The conceptualizationof personality traits vary based on the theoretical perspective. There is nogeneral consensus regarding the definition and number of personality traits,and how to measure it. For example, Existential psychologistsconsider behavior as a seen cause and stress the role of immediate consciousphenomena. They deny fixed structural differentiation of personality systems.
They stress subjective experience such as self awareness. Psychoanalyticperspectives emphasis the importance of unconscious processes, sexualgratification or other basic motives, and childhood experience. They believethat libidinal energy is the basis for personality and also determined by theconflict between structures, and unconsciousness (Mathew, 2003). On the other hand, Cognitive socialtheory stresses the role of learning in influencing personality. This theoryreject unconscious factor and emotional side of life while emphasize rationalside (Bandura, 1999). Thus, as a result of the disagreement between theoristsit will be difficult to define personality traits in specific term. However, Leong(2008) describe personality traits as component that describes what individualsare like. Gordon Allport (1937), cited in Matthew (2003) saw traits as “organizedmental structures, varying from person to person, which initiate and guidebehavior” (p.
6). Menninger (1953), cited in Cohen(2009) defined personality as “the individual as a whole, his height and weightand love and hates and blood pressure and reflexes; his smiles and hopes andbowed legs and enlarged tonsils. It means all that anyone is and that he istrying to become” (p.378).2.2.Counseling Outcome Indicators Bonilla, Padilla, & Perez–Prado (1998) examined factors associatedwith outcome and found that 60% of clientsindicated having benefited from treatment.
Saggese (2005) pointed outthat, “the process of psychotherapy is a powerful, effective, and valuabletool, which is of significant benefit to those suffering from emotionaldistress” (p.520). However, scholars such as Hans Eysenck(1992), cited inO’Brien(2007), concluded that there is no difference of psychological distressbetween those who participated intherapy and who do not. Recently, several studies oncounseling outcome have provided some indications of effectiveness. However, theydiffer significantly on their methodology, which would be considered as a mainobstacle to synthesize the result. However, Lych (2002) suggest that ” when clients begin to feel better, theyhave learned new behaviors, increased coping skills, increased self-esteem, orare having fewer symptoms, these can all be viewed as successful outcomes” (p.
40). Therapy is all about new learning. Effectivetherapy is characterized by positive outcomes. Effectiveness was measured bydecreases in unwanted fillings and improvements in overall outcome. Improvementin psychological well-being is another indicator of effectiveness (Brown , 2008). 2.
3.Factors Contributing for Counseling Outcomes Bonilla,Padilla, & Perez–Prado (1998) examined factors associated with outcome andfound that 60% of clients indicated havingbenefited from treatment.Counseling outcome may prove to be predicted byvarious important factors.
For instance, verbal interaction between client andtherapist during therapeutic process (e.g. Ruiz-Sancho et al.
, 2013), motivation andautonomy support (Ryan et al., 2011), ambivalence (Oliveira, Goncalves, Braga, & Rebeiro, 2016),clients’ therapy preferences(Cooper & Norcos, 2016), personal characteristics and counseloreducation program( ), therapist adherence and competence (Boswell et al., 2013), and the desire to belong or social identification (Meuret et al., 2016).
In their meta-analysis of 375outcome studies, Smith and Gloss (1977) concluded that there is no sufficientevidence to support the premise of superiority of specific therapy; efficacy ofthe therapeutic approach is almost similar. Different researcher are declaringthe successfulness of specific therapy in influencing therapeutic outcome,however, the result obtained from this meta-analysis indicate that thebehavioral and non behavioral therapies has the same average effect. “Thestandard error of the mean of the 119 different scores (behavioral effect sizeminus non behavioral effect size in each study) is .66/VH9 = .06.
” Sprenkle & Blow (2004) arguesthat there are common factors and mechanisms of change that will consistentlyaffect the therapy. Models are a means for activating common factors, and theresult obtained across theoretical approach is almost similar. Theeffectiveness of psychotherapy is not particularly influenced by model; thesuccess of the treatment is more depended on general factor rather than onspecific theoretical approach. And also specific variable such as therapeuticrelationship will not a large array of change. “Common factors are dimension ofthe treatment setting that include client, therapist, relationship, expectancy,and treatment variables that are not specific to a particular model”(p.
119). Regardless of the techniqueemployed, relationship factors are the major contributors to a successfuloutcome (McFadzean, 2005). Wright & Davis (1994) concluded thatrelationship is central to therapeutic change. Reasonable theory may enabletherapist to build positive working relationship and placebo effects (John & Rita, 2004). Beutleret al (2004), in their study of therapist variables, emphasize the importanceof both therapist effects and the therapeutic relationship.