness in
impression formation. ~-sychonomic Sciences, 1970,
19, 241-243 (a).
Mi~ler,
A. G.
Social perception of internal-external
control. Perceptual and ~lot.o:r:__ Skills, 1970, }Q,
103-109 (b) .
Murstein, B. I. Physical attractiveness and marital
choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1972, 22, 8-12.
Shapiro, A. K., Struening, E. L., Barton, H. and Shapiro,
· E.
Prognostic factors in psychotherapy: A multi~­
variate analysis.
Psychotherapy; Theory, Research
and Practice, 197 3, 10, 93.
~Scheflen, A. E. Quasicourtship behavior in psychotherapy.
?sychiatry, 1965, 2~, 245-257.
Staffieri, J. R. A study of social stereotype of body
image in children. Journal of P_ersonaJ.i ty and Social
Psycho~ogy, 1967, 2, 101-104.
Stroebe, W., Insko, C. A., Thompson, V. D. and Layton, B.
D. Effects of physical attractiveness, attitude
similarity, and sex on various aspects of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and
Soc~al_,?sychology, 1971, 18, 79-·91.
Strongman, K. T. and Hart, C. J. Stereotyped reactions to
body build. PsyE_hologi<:;:al Reports, 1968, 2~_, 11751178.
Tesser, A. and Brodie, M. A note on the evaluation of a
"computer date." Psychonomic S_cienc~, 1971, Q, 300.
29
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahamsp D., and Rottman, L.
Importance of physical attractiveness in dating
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1966, 4, 508-516·.
Wells, W. and Siegel, B. Stereotyped somatypes.
Psychological Reports, 1961, ~' 77-78.
APPENDICES
30
31
APPENDIX A
TAPE TRANSCRIPT
C (Client):
Yeah, I'm really beat tonight . . . had to
work overtime today.
T (Therapist):
C: Really lousy.
How's it going at work?
I'm tired most of the time, both on the
job and off . . . seems like the more I work, the
crumn1ier I feel.
My supervisor is really on my case.
We've never gotten along, and the more I try to please
him, he sets tougher standards for me.
T: You find yourself doing that too?
C.: Yeah, sometimes.
fied.
.
. I guess I
So it ends up that I'm never satisexpect t.oo much from myself.
the hassles at work are real.
do.
I
.
. but
don't know what I'll
It's hard to l6ok for another job when I'm working
full-time.
T: So what are your options?
C: Well, I could hang in there . . . but I can't.
T: You can't?
C: I just don't know how much more of this I can take.
T: Back to your options.
C: O.K.
I can hang in there, or I can look for another
job.
T: Any others?
32
C: Well, I could quit.
T: Sounds like you don't take that option seriously.
C: Not really.
T: Sometimes it's important to give yourself an out.
C: Yeah, I guess so.
.
.
T: What's going on with you now?
C: I don't know.
T: Stay with whatever you're feeling.
C: I think I'm feeling trapped.
T: How does that feel?
C: Well, like anywhere I turn there's a closed door.
T: Imagine yourself in a hallway with closed doors around
you.
C: O.K.
'0
. .
T: l.Vhat is it like?
C: Like before.
.
.trapped.
T: What about the doors?
C:
.Just regular doors.
T: How could you get through the doors?
C: I can't . . . they're locked.
T: Think about it.
.
.
C: Well, I could get a key . . .
T: Any other way?
C: I could bust on through.
T: O.K.
Imagine that you had to go through in any way
possible.
33
C: O.K.
The doors are stronger than I thought.
T: Imagine yourself with super strength.
C:
•
•
• 0. K. •
•
• that's easy.
.
. the doors just broke
dmV"n.
T~
O.K.
Relax and get back to yourself.
C: I'm feeling better.
T: In \vhat v1ay?
C: Well, I guess I can never be totally trapped, although
I still don't think I could look for another job.
'1': HovJ long have you worked there?
C: Five years and that's longer ·than any other job I've
vlorked.
T: So, in a way, it's safe and secure there.
C: Yeah, that sounds right.
T: It would be kind of scary to make any changes at this
point.
C: Yeahi I suppose.
.but I don't like working there.
T: It seems like you have a lot to do with your being stuck.
C: Well, what do you mean?
'l': Well, when you start talking about wanting to leave, you
sound scared, and v.rhen ·you talk about staying at work
you sound like you're feeling resentful.
I think you
have a lot more power than you give yourself credit for.
C: Yeah, you're probably right.
than I think.
.
I do have more choices
. and i. t' s ah.,ays been easier for me to
put the blame on the other guy.
34
Appendix B
.Evaluation Form
How would you evaluate this client?
1)
Little insight
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
much insight
2)
warm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
cold
3)
open
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
closed
4)
sad
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
happy
5)
dull
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
intelligent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
much
6
7
much
6) Capacity for growth
little
7) How much would you like working with this client?
little
1
2
3
4
5
3) w'hat are the underlying processes occurring?
9)
Sex
11) Major
F
10) Age
a) under 25
a) counseling and guidance
b) 25-30
c) 31-40
b) other
d) over 40