Mandated Disciplinary Counseling:
Working Effectively With Challenging Clients
Norman M. Kiracofe and Allison E. Buller
Mandated disciplinary counseling has been a long-established practice for many college and university
counseling centers. Although the practice is well established, practitioners continue to raise questions
about its appropriateness and effectiveness. Student dynamics and other issues influencing the efficacy of
mandated counseling are explored. Counseling readiness interventions are recommended to mitigate the
types of reactance issues that can be barriers to effective counseling outcomes.
C
ollege and university counselors’ caseloads often include students referred for mandated disciplinary counseling. Although institutional and
client needs are both potentially met by providing effective service for
this population, mandated counseling also raises important challenges. Two of
the most salient challenges are addressing the professional and ethical issues
surrounding coerced counseling and addressing client resistance to mandated
treatment. In this article, we explore the current literature on mandated treatment and resistance in counseling, elucidate the problematic treatment issues
inherent in mandated counseling, and suggest avenues for more effective
therapeutic work with this client population.
Professional Practice of Mandated Counseling
Historical Context
Historically, college and university counseling has embraced mandated disciplinary counseling as an important professional role on the campus (Williamson,
1956; Williamson & Foley, 1949; Wrenn, 1949). In the historical context, if
a student’s perceived behavioral misconduct was the result of an underlying
psychological problem, then treatment for the disorder became the focus of
the judicial referral. If mental health concerns were not an issue, then the
purpose of counseling was reeducating and socializing the mandated student
to the behavioral roles and responsibilities of campus life. Frequently, stated
objectives of disciplinary counseling were to help students generate insight
into the sources and consequences of their perceived misbehaviors and to
change their unacceptable behaviors by learning emotional stability, moral
judgment, self-reliance, and self-control (Dannells, 1977). The earliest literature has offered support and a rationale for providing counseling services
under nonpermissive conditions (Arbuckle & Boy, 1961; Beier, 1952; Gometz
& Parker, 1968; Snoxell, 1960).
Norman M. Kiracofe and Allison E. Buller, Department of Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology, Western
Michigan University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Norman M. Kiracofe, Department
of Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology, College of Education, Western Michigan University, 1903 West
Michigan Avenue, 3102 Sangren Hall, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5226 (e-mail: norm.kiracofe@wmich.edu).
© 2009 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.
Journal of College
Counseling ■ Spring 2009 ■ Volume 12
71
Prevalence of Mandated Judicial Counseling on College
and University Campuses
Survey data generated over the past 30 years has revealed that college and university counseling centers not only continue to engage in the practice of disciplinary
counseling, but also increasingly view mandated judicial counseling as an important
service responsibility (Dannells, 1990; Gallagher, Zhang, & Taylor, 2003; Oetting, Ivey, & Weigel, 1970). For example, in a nationwide survey of college and
university counseling center directors affiliated with the Association for University
and College Counseling Center Directors, Gallagher et al. examined the prevalence of mandated counseling activities on more than 300 college and university
campuses. Their data indicated that more than 38% of the surveyed campuses
accepted mandated referrals from administrators and judicial boards for both assessment and treatment services. Another 49.8% of centers in the sample accepted
mandated referrals for assessment purposes only (Gallagher et al., 2003).
Another nationwide survey by Consolvo and Dannells (2000), which included
both university judicial officers and college counseling center directors, examined
the stimuli for disciplinary counseling referrals. According to their data, several
behavioral issues were associated with reported disciplinary referrals: alcohol
abuse (88%), violence (78.4%), illicit drug use (76.2%), alcohol policy violations
(71.3%), sexual harassment (54.6%), harassing speech (37.3%), racial harassment
(33.5%), and vandalism (27.6%). Consolvo and Dannells’s data also indicated that
specific goals for change were associated with mandated referrals: assessment and
evaluation (91.4%), education (82.2%), behavior change (81.6%), student insight
(71.9%), and establishment of appropriate goals (60.5%). They observed that the
data reflected “more concern for external, behavioral changes that affect others
rather than for internal changes in the students being referred” (Consolvo &
Dannells, 2000, p. 51). Their observation may suggest that treatment services
are being used more in the interest of maintaining social control on the campus
than for the purpose of improving the welfare of the client being served. This
observation may be in line with the mission of campus judicial programs, which
is to develop and enforce rules (Dungy, 2003). On this basis, we believe student
service officers representing the university may tend to overemphasize the interests of the institution and deemphasize the interests of the referred student. By
comparison, Ragle and Justice (1989) indicated that an effective system for dealing with the disturbing student must balance both the interests of the university
and the student.
Counseling Center Practice Standards
One source of professional guidance regarding practice standards for involuntary
judicial counseling is the International Association of Counseling Services (IACS),
the accrediting body for counseling service programs in higher education. IACS
has identified two important issues. First, although a recent change in program
standards has embraced mandatory assessment as an appropriate counseling
service activity, the long-held position of IACS has been that counseling centers
must not be “perceived as being linked with units that are involved in making
72
Journal of College
Counseling ■ Spring 2009 ■ Volume 12
admissions, disciplinary, curricular, or other administrative decisions” (Boyd et
al., 2003, p. 169). The perception that the counseling center is uninvolved in
administrative decision making is critically important to the student’s comfort
in accessing treatment. Also important is protecting the counseling relationship
from the other aspects of campus life to which the student is exposed in his or
her everyday experiences.
The second issue identified by IACS is that of ethical practice. Counseling professionals in the 2- and 4-year college and university context represent a number of
professional identities. Correspondingly, the IACS has embraced the ethical standards
of several professional associations: the American Psychological Association (APA),
the American Counseling Association (ACA), the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA), and the National
Association of Social Workers (NASW). Regarding mandated treatment, Gilbert and
Sheiman (1995) raised questions about APA’s 1992 Ethical Principles of Psychologists
and Code of Conduct, Principle D: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity, which
affirmed the client’s right to privacy, confidentiality, self-determination, and autonomy.
They also questioned whether informed consent could be achieved when the client
does not have the right to refuse treatment. In other words, because voluntariness
is an essential element of the informed consent process (Bray, Shepherd, & Hays,
1985), ideally the client should have the right to withdraw consent at any time for
any reason (Bennett, Bryant, VandenBos, & Greenwood, 1990). O’Hare (1996)
editorialized about these ethical concerns, stating “the ethical dilemmas inherent in
working with involuntary and court-ordered clients smolder beneath the profession
like a quiescent volcano” (p. 421).
Professional Response and Questions
The Mandated Disciplinary Debate
Taking these factors into consideration, counseling professionals have challenged
the practice of mandated treatment and disciplinary counseling over the years.
Periodic discussion has emerged in the literature concerning a number of aspects
of the practice (Amada, 1986, 1992, 1995; Gilbert & Sheiman, 1995; Gometz &
Parker, 1968; Kiracofe, 1993; Kiracofe & Wells, 2007; Pollard, 1995; Pollard &
Whitaker, 1993; Sharkin, 2007). Amada (1992) articulated a model that clearly
distinguishes between a disciplinary role and a treatment role in addressing the
needs of disruptive students on the campus and discussed problematic issues
that emerge for the counselor when these roles are confused. Sharkin discussed
the varying extent to which disciplinary clients might be experiencing mental
health issues. Gilbert and Sheiman amplified the discussion of legal and ethical
concerns endemic to mandated treatment and argued that although students
may be held accountable for their misconduct by the institution, participating in
counseling treatment should be a voluntary act. Kiracofe and Wells emphasized
the contravention of practice standards that exist when college and university
counseling centers engage in mandated judicial counseling. On the other hand,
Pollard questioned the legitimacy of the professional, ethical, and practice issues
that have been raised regarding mandated treatment. Specifically, Pollard argued
Journal of College
Counseling ■ Spring 2009 ■ Volume 12
73
that in the case of potentially harmful behavior, an institution’s concern for the
campus community at large must override concerns regarding the individual
student; as a result, he preferred that campus officials mandate perpetrators of
potentially violent antisocial behaviors to involuntary treatment on the campus
rather than executing judicial procedures that might result in their removal from
the campus and return to the broader community.
Efficacy of Mandated Treatment
Some evidence exists that brief mandated counseling interventions targeted at
academically at-risk students may produce positive outcomes (Schwitzer, Grogan,
Kaddoura, & Ochoa, 1993). However, the preponderance of evidence for nonvoluntary counseling with college-age clients does not support the efficacy of the
practice. For example, in a very early study examining client reluctance among a
college student population seeking short-term counseling services, Paradise and
Wilder (1979) found a negative correlation between precounseling reluctance
and client-perceived improvement and satisfaction. Furthermore, they reported
a positive correlation between client reluctance and premature termination of the
counseling relationship.
Turning to off-campus findings, an abundance of evidence related to mandated
treatment is available in the research literature examining the experience of clients
directed to undergo court-ordered treatment for substance abuse. Howard and
McCaughrin (1996) surveyed professionals working in more than 330 nonmethadone outpatient substance misuse agencies, examining the rate of client compliance
with treatment plans. Agencies were separated into two groups: those in which
court-mandated clients represented a greater proportion of the client population
(75% or greater) and those in which court-mandated clients represented a lesser
proportion of the client population (25% or less). Respondents reported lower
rates of treatment plan compliance in agencies with a higher percentage of courtmandated clients and the authors concluded that mandated clients require a different approach to treatment than do voluntary clients (Howard & McCaughrin,
1996). Klag, O’Callaghan, and Creed (2005) reviewed the extensive literature
on compulsory treatment for substance abusers:
Three decades of research into the effectiveness of compulsory treatment have yielded a
mixed, inconsistent, and inconclusive pattern of results, calling into question the evidencebased claims made by numerous researchers that compulsory treatment is effective in
the rehabilitation of substance users. (p. 1777)
The efficacy of court-mandated treatment has also been examined in the area of
domestic violence. As with substance abuse treatment, the evidence for the efficacy
of the practice seems mixed. In two studies (Davis, Taylor, & Maxwell, 2000;
Palmer, Brown, & Barrera, 1992), researchers reported some evidence that mandated treatment diminishes future abusive behavior in a male batterer population;
however, questions have been raised concerning these studies’ research designs,
calling into question their results and implications (Feder & Dugan, 2002). In
the Davis et al. study, questions were also raised regarding the comparability of
the no treatment control condition used in the research design. Furthermore, two
74
Journal of College
Counseling ■ Spring 2009 ■ Volume 12
other studies (Dunford, 2000; Feder & Dugan, 2002) that used larger participant
samples and better designs with tighter controls failed to produce any evidence
supporting court-mandated treatment to reduce future abusive behavior. These
findings led Feder and Dugan to conclude that court-mandated spouse abuse
abatement programs do not tend to have a positive effect on the perpetrator’s
future attitudes or abusive behaviors.
Taken together, research evidence on the efficacy of court-mandated treatment,
in a variety of contexts, seems to have failed to establish a consistent pattern supporting the practice. Two related factors may be key to explaining this pattern
of evidence: the client’s readiness for change and the theoretical basis on which
much of the treatment was provided. Mandated treatment is often conducted by
applying theories and techniques founded on the presumption that counseling
is being provided on a voluntary basis (Rooney, 1992). The voluntary perspective presumes that clients are self-motivated to relieve the stress and discomfort
in their lives and that the goals of the counseling change process are shaped by
their personal aspirations and growth processes. The importance of the treatment
relationship in almost all forms of therapy practiced in counseling centers suggests
that a compliant, cooperative working relationship is an essential first step in treatment. As Rogers (1977) asserted, “Therapy is not a matter of doing something to
the individual, or of inducing him to do something about himself. It is instead a
matter of freeing him for normal growth and development” (p. 6). These assumptions usually are closely held by college counseling practitioners and generally are
central to the mission of college and university counseling programs.
Resistance in Treatment
Client resistance is a central problematic issue in mandated treatment, as it is
in many forms of counseling and psychotherapy. Although a well-documented,
central feature of the treatment process, resistance is often not well understood
(Engle & Arkowitz, 2006). Whether assuming the psychoanalytic perspective
of resistance as the feared emergence of conflictual issues, the person-centered
perspective that resistance is the absence of appropriate therapeutic conditions, or
the cognitive behavioral focus on resistance as the failure to perform homework
tasks, the basis for discussions regarding resistance have often been observations
from clinical practice rather than well-developed integrations of theory and research (Ellis, 2002; Wachtel, 1982). By comparison, Mahoney (1991) offered
a more positive perspective on resistance, viewing it as serving a self-protective
(i.e., healthy) function that often is a necessary element of the client’s cognitive
processing. Recent efforts at exploring the dimensions of resistance and distilling
appropriate treatment interventions and procedures are provided by Engle and
Arkowitz and by Beutler, Moleiro, and Talebi (2002a, 2002b).
An important dimension of resistance that has emerged from these examinations is that of client reactance (Dowd, 1989). Drawn from the social psychology
literature, reactance is conceptualized as the tendency of an individual to strive
to reestablish personal freedoms perceived to have been lost or removed (J. W.
Brehm, 1966; S. S. Brehm & Brehm, 1981). The motivation to regain what has
been lost then emerges as oppositional behavior or reactance.
Journal of College
Counseling ■ Spring 2009 ■ Volume 12
75
Originally conceived as a motivational state (J. W. Brehm, 1966), clinical researchers have sought to construe reactance as a trait or personality variable that
emerges as a response to personal history with authority and the loss of personal
freedoms (Beutler, Mohr, Grawe, Engle, & MacDonald, 1991; Dowd, Milne, &
Wise, 1991). Working on the assumption that reactance is an individual difference variable, Dowd et al. constructed a Therapeutic Reactance Scale to measure
reactance as a personality variable. Similarly, Beutler et al. (1991) attempted to
mathematically distill a reactance score from standard psychological assessment
instruments, including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the
Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, and the Edwards Social Desirability Scale. In their
review of such efforts to assess reactance as a trait, Shoham, Trost, and Rohrbaugh
(2004) suggested that the instruments may indeed identify individuals who might
be challenging clients during counseling, but raised critical questions about the
construct validity of the phenomenon being identified as reactance. They posed
the question: “Do people higher on a trait measure of reactance also show higher
determination to restore thwarted freedom in situations where the level of threat
to freedom is experimentally manipulated? No study to date has shown that”
(Shoham et al., 2004, p. 176). Alternatively, they proposed that, as a treatment
factor, much more is to be gained by embracing J. W. Brehm’s (1966) original
perspective that reactance is a motivational state.
Using the motivational state concept, Rooney (1992) made reactance central
to his understanding of the problematic dynamics of treatment work with involuntary clients. Acknowledging that he is drawing on a concept that has emerged
in the context of social psychological research, Rooney argued that reactance is
highly explanatory of the transactional dynamics in involuntary treatment. He is
not alone in applying the state concept of reactance to treatment: Early on, S. S.
Brehm (1976) also argued for the utility of the construct in clinical settings.
Counseling Center Responses
Treatment Tools Used in Disciplinary Counseling
Although the extant data have suggested that mandated judicial counseling has
made extensive recent inroads into the service practices of college and university
counseling centers (Gallagher et al., 2003), the discussion in the counseling
literature regarding the efficacy of nonvoluntary counseling practices has been
limited and is somewhat dated. Much of the discussion has focused on dealing with
client reluctance (Larrabee, 1982; Paradise & Wilder, 1979; Riordan, Matheny,
& Harris, 1978; Ritchie, 1986; Vriend & Dyer, 1973).
Richie (1986) drew a helpful distinction between client reluctance and client
resistance. He viewed the reluctant client as being unmotivated, and perhaps unwilling, to participate in counseling, often being referred by a third person. He
viewed the resistant client, on the other hand, as an individual who is struggling
with a personal willingness to participate in the change process in a treatment
relationship. Methods for addressing resistance, as a common element of the
counseling process, are a well-established topic in the extant treatment literature
(Engle & Arkowitz, 2006; Wachtel, 1982). A broader understanding of client
76
Journal of College
Counseling ■ Spring 2009 ■ Volume 12
reluctance, therefore, may be important when examining mandated judicial
counseling referrals.
Understanding Resistance: Reactance as a Mediating
Variable in Mandated Judicial Counseling
Reactance, as a motivational state, is a hypothetical intervening variable in the
treatment process. Reactance theory (S. S. Brehm & Brehm, 1981) begins with
the notion of free behaviors and the assumption that, at any point in time, an
individual perceives a range of behaviors in which he or she is free to engage.
The individual defines these free behaviors both internally and subjectively. According to the model, reactance arousal is a counterforce that emerges within the
individual when the perception exists that one’s freedoms are being threatened or
possibly removed. The magnitude of reactance is moderated by three factors: the
significance of the threatened freedom, the extent to which freedoms are being
threatened or eliminated, and the perceived power or authority embodied in the
threatening individual (Beutler et al., 2002b).
Rooney (1992) outlined five responses characteristic of an individual in a reactance state. The first response is an attempt to directly restore what has been
threatened or lost. This may take the form of directly asserting one’s freedoms,
regardless of the consequences, or perhaps attempting to negotiate with the forces
that are impinging on the individual’s life. A second response pattern is vicarious
in nature. The individual attempts to reduce reactance by observing others restore
lost freedoms in their lives or perhaps inciting others to take action. The third
response pattern is an attempt to restore lost freedoms by implication: attempting to find loopholes or fulfilling the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the
law. A fourth response to reactance is the escalation of the importance of the lost
freedoms in the individual’s mind; what the individual has lost takes on a greater
value than it did before. A final response pattern is the assumption of a hostile
or aggressive stance toward the perceived source of the threat to the individual’s
freedom; a response may be present even when it is unlikely that it will restore
what has been perceived as having been lost (Rooney, 1992).
State reactance, as a hypothetical construct, offers a useful heuristic for understanding the dynamics of mandated judicial counseling. Certainly, students who
are involved in a campus judicial process are subjected to the threatened and
the very real possibility of the loss of valued freedoms. The sanctioning process
frequently establishes limitations on behavior or may require students to act in
ways that are contrary to their desires. For instance, a student may be banned
from an area of campus or required to perform community service work as a
consequence for perceived misbehavior. The mandated change in conduct may be
leveraged by the even greater, sometimes veiled, sanction that the student could
be removed from the campus community for failure to comply with the specified
institutional demands.
Social and psychosocial factors also may amplify the reaction to lost freedoms.
Campus cultures, shaped by students themselves, often endorse the very activities for which others are being sanctioned. As a common example, substance use
and abuse that violate the campus code of conduct may have a high level of acJournal of College
Counseling ■ Spring 2009 ■ Volume 12
77
ceptance among the students’ friends, and this acceptance may influence their
behavior. Furthermore, psychosocial developmental issues prominent during late
adolescence and early young adulthood are often interrelated to identity development and self-determination. The disparity between the emerging adult freedoms
to which the individual feels entitled and the limitations that the sanctioning
process imposes on the individual’s behavior can become a potent confounding
factor in the counseling process. Within this context, we believe that reactance
is often likely.
In addition, sanctioning that compels involuntary participation in a counseling
process actually may escalate the student’s reactance level. The individual must
not only participate in an unwanted counseling interaction, but also change his
or her behavior, often in ways specified by the sanctioning authority. The success
of counseling under these conditions seems highly dependent on managing the
client’s level of reactance. This poses the challenge of how to deal effectively with
reactance in treatment.
Working With Reactant Clients
In a review of research related to resistance in psychotherapy, Beutler et al. (2002b)
identified reactance as a special class of resistance and articulated two treatment
procedures that can enhance outcomes when working with individuals who are
actively experiencing reactance states. The first is the use of nondirective and selfdirected interventions. According to the reviewed studies, cognitive and behavioral
treatments generally were representative of directive interventions, whereas psychodynamic, self-directed, and relationship-oriented treatment procedures were
the prototypes for nondirective forms of treatment. Among the clients judged to
be engaging in high levels of resistance, treatment gains were the greatest when
self-directed and nondirective treatment strategies were used. The use of these
techniques was viewed as a means of circumventing client resistance.
A second conclusion that emerged from Beutler et al.’s (2002b) review of the
literature was that client reactant states are responsive to the use of paradoxical
interventions in treatment. Paradoxical techniques, including the use of symptom prescription and reframing, are viewed as a means of using client reactance
to eradicate undesirable symptoms rather than working directly with the client
to eliminate the problematic behaviors. Although nondirective and paradoxical
interventions can be useful with reactant clients, we believe that a wider range of
treatment options is required to bring about significant change in clients mandated
to receive counseling services. This position is also supported by accumulated evidence from meta-analytic studies (Horvath & Goheen, 1990; Shoham-Salomon,
Avner, & Neeman, 1989).
In turn, one additional approach to counseling with involuntary reactant clients
has emerged in the social work literature: socialization strategies. Here, on the
basis of clear delineation of the parameters of the case (i.e., nonnegotiable legal
and agency requirements, client rights and freedoms, and inhibiting practitioner
attitudinal factors), clients are drawn into a socialization process that involves negotiation and contracting of the treatment process (Rooney, 1992). Varying levels
of confrontation are used to reach a course of therapeutic action. For example,
78
Journal of College
Counseling ■ Spring 2009 ■ Volume 12
Trotter (2006) emphasized collaborative problem solving and the promotion of
prosocial behaviors with socializing techniques for use with involuntary clients. On
the other hand, Behroozi (1992), who focused on group work with involuntary
clients, identified a pregroup treatment phase in which socialization interventions
are used. He viewed the collaborative contracting process as a means of transforming the involuntary referral to “clienthood” (Behroozi, 1992, p. 232).
Much of what takes place during the client socialization process is preparatory to
therapy. Often, it is very different from the process of implementing the types of
treatment interventions that are specified by traditional counseling techniques. In
other words, the intensity of the reactance, which is a central problematic factor
in the mandated referral, is worked through before counseling goals regarding
behavioral change are addressed. This suggests that client preparation for treatment should be viewed as a separate and distinct element when working with
involuntary clients.
Preparing Involuntary Clients for Counseling
When preparing mandated students for participation in counseling, one effective
approach to working with involuntary reactant clients in the university setting is
motivational interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, 2002), an intervention technique
borrowed from the field of substance abuse treatment. Motivational interviewing
focuses on enhancing clients’ intrinsic motivation for change by exploring and
expanding the ambivalence that they are experiencing surrounding the change
issues confronting them. It uses a two-phased process that initially helps the client
build motivation for change and later assists the client to move toward action.
Motivational interviewing uses a client-centered style of interaction that elicits
discrepancy in both current behavior and intrinsically held values; in this way,
it serves to manage and resolve reactance. “Change talk” by the client is also
selectively reinforced to facilitate the client’s movement toward action (Miller &
Rollnick, 2002, p. 23).
The applicability of motivational interviewing to mandated judicial counseling may
be supported by the high percentage of disciplinary referrals on campuses resulting from substance-abuse-related offenses (Consolvo & Dannells, 2000). Burke,
Arkowitz, and Dunn (2002), in their examination of a range of applications of the
technique, found motivational interviewing to be efficacious for alcohol problems
and drug addictions. Two of the studies that they reviewed used motivational interviewing to reduce drinking behavior among college students (Borsari & Carey,
2000; Marlatt et al., 1998), and a third used brief motivational interviewing to
reduce alcohol use and related consequences among older adolescents in a hospital
emergency room (Monti et al., 1999). In these studies, motivational interviewing
was used as a behavior change technique; however, motivational interviewing can
also be viewed as a treatment readiness intervention for clients who are unaware of,
or resistant to, a need for change in their lives. Through motivational interviewing,
such individuals, although initially unprepared to participate in traditional helping
relationships, can often be prepared to successfully engage in standard treatment
procedures. For example, in off-campus studies, success has been reported using
readiness training activities with people on probation and individuals who were
Journal of College
Counseling ■ Spring 2009 ■ Volume 12
79
court-mandated to participate in substance abuse treatment (Lincourt, Kuettel,
& Bombardier, 2002; Sia, Dansereau, & Czuchry, 2000).
Using motivational interviewing to prepare individuals for traditional treatment
interventions requires a means of discerning a client’s readiness to participate in
counseling. One useful tool in this regard is the Stages of Change Model (Prochaska,
1999; Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992). This research-based model
delineates six stages through which individuals progress when making changes in
their lives: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance,
and termination (Prochaska, 1999). Clients at the precontemplation stage often
present as being unaware of a need for change or unwilling to undergo what
change may require of them. “Precontemplators often have been labeled ‘resistant’” (DiClemente & Velasquez, 2002, p. 204). Motivational interviewing, as a
counseling readiness intervention, can be used to move these individuals toward
contemplation and preparation for taking action to make changes in their lives.
Clients at the action stage realize the need for change in their lives and often
desire assistance in bringing it about. They are good candidates for the behaviorchange-based treatment interventions that college and university counselors are
well prepared to provide. Broad acceptance exists for both the Stages of Change
Model and motivational interviewing among researchers, and “it is apparent that
motivational interviewing and the stages of change are a ‘natural fit’” (DiClemente
& Velasquez, 2002, p. 203). The Stages of Change Model provides counselors
a clear perspective on a client’s readiness for traditional counseling interventions
and motivational interviewing offers an intervention strategy to move clients to
a point of treatment readiness.
Approaching mandated judicial counseling referrals with motivational interviewing as a treatment readiness intervention avoids some of the problematic issues
faced by counselors. It is an approach that has been specifically developed to
work with the resistant client, and the nature of the process averts some of the
professional and ethical issues surrounding coercive treatment. Miller and Rollnick (2002) argued that “unless a current ‘problem’ behavior is in conflict with
something that the person values more highly, there is no basis for motivational
interviewing to work” (p. 167). Thus, behavior change that is consistent with the
individual’s personal core values can be accomplished. The basis for such change
will be the client’s belief that his or her best interests will be served by engaging
in the new behavior.
Conclusion, Limitations, and Generalization
to Differing Institutions
Survey data accumulated over the years have indicated that college and university
administrators are increasingly looking to their on-campus counseling services to
assist with perceived student misconduct problems (Consolvo & Dannells, 2000;
Dannells, 1990; Gallagher et al., 2003). This increasing call for mandated assessment and treatment services presents a challenge to college counseling professionals who are often expected to work effectively with highly resistant clients,
sometimes in ways that may be incongruent with established practice standards.
80
Journal of College
Counseling ■ Spring 2009 ■ Volume 12
In this article, we recommended a number of strategies for responding to these
college counseling situations. Our recommendations included distinguishing
reactance from resistance in judicially mandated referrals, viewing reactance as a
motivational state, and using motivational interviewing and other readiness strategies as a preparatory step in the collaborative counseling process.
More research examining the efficacy of mandated counseling procedures is
needed. Many of the campus-based studies investigating nonvoluntary counseling are dated, and knowledge is lacking regarding the effectiveness of more
contemporary behavior change treatment interventions with disciplinary clients.
In particular, we believe future research should focus closely on the use of treatment readiness strategies and stage-based interventions by campus counselors.
Future research may produce support for these procedures as an effective avenue
for treatment work with mandated judicial referrals and clients presenting with
substance abuse concerns.
The use of mandated treatment for campus conduct problems, many of which
are rooted in substance abuse and relationship violence, has been called into
question in this article. The preponderance of evidence does not support the
treatment activities that are being undertaken. Evidence does exist, though, that
brief mandated counseling with academically at-risk students produces positive
outcomes (Schwitzer et al., 1993). This suggests that the nature of the client’s
presenting concern may be a significant variable to consider in examining mandated treatment.
The institutional setting may also be an important factor contributing to the
use of nonpermissive treatment. Many of the problems that result in mandated
judicial referrals emerge in campus residence settings. This may pose the question
of whether nonresident colleges are confronted with mandated treatment issues in
the same manner as are resident intensive institutions. A broader understanding
of this issue across campus settings would be very useful.
Finally, this article specifically addressed strategies for individual counselors working with individual clients. It was beyond the article’s scope to address counseling
center administrative responses to institutional demands or other institutional
systems questions.
As counselors, we must understand more about the application of mandated
treatment procedures to establish the effectiveness of our treatment outcomes
and ensure that we are performing in a manner consistent with professional
and ethical practice standards. These questions emerge in relation to all of the
counseling treatment interventions that we use and are critical to maintaining a
strong discipline.
References
Amada, G. (1986). Dealing with the disruptive college student: Some theoretical and practical
considerations. Journal of American College Health, 34, 221–225.
Amada, G. (1992). Coping with the disruptive college student: A practical model. Journal of
American College Health, 40, 203–215.
Amada, G. (1995). Mandatory psychotherapy: A commentary on “Mandatory counseling of
university students: An oxymoron?” and “Anger and aggression groups: Expanding the scope of
college mental health provider services.” Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 9, 33–44.
Journal of College
Counseling ■ Spring 2009 ■ Volume 12
81
Arbuckle, D. S., & Boy, A. V. (1961). Client-centered therapy in counseling students with
behavior problems. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 8, 136–139.
Behroozi, C. S. (1992). A model for social work with involuntary applicants in groups. Social
Work with Groups, 15, 223–238.
Beier, E. G. (1952). Client-centered therapy and the involuntary client. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 16, 332–337.
Bennett, B. E., Bryant, B. K., VandenBos, G. R., & Greenwood, A. (1990). Professional liability
and risk management. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Beutler, L. E., Mohr, D. C., Grawe, K., Engle, D., & MacDonald, R. (1991). Looking for
differential treatment effects: Cross-cultural predictors of differential psychotherapy efficacy.
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 1, 121–141.
Beutler, L. E., Moleiro, C., & Talebi, H. (2002a). Resistance. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients (pp.
129–143). New York: Oxford University Press.
Beutler, L. E., Moleiro, C., & Talebi, H. (2002b). Resistance in psychotherapy: What conclusions
are supported by research? JCLP/In Session: Psychotherapy in Practice, 58, 207–217.
Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2000). Effects of a brief motivational intervention with college
student drinkers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 728–733.
Boyd, V., Hattauer, E., Brandel, I. W., Buckles, N., Davidshofer, C., Deakin, S., et al. (2003).
Accreditation standards for university and college counseling centers. Journal of Counseling
& Development, 81, 168–177.
Bray, J. H., Shepherd, J. N., & Hays, J. R. (1985). Legal and ethical issues in informed consent
to psychotherapy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 13, 50–60.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Brehm, S. S. (1976). The application of social psychology to clinical practice. New York: Wiley.
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control.
New York: Academic Press.
Burke, B. L., Arkowitz, H., & Dunn, C. (2002). The efficacy of motivational interviewing and
its adaptations: What we know so far. In W. R. Miller & S. Rollnick (Eds.), Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed., pp. 217–250). New York: Guilford Press.
Consolvo, C., & Dannells, M. (2000). Disciplinary counseling: Implications for policy and
practice. NASPA Journal, 38, 44–57.
Dannells, M. (1977). Discipline. In W. T. Packwood (Ed.), College student personnel services (pp.
232–278). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Dannells, M. (1990). Changes in disciplinary policies and practices over 10 years. Journal of
College Student Development, 31, 408–414.
Davis, R. C., Taylor, B. G., & Maxwell, C. D. (2000). Does batterer treatment reduce violence? A
randomized experiment in Brooklyn (NIJ Publication No. 180772). Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice.
DiClemente, C. C., & Velasquez, M. M. (2002). Motivational interviewing and stages of change.
In W. R. Miller & S. Rollnick (Eds.), Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change
(2nd ed., pp 201–216). New York: Guilford Press.
Dowd, E. T. (1989). Stasis and change in cognitive psychotherapy: Client resistance and reactance as mediating variables. In W. Dryden & P. Trower (Eds.), Cognitive psychotherapy: Stasis
& change (pp. 139–158). London: Cassell.
Dowd, E. T., Milne, C. R., & Wise, S. L. (1991). The Therapeutic Reactance Scale: A measure
of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69, 541–545.
Dunford, F. W. (2000). The San Diego Navy Experiment: An assessment of interventions for
men who assault their wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 468–476.
Dungy, G. J. (2003). Organization and functions of student affairs. In S. R. Komives & D. B.
Woodward Jr. (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed., pp. 339–357).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ellis, A. (2002). Overcoming resistance: A rational emotive behavior therapy integrated approach
(2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Engle, D. E., & Arkowitz, H. (2006). Ambivalence in psychotherapy: Facilitating readiness to
change. New York: Guilford Press.
Feder, L., & Dugan, L. (2002). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for domestic
violence offenders: The Broward experiment. JQ: Justice Quarterly, 19, 343–375.
Gallagher, R. P., Zhang, B., & Taylor, R. (2003). National survey of counseling center directors
2003. Alexandria, VA: International Association of Counseling Services.
82
Journal of College
Counseling ■ Spring 2009 ■ Volume 12
Gilbert, S. P., & Sheiman, J. A. (1995). Mandatory counseling of university students: An oxymoron? Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 9, 3–21.
Gometz, L., & Parker, C. A. (1968). Disciplinary counseling: A contradiction? Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 46, 437–443.
Horvath, A. O., & Goheen, M. D. (1990). Factors mediating the success of defiance- and compliance-based interventions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 363–371.
Howard, D. L., & McCaughrin, W. C. (1996). The treatment effectiveness of outpatient substance
misuse treatment organizations between court-mandated and voluntary clients. Substance Use
& Misuse, 31, 895–926.
Kiracofe, N. M. (1993). Changing demands on counseling centers: Problems and possibilities.
Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 7, 69–83.
Kiracofe, N. M., & Wells, L. (2007). Mandated disciplinary counseling on campus: Problems
and possibilities. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 259–268.
Klag, S., O’Callaghan, F., & Creed, P. (2005). The use of legal coercion in the treatment of
substance abusers: An overview and critical analysis of thirty years of research. Substance Use
& Misuse, 40, 1777–1795.
Larrabee, M. J. (1982). Working with reluctant clients through affirmation techniques. Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 61, 105–109.
Lincourt, P., Kuettel, T. J., & Bombardier, C. H. (2002). Motivational interviewing in a group
setting with mandated clients: A pilot study. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 381–391.
Mahoney, M. J. (1991). Human change processes: The scientific foundations of psychotherapy. New
York: Basic Books.
Marlatt, G. A., Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Dimeff, L. A., Larimer, M. E., Quigley, L. A., et al.
(1998). Screening and brief intervention for high-risk college student drinkers: Results from a
2-year follow-up assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 604–615.
Miller, W. R., & Rollick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd
ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Monti, P. M., Colby, S. M., Barnett, N. P., Spirito, A., Rohsenow, D. J., Myers, M., et al. (1999).
Brief intervention for harm reduction with alcohol-positive older adolescents in a hospital
emergency department. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 989–994.
Oetting, E. R., Ivey, A. E., & Weigel, R. G. (1970). The college and university counseling center.
Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association.
O’Hare, T. (1996). Court-ordered versus voluntary clients: Problem differences and readiness
for change. Social Work, 41, 417–422.
Palmer, S. E., Brown, R. A., & Barrera, M. E. (1992). Group treatment program for abusive
husbands: Long-term evaluation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 276–283.
Paradise, L. V., & Wilder, D. H. (1979). The relationship between client reluctance and counseling effectiveness. Counselor Education and Supervision, 19, 35–40.
Pollard, J. W. (1995). Involuntary treatment: Counseling or consequence? Journal of College
Student Psychotherapy, 9, 45–55.
Pollard, J. W., & Whitaker, L. C. (1993). Cures for campus violence, if we want them. Journal
of College Student Psychotherapy, 8, 285–295.
Prochaska, J. O. (1999). How do people change, and how can we change to help many more
people? In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of change:
What works in therapy (pp. 227–255). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how people change:
Applications to the addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102–1114.
Ragle, J. D., & Justice, S. H. (1989). The disturbing student and the judicial process. In U.
Delworth (Ed.), Dealing with the behavioral and psychological problems of students (pp. 15–21).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Riordan, R. J., Matheny, K. B., & Harris, C. W. (1978). Helping counselors minimize client
reluctance. Counselor Education and Supervision, 18, 6–13.
Ritchie, M. H. (1986). Counseling the involuntary client. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 516–518.
Rogers, C. R. (1977). Carl Rogers on personal power. New York: Delacorte Press.
Rooney, R. H. (1992). Strategies for work with involuntary clients. New York: Columbia University Press.
Schwitzer, A. M., Grogan, K., Kaddoura, K., & Ochoa, L. (1993). Effects of brief mandatory
counseling on help-seeking and academic success rate among at-risk college students. Journal
of College Student Development, 34, 401–405.
Journal of College
Counseling ■ Spring 2009 ■ Volume 12
83
Sharkin, B. (2007). Against their will? Counseling mandated students. In J. A. Lippincott &
R. B. Lippincott (Eds.), Special populations in college counseling: A handbook for mental health
professionals (pp. 143–155). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Shoham, V., Trost, S. E., & Rohrbaugh, M. J. (2004). From state to trait and back again: Reactance theory goes clinical. In R. A. Wright, J. Greenberg, & S. S. Brehm (Eds.), Motivational
analysis of social behavior: Building Jack Brehm’s contributions to psychology (pp. 167–185).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shoham-Salomon, V., Avner, R., & Neeman, R. (1989). You’re changed if you do and changed
if you don’t: Mechanisms underlying paradoxical interventions. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 57, 590–598.
Sia, T. L., Dansereau, D. F., & Czuchry, M. L. (2000). Treatment readiness training and
probationers’ evaluation of substance abuse treatment in a criminal justice setting. Journal of
Substance Abuse Treatment, 19, 459–476.
Snoxell, L. F. (1960). Counseling reluctant and recalcitrant students. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 2, 16–20.
Trotter, C. (2006). Working with involuntary clients: A prosocial model (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vriend, J., & Dyer, W. W. (1973). Counseling the reluctant client. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20, 240–246.
Wachtel, P. L. (1982). Resistance: Psychodynamic and behavioral approaches. New York: Plenum
Press.
Williamson, E. G. (1956). Preventive aspects of disciplinary counseling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16, 68–81.
Williamson, E. G., & Foley, J. D. (1949). Counseling and discipline. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wrenn, C. G. (1949). Student discipline in college. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
9, 625–633.
84
Journal of College
Counseling ■ Spring 2009 ■ Volume 12