10
‘‘Impressive?’’ Credentials, family photographs, and the perception of therapist qualities Ann Sloan Devlin * , Sarah Donovan, Arianne Nicolov, Olivia Nold, Andrea Packard, Gabrielle Zandan 1 , 2 Connecticut College, CT 06320, USA article info Article history: Available online 12 September 2009 Keywords: Office environment Therapy Status Soft architecture abstract The impact of the number of displayed credentials (0, 2, 4, or 9) and the presence or absence of family photographs on participants’ judgments of a therapist’s qualities was assessed. In a between-participants design, 227 participants made these judgments after viewing a projected digital image of a therapist’s office. The judgments of the characteristics yielded three factors, Qualifications, Friendliness, and Energy. Analyses indicated that in general, the greater the number of credentials, the more positive the judgment of the therapist’s Qualifications and Energy. The presence of family pictures had no significant impact on judgments. Results are discussed in terms of recommendations for the counseling environment. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Almost 50 years ago, Goffman (1959) discussed how we manage our appearance to create particular effects on others. The physical environment creates impressions as well, and researchers have documented the effects of a range of environments, from houses to hospitals (e.g., Arneill & Devlin, 2002; Becker, 1977; Cooper Marcus, 1995; Elsbach, 2003, 2004; Sadalla, Verschure, & Burroughs, 1987; Wells & Thelen, 2002). People can and do use the cues in envi- ronments such as houses and offices to make judgments about the personal traits of their occupants (Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, & Morris, 2002). In the Gosling et al. research, when offices were well-organized and neat, there was a positive correlation with the judged conscientiousness of the occupants, which was not the case when the offices were cluttered. In the work environment, the role of status symbols has received attention and is pursued in the research reported here. Korda (1975) for example discusses the role of symbols as a strategy in obtaining power in the workplace. One entire chapter in his book is devoted to the ‘‘symbols of Power’’. Written in 1975, he quips, ‘‘Framed diplomas are definitely out as power symbols, and so are . family photographs.’’ (p. 201). Others are somewhat more enthusiastic about the role of credentials in the work environment (e.g., Feldman & Klich, 1991). In Goffman’s (1951) discussion of status symbols he identifies two types of occupation symbols, those involving credentials, which testify to the individual’s education and training (e.g., diplomas), and those that become evident after the individual is established in the work environment. As an example of the latter, Goffman cites the private office. The early research on the effect of offices on impression formation typically was conducted in two general settings: the faculty office and the counseling office. Much of the research on office de ´ cor was conducted 25–30 years ago, and current interest in the role of the physical environment on well-being (e.g., Arneill & Devlin, 2002; Cooper Marcus, 1995; Devlin & Arneill, 2003; Elsbach, 2003, 2004; Wells, 2000) argues for a reexamination of the impact of object display on perception of the office occupant. The object display in the counseling environment provides an opportunity to better understand the impact of personalization on judgments of the therapist, someone whose work fundamentally has to do with the process of interpretation. 1. Research on offices and counseling environments Attention has been given to the role of de ´ cor as it affects various kinds of social and personality judgments for at least five decades. More than 50 years ago, Maslow and Mintz (1956; Mintz, 1956) examined the effect of de ´cor (beautiful vs. average vs. ugly rooms) on judgments of the well-being and energy of the people depicted in negative print photographs. The beautiful room had windows, neutral colored walls, a soft armchair, desk and chair of mahogany, a wooden bookcase, small table, Navajo rug, paintings, and drapes. The results indicated significantly higher ratings for energy and well-being when the judgments were made in the beautiful than in the ugly room. In a study assessing the features that college * Corresponding author. Box 5448, Connecticut College, 270 Mohegan Avenue, New London, CT 06320, USA. Tel.: þ1 860 439 2333; fax: þ1 860 439 5300 E-mail address: [email protected] (A.S. Devlin). 1 Thanks to J.A.S. for the use of his office in this research. 2 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 39 th annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference, May, 2008, Veracruz, Mexico. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep 0272-4944/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.08.008 Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 503–512

“Impressive?” Credentials, family photographs, and the perception of therapist qualities

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: “Impressive?” Credentials, family photographs, and the perception of therapist qualities

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 503–512

Contents lists avai

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jep

‘‘Impressive?’’ Credentials, family photographs, and the perceptionof therapist qualities

Ann Sloan Devlin*, Sarah Donovan, Arianne Nicolov, Olivia Nold, Andrea Packard, Gabrielle Zandan 1,2

Connecticut College, CT 06320, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 12 September 2009

Keywords:Office environmentTherapyStatusSoft architecture

* Corresponding author. Box 5448, Connecticut CoNew London, CT 06320, USA. Tel.: þ1 860 439 2333;

E-mail address: [email protected] (A.S. Devlin).1 Thanks to J.A.S. for the use of his office in this re2 An earlier version of this paper was presented at th

Design Research Association Conference, May, 2008,

0272-4944/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.08.008

a b s t r a c t

The impact of the number of displayed credentials (0, 2, 4, or 9) and the presence or absence of familyphotographs on participants’ judgments of a therapist’s qualities was assessed. In a between-participantsdesign, 227 participants made these judgments after viewing a projected digital image of a therapist’soffice. The judgments of the characteristics yielded three factors, Qualifications, Friendliness, and Energy.Analyses indicated that in general, the greater the number of credentials, the more positive the judgmentof the therapist’s Qualifications and Energy. The presence of family pictures had no significant impact onjudgments. Results are discussed in terms of recommendations for the counseling environment.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Almost 50 years ago, Goffman (1959) discussed how we manageour appearance to create particular effects on others. The physicalenvironment creates impressions as well, and researchers havedocumented the effects of a range of environments, from houses tohospitals (e.g., Arneill & Devlin, 2002; Becker, 1977; Cooper Marcus,1995; Elsbach, 2003, 2004; Sadalla, Verschure, & Burroughs, 1987;Wells & Thelen, 2002). People can and do use the cues in envi-ronments such as houses and offices to make judgments about thepersonal traits of their occupants (Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli,& Morris, 2002). In the Gosling et al. research, when offices werewell-organized and neat, there was a positive correlation with thejudged conscientiousness of the occupants, which was not the casewhen the offices were cluttered.

In the work environment, the role of status symbols has receivedattention and is pursued in the research reported here. Korda (1975)for example discusses the role of symbols as a strategy in obtainingpower in the workplace. One entire chapter in his book is devoted tothe ‘‘symbols of Power’’. Written in 1975, he quips, ‘‘Frameddiplomas are definitely out as power symbols, and so are . familyphotographs.’’ (p. 201). Others are somewhat more enthusiasticabout the role of credentials in the work environment (e.g., Feldman& Klich, 1991). In Goffman’s (1951) discussion of status symbols heidentifies two types of occupation symbols, those involving

llege, 270 Mohegan Avenue,fax: þ1 860 439 5300

search.e 39th annual Environmental

Veracruz, Mexico.

All rights reserved.

credentials, which testify to the individual’s education and training(e.g., diplomas), and those that become evident after the individualis established in the work environment. As an example of the latter,Goffman cites the private office.

The early research on the effect of offices on impressionformation typically was conducted in two general settings: thefaculty office and the counseling office. Much of the research onoffice decor was conducted 25–30 years ago, and current interest inthe role of the physical environment on well-being (e.g., Arneill& Devlin, 2002; Cooper Marcus, 1995; Devlin & Arneill, 2003;Elsbach, 2003, 2004; Wells, 2000) argues for a reexamination of theimpact of object display on perception of the office occupant.The object display in the counseling environment provides anopportunity to better understand the impact of personalization onjudgments of the therapist, someone whose work fundamentallyhas to do with the process of interpretation.

1. Research on offices and counseling environments

Attention has been given to the role of decor as it affects variouskinds of social and personality judgments for at least five decades.More than 50 years ago, Maslow and Mintz (1956; Mintz, 1956)examined the effect of decor (beautiful vs. average vs. ugly rooms)on judgments of the well-being and energy of the people depictedin negative print photographs. The beautiful room had windows,neutral colored walls, a soft armchair, desk and chair of mahogany,a wooden bookcase, small table, Navajo rug, paintings, and drapes.The results indicated significantly higher ratings for energy andwell-being when the judgments were made in the beautiful than inthe ugly room. In a study assessing the features that college

Page 2: “Impressive?” Credentials, family photographs, and the perception of therapist qualities

A.S. Devlin et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 503–512504

counseling facilities should contain, over 50% of the respondents,directors of counseling services, endorsed such features as back-ground music, windows with drapes, indirect lighting, andcarpeting, although the study did not focus on the decor ofindividual counseling offices (Iwai, Churchill, & Cummings, 1983).These authors endorse the notion that the physical environment ofthe counseling setting has the capacity to affect the success of thecounseling process. More recently, Elsbach (2003, 2004) notes thatphysical markers are likely to have substantive impact because, inthe absence of the office holder’s presence to explain the meaningof such markers (e.g., when you wait for someone in his/her office),the markers are cues to the individual’s identity; further, suchphysical markers tend to be permanent.

In early studies involving faculty offices, the focus was often onsuch variables as desk placement and neatness (Campbell, 1979;McElroy, Morrow, & Wall, 1983; Morrow & McElroy, 1981).In studies where status symbols were displayed, such symbolsaffected perceptions of the achievement orientation of the facultymember (McElroy et al., 1983; Morrow & McElroy, 1981). In anumber of early studies on the counseling environment, thedependent variable of interest was the degree of disclosure or levelof communication exhibited in various kinds of counseling rooms.Following Sommer’s (1974) distinction between hard and softarchitecture, Chaikin, Derlega, and Miller (1976) provided evidencethat a ‘‘soft’’ room contributes to more disclosure in a counselingsituation than does a hard room. In their study, softness in the roomincluded such elements as an oriental rug, indirect lighting witha floor and table lamp, and six framed pictures displayed on twowalls. Although the environment was not specifically designed torepresent a counseling situation, Gifford (1988) pursued this topicfurther by manipulating lighting (bright vs. soft) and decor (officevs. home-like) on levels of communication (general vs. intimate).The softer decor did, indeed, facilitate more communication, bothgeneral and intimate, than did the decor of the more institutionalsetting.

Other research has focused on the credibility of the therapist asimpacted by office furnishings, specifically the impact of a tradi-tional vs. a more causal office (e.g., Amira & Abramowitz, 1979;Bloom, Weigel, & Trautt, 1977). In the research of Amira andAbramowitz (1979), the manipulation showed that participantswho viewed a videotape of an interview that took place in the moreformal room (that included diplomas) judged the therapist on thatvideotape as more competent than the same therapist viewed inthe less formal room (which had a rug on the wall and sensitivityposters).

2. Credentials and judgments of a therapist’s competence

In previous research, the display of credentials and awards hasdemonstrated an effect on the perception of the counselor’scompetence at the outset of the therapeutic relationship (Heppner& Pew, 1977; Pressly & Heesacker, 2001; Siegel, 1980; Siegel & Sell,1978; Strong & Dixon, 1971). Close to the current research, Heppnerand Pew (1977) examined the effect of diplomas (5 vs. none) andcounselor gender on perceived expertness in a counseling center ona university campus. The study indicated that such credentials havean effect, as those in the conditions with the presence of the fivecredentials rated the counselor as more expert than did those in theconditions lacking these competence cues. But not all researchsupports the effect of such credentials. In Kerr and Dell’s (1976)research on the effect of role and of the physical environment, onlyinterviewer behavior (the role) had a meaningful impact, and theauthors minimize the impact of the environment.

Most of the work examining the effect of the counseling officeon a variety of outcomes was done 25–30 years ago. More recently,

a few studies have looked at the intersection of environmental andcounseling psychology (Anthony & Watkins, 2002; Gross, Sasson,Zarhy, & Zohar, 1998; Miwa & Hanyu, 2002, 2006; Watkins &Anthony, 2007). An experimental approach was taken by Miwa andHanyu (2006), who followed Gifford’s (1988) research by looking atthe effect of lighting and decor on participants’ impressions of thecounselor and extent of self-disclosure. The decor in the counselingroom was described as with or without decorations. Resultsindicated an effect of lighting (dim produced more positive effectsthan did bright) but no consistent effect of decorations (two stuffeddolls and a number of framed prints).

3. Personalization and the display of family memorabilia

Of relevance to the current research is a line of recent investi-gation involving the personalization of offices. The display of statussymbols such as diplomas is a vehicle of personal expression;research on personalization in the office, often involving indicatorsof the family, has shown that personalization matters to employeesand is exhibited by a high percentage of them (Wells, 2000; Wells &Thelen, 2002; Wells, Thelen, & Ruark, 2007). Possessions‘‘.knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally’’are regarded ‘‘as parts of ourselves’’ (Belk, 1988, p. 139). Personal-ization of our space is a form of self-esteem and identity, accordingto Cooper Marcus (1995).

A line of research by Wells et al. suggests an indirect associationbetween personalization and well-being (2000); a high percentageof individuals personalize (98% in one study; Wells et al., 2007) anduse personalization to express their identity. In their offices, menwere more likely than women to use personalization, such asdiplomas and training certificates, to reflect their status within thecompany; overall, women displayed a higher degree of personali-zation than did men and women were more likely to display itemsrelated to the family than were men (Wells, 2000). Of the itemsdisplayed that related to personal relationships, up to 77% involvedthe family (Wells et al., 2007). Among the employee characteristicsthat were assessed, company status was the strongest predictor ofthe degree of workspace personalization. At the same time, companypolicy was also a predictor of personalization (Wells et al., 2007).

Wells et al. suggest that organizational culture may influencethe degree of personalization (Wells et al., 2007), with somecultures more accepting of family memorabilia where there is lessdifferentiation between levels in the organizational hierarchy, whatis likely to be described as a flat hierarchy in classical organizationaltheory (Muchinsky, 2006). But what of the impact within specificdisciplines, and in particular the culture established in the practiceof psychotherapy? While licensed clinicians are encouraged todisplay their licenses, there is a disciplinary pressure thatdiscourages the display of family memorabilia, at least if the ther-apist takes a psychodynamic perspective. For example, an author ofa book about demystifying therapy writes ‘‘Therapists, especiallythose who work from a psychodynamic standpoint, want to leaveroom for you to feel about them any way you need to – free fromdistracting facts about their lives. For the same reason, most ther-apists don’t display photographs of their families in their offices’’(Scharff, 2004, p. 121).

There is also a question of what the degree of personalization,from few to many indicators, may communicate to the viewerabout the occupant. There is some suggestion in the literature thattoo much display of success or accomplishment can backfire(Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990). Ashforth and Gibbs argue that legitimacyis bestowed by the viewer and that problems can arise with whatthey label ‘‘overzealous legitimation’’ and the ‘‘self-promoter’sparadox’’ (p. 179). The idea of too much self-promotion is commonin sports circles and leads to the adage ‘‘when you do well, say little;

Page 3: “Impressive?” Credentials, family photographs, and the perception of therapist qualities

Fig. 1. Zero-credential, no family photographs condition.

A.S. Devlin et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 503–512 505

when you win, say less.’’ In other words, if you are successful andcompetent, you can afford to be modest. There are times when self-promotion can be paradoxical, as ‘‘protests of competence are morelikely when actual competence is problematic or unknown’’(p. 186). Further, the viewer is likely to disregard such claims underthose circumstances.

One question the current research addresses is whether theremight be a backlash to the display of as many as nine-credentials inthe office. Contrary to the self-promotion paradox, work in socialidentity related to organizational processes would suggest thatgroup members who are positive deviants, those who violate groupnorms in a positive direction, such as overachievers and high flyers(Hogg & Terry, 2000) would be endorsed by the group when groupprestige is important. By extension in the present context, it couldbe argued that participants, in a help-seeking situation, wouldprefer to be counseled by someone with high status, as representedby the number of the credentials that are displayed.

In discussing the impact of displays in the context of socialidentity, Elsbach (2004) has argued that personal displays can beparticularly informative when one has not met the individual, as isthe case in this study. In such a situation, participants are lookingfor clues about who this individual (in this case, a therapist) ‘‘is,’’and what this person might be like. Elsbach (2004) notes thatphysical markers are likely to have substantive impact because, inthe absence of the office holder’s presence to explain the meaningof such markers (e.g., when you wait for someone in his/her office),the markers are cues to the individual’s identity; further, suchphysical markers tend to be permanent. ‘‘.physical identitymarkers signal a person’s distinctiveness and status – the centralcomponents of social identity (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996), in theworkplace’’ (Elsbach, 2004, p. 100). One could argue that thedisplay of these credentials signals a kind of competence or legit-imacy (Sundstrom & Altman, 1989), which may be important notonly to other therapists with whom the individual collaborates, butto clients.

Building upon this earlier research, the present study uses anexperimental design to assess the impact of credentials that aredisplayed on the wall of a therapist’s office that participants view ina projected digital image. This research expands upon the earlierresearch by pressing the issue of the number of credentials onpeople’s judgments and the possibility that such presentation canbackfire, and also testing the role of family photographs on people’sjudgments of the counselor. In research done thus far, themaximum number of credentials displayed is five (Heppner & Pew,1977). Here, that number has been increased to nine, which isviewed as a reasonable test of the question about the limits towhich credentials have a positive effect.

With regard to the role of family photographs, therapists differin their endorsement of personal objects on display in the thera-peutic environment. Those of a strict analytic orientation revealessentially nothing of themselves in terms of such displays.But many therapists who are less traditionally oriented may displayand be encouraged to display accessories, such as family pictures,that are visually pleasing to them (Pressly & Heesacker, 2001).‘‘Accessories imply or suggest ownership of the space and higherstatus of the counselor whose accessories decorate that space’’(Pressly & Heesacker, 2001, p. 150). Pressly and Heesacker (2001)argue that more research needs to be done on the relationshipbetween counseling and the environment.

4. Hypotheses

The hypotheses here were informed by the counseling literature(e.g., Heppner & Pew, 1977; Siegel, 1980) and the literature on socialidentity (e.g., Elsbach, 2004), showing that evaluations of

competence and accomplishment are impacted by the display ofindicators of status. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the largerthe number of credentials displayed, the more positive the evalu-ation of judgments related to the therapist’s competence would be.Further, based on the literature related to personalization anddistinctiveness (Pressly & Heesacker, 2001; Wells, 2000; Wells &Thelen, 2002; Wells et al., 2007), it was hypothesized that thedisplay of family photographs would positively impact judgmentsof the therapist related to friendliness.

5. Method

5.1. Participants

The participants in this study were 227 students at a smallliberal arts college in the Northeast. There were 42 men and183 women (2 participants did not complete the demographicspage). Of the 224 who indicated their class year (3 omitted thisinformation), there were 45.1% first year students, 30.8% sopho-mores, 11.6% juniors, 11.2% seniors, and 1.3% others (graduatestudents or special students).

5.2. Instruments

5.2.1. Photographic stimuliSeven photographs were taken in the office of a local therapist

(see Figs. 1–4 as examples). The conditions were two, four, or nine-credentials displayed, with or without two family photographs(constituting six conditions). As a control, there was also a seventhcondition in which no diplomas and no family pictures weredisplayed.

Using digital images is an example of what Winkel and Sasanoff(1970) call iconic simulation. It is a situation when something lookslike the real thing, as is often the case in a photograph. Research hasdemonstrated that using slides as a simulation is a valid researchstrategy (Seaton & Collins, 1972; Shuttleworth, 1980; Ulrich et al.,1991). Research indicates that the view that is presented of officeenvironments (from the doorway vs. the view from the visitor’schair; McElroy & Morrow, 1982) makes a difference in judgments.The doorway view, McElroy and Morrow argue, may present a moredetached perspective. In the present study, the photographs weretaken head on, more from the perspective of the visitor’s (client’s)chair.

Page 4: “Impressive?” Credentials, family photographs, and the perception of therapist qualities

Fig. 2. Two-credential, family photographs condition.Fig. 4. Nine-credential, no family photographs condition.

A.S. Devlin et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 503–512506

5.2.2. Personal characteristicsParticipants were asked to rate a total of 32 characteristics, each

on a 9-point rating scale. Each of the first 14 characteristics waspresented with an appropriate lead-in stem, for example ‘‘Withinhis/her profession, this person has a’’ 1) high rank to 9) low rank.

Twelve of the first 14 items in the present study were used oradapted from McElroy et al. (1983). In their study asking partici-pants to rate office arrangements, McElroy et al. had participantsrate slides on 16 items, with a 9-point bipolar scale. Of those 16, 12were used here: perceived comfort and welcomeness of the office,hard to make an appointment with (here very easy–very difficult tomake an appointment to see this person), high achiever, facultyrank (here high–low rank within profession), competitive, orga-nized, interest in students (here clients/patients); interest inresearch (here advancement in the profession), confidence indealing with others (here clients/patients), friendly (here veryfriendly), and extrovert.

We added a question about the boundaries this therapist setsbetween his/her personal and professional life (appropriate–inappropriate) and, with regard to gender, whether this therapist islikely to be a woman-man.

The next 18 items were bipolar adjectives on a 9-point scalewhere the survey stated ‘‘Please indicate how you view this personon the following scales.’’ These 18 items were from Widgery andStackpole’s (1972) study of interviewer credibility, intervieweeanxiety, and desk placement. Their scale of 18 items, rated ona 7-point interval semantic differential, was based on a study by

Fig. 3. Four-credential, no family photographs condition.

Berlo, Lemert, and Mertz (1970) who reported three dimensions ofsource credibility: safety (trustworthiness), qualification, anddynamism. Following all of these ratings, participants were asked,‘‘In rank order, please list the 3 characteristics of this office thatmost influenced your ratings. Indicate whether you think eachfactor influenced you to think more positively or negatively aboutthe person whose office you viewed.’’

The next section of the questionnaire asked for backgroundcharacteristics, including gender, class year, major, and likelyprofession. Participants were asked whether they had ever visiteda doctor, a therapist, and a lawyer, and if so for those situations, toestimate the number of visits they had made to each type ofprofessional.

On the last page of the questionnaire, as a manipulation check,participants were asked, with regard to the picture they viewed,whether they had seen any diplomas (yes or no) and, if yes, howmany. Similarly, they were asked whether they had seen any picturesof family members (yes or no) and, if so, how many family picturesthey saw. To mask the purpose of these questions, participants werealso asked about whether they had seen any plants, books, or framedart pictures on the wall and, if so, the number in each case.

5.3. Procedure

The image for each of the conditions was projected on a screenusing an LCD system. Students, who were run in groups, completedan informed consent document, and then were read instructions(which were repeated at the top of the survey). The instructionsindicated that participants would view a picture of someone’s officefor about a minute and then would be asked to given their opinionabout the personal characteristics of the person whose office theyviewed. They were told that the person was a psychiatrist and thatthey were to put themselves in the situation of visiting the thera-pist for advice about an emotional problem. Following thisdescription, participants then viewed one of seven projectedphotographs (photographs of two-, four-, or nine-displayedcredentials, with or without two family photographs, constitutingsix conditions; zero-credentials, no photographs displayed, thecontrol) for approximately 1 min. After the display was turned off,participants filled out the survey rating the personal characteristicsof the therapist, followed by the demographic variables, and finallythe questions constituting the manipulation check.

6. Results

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of thenumber of credentials and the presence or absence of family

Page 5: “Impressive?” Credentials, family photographs, and the perception of therapist qualities

A.S. Devlin et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 503–512 507

photographs on participants’ judgments about the qualities of thetherapist whose office they viewed. To distill the ratings, dimen-sions were identified through factor analysis, a process thatidentifies items that create coherent subsets that are relativelyindependent of one another. The researcher then ascribes meaningto these dimensions, in this case helped by the comments partici-pants made about the environments that they viewed. To analyzethe data of 227 participants on the 32 survey items, the specificfactor analytic method used was principal components analysiswith varimax rotation. The initial solution produced five factorswith eigenvalues greater than 1. Four items either did not load atleast .40 (the cut-off criterion used in this study) or loaded at thatlevel or higher on more than one factor. Further, the fourth and fifthfactors were not well-defined, each having only one item thatloaded at .40 or higher. For that reason a subsequent analysis wasdone extracting and rotating three factors, which was judged toyield a more stable and interpretable factor structure. The use ofthree factors was also suggested by an examination of the scree plot.

Twenty-eight of the original 32 items clustered on three factorsthat were labeled Qualifications, Friendliness, and Energy,accounting for 58.14% of the variance. The first factor, Qualifica-tions, accounted for 24.59% of the variance and contained 12 items.Friendliness contained 11 items and accounted for 22.44% of thevariance. The third factor, Energy, contained 5 items and accountedfor 11.11% of the variance. Table 1 presents the items and the factorloadings.

Items that loaded on each factor were summed, divided by thenumber of items in each factor, and used in subsequent analyses.For each of the items in a given factor, the lower the value, the morepositive the evaluation (e.g., 1¼ very interested in his/her clients;9¼ totally disinterested in his/her clients). In the context oftherapy, when there arguably might be benefits to being morereserved than frank, the only item that might have presented

Table 1Factor analysis of the rated qualities.

Loading

Factor 1: qualifications (24.59% of variance)Qualified–unqualified .869Trained–untrained .863Skilled–unskilled .845Experienced–inexperienced .825Informed–uninformed .816High achiever–low achiever .774High rank–low rank .758Authoritative–unauthoritative .721Competitive–uncompetitive .705Interested–disinterested in advancement .704Highly organized–highly disorganized .573Appropriate–inappropriate boundaries .400

Factor 2: friendliness (22.44% of variance)Friendly–Unfriendly .881Pleasant–unpleasant .855Kind–cruel .787Very friendly–very unfriendly .775Welcoming–unwelcoming .763Comfortable–uncomfortable .742Congenial–quarrelsome .689Agreeable–disagreeable .671Interested–disinterested in clients .641Emphatic–hesitant .566Safe–dangerous .552

Factor 3: energy (11.11% of variance)Bold–timid .732Aggressive–meek .695Frank–reserved .639Active–passive .577Forceful–forceless .438

a more positive evaluation at the higher end (1¼ frank,9¼ reserved) still loaded positively (not negatively) on a factor(Energy). Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations of themeans of the three factor subscales (Qualifications, Friendliness,and Energy) for each credential condition (zero, two, four, andnine). The condition with zero-credentials represents a control.

To evaluate the first hypothesis that the larger the number ofcredentials displayed, the more positive the evaluation of judg-ments related to the therapist’s competence would be, a one-wayManova was conducted, with the four levels of credentials (zero,two, four, or nine) as the fixed factor and the means of the threefactor subscales, Qualifications, Friendliness, and Energy, as thedependent variables. The analysis was significant, Wilks’sLambda¼ .614, F(9, 316.54)¼ 7.80, p< .001. Univariate testsindicated significant effects for Qualifications, F(3, 132)¼ 18.01,p< .001; Friendliness, F(3, 132)¼ 8.59, p< .001; and Energy,F(3, 132)¼ 10.89, p< .001.

For Qualifications, Tukey post hoc tests indicated that allcontrasts were significant but two: the zero-credential vs. two-credential condition and the four-credential vs. nine-credentialcondition. The data indicated partial support for the hypothesis, inthat the impact of either a moderate (four) or large (nine) numberof credentials resulted in a more positive assessment of thetherapist’s qualifications than was true for a smaller number ofcredentials (two or zero).

For Friendliness, Tukey post hoc tests indicated thatthree contrasts were significant, zero-credential vs. four-credential,zero-credential vs. nine-credential, and two-credential vs. four-credential. A fourth contrast, the zero-credential vs. two-credentialcondition, approached significance (p¼ .095). In the case of thejudged Friendliness of the therapist, the data indicated a positiveeffect of having a larger number of credentials (four or nine) incontrast to zero-credentials, and also in the situation where four-rather than two-credentials were displayed.

For Energy, all contrasts but two were significant: zero-credentialvs. two-credential and four-credential vs. nine-credential, the samepattern as emerged for Qualifications. Again, the data indicate thata larger number of credentials (either four or nine) resulted in morepositive evaluation on the dimension in question, in this case thetherapist’s judged Energy, than when a smaller number of creden-tials (either zero or two) was displayed.

Table 3 presents the three mean factors sums for the credentialsand family photographs conditions. To evaluate the secondhypothesis, that the display of family pictures would positivelyimpact judgments of the therapist related to friendliness, a 3 (levelof credentials) by 2 (presence of absence of family photographs)Manova was conducted on the means of the three factor subscales.The analysis for the credential conditions was significant, Wilks’sLambda¼ .785, F(6, 338)¼ 7.24, p< .001; the analysis for the familyphotograph condition was not significant (p¼ .351), nor was theinteraction (p¼ .282). Thus, the data do not indicate support for thehypothesis dealing with the impact of family photographs onjudgments involving aspects of friendliness.

For credentials, univariate tests indicated significant effects forQualifications, F(2, 171)¼ 11.89, p< .001, and for Energy,F(2, 171)¼ 16.84, p< .001, but not for Friendliness, F(2, 171)¼ .51,p¼ .602. Tukey post hoc tests indicated that for Qualifications thetwo-credential condition differed significantly from both the four-and nine-credential condition but that the four- and nine-credentialcondition did not differ significantly from one another. For Energy,each of the conditions (two-, four-, and nine-credentials) wassignificantly different from the others. The significant differencebetween the four- and nine-credential contrast that appeared here,but not in the first analysis dealing solely with credentials, isprobably due to the difference in the error term as this analysis was

Page 6: “Impressive?” Credentials, family photographs, and the perception of therapist qualities

Table 2Means and (standard deviations) for the three therapist dimensions acrosscredential conditions.

Qualifications Friendliness Energy

Zero-credentials (n¼ 50) 5.34(1.30) 4.52(.74) 5.70(1.31)Two-credentials (n¼ 23 4.76(1.45) 4.03(1.05) 5.90(1.16)Four-credentials (n¼ 28) 3.64(1.09) 3.57(.91) 4.96(1.06)Nine-credentials (n¼ 35) 3.59(1.22) 3.91(.76) 4.50(.86)

Mean subscale scores for each dimension range from 1 to 9, with lower valuesrepresenting more positive evaluations.

A.S. Devlin et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 503–512508

a two-way Anova and also had a larger number of participants.In general the data show that for the significant contrasts, the higherthe number of credentials, the more positive the evaluation ofQualifications and Energy.

To determine whether familiarity with therapists’ offices mightbe related to the judgments participants made, and hencemoderate the impact of the display of credentials and familyphotographs, participants were asked whether they had evervisited a therapist, and if so to estimate the number of visits theyhad made. The percentages are based on 225 participants, as2 individuals did not complete the demographics information.Responses indicated that 53% had visited a therapist (the modalnumber of visits was 1.0; the median was 10.0). To determinewhether those who had seen a therapist differed from those whohad not with regard to the three subscales (Qualifications, Friend-liness, and Energy), a Manova was conducted using the means ofthe three subscales as the dependent variables. The analysis wasnot significant, Wilks’s Lambda¼ .991, F(3, 221)¼ .635, p¼ .593.

6.1. Manipulation checks

Manipulation checks were performed on the diploma (zero,two, four, or nine) and family picture (present or absent) conditionsto determine their effectiveness. On the last page of the question-naire, participants were asked, with regard to the picture theyviewed, whether they saw any diplomas (yes or no) and, if yes, howmany they saw. Similarly, they were asked whether they saw anypictures of family members (yes or no) and, if yes, how many familypictures they saw. With regard to the diploma condition, a one-wayanalysis of variance indicated a significant difference across thethree conditions, F(2, 163)¼ 272. 47, p< .001. Follow up testsindicated significant differences between each condition (two, four,or nine-diplomas) and each other condition (p< .001). Those in thetwo-diploma condition reported seeing an average of 2.00diplomas (SD¼ .00); those in the four-diploma condition reportedseeing an average of 3.32 diplomas (SD¼ .88); those in the nine-diploma condition reported seeing an average of 7.55 diplomas(SD¼ 2.01). Of the 50 participants in the control zero-diploma

Table 3Means and (standard deviations) for the three therapist dimensions across credential an

Two-credential Four-c

No photos Photos No phn¼ 23 n¼ 29 n¼ 28Total Totaln¼ 52 n¼ 63

Qualifications 4.76(1.45) 4.27(1.29) 3.64(14.49(1.37) 3.83(1

Friendliness 4.03(1.03) 3.46(1.10) 3.57(.3.71(1.11) 3.63(.

Energy 5.90(1.16) 5.54(.92) 4.96(15.70(1.04) 5.11(1

Mean subscale scores for each dimension range from 1 to 9, with lower values represen

condition, 2 participants reported seeing diplomas (4%); eachreported seeing 1 diploma.

For the family picture manipulation, a chi square analysisindicated a significant difference between those who said they sawpictures and those that did not and whether the pictures wereactually displayed or not, c2(1, N¼ 171)¼ 148.58, p< .001. Ninety-three percent of those in the condition where family pictures weredisplayed said they saw family pictures. Of those who said they sawfamily pictures, the mean number they reported seeing was1.82 (SD¼ .44). One hundred percent of those not exposed to familypictures correctly said they saw no family photographs. Of those inthe control zero-diploma, no family picture condition, 49 respon-ded to the question about seeing family pictures or not. Of these 49,48 (98%) said they did not see any family pictures displayed; oneperson in the control group reporting seeing one family picture.Taken together, these results suggest that the manipulations wereeffective.

6.2. Qualitative responses

To better understand the way in which the display of credentialsand family photographs may have influenced participants’ judg-ments, an analysis of the qualitative comments was undertaken.Participants had been asked to list three aspects of the therapist’soffice that influenced their ratings. Comments were categorized as1) no mention of diplomas, 2) a negative mention of diplomas(e.g., ‘‘all the plaques on the wall – negative, as if furthering theirdegree matters more than your personal problem’’) 3) a positivemention of diplomas (e.g., ‘‘lots of diplomas on the wall – positive;high achiever, accomplished’’) 4) both positive and negativemention of diplomas (e.g., ‘‘a lot of ‘awards’ on the wall indicatedthey valued achieving, but I could not determine what they werefor; positive in achievement but negative in empathy’’). Whenparticipants failed to explicitly indicate whether a comment waspositive or negative, a positive impact was assumed unlessa negative descriptor was provided. If participants mentionedsomething that was not there but they desired (e.g., in the no familyphotos condition they might have commented on ‘‘the lack ofpersonalization, such as no photos’’), it was counted as the nomention category because they were not talking about what wasactually present. Inter-rater reliability for these ratings was estab-lished by asking a second rater to judge a sample of comments of56 of the participants. For both diploma comments, and familyphotograph comments, the inter-rater reliability was high,r(56)¼ .935, p< .001, and r(56)¼ 1.00, p< .001, respectively.

To evaluate whether the proportion of people in the threedifferent diploma conditions where diplomas were displayeddiffered in the frequency of these categories in mentioning the roleof the diplomas in their judgments, a chi square analysis was

d family photograph conditions.

redential Nine-credential

otos Photos No photos Photosn¼ 35 n¼ 35 n¼ 27

Totaln¼ 62

.09) 3.98(1.35) 3.59(1.22) 3.10(1.24)

.24) 3.38(1.24)

91) 3.68(1.04) 3.91(.76) 3.68(.91)98) 3.81(.83)

.06) 5.23(1.48) 4.50(.86) 4.60(.64)

.31) 4.54(.76)

ting more positive evaluations.

Page 7: “Impressive?” Credentials, family photographs, and the perception of therapist qualities

A.S. Devlin et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 503–512 509

conducted. It was significant, c2(6, N¼ 177)¼ 19.69, p¼ .003. In thenine-diploma condition, only 14.5% did not mention diplomas,whereas in the two-diploma and four-diploma conditions, 44.2%and 42.9%, respectively, did not mention the diplomas as a rationalein their ratings. A positive mention of diplomas was cited by 62.9% ofparticipants in the nine-diploma condition, and by 40.4% in the two-diploma and 47.6% in the four-diploma conditions. Within the two-diploma condition, only 7.7% made negative comments, in thefour-diploma condition, no participant made negative comments,and in the nine-diploma condition, 9.7% made negative comments.

For the family photographs, of those who viewed the familyphotographs, 50.5% made no mention, 47.3% had a positivemention, and 2.2% had a mixed mention (e.g., ‘‘family photos-didn’t seem professional to have them everywhere, but madeperson seem real and kind/caring. Positive and negative’’). Therewere no exclusively negative mentions of the family photographs.

To further explore the qualitative comments, a count was madeof the number of negative comments that had something to do withthe environment other than the credentials. Just over 60% of the177 respondents in the six conditions where credentials weredisplayed made at least one negative comment with regard to theenvironment (beyond any comments about credentials). Thesecomments dealt with what was perceived to be uncomfortable andstark furniture, awkward desk arrangement, drab coloring, a lack ofart, decoration, and personalization, its sterile quality, lack ofplants, and overall blandness and blankness.

Comments made by participants in the control condition (zero-diploma, no family photographs) were also examined. Thesecomments indicated that 14% mentioned the lack of diplomas,qualifying degrees, or certificates of graduation as negative featuresin their evaluation. Further, echoing a pattern demonstrated in thesix conditions where credentials were displayed, an additional 68%(34 of 50 participants) commented on the bland, plain, or bare wallsor lack of decoration as negative features of the therapist’s office.

7. Discussion

What is the impact of the number of diplomas or indications ofachievement on people’s judgments of a therapist’s competence?Does the display of family photographs impact the judgments ofa therapist’s qualities related to friendliness? Supporting the find-ings from earlier studies (Amira & Abramowitz, 1979; Bloom et al.,1977; Heppner & Pew, 1977; Siegel, 1980; Strong & Dixon, 1971), theresults here indicate that displaying diplomas and other indicatorsof achievement positively impacts people’s judgments of a ther-apist’s qualifications (e.g., his or her skill, experience, achievementorientation, training, and authoritativeness). A display of suchcredentials is also related to people’s assessment of the energy ordynamism of the therapist (e.g., being active rather than passive,bold rather than timid, forceful rather than forceless). And itappears that even as many as nine-credentials positively impactevaluations of the therapist’s Qualifications and Energy, rather thanbeing considered excessive (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990).

With regard to the impact of the therapist’s credentials onjudgments related to friendliness, the inclusion of a controlcondition revealed that the qualities included in the factorFriendliness (e.g., kindness, interest in clients, welcoming, conge-nial) were negatively impacted when no credentials were displayedin contrast to the display of credentials at any level (two, four, ornine) and significantly so in the case of four- and nine-credentials(the finding related to the zero- vs. two-credential contrastapproached significance). There was no effect on Friendliness in theanalysis that involved the display of two-, four- or nine-credentialsand the presence or absence of family photographs, presumablybecause the control condition was not part of that analysis.

The finding that the display of credentials not only affects viewers’assessments of competence, but also of friendliness and welcom-ingness, suggests another reason for therapists to display theirprofessional accomplishments. Perhaps the display of credentials isperceived by the viewer (the client) as a kind of self-disclosure,suggesting that the therapist is revealing something of him orherself to the viewer. Taken together, these analyses suggest that itis not so much the number of credentials displayed that makes animpact on the qualities associated with friendliness, but theirpresence at all.

This research fits within a body of literature that recognizes thetherapeugenic (Bloom et al., 1977, p. 867; Maroda, 2007) effects ofthe environment, i.e., that the environment may play a role inpsychotherapeutic effects (for example in establishing credibilityand forming relationships) through effects independent of specifictherapeutic techniques. Maroda, an analyst and a member andformer ethics chair of the Division of Psychoanalysis of the Amer-ican Psychological Association writes ‘‘.there is such a thing as anoptimal environment –one that is constant, private, quiet, andemphasizes the professional nature of the relationship’’ (2007,p. 174). The relationship that is to be established between the clientand the therapist is at the core of the therapeutic process(Leon, 1989), and a factor that influences this relationship is theclient or patient’s belief in what the therapist can do; this belief isa ‘‘powerful therapeutic tool’’ (Leon, 1989, p. 19). Belief in theexpertness of the therapist, that is, his/her credibility, can beinfluenced by the display of credentials. When counselors haveevidence of specialized training, through the display of diplomasand certificates, for example, their perceived expertness can beenhanced (Heppner & Pew, 1977; Siegel & Sell, 1978). In theirreview of the literature, Pressly and Heesacker (2001) also point tothe environment as a component with the potential to heal. Amongthe specific questions they think research can answer for coun-selors is what message counselors send to their clients through theenvironment. This research suggests that for viewers the display ofcredentials has the potential to enhance the perception of compe-tence, and that as many as nine-credentials may enhance theviewer’s perception of the therapist’s energy. The findings alsosuggest that the absence of the display of credentials may nega-tively impact the perceived friendliness of the therapist.

With regard to the issue of making a good impression, theresults of the study suggest that a therapist makes a betterimpression with four- rather than either zero- or two-credentialsdisplayed, though with regard to the dimension of qualifications,the evaluation of nine-credentials over four was not significantlydifferent. A therapist might still be advised to display as many asnine-credentials, however, when the dimension of energy ordynamism is also considered. In this study, a therapist whose officewall displayed nine-credentials was viewed as having significantlymore of the energy or dynamism dimension than was a therapistwhose office displayed four- or two-credentials. There appeared tobe relatively little downside to the display of credentials, as fewerthan 10% in any condition made exclusively negative commentsabout the display of credentials, and some of these negativecomments had more to do with the aesthetic arrangement of thecredentials than with the idea of displaying qualifications. Thus, theidea of a backlash to the display of a large number of credentials(Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990) did not emerge. Overall, the data related tothe display of credentials suggest that credentials may function ina number of ways: as indicators of professional competence,professional striving, and professional welcome.

The display of family pictures did not significantly impact thejudgments of the therapist’s Qualifications, Friendliness, andEnergy, although an examination of the means suggests that whenfamily photographs were displayed the evaluations were more

Page 8: “Impressive?” Credentials, family photographs, and the perception of therapist qualities

A.S. Devlin et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 503–512510

positive. A study with a larger number of participants might morefully address this issue. Nevertheless, an environment that appealsto the therapist him or herself has the potential to affect the qualityof the therapeutic relationship, through the therapist’s mood(Pressly & Heesacker, 2001). For that reason, Pressly and Heesackerstate ‘‘counselors should consider surrounding themselves withaccessories that are visually appealing to them (e.g., familypictures, artwork, and objects that are meaningful and attractive tothem)’’ (p. 150). This sentiment was echoed in a recent New YorkTimes article entitled ‘‘What’s in a chair?’’ (Green, 2008). In thearticle, a psychiatrist, formerly an interior decorator, commented,‘‘My bent is, the most important thing about your space is thatyou’re comfortable enough to do your work well, and that it reflectyou’’ (para. 16). In his text on clinical psychology, Korchin (1976)concurs: ‘‘Although some prefer an anonymous environment, I seeno good reason why personal books, favorite paintings, mementos,hobby items, or family pictures should not be in view.The limit asto what is visible in the room is set by common sense and goodtaste’’ (p. 174).

Qualitative comments reflected the kinds of associations peoplehave between the display of photographs and personal qualities.For example, a respondent offered, ‘‘The framed pictures on thedesk lent the person a human, empathetic quality’’ or ‘‘Personality-pictures of family, painting on the left side of the wall, positivelyaffected me; family is important to him/her (although this mayconcern me as a patient if I don’t think he/she is 100% emotionallyavailable to me).’’ No exclusively negative comments were madewith regard to the display of family photographs, which was not thecase with the display of credentials. From a strictly psychoanalyticstandpoint, the display of family pictures would not be perceived ascreating appropriate boundaries, and therapists who takea psychodynamic perspective do not want reminders of theirpersonal lives to influence the client (Langs, 1989; Scharff, 2004).Here, however, there was no negative impact of the display ofpictures, that is, judgments were not significantly less positive onQualifications, Friendliness, or Energy when family photographswere displayed. Perhaps the display of a limited number of picturesreflected positively on the humanistic qualities of the therapistwithout overwhelming the participant with a large number ofreminders of the therapist’s family. Future research will need toaddress the role of family photographs in more depth.

Beyond the specific hypotheses addressed in this study relatedto the impact of credentials on the perception of a therapist’scompetence and the impact of the display of family photographs onjudgments of the therapist’s friendliness, the current study pointsto the importance of creating an environment with at least somesensitivity to aesthetics and decoration. A number of the qualitativecomments reflect this concern. One participant commented, ‘‘Theemptiness of the office gave me a stark impression of this person;the room was not one I would feel comfortable sharing myemotions in.’’ Another commented, ‘‘WHITE walls – little to nodecoration; this office looks cold and uninviting. I would feelintimidated coming here; it is not welcoming.’’ The importance ofdisplaying something on the walls was underscored by thecomments made in the control condition, which had neithercredentials nor family photographs. For example, one participant inthe control condition commented ‘‘The office had no decorations.The walls were white and completely bare. Also, there were nopictures on the desk. It made the office feel impersonal; it couldbelong to anyone. This is a negative factor.’’ Another participant inthe control condition commented: ‘‘Lack of personal touch; itappears as if they have no personality because there is no sense ofdesign to the room.’’ The participants’ comments regarding therationale for their judgments suggest the range of aesthetic factorsthat may influence their judgments. In addition to the wall

certificates, comments tended to highlight the furnishings (e.g.,chair, desk, and lamp, and their location) and decor, personaliza-tion, and neatness.

Respondents’ comments suggest an association betweenaspects of the physical environment and the characteristics of theoccupants of those environments, a finding reflected in the work ofSadalla et al. (1987). To what extent the experience of therapy itself(as over 50% of the participants indicated at least one visit toa therapist) influences such judgments is not known. But the factthat judgments of Qualifications, Friendliness, and Energy did notsignificantly differ related to whether a participant had visiteda therapist or not suggests a more general process of evaluation.Judgments could also be influenced by the many recent depictionsof therapists and therapists’ offices on television (e.g., the HBOseries In Treatment) and in movies or could more broadly reflectexperience with the offices of professionals.

7.1. Study limitations

Limitations of the present study deal with the kind of partici-pants used (college students), the simulated nature of the experi-ment (digitized images of a therapist’s office), and the particularoffice that was used. The use of college students limits the study’sgeneralizability. Although a good many of these students had beento see a therapist (over 50%), they are certainly not representative ofthe broader population and the results must be considered in thatlimited context.

With regard to the use of digital images, there is evidence thatsuch iconic simulation, as Winkel and Sasanoff (1970) call it,provides a reasonable facsimile of the real environment (Seaton& Collins, 1972; Shuttleworth, 1980; Ulrich et al., 1991), and carewas taken to photograph the environment from the client’s vantagepoint as has been suggested by some researchers (McElroy& Morrow, 1982), rather than from the doorway. Further, althoughusing a simulated environment, it appears that the manipulationsof the levels of the independent variables (four levels for diplomasand two levels for family photographs) were effective, as reflectedin the mean number of diplomas and family pictures reported ineach of the separate conditions.

From the comments that were made, it appears that theparticular office used in this study struck respondents as somewhatbland, and the findings of the study should not be generalizedbeyond this particular kind of office.

7.2. Future directions

Asking the extent to which the participant would be likely torecommend the therapist to a friend in need of counseling might beanother useful way to explore the effect of the credentials andfamily photographs. There is also a need to extend the study byusing offices of therapists that might be described as less bland andmore decorated, with furniture judged to be comfortable. Given thefact that there was no difference in the judgments of Qualifications,Friendliness, or Energy based on whether the participant hadconsulted a therapist or not, these judgments may be related tobroader stereotypes of impression management. One could test theeffect of credentials and family photographs on the qualities ratedin this study when the office in question is described as that ofanother professional, for example a lawyer.

A growing body of research suggests that soft architecture(Sommer, 1974) and a more home-like environment is associatedwith greater levels of disclosure (Chaikin et al., 1976; Gifford, 1988).Here the questions in the survey were directed at the therapist andnot the therapist’s office; future research might tell us how thedisplay of a large number of credentials in the therapist’s office

Page 9: “Impressive?” Credentials, family photographs, and the perception of therapist qualities

A.S. Devlin et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 503–512 511

interacts with a soft decor. Amira and Abramowitz (1979) crossedthe formality of attire (jacket vs. sport shirt) with room formality(diplomas vs. sensitivity posters) and found a main effect oncompetence for room formality (competence was judged to behigher when the therapist was viewed in the formal room).However, to our knowledge, the interaction of the number ofcredentials (rather than their presence or absence) with soft vs.hard decor has not been examined.

7.3. Summary and recommendations

Other researchers have linked therapist credibility with theoutcome of therapy (Beutler, Johnson, Neville, Elkins, & Jobe, 1975),and the research here suggests a positive impact of the display ofcredentials on participants’ views of therapist qualifications,certainly an indicator of credibility. ‘‘Displaying one’s diplomas andcertificates can be of help in establishing initial credibility withclients. Many states require that licensed psychologists andpsychiatrists display certificates of licensure and certification forlegal reasons’’ (Siegel & Sell, 1978, p. 191). But the display ofcredentials appears to be related to an outcome that moves beyondthe straightforward indication of legitimacy, given that the displayalso influenced judgments related to friendliness and energy. Thedisplay of a license alone might be considered a ‘‘minimalist’’approach. In this study, displaying as many as nine-credentials evenin a relatively small office may send the message that the practi-tioner is not only qualified, but very qualified. The data here suggestthat therapists may want to consider displaying at least four-credentials, not only a license, but also diplomas and other certif-icates of accomplishment.

Although the focus of this study was the impact of credentialsand family photographs, many other aspects of the therapist’s officemade an impression on the respondents, which is consistent withthe literature (e.g., Chaikin et al., 1976; Freudenberger, Lewin, Meek,& Ritt, 1986; Pressly & Heesacker, 2001). Whether intentional ornot, these aspects, including perceived comfort of the furniture,lighting, color, desk location, neatness of piles of documents, andartwork appear to be related to respondents’ judgments as reflec-ted in their comments. These choices are part of a symbol system,a language of physical gestures that communicate who theseprofessionals are (Sadalla et al., 1987). Therapists have a good dealof control over the appearance of their office space, which is lesslikely to be true of the exterior of the building in which the office ishoused because therapists are more likely to be renters thanowners of the building. Given this degree of control over the inte-rior space, therapists might carefully consider how they presentthemselves not only through their credentials, but also through thetotality of their office furnishings. Although the office used in thisstudy was located in a professional office building, recentcommentary about the ethical appropriateness and impact of thehome office (e.g., Green, 2008; Maroda, 2007) also point to theimportance of further research on the physical environment andcounseling. It is not sufficient to state that common sense and goodtaste (Korchin, 1976) direct what is visible in the counseling office.Research can identify the impact of the physical environment onthe perception of the therapist and the process of therapy andprovide more specific guidelines for the creation of a supportiveenvironment.

Acknowledgment

Thanks to Ashley Clinton for help with data collection and toStuart Vyse for statistical consultation.

References

Amira, S., & Abramowitz, S. I. (1979). Therapeutic attraction as a function oftherapist attire and office furnishings. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 47, 198–200.

Anthony, K. H., & Watkins, N. J. (2002). Exploring pathology: relationships betweenclinical and environmental psychology. In R. B. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.),Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 129–146). New York: John Wiley.

Arneill, A., & Devlin, A. S. (2002). Perceived quality of care: the influence of thewaiting room environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 345–360.

Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legiti-mation. Organizational Science, 1, 177–194.

Becker, F. D. (1977). Housing messages. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, &Ross, Inc.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,15, 139–168.

Berlo, K. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969–1970). Dimensions for evaluating theacceptability of message sources. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 33, 563–576.

Beutler, L. E., Johnson, D. T., Neville, C. W., Jr., Elkins, D., & Jobe, A. M. (1975). Attitudesimilarity and therapist credibility as predictors of attitude change and improve-ment in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 90–91.

Bloom, L. J., Weigel, R. G., & Trautt, G. M. (1977). Therapeugenic factors in psycho-therapy: effects of office decor and subject-therapist sex pairing on the percep-tion of credibility. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 867–873.

Campbell, D. E. (1979). Interior office design and visitor response. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 64, 648–653.

Chaikin, A. L., Derlega, V. J., & Miller, S. J. (1976). Effects of room environment onself-disclosure in a counseling analogue. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23,479–481.

Cooper Marcus, C. (1995). House as a mirror of self. Berkeley, CA: Conari Press.Devlin, A. S., & Arneill, A. (2003). Health care environments and patient outcomes:

a review of the literature. Environment and Behavior, 35, 665–694.Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational

identity threats: encountering and countering the Business Week rankings.Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 442–476.

Elsbach, K. D. (2003). Relating physical environment to self-categorizations:identity threat and affirmation in a non-territorial office space. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 48, 622–654.

Elsbach, K. D. (2004). Interpreting workplace identities: the role of office decor.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 99–128.

Feldman, D. C., & Klich, N. R. (1991). Impression management and career strategies.In R. A. Giacalone, & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Applied impression management: Howimage-making affects managerial decisions (pp. 67–80). Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications.

Freudenberger, H. J., Lewin, M. H., Meek, C. L., & Ritt, L. G. (1986). The privatepractice of psychology: four variations. In P. A. Kelly, & L. G. Ritt (Eds.), Inno-vations in clinical practice: A source book, Vol. 5 (pp. 233–244). Sarasota, FL:Professional Resource Exchange, Inc.

Gifford, R. (1988). Light, decor, arousal, comfort, and communication. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 8, 177–189.

Goffman, E. (1951). Symbols of class status. British Journal of Sociology, 2, 294–304.Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Dou-

bleday Anchor.Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue:

personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 82, 379–398.

Green, P. (March 6, 2008). What’s in a chair? The New York Times, Home & Gardensection. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/arts/06iht-06shrink.10767828.html.

Gross, R., Sasson, Y., Zarhy, M., & Zohar, J. (1998). Healing environment in psychiatrichospital design. General Hospital Psychiatry, 20, 108–114.

Heppner, P. P., & Pew, S. (1977). Effects of diplomas, awards, and counselor sex onperceived expertness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24, 147–149.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes inorganizational contexts. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.

Iwai, S. I., Churchill, W. D., & Cummings, L. T. (1983). The physical characteristics ofcollege and university counseling services. Journal of College Student Personnel,24, 55–60.

Kerr, B. A., & Dell, D. M. (1976). Perceived interviewer expertness and attractiveness:effects of interviewer behavior and attire and interview setting. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 23, 553–556.

Korchin, S. J. (1976). Modern clinical psychology. NY: Basic Books, Inc.Korda, M. (1975). Power! How to get it, how to use it. NY: Random House.Langs, R. (1989). The technique of psychoanalytic psychotherapy, Vol. 1. Northvale, NJ:

Aronson.Leon, R. L. (1989). Psychiatric interviewing: A primer (2nd ed.). NY: Elsevier Scientific

Publishing Co., Inc.Maroda, K. (2007). Ethical considerations of the home office. Brief Reports.

Psychoanalytic Psychology, 24, 173–179.Maslow, A. H., & Mintz, N. L. (1956). Effects of esthetic surroundings: I. Initial effects

of three esthetic conditions upon perceiving ‘‘energy’ and ‘‘well-being’’ in faces.Journal of Psychology, 41, 247–254.

McElroy, J. C., & Morrow, P. C. (1982). Desk placement in the faculty office: effect ofcamera angle in slide-simulated office studies. Psychological Reports, 50, 675–678.

Page 10: “Impressive?” Credentials, family photographs, and the perception of therapist qualities

A.S. Devlin et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 503–512512

McElroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., & Wall, L. C. (1983). Generalizing impact of objectlanguage to other audiences: peer response to office design. PsychologicalReports, 53, 315–322.

Mintz, N. L. (1956). Effects of esthetic surroundings: II. Prolonged and repeatedexperience in a ‘‘beautiful’’ and an ‘‘ugly’’ room. The Journal of Psychology, 41,459–466.

Miwa, Y., & Hanyu, K. (2002). The classification of counseling-rooms based onthe components of interior. In P. Hecht (Ed.), Proceedings of the 33rd annualconference of the environmental design research association (pp. 108). Edmond,OK: edra.

Miwa, Y., & Hanyu, K. (2006). The effect of interior design on communication andimpressions of a counselor in a counseling room. Environment and Behavior, 38,484–502.

Morrow, P. C., & McElroy, J. C. (1981). Interior office design and visitor response:a constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 646–650.

Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Psychology applied to work (8th ed.). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Pressly, P. K., & Heesacker, M. (2001). The physical environment and counseling:a review of theory and research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79,148–160.

Sadalla, E. K., Verschure, B., & Burroughs, J. (1987). Identity symbolism in housing.Environment and Behavior, 19, 569–587.

Scharff, K. (2004). Therapy demystified: An insider’s guide to getting the right help –Without going broke. NY: Marlowe.

Seaton, R. W., & Collins, J. B. (1972). Validity and reliability of ratings of simulatedbuildings. In W. J. Mitchell (Ed.), Environmental design: Research and practice.Proceedings of the edra 3/ar 8 conference (pp. 6-10-1–6-10-12). Los Angeles:University of California Press.

Shuttleworth, S. (1980). Use of photographs as an environmental presentationmedium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 11, 61–76.

Siegel, J. C. (1980). Effects of objective evidence of expertness, nonverbal behavior,and subject sex on client-perceived expertness. Journal of Counseling Psychology,27, 117–121.

Siegel, J. C., & Sell, J. M. (1978). Effects of objective evidence of expertness andnonverbal behavior on client-perceived expertness. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 25, 188–192.

Sommer, R. (1974). Tight spaces: Hard architecture and how to humanize it. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Strong, S. R., & Dixon, D. N. (1971). Expertness, attractiveness, and influence incounseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18, 562–570.

Sundstrom, E., & Altman, I. (1989). Physical environments and work-group effec-tiveness. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizationalbehavior, Vol. 11 (pp. 175–209). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991).Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 11, 201–230.

Watkins, N., & Anthony, K. H. (November 1, 2007). The design of psychologists’offices: a qualitative evaluation of environment-function fit. AIA AcademyJournal. http://www.aia.org/journal_aah.cfm?pagename¼aah_jrnl_20071101_watkins&dspl¼1&article¼article.

Wells, M. M. (2000). Office clutter or meaningful personal displays: the role of officepersonalization in employee and organizational well-being. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 20, 239–255.

Wells, M. M., & Thelen, L. (2002). What does your workspace say about you? Theinfluence of personality, status, and workspace on personalization. Environmentand Behavior, 34, 30–321.

Wells, M. M., Thelen, L., & Ruark, J. (2007). Workspace personalization and orga-nizational culture: does your workspace reflect you or your company? Envi-ronment and Behavior, 39, 616–634.

Widgery, R., & Stackpole, C. (1972). Desk position, interviewee anxiety, and inter-viewer credibility: an example of cognitive balance in a dyad. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 19, 173–177.

Winkel, G. H., & Sasanoff, R. (1970). An approach to an objective analysis of behaviorin architectural space. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, & L. G. Rivlin (Eds.),Environmental psychology: Man and his physical setting (1st ed.). (pp. 619–631)NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.