Psychology
in
the
Schools
Volume
20,
July,
1983
RESISTANCE
TO
SCHOOL-BASED CONSULTATION:
A
BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM
WAYNE
C.
PIERSEL
AND
TERRY
9.
GUTKIN
University
of
Nebraska-
Lincoln
When attempting to consult
with
school personnel, psychologists frequently encounter
various forms of resistance. This paper conceptualizes resistance to consultation ser-
vices within a behavioral/cognitive behavioral framework, and discusses how
resistance can result from contingencies operating at both the system and the building
levels.
Resistance to treatment long has been recognized as a crucial problem for clinical
psychologists. Psychoanalysts and dynamic psychotherapists have generated a massive
amount of literature on this phenomenon, and have assigned resistance a crucial role in
both theory and treatment (e.g., Abeles, 1979; Wolman, 1965). Behavior therapists also
are becoming increasingly concerned about clients who resist the behavior change
process (Hersen, 197 1; Jahn
&
Lichstein, 1980). Recently, school psychologists have
begun to document their encounters with resistive consultees (e.g., Abidin, 1975; Deno,
1975; Grieger, 1972).
Dorr
(1977), for example, noted anecdotally an experience of his
students who were serving as consultants in elementary schools. The graduate students
had been working with a particularly difficult teacher, and were finally able to record
significant changes
in
the child’s behavior. The enterprising graduate students graphed
the child’s behavior across baseline and intervention conditions and displayed the graph
to the teacher at one of their weekly consultation meetings. The teacher was reported to
have said,
“I
see your graph but
I
still don’t believe it” (p.98).
On a more global level, resistance to school-based consultation has led to an ap-
parent paradox. On the other hand, we know that psychologists, teachers, and other
educational personnel consider consultation to be a most important aspect of the service
that psychologists bring to the schools (Bardon, 1976; Cowen
&
Lorion, 1976; Curtis
&
Zins, 1981; Fairchild, 1976; Gutkin, 1980; Gutkin, Singer,
&
Brown, 1980; Hughes,
1979; Kupisch, 1978; Lambert, Sandoval,
&
Corder, 1975; Lolli, 1980; Manley
&
Manley, 1978; Martin, Duffey,
&
Fischman, 1973; Waters, 1973; Sandoval, Note 1). On
the other hand, most studies indicate that practicing school psychologists spend a dis-
proportionately small quantity of time actually delivering consultation services (Cook
&
Patterson, 1977; Goldwasser, Meyers, Christenson,
&
Graden, 1981; Hyman, 1978;
Keogh, Kukic, Becker, McLoughlin,
&
Kukic, 1975; Landau
&
Gerken, 1979; Mason,
1978; Farling
&
Hoedt, Note
2).
This apparent paradox is reinforced by Bossard and
Gutkin (Note 3), who found no relationship
(r=.
19,
p>
.05) between teachers’ attitudinal
preference for consultation vs. testing services and their actual use of consultation as op-
posed to testing services. To date, there has been no comprehensive theoretical discussion
of resistance to school-based consultation that can account adequately for these data.
THE GENERAL PARADIGM
Resistance is said to occur when the consultant is unsuccessful
in
influencing the
consultee to engage actively
in
a problem-solving process. The authors maintain that
consultee resistance, like other forms of human behavior, can be understood from a
traditional behavioral and the more recent cognitive behavioral perspective (Bandura,
Requests
for
reprints should be sent to Wayne
C.
Piersel, Dept. of Educational Psychology, Educational
Psychology Clinic, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE
68588-0345.
31
1