Absolute Versus Tentative Interpretations: Mediating Effects of Client Locus of Control By: Craig S. Cashwell , Amy Skinner, Jennifer C. Lewis, J. Scott Young , and Tammy H. Cashwell Cashwell, C. S., Skinner, A. L., Lewis, J. C., Young, J. S., & Cashwell, T. H. (2001). Absolute versus tentative interpretation: Mediating effects of client locus of control. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 31, 141-149. Made available courtesy of Springer Verlag: The original publication is available at http://www.springerlink.com ***Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from Springer Verlag. This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures may be missing from this format of the document.*** Abstract: An analog design was used to investigate the mediating effects of client locus of control (i.e., an internal focus or external focus) on perceptions of counselor style of interpreting events (i.e., absolute or tentative interpretations) on measures of perceived session depth and smoothness, and perceived counselor expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness. One hundred and thirty-four undergraduate college students, crossed on level of locus of control, were randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions, and then completed measures of perceived session depth and smoothness, as well as perceived counselor expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness. Results indicated a significant interaction effect on perceived counselor trustworthiness. Implications for college counselors are provided. KEY WORDS: interpretation; locus of control; psychotherapy research. Article: The use of interpretations by counselors to provide clients with an alternative framework to conceptualize their problems and make changes in their lives has long elicited interest among researchers as an avenue for influencing clients (Levy, 1963) that cuts across theoretical orientations (Claiborn, Ward, & Strong, 1981). However, the therapeutic value of interpretations has received mixed empirical support (Jones & Gelso, 1988; Milne & Dowd, 1983). One possible explanation for the mixed results was provided by Claiborn (1982), who argued that variability in the forms of interpretation used in research may account, at least in part, for the discrepant results of interpretation studies. Traditionally, researchers have focused on characteristics of the interpretation itself, such as depth of interpretation (Speisman, 1959), suitability (Silberschatz, Fretter, & Curtis, 1986), accuracy (Crits-Christoph, Cooper, & Luborsky, 1988), congruence with the client beliefs (Claiborn, Ward, & Strong, 1981), attributions (Claiborn & Dowd, 1985; Forsyth & Forsyth, 1982), transference versus nontransference interpretations (Marziali, 1984; Piper, Debbane, Bienvenu, Carufel, & Garant, 1986) or the use of absolute versus tentative interpretations (Milne & Dowd, 1983). However, throughout all of these investigations, few researchers have considered characteristics of the client that may serve to mediate the influence of these interpretations. In other words, research on interpretations may have fallen prey to the “universality myth” (Kiesler, 1966; Silberschatz, Fretter, & Curtis, 1986), the notion that all persons will be influenced identically by a given stimulus. Levy (1963) suggested that counselors could either provide interpretations in an absolute or decisive manner or in a more questioning and tentative manner. While some researchers (Milne & Dowd, 1983) found little difference in the impact on clients of tentative versus absolute interpretations, others (Jones & Gelso, 1988) found tentative interpretations to be viewed more positively by clients than absolute interpretations. This latter finding is more consistent with the content of textbooks on counseling skills (Brammer, Abrego, & Shostrom, 1982; Hackney & Cormier, 1995) which advocate for the use of tentative interpretations.