Search

The current study followed the methodology used by Erchul and colleagues (eg., Erchul, Raven, & Ray, 2001, Getty & Erchul, 2008) to assess and compare the likelihood of use of social power bases reported by school psychologists and school counselors. Furthermore, because the Interpersonal Power Inventory (consultant usage form; IPI-Form CT-U) was used for the first time with the school counselors, the factor structure of the instrument was also examined using Principal Component Analysis. 2 components, harsh and soft power, were identified which were similar to the harsh and soft power sources identified in the previous studies using IPI. Similar to previous research with school psychologists, the results of the current study also demonstrated that IPI-Form CT-U is an internally consistent measure that can be used to assess the likelihood of use of soft and harsh power bases in school counselors. The current study emphasized the similarities and underscored the differences between the likelihood of use of social power bases among school counselors and school psychologists. Overall, both school psychologists and school counselors rated soft power bases higher than harsh power bases. Informational power, expert power, and legitimate power of dependence were the three highest rated power bases by school psychologists and school counselors. In comparison to school psychologists, school counselors reported a higher likelihood of using soft power when consulting with a teacher. A comparison between the individual social power ratings by school psychologists and counselors revealed that school counselors rated expert power, legitimate power of dependence, and impersonal coercion higher in terms of their likelihood of use, as compared to the school psychologists. The differences in the ratings by school counselors and school psychologists may be explained in the light of the differences in their training, the nature of their role and their placement in school settings.

Social power has been recognized as central to understanding aspects of school consultation (Erchul & Raven, 1997). This study examined teachers' perceptions of social power used by the school psychologist in school consultation. A modified version of the Interpersonal Power Inventory (Erchul et al., 1999) and Interpersonal Image Inventory was completed by 234 school teachers. Results indicated (a) the power bases that operate within the psychologist/teacher consulting relationship can be summarized by three teachers that were labeled relationship power, expert and informational power, and referent power; and (b) teachers who rated referent power as the most effective bases showed the most positive interpersonal image towards school psychologists. Finding suggesting Japanese teachers and American teachers hold different view of social power included Japanese teachers rating psychologists use of referent power as more effective, and American teachers rating psychologists use of expert and informational power as more effective.

Social power has been recognized as central to understanding aspects of school consultation (Erchul & Raven, 1997). This study examined teachers' perceptions of social power used by the school psychologist in school consultation. A modified version of the Interpersonal Power Inventory (Erchul et al., 1999) and Interpersonal Image Inventory was completed by 234 school teachers. Results indicated (a) the power bases that operate within the psychologist/teacher consulting relationship can be summarized by three teachers that were labeled relationship power, expert and informational power, and referent power; and (b) teachers who rated referent power as the most effective bases showed the most positive interpersonal image towards school psychologists. Finding suggesting Japanese teachers and American teachers hold different view of social power included Japanese teachers rating psychologists use of referent power as more effective, and American teachers rating psychologists use of expert and informational power as more effective.