THE EFFECTS OF ADVISER STYLE ON OVERCOMING CLIENT RESISTANCE IN THE ADVISING INTERVIEW

This study examines how two factors contribute to the genesis and escalation of conflict in the texts of 14 actual advising interviews. The two factors examined are advisor role dilemma/role coalescence and use of foot-in-the-door (FITD) or door-in-the-face (DITF) strategies. Advisors must judge the relative merit of student requests. Moment by moment, they must decide whether their role as student advocate or institutional gatekeeper is paramount. Often, these roles are contradictory. Decisions pose difficulty when they involve fairness and equal distribution of resources. Advisors might wish to be the student protector and friend, but their obligation to uphold the university rulebook often interferes. For their part, students seeking concessions often adopt FITD techniques as a way of buying time before refusal. Even though they are not aware that research supports them, students sense that it is much more difficult for an advisor to refuse a second request when they have agreed to the first. But advisors, too, intuit this technique. They push for immediate clarification of the question which is correctly seen as DITF. Thus, in this very basic relationship, advisors and students find themselves at elemental cross purposes. Each is ready to defend the position that has been staked out. When both helpgiver and receiver focus on participative solutions, this study demonstrates that better help is given. A richer paradigm of options is identified for clients who do not engage in confrontational tactics. Thus, confronting an advisor appears to be a counterproductive strategy. Similarly, this study supports the hypothesis that interactive solutions are strongly linked with overcoming client resistance and bringing about public compliance.