Search

Being gifted and talented often is associated with a presumed sense of positive self-esteem. Many parents take pride in their children being labeled as gifted and talented, as can be seen in such bumper stickers as: “Proud parent of a gifted child,” or “My child is an honor student at … school.” Teachers and the school system, likewise, feel honored when their students achieve an honor-roll status. Clasen (1992) reported that high-ability minority middle and high school students often identified their teachers and parents/family as forces for their academic achievement. The National Research Council’s Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education reported that the achievement or behavior of students in gifted and talented, as well as special education, programs is determined by the interaction of the child, the teacher, and the classroom; the internal child characteristics, including biology, family, and community experiences, also play a clear role (Donovan & Cross, 2002, p. 3).

“Serious mental illness” (SMI) is defined by federal regulations as any diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder experienced by persons age 18 and older that is characterized by episodic, recurrent or persistent features and substantially interferes with or limits the ability to participate in one or more major life activities (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1992). Five percent of the U.S. population experiences SMI and it is a leading cause of disability (National Institute of Mental Health, 2014). The SMI population experiences significant stressors such as illness management, isolation, homelessness and stigma – long understood to be barriers to functioning and societal participation – which elevate the risk of morbidity and mortality (Madianos, 2010; Narrow, Regier, Norquist et al., 2000). In fact, the life expectancy of persons with SMI is an alarmingly 25-30 years less than that of the general population (Colton & Manderscheid, 2006). Studies showing that these stressors cannot be alleviated solely through psychopharmacological and/or behavioral interventions have led to recommendations that psychosocial approaches such as social support interventions be added to the SMI treatment toolkit (Corrigan & Phelan, 2004; Madianos, 2010; Narrow et al., 2000; Whitley, Harris, Fallot, & Berley, 2008). Social support has been demonstrated to buffer the negative impact of stress among the general population (Cohen, 2001; Cohen, Doyle, Turner, Alper & Skoner, 2003; Feldman, Cohen, Hamrick & Lepore, 2004) and has achieved national attention as a key component of the mental health recovery paradigm for persons with SMI defined as “a process of change through which individuals improve their health and wellness, live a self-directed life, and strive to reach their full potential” (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011). Specifically, Community, or the relationships and social networks that provide support, friendship, love, and hope is identified as a major dimension of the recovery model, and three out of the ten major principles guiding the recovery model address social support in some way. For example, recovery is described to include support from peers and allies, through relationships and social networks, and involving individuals, family, community strengths and weaknesses (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). In addition, clinical practice guidelines for healthcare settings now include social support assessment as an essential part of psychiatric evaluation (Lehman & Steinwachs, 2010). To date, little is known about how social support buffers the negative impact of stress among those with SMI. The limited body of research that exists suggests that social support is positively linked to quality of life (Bengtsson-Tops & Hansson, 2001; Sharir, Tanasescu, Turbow & Mamam, 2007), yet, the findings in aggregate reveal small to moderate effect sizes, and some studies show no effect (Anonymous & Anonymous, 2012). We believe these mixed findings are due, in part, to the use of non-population specific measures that do not capture the unique types of support relevant for persons with SMI. These studies are based on measures of social support designed for the general population who experience “typical” life stressors (e.g., divorce, death, loss of job), whereas the SMI population experiences an additional distinctive set of chronic and often debilitating stressors related to stigma, isolation, homelessness and illness management (Madianos, 2010; Narrow et al., 2000). Moreover, researchers who investigate social support with distinct clinical populations point out that general population measures are not sufficient in and of themselves (Broadhead & Kaplan, 1991; Wortman, 1984) and that population-specific support measures are necessary in order to help interpret the existing “morass of positive and negative studies [which are] of little value in the aggregate” (Broadhead & Kaplan, p.67). Recently-developed measures of social support for individuals with diabetes, cancer, and other specific health conditions have made important contributions in this area (e.g., McCormack, Williams-Piehota, Bann, Burton, Kamerow et al., 2008; Taskila, Lindbohm, Martikainen, Lehto, Hakanen et al., 2006; Yanover & Sacco, 2008). For example, the diabetes-specific support scale Resources and Support for Self-Management (McCormack et al., 2008) measures five domains of functional support unique to persons with diabetes and has been found to be both psychometrically sound and clinically useful. A limited number of studies have explored SMI-specific types of social support. Breier and Strauss (1984) conducted a qualitative study that identified SMI types of supports such as symptom monitoring, role modeling and reality testing. In addition, Walsh and Connelly (1996) observed that emotional support was more common than material and instrumental support among this population. To date, research paralleling the scientific advancement made with other clinical populations has not occurred with the SMI population; indeed, the types of social support relevant to persons with SMI differ from those of the general population and requires systematic investigation. Therefore, this study sought to better understand the population-specific types of social support relevant to adults living with SMI. Our study was exploratory and used a qualitative approach that centered on uncovering the types of social support meaningful and relevant to persons with SMI. Despite the phenomenological nature of our inquiry, the premise of our study was based on a broad conceptualization of social support defined as the emotional and tangible provisions by others that are perceived to be helpful by the receiver (Cohen & Syme, 1985). Our investigation was also guided by two overarching typologies of social support that have been consistently identified as the most salient and encompassing types of support: emotional support and instrumental support (Declercq, Vanheule, Markey & Willemsen, 2007; Shakespeare-Finch & Obst, 2011). Emotional support involves the provision of caring, empathy, love and trust (House, 1981; Krause, 1986), an affective transaction which imparts liking, admiration, respect and love (Kahn & Antonucci, 1980), or support that leads to the information that one is cared for and loved, is esteemed and valued, and belongs to a network of mutual obligation (Cobb, 1976). Instrumental support is the provision of tangible goods, aid, services, or concrete assistance that is intended to solve a problem or accomplish a task (Barrera, 1986; Cohen & McKay, 1984; Cutrona & Russell, 1990; Krause, 1986; Langford, Bowsher, Maloney, & Lillis, 1997).

Many college students underuse professional psychological help for mental health difficulties. The stigma associated with seeking such help appears to be one of the reasons for this underuse. Levels of psychological distress and past use of counseling/psychotherapy have been found to be important correlates of stigma associated with seeking psychological help (Obasi & Leong, 2009; Vogel, Wade, & Haake, 2006). For racial and ethnic minorities, the hindering effects of self-stigma and perceived stigmatization by others on treatment seeking may further be compounded by their relationships with their own ethnic groups, with other ethnic groups, and with the dominant society. This study used structural equation modeling (SEM) to test a model that explored the effects of psychological distress and psychocultural variables (i.e., ethnic identity, other-group orientation, perceived discrimination) on perceived stigmatization by others and self-stigma for seeking psychological help, controlling for past use of counseling/psychotherapy. The sample consisted of 260 African American, 166 Asian American, and 183 Latino American students. SEM multigroup analyses indicated measurement invariance, but partial structural invariance, across racial/ethnic groups. Across all 3 groups, higher levels of psychological distress and perceived racial/ethnic discrimination, respectively, predicted higher levels of perceived stigmatization by others for seeking psychological help, which, in turn, predicted greater self-stigma for seeking psychological help. Higher levels of other-group orientation predicted lower levels of self-stigma of seeking psychological help across groups. Higher levels of ethnic identity predicted lower levels of self-stigma of seeking psychological help only for African Americans. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Rapid Westernization and modernization in most Chinese societies has triggered a process of acculturation to Western value orientations, which induced conflicts between Confucian-based collectivism and Western individualism at both the societal and individual levels. A review of research instruments indicated that a cultural conflict approach is often used when assessing the personality and psychological functioning of Chinese people within and outside the United States. In spite of the receptiveness toward Western influences, family and collectivistic orientation are Confucian virtues and remain dominant values that govern the interpersonal and normative relationships in Chinese societies. Within this cultural conflict context, the concept of collectivistic conflict is proposed to conceptualize the psychological adaptation and counseling concerns of the Chinese. The development of a compromising self and the reintegration of the indigenous coping mechanism of self-cultivation (i.e., striving to be a cultivated, cultured person) are postulated as therapeutic tasks when helping Chinese clients resolve collectivistic conflict.

The International Forum (IF) has been a feature of the The Counseling Psychologist for two decades. The current coeditors of the IF offer their observations about why a manuscript might have been rejected in the past, offer suggestions on how to increase a document's potential for being published, and discuss new features of this forum. They also invite authors to contribute articles to the IF on a host of specific topics.

Much of the existing literature on psychotherapist self-disclosure has been with White or European American individuals. This article discusses cross-cultural considerations related to therapist self-disclosure. We present a clinical example of how therapist self-disclosure might play an important role with regard to working with people of color.

The factor-analytic structure of the Internal-External Ethnic Identity (Int-Ext Id) measure was examined using a sample of Chinese Americans. Items in the Int-Ext Id measure reflect the common internal and external aspects of ethnic identity as conceptualized from the social psychological perspective, as well as the Asian values of family orientation and collectivism. Four factors—Ethnic Friendship and Affiliation, Ethno-Communal Expression, Ethnic Food Orientation, and Family-Collectivism—were identified.

The measurement of internal ethnic identity and external ethnic identity showed that Chinese American immigrants could be differentiated into different identity groups. Additionally, internal ethnic identity significantly predicted salience of ethnicity and loss of face. Income, ethnicity salience, external ethnic identity, and loss of face were significant predictors of acculturative stress.

Worldviews of White American women clients, White American women counselors, and Chinese international women students were surveyed. Multivariate planned comparisons showed significant differences between (a) White American clients and White American counselors and (b) Chinese international students and White American counselors. Income was a significant predictor of worldviews for White American clients. Age and marital status contributed strongly to the worldviews of White American counselors. Among the Chinese students, the Taiwanese and the Mainland Chinese held significantly different worldviews. Worldviews of women are discussed from feminist as well as cross-cultural perspectives. Future directions for practice, research. and theory are suggested regarding the multicultural counseling process with clients of different worldview orientations.

MMPI-2 scores of foreign Chinese students (n = 25) were compared to those of a matched sample of Caucasian students (n = 21) and to normative data on American college students. Although responses for all groups were within normal limits, Chinese men appeared more socially introverted than Caucasian men. Relative to Caucasian women, Chinese women were more defensive, depressed, unaware of somatic and psychosocial problems, and gender astereotypic in interests. These tentative findings are discussed in terms of ethnicity and adjustment.