This paper presents summaries, critical analyses, and practical applications of two counseling studies. The first, by Zinnbauer and Pargament (2000), examines how counselors approach clients' religious concerns through four frameworks — rejectionism, exclusivism, constructivism, and pluralism — and recommends the latter two for fostering open, client-centered dialogue. The second, by Malone et al. (2011), investigates the relationships among forgiveness, stress, and social support, finding that higher stress and lower social support correlate with reduced willingness to forgive. The paper critically evaluates methodological limitations of the online survey used by Malone et al. and applies both studies' findings to practical counseling strategies.
A counselor ontologically stands in a different mode from the client and holds his or her own values. This necessarily extends to religion — or the lack of it — and the problem may be that even though a counselor seeks not to impose those values on the client, they can covertly seep through and influence or even repel the client. Many counselors address this problem by adopting a guiding methodology. For instance, a counselor may choose the humanistic approach and closely adhere to Carl Rogers's prescription of assuming a non-judgmental, client-centered position while refraining from directing the client in any particular way. Humanism is a broad approach that refers to counseling methodology in general.
Religion is a subject that may, to some extent, creep into counseling sessions. According to Zinnbauer and Pargament (2000), there are four archetypes through which counselors may choose to address religious concerns.
Rejectionism is epitomized by the psychodynamic tradition, in which Freud posited that religion is a placebo — an escape from one's problems. A counselor with a rejectionist approach will seek to dismiss or override religious concerns, explaining them away or reducing them to other phenomena.
Exclusivism is the "holier-than-thou" approach, in which the counselor — even while apparently listening to the client — nonetheless believes that his or her own religion and worldview represent the exclusive and fundamental truth. Such a therapist may seek to admonish, direct, or correct the client, believing that doing so benefits the client's soul.
Constructivism holds that each individual constructs his or her own reality, and therefore perceives religion in a uniquely personal way. Pluralism, similarly, holds that there are many paths to the divine and that each is equally valid.
Zinnbauer and Pargament (2000) recommend that pastoral counselors — or any counselor dealing with religious concerns — would do well to reject the first two approaches and adopt the latter two. Using constructivism and pluralism as guiding methodologies will attract rather than repel clients and encourage them to articulate their religious concerns freely.
Even though constructivism and pluralism are admirable approaches for cultivating open-mindedness — and the two appear similar to one another — it seems that a counselor's true feelings will inevitably seep through to the client, try as he or she might to conceal them.
Just as the counselor is attuned to the client's feelings and communication, so too, in the intimacy of the counseling setting, is the client attuned to the counselor's innuendoes. The therapist's value system is bound to slip through regardless of stated methodology.
The counselor is ontologically separate from the client and will never fully know the client's true reality. However a counselor feels about religion — even if she claims a pluralist stance — she still naturally regards her own approach, or lack thereof, as the most valid. This will surface in subtle ways. One must sincerely believe in constructivism and pluralism in order to practice them authentically. Adopting a methodology as a label may be insufficient; the counselor must genuinely live by it as well.
"How counselors can genuinely internalize pluralism"
Much research has demonstrated a correlation between forgiveness and emotional well-being. The particular study by Malone et al. (2011) investigated the relationship between forgiveness, stress, and social support in order to assess whether the decision to forgive would reduce feelings of stress and accordingly lead to enhanced emotional well-being. The study also recognized that forgiveness involves family and social support. The present study expanded on previous ones by (a) introducing the concept of stress, (b) assessing social support, (c) including a wider and more diverse age range, and (d) investigating gender differences.
The study's four hypotheses centered on the association between forgiveness and well-being. They posited a positive association between revenge and stress, and similarly a positive association between lack of social support and a desire for revenge.
"Online survey limitations and self-report reliability concerns"
"Using forgiveness findings to support clients therapeutically"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.