Psychology of Men & Masculinity Copyright 2004 by the Educational Publishing Foundation

2004, Vol. 5, No. 2, 190–200 1524-9220/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1524-9220.5.2.190

Male Restrictive Emotionality and Evaluations of Online

Versus Face-to-Face Counseling
Aaron B. Rochlen, Lee N. Land, and Y. Joel Wong
University of Texas at Austin

The present study investigated men’s perceptions of online versus face-to-face counseling. One
hundred ninety-one men with a range of restrictive emotionality and online counseling attitudes
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

reviewed face-to-face or online counseling vignettes using a cognition- or emotion-based thera-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

peutic approach. Overall, participants’ evaluations of counseling approaches were similar across
modality and theoretical approach. However, men with low as opposed to high levels of restric-
tive emotionality expressed more favorable perceptions of face-to-face counseling. Significant
improvements in online counseling attitudes were observed across the entire sample, with more
pronounced improvements in online counseling value for men reviewing online counseling vi-
gnettes. Results are discussed within the context of men’s underutilization of counseling services
and the online counseling literature. Suggestions for further research are provided.

The challenges associated with men seeking and
ultimately benefiting from counseling services have
been well documented in the literature (Addis & Ma-
halik, 2003; Brooks & Good, 2001; Rochlen, Bla-
zina, & Raghunathan, 2002). In regard to men’s help-
seeking behaviors, Addis and Mahalik (2003)
recently concluded that overall, men of varied nation-
alities, ethnicities, racial backgrounds, and ages seek
professional help to a lesser extent than women.
Studies on within-group differences have also added
to our understanding and concern regarding men’s
clinical treatment, with evidence suggesting that men
most susceptible to psychological distress appear to
be reluctant to seek available support services (Good
& Wood, 1995).
A frequently recommended next step in addressing
men’s underutilization of mental health services in-
volves studying the appeal of alternative methods of
providing counseling services to more counseling-
resistant men (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Hurst, 1997).
To date, a few studies in this area have been initiated,
Aaron B. Rochlen, Lee N. Land, and Y. Joel Wong, De-
partment of Educational Psychology, University of Texas at
Austin.
We are grateful to Kevin Flahive, who served as a client
in the audio vignette, and to Clara Hill and Shanna Smith for
statistical consultation. Thanks also to Ken Trosky for his
assistance with data collection and entry. Finally, gratitude
is extended to Ryan Mckelly and Alissa Sherry for provid-
ing thoughtful feedback on earlier versions of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Aaron B. Rochlen, Department of Educational
Psychology, Counseling Psychology Program, University of
Texas at Austin, 1 University Station D5800, Austin, TX
78712. E-mail: aaron.rochlen@mail.utexas.edu
190
with efforts focusing on how men respond to alter-
native methods of marketing therapy (Robertson &
Fitzgerald, 1992; Rochlen et al., 2002) and different
therapeutic styles (Wisch, Mahalik, Hayes, & Nutt,
1995; Rochlen & O’Brien, 2002). The current study
intends to add to this research area through evaluat-
ing men’s perceptions of counseling sessions as con-
ducted using a face-to-face or online counseling mo-
dality, with either an emotion- or cognition-focused
therapeutic approach.
Theoretical Models and Within-Group
Research Addressing Men’s
Help-Seeking Patterns
In considering the possible benefits of online coun-
seling for men, it is first useful to consider the theo-
retical accounts that aim to explain men’s overall
reluctance to seeking professional help. In general,
authors have frequently described the characteristics
associated with interest and successful engagement in
psychotherapy (e.g., being emotionally expressive)
as being in contrast with the values of the male cul-
ture and norms (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Good, Gil-
bert, & Scher, 1990; O’Neil, 1981a, 1981b; Robert-
son & Fitzgerald, 1992; Wilcox & Forrest, 1992).
This incongruence between the culture of masculinity
and the counseling environment appears to be par-
ticularly salient for men who adhere rigidly to tradi-
tional male roles (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1993; Courte-
nay, 2000).
Much of the empirical research that has incorpo-
rated the above theoretical descriptions has been con-
ducted with the Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRCS;
O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986).
 ONLINE VERSUS FACE-TO-FACE COUNSELING 191

O’Neil et al. (1986) proposed that at the core of male
socialization is a fear and devaluation of femininity
that leads to men’s unwillingness to be expressive,
vulnerable, or emotional. As these characteristics are
necessary for both men and women, O’Neil et al.
speculated that men who rigidly adhere to these
“rules” of masculinity are likely to suffer from a
range of negative psychological consequences. Re-
search has also demonstrated that men with high lev-
els of gender role conflict report negative help-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
oriented approach. In that study, preferences for
therapeutic style were not modified by gender role
conflict. Thus, men with varying degrees of gender
role conflict preferred the more structured approach
(identified as a person–environment fit approach)
over the more emotion-oriented contextual approach
(identified as a psychodynamic career counseling
approach).

seeking attitudes (Blazina & Watkins, 1996; Good, Online Counseling Overview and Potential
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Dell, & Mintz, 1989; Good & Wood, 1995). Application for Male Clients
A limited number of studies have used the GRCS
In the last 15 years, online counseling has been one
measure in integrating personal and situational vari-
of the most frequently discussed and debated prac-
ables in the study of men’s help-seeking patterns. In
tices in the counseling literature (Alleman, 2002;
a frequently referenced study, Robertson and Fitzger-
Rochlen, Zack, & Speyer, 2004). Included in this
ald (1992) randomly assigned participants into two
debate are deliberations on the precise definition,
groups to evaluate different brochures offering ser-
ethical–legal considerations, regulatory and licensure
vices at a counseling center. Half the brochures de-
issues, and the benefits and limitations of the practice
scribed traditional counseling activities (individual
(Alleman, 2002; Bloom, 1998; Heinlen, Welfel,
and group counseling), whereas the remaining bro-
Richmond, & Rak, 2003; Rochlen et al., 2004; Stofle,
chures described alternative services (classes, video-
2001). Although a full exploration of these issues is
tapes, workshops, and structured interventions). Par-
beyond the scope of this article, it is important to note
ticipants rated their likelihood of seeking help at the
one of the more frequently cited benefits of online
counseling center for a list of 17 potential issues.
counseling, namely the potential appeal to popula-
Men with more positive attitudes toward counseling
tions who underutilize or stigmatize counseling ser-
expressed equal preferences for the two types of
vices (Stofle, 2001). Cited advantages of online
counseling brochures. Men with more negative atti-
counseling for such populations include increased
tudes toward help seeking and men with higher levels
privacy and anonymity, decreased effort to begin
of gender role conflict had more interest in seeking
therapy, and an atmosphere perceived as less threat-
professional help after viewing the nontraditional
ening (Kraus, Zack, & Stricker, 2004; Rochlen et al.,
counseling services brochures.
2004). Despite these proposed benefits, we found no
In a study with particular relevance to the current
studies that have directly evaluated the appeal to
project, Wisch et al. (1995) assessed the contribution
populations who underutilize help-seeking services.
of gender role conflict to men’s attitudes toward psy-
In regard to men and online counseling in particu-
chological help seeking after viewing two different
lar, one instrument development project did find that
therapeutic approaches. Participants were randomly
men and women expressed similar attitudes toward
assigned to watch a video segment of a counseling
online counseling (Rochlen, Beretvas, & Zack, in
session involving interventions with an emotion-
press). For face-to-face counseling, women had more
focused (e.g., “Let’s talk for a minute about your
favorable attitudes than men, a finding consistent
parents. What kind of feelings come up when you
with the larger help-seeking literature (Addis & Ma-
deal with them?”) or cognition-focused orientation
halik, 2003). In discussing these findings, Rochlen et
(e.g., “Let’s talk for a minute about your parents.
al. (in press) suggested that future research investi-
What kind of messages to yourself come up when
gate within-group differences that may provide more
you deal with them?”). Among men with high levels
information on how online counseling might be per-
of gender role conflict, participants who viewed the
ceived by different types of male help seekers.
cognition-focused video reported more positive help-
seeking attitudes compared with participants who
viewed the emotion-focused video. Restrictive Emotionality
Finally, in a recent study addressing men’s percep-
tions of different theoretical approaches to career For the purposes of our current study, we decided
counseling, Rochlen and O’Brien (2002) found that to use the construct of restrictive emotionality to ex-
overall, men preferred a more directive approach to plore within-group differences in regard to percep-
career counseling over a more contextual, emotion- tions and reactions to online versus face-to-face
 192 ROCHLEN, LAND, AND WONG
counseling. Restrictive Emotionality is one of four
dimensions of gender role conflict and has been de-
fined as having “difficulty and fears about expressing
one’s feelings and difficulty finding words to express
basic emotions” (O’Neil, Good, & Holmes, 1995, p.
176). Our decision to focus on Restrictive Emotion-
ality was based on two central considerations. First,
the Restrictive Emotionality dimension has yielded
the strongest relationships with psychological dis-
tress and negative help-seeking attitudes (e.g., Bla-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
zina & Watkins, 1996; Cournoyer, 1994; Good &
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Wood, 1995; Robertson & Fitzgerald, 1992; Sharpe
& Heppner, 1991). Consequently, this construct
seems particularly useful in detecting men that may
be experiencing a range of psychological problems
combined with a relative disinterest in utilizing coun-
seling services. Second, men’s emotional inexpres-
siveness has been a popular but controversial issue
that has not been sufficiently researched in the con-
text of therapy (Fischer & Good, 1997). Although
many scholars (Brooks & Gilbert, 1995; Heppner &
Gonzales, 1987; Levant, 2001; Scher, 1981) have
suggested that men tend to be emotionally inexpres-
sive because they are unaware of what they feel,
others have posited that emotionally inexpressive
men tend not to disclose their feelings because they
choose not to rather than because of an inability to do
so (Fischer & Good, 1997). The latter explanation
raises the possibility that men who are inexpressive
might be more willing to express their emotions in a
setting that they perceive to be less psychologically
threatening.
Objectives and Hypotheses
In consideration of the above literature, the current
study had several objectives. The first objective, ex-
ploratory in nature, was to generate descriptive in-
formation regarding the relationships among men’s
attitudes toward online counseling and the dimen-
sions of male gender role conflict. The second ob-
jective was to examine men’s evaluations of varied
simulated counseling sessions, as conducted using
different counseling modalities (online vs. face to
face) and theoretical approaches (cognition vs. emo-
tion oriented). On the basis of suggestions that online
counseling may work well for populations who
struggle with expressing emotions (Stofle, 2001;
Zack, 2004), we hypothesized that men with high as
opposed to low levels of Restrictive Emotionality
would express more positive evaluations of the on-
line counseling modality over a face-to-face condi-
tion. We expected men with low levels of Restrictive
Emotionality to evaluate the face-to-face counseling
conditions more positively. In addition, on the basis
of previous literature (Robertson & Fitzgerald, 1992;
Wisch et al., 1995), we hypothesized that men with
high levels of Restrictive Emotionality would evalu-
ate vignettes that displayed a cognitive-based (as op-
posed to an emotion-based) theoretical approach
more positively, regardless of the counseling modal-
ity (online or face to face). Finally, we wanted to
examine whether improvements in attitudes toward
online counseling could be demonstrated on the basis
of participation in the study. As has been demon-
strated in several recent studies (Blazina & Marks,
2001; Gonzalez, Tinsley, & Kreuder, 2002; Rochlen
et al., 2002), we anticipated improvements in atti-
tudes toward online counseling as a result of being
shown realistic portrayals of counseling scenarios
carried out in a range of different modalities and
approaches.
Method
Participants
One hundred ninety-one undergraduates, recruited
through undergraduate educational psychology
courses at a large public university, served as partici-
pants. All participants were given course credit for
their involvement. The ethnic breakdown of the final
participant pool was 108 Caucasian (56.5%), 1 Afri-
can American (0.5%), 48 Asian American (25.1%),
25 Latino (13.1%), 3 biracial (1.6%), and 6 other
(3.1%). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 43
years (M ⳱ 21.80 years, SD ⳱ 2.37). The over-
whelming majority of the sample comprised juniors
and seniors (87.40%).
Simulated Counseling Sessions
Our primary objective for creating the vignettes
was to simulate in a realistic manner client–counselor
interactions portrayed in either a face-to-face or on-
line counseling context, with each scenario having
primarily an emotion- or cognition-centered thera-
peutic approach. We created these vignettes and gave
them to several psychology doctoral students for
feedback prior to having them reviewed in the ma-
nipulation check.
Each of the four conditions included a written
overview of the client, a summary of the first coun-
seling session, a media-based portrayal of the second
session, and a written conclusion of the second ses-
sion. For all conditions, the written client overview
detailed a 26-year-old graduate student who had been
experiencing increased stress at school and work be-
 ONLINE VERSUS FACE-TO-FACE COUNSELING
cause of difficulties with concentration and perfor-
mance, as well as relationship concerns with his fi-
ancée. The first session summary illustrated some of
the counselor’s interventions and general approach
for working with the client. The media-based por-
trayal of the second session was an audiotape for the
face-to-face counseling participants and a computer
monitor portraying an online counseling session for
the online counseling participants.
For the face-to-face conditions, two 14-min audio-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tapes were created to represent a segment of the sec-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ond session of therapy in the simulated counseling
sessions. The tapes used male actors to portray the
counselor (32-year-old male psychologist) and the
client (26-year-old masters student). In the emotion-
focused audio recording, the counselor generally re-
sponded to the client by focusing on the client’s
emotions and inner world, for example, “I could defi-
nitely tell that was an intense experience for you.”
The client responded by reporting emotions, such as
“Then I remembered that you told me to focus on my
feelings, and I started to notice really how miserable
I was feeling.” In the cognition-focused audio record-
ing, the counselor intervened by focusing on the cli-
ent’s cognitions, for example, “What exactly goes
through your mind when you think of yourself as a
failure?” The client responds by reporting thoughts,
such as “I’m thinking it’s terrible that I’m the lousiest
student in the class!”
For the online counseling conditions, participants
reviewed simulations of online counseling sessions
that were nearly identical to the original audiotape
transcripts, with minor semantic changes introduced
to emphasize the authenticity of the online therapy
medium. For example, “We talked about” was modi-
fied to “We chatted about” in the online conditions to
mirror an actual online counseling session. These
scenarios were designed to simulate the experience of
participating in a real-time Internet text chat session,
noted to be the most commonly used method of on-
line counseling (Rochlen et al., 2004). In addition,
participants worked on computers and controlled the
progression of the online therapy dialogue in a man-
ner designed to simulate actual participation in an
online counseling session.
As the media-based portrayal of the second session
was relatively brief, participants in all conditions also
read a short passage describing the conclusion of the
second session. These summaries also differed ac-
cording to theoretical approach. In the emotion-
centered condition, the client continued to explore his
tendency to downplay and ignore his emotional re-
actions, as well as how this related to his childhood
experiences. In the cognition-centered condition, the
193
client proceeded to investigate the link between his
cognitions and behaviors and was encouraged to no-
tice how negative thought processes affected his life.
This progression from the overview of the client’s
initial problem through the first two counseling ses-
sions was constructed to provide a detailed account
of what might occur during a sequence of individual
therapy and to reinforce the distinctions between the
emotion-oriented and cognition-oriented approaches.
Measures
Manipulation check. To provide validation for
the content and process of the audio and online coun-
seling vignettes, we created a manipulation check
with two subscales. The first scale was the Affective–
Cognitive Content in Counseling Scale, developed by
Wisch et al. (1995). The scale assessed the affective
and cognitive content in the counseling vignettes.
Raters used a 6-point scale to indicate how much the
counselor in the vignettes focused on the client’s cog-
nitions (1 ⳱ extremely cognition-focused) or emo-
tions (6 ⳱ extremely emotions-focused). The second
scale was a three-item measure developed for this
study called the Counselor Skills Scale. This scale
assessed the perceived competence of the counselor
in the vignette (e.g., whether the counselor demon-
strated sound basic counseling skills) on a 5-point
Likert scale (1 ⳱ strongly disagree, 5 ⳱ strongly
agree). The counseling vignettes were assessed by 15
counseling psychology and 1 clinical psychology
doctoral student. Each doctoral student was randomly
assigned to evaluate one of the four counseling vi-
gnettes. There was good preliminary evidence for the
reliability of this measure, with an internal consis-
tency estimate for all vignettes of .76. (See the “Re-
sults” section for descriptive data and the results from
the manipulation check analyses.)
Demographic questionnaire. A demographic
questionnaire developed for this study included ques-
tions about age, year in school, ethnicity, and aca-
demic status.
Attitudes toward online counseling. To measure
attitudes toward online counseling, we used the On-
line Counseling Attitudes Scale (OCAS; Rochlen et
al., in press). The OCAS is a 10-item questionnaire
that assesses attitudes toward online counseling. This
scale is comprised of two subscales: Value of Online
Counseling (5 items) and Discomfort With Online
Counseling (5 items). Responses are made on a
6-point Likert scale (1 ⳱ strongly disagree, 6 ⳱
strongly agree). Scale scores were calculated by sum-
ming the responses to each item for the respective
subscales, with high scores for the Value of Online
 194 ROCHLEN, LAND, AND WONG
Counseling and Discomfort With Online Counseling
subscales reflecting a strong sense of value toward
online counseling and a high degree of discomfort
associated with online counseling, respectively. In-
ternal consistency estimates ranged from .77 to .90
over multiple studies for scores on both the Value of
Online Counseling and Discomfort With Online
Counseling subscales, and test–retest correlations of
.70 to .88 were observed over a 3-week period on
both subscales (Rochlen et al., in press). Evidence for
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
convergent validity of the Value of Online Counsel-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ing and Discomfort With Online Counseling sub-
scales has been provided through correlations in the
expected directions with general help-seeking atti-
tudes, comfort in using e-mail, and self-reported like-
lihood of using online counseling (Rochlen et al., in
press). In the current study, internal consistency es-
timates averaged between the pre- and postattitudes
administrations were .93 and .91 for scores on the
Value of Online Counseling and Discomfort With
Online Counseling subscales, respectively.
Gender role conflict. The GRCS (O’Neil et al.,
1986) is a 37-item questionnaire that assesses men’s
thoughts, feelings, and attitudes concerning gender
role behaviors. The measure consists of four patterns
of gender role conflict, namely, Success, Power, and
Competition; Restrictive Emotionality; Restrictive
Affectionate Behavior Between Men; and Conflict
Between Work and Family. Responses are made on a
6-point Likert scale (1 ⳱ strongly disagree, 6 ⳱
strongly agree). The scales are calculated by sum-
ming the individual items, with high scores reflecting
a greater expression of gender role conflict within
that particular domain. A total GRCS score, assessing
the overall level of gender role conflict and adher-
ence to traditional models of masculinity, can be
computed by summing the total scores of the four
subscales (O’Neil et al., 1995). Test–retest reliability
over a 4-week period, for scores on all subscales,
ranged from .72 to .86 (O’Neil et al., 1986). The
GRCS subscales have been shown to be negatively
related to psychological well-being (Blazina & Wat-
kins, 1996; Cournoyer & Mahalik, 1995) and atti-
tudes toward help seeking (Good & Wood, 1995). In
our study, internal consistency for scores on the total
GRCS was .91, with alphas ranging from .86 to .91
for subscale scores. In the current study, our primary
interest was in the 10-item Restrictive Emotionality
subscale, which we used as an independent variable
to analyze men’s preferences for different modalities
and approaches to counseling.
Counselor rating. The Counseling Rating
Form—Short Form (CRF–S; Corrigan & Schmidt,
1983) is a 12-item questionnaire that assesses char-
acteristics of a therapist on three domains: Attractive-
ness, Expertness, and Trustworthiness. This version
was a modified scale of the original 36-item Coun-
selor Rating Form, developed by Barak and LaCrosse
(1977). Respondents rated the extent to which a
counselor demonstrates the characteristic of a posi-
tive adjective on a 7-point Likert scale (1 ⳱ not very,
7 ⳱ very). Using this shortened version, Corrigan
and Schmidt (1983) demonstrated an equivalent fac-
tor structure, along with adequate levels of reliability
and internal consistency estimates (above .80 for all
scales), with the original measure. High scores on
each of the respective scales reflect a high degree of
perceived attractiveness, expertness, and trustworthi-
ness. In the present study, internal consistency esti-
mates for the current sample on the Attractiveness,
Expertness, and Trustworthiness scales were .94, .85,
and .89, respectively. In addition to the three con-
structs of Expertness, Attractiveness, and Trustwor-
thiness, the CRF–S has been found to measure pri-
marily a general construct—a “good counselor
factor” (Tracey, Glidden, & Kokotovic, 1988). As
has been done in past studies (e.g., see Guinee,
Tracey, & Terence, 1997), we created a total coun-
selor evaluation index by combining the subscales.
The internal consistency estimate for the total scale
score was .91.
Counseling approach evaluation. The Counsel-
ing Approach Evaluation Form (CAEF; Lyddon,
1989) is a six-item questionnaire that assesses pref-
erence for styles of counseling. The CAEF is com-
posed of two scales, each with three items. The first
scale measures evaluations of the counseling ap-
proaches with regard to the likelihood of benefiting
from and using the particular approach. The second
scale assesses preferences for the counseling ap-
proach in relation to others’ opinions. The correlation
between the two scales was .94. Responses were
made on a 7-point scale. Scores for each scale were
based on the mean scores of the three items. High
scores on the first scale indicate greater personal in-
terest in the counseling approach, whereas high
scores on the second scale reflect perceptions that
peers would be attracted to the approach. Lyddon and
Adamson (1992) reported internal consistency esti-
mates of .96 and .93 for their sample for the first and
second scales, respectively, and a correlation of .92
between the two scales. Test–retest reliabilities over
a 1-week time period ranged from .87 to .91. The
CAEF was used to show preferences for different
styles of counseling based on personal epistemology
(Lyddon, 1989) and worldview (Lyddon & Adam-
son, 1992). As has been done in past studies (Lyddon,
1989; Lyddon & Adamson, 1992), the two scales
 ONLINE VERSUS FACE-TO-FACE COUNSELING 195

were summed to create a total counseling evaluation
score, with an internal consistency estimate of .90.
Procedure
The study consisted of three stages. The first stage
involved randomly assigning each participant to one
of the four conditions (online counseling or face-to-
face counseling and emotion or cognition centered)
and having each participant complete the following
questionnaires: (a) a demographic questionnaire, (b)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
women. The ethnic breakdown of the respondents
was 11 Caucasians (68.8%), 1 African American
(6.3%), 1 Asian American (6.3%), 1 Latino (6.3%), 1
biracial (6.3%), and 1 whose ethnicity was not indi-
cated (6.3%). Their average age was 27.19 years (SD
⳱ 2.91).
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was conducted with counseling modality (online vs.
face to face) and therapeutic approach (emotion vs.
cognition centered) as the independent variables and

scores on the Affective–Cognitive Content in Coun-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

the GRCS, and (c) the OCAS. In the second stage, all
participants first read a written summary of the client seling Scale and the Counselor Skills Scale as the
and a description of the first counseling session. Par- dependent variables. No main effects or interactions
ticipants in the face-to-face conditions then listened emerged for counselor skills, indicating that the
to a 14-min audio recording of the client’s second counselor was perceived as being equally skillful and
counseling session. Participants assigned to one of competent across all conditions. The relatively high
the two online counseling conditions were given an mean (13.38 of 15, SD ⳱ 1.54) suggests that across
individual laptop and instructions for how to proceed all four conditions, the counselor was perceived as
through the simulated online counseling session. Af- having a high level of counseling skill.
ter listening to or reading through the segment of the As expected, a main effect emerged for approach,
second counseling session, all participants were then F(1, 12) ⳱ 37.07, p < .001, on the Affective–
asked to review a summary of the conclusion of the Cognitive Content in Counseling Scale, indicating
second counseling session. The final stage, posttest- the raters regarded the counselors in the two emotion-
ing, involved having all participants complete the centered vignettes as focusing primarily on the cli-
CAEF (evaluating the counseling approach), the ent’s emotions. In contrast, the counselor in the cog-
CRF–S (evaluating the counselor), and the OCAS nition-oriented vignettes was perceived as focusing
(online counseling attitudes). At the conclusion of the on the client’s cognitions.
study, participants were given a debriefing statement
with an explanation of the purpose of the study and a Preliminary Analyses
description of various on-campus counseling and Descriptive data. Table 1 shows the means, stan-
support services. dard deviations, and intercorrelations for all measures
used in the first stage of this study. Mean data for this
Results sample were all within one standard deviation of
those reported elsewhere for online counseling atti-
Manipulation Check tudes (Rochlen et al., in press) and gender role con-
Among the 16 doctoral students who participated flict (Good & Wood, 1995). Regarding the correla-
in the manipulation check, 5 were men and 11 were tions, a significant positive correlation emerged
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Gender Role Conflict and Preintervention Online
Counseling Attitudes
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. GRC-T 127.89 25.67 —
2. GRC-SPC 52.65 10.84 .82** —
3. GRC-RE 29.20 8.65 .76** .42** —
4. GRC-RABM 25.36 7.99 .78** .51** .56** —
5. GRC-CWF 20.51 6.05 .59** .43** .30** .23** —
6. OCAS(V) 15.64 5.94 .07 −.02 .15* .02 .08 —
7. OCAS(D) 16.51 5.21 .15* .13 .06 .10 .17* −.04 —
Note. N ⳱ 191. GRC-T ⳱ Gender Role Conflict total scale score; GRC-SPC ⳱ Success, Power, and Competition
subscale; GRC-RE ⳱ Restrictive Emotionality subscale; GRC-RABM ⳱ Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men
subscale; GRC-CWF ⳱ Conflict Between Work and Family subscale; OCAS(V) ⳱ Online Counseling Attitudes Scale
(Value of Online Counseling subscale); OCAS(D) ⳱ Online Counseling Attitudes Scale (Discomfort With Online Coun-
seling subscale).
*p < .05. **p < .001.
 196 ROCHLEN, LAND, AND WONG

between Restrictive Emotionality and online counsel-
ing value, indicating more positive perceptions of the
value of online counseling for men with difficulty
with emotional expression. In contrast, online coun-
seling discomfort was positively correlated with the
Conflict Between Work and Family subscale and the
total gender role conflict score.
Classification into restrictive emotionality group.
Participants were categorized as having high or low
levels of restrictive emotionality based on their re-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
equivalent scores on these indices among participants
in the four different conditions.
Primary Data Analyses
Counselor and counseling approach evaluations.
Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations
for posttesting counseling approach evaluation, coun-
selor evaluation, and posttesting online counseling
attitudes by modality, approach, and restrictive

spective scores on the Restrictive Emotionality sub- emotionality.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

scale being above or below the sample median (M ⳱
29.20, SD ⳱ 8.64). Using this criterion, 94 and 97
participants were categorized as belonging to the low
and high restrictive emotionality conditions, respec-
tively. A t test conducted between participants as-
signed to the low versus high restrictive emotionality
levels indicated significant differences in the ex-
pected direction (i.e., high with greater restrictive
emotionality), t(189) ⳱ –19.95, p < .001.
Differences between conditions. To address
whether differences emerged on the demographic
variables (age and ethnicity) and preliminary mea-
sures (attitudes toward online counseling and restric-
tive emotionality) among participants in the four con-
ditions, a MANOVA (for continuous variables) and
chi-square analysis (for categorical variables) were
conducted. The chi-square analysis for ethnicity was
not significant. The overall MANOVA for differ-
ences in age, restrictive emotionality, and attitudes
toward online counseling was significant, F(4, 186)
⳱ 3.27, p < .05. However, at the univariate level, no
significant results emerged, suggesting roughly
To examine the perceptions of the different vi-
gnettes, we conducted a MANOVA with modality
(online vs. face to face), approach (emotion vs. cog-
nition based), and restrictive emotionality (high vs.
low) as the independent variables. Dependent vari-
ables were overall counseling approach evaluation
(using the CAEF) and counselor evaluation (using
the composite index on the CRF–S). Main effects
will be interpreted first, followed by interactions.
Regarding main effects, no significant findings
emerged for counseling approach or restrictive emo-
tionality. This suggests that overall, participants with
high and low levels of restrictive emotionality ex-
pressed roughly equivalent evaluations of the coun-
seling approach and counselor characteristics. Simi-
larly, no differences emerged between participants
assigned to the emotion- versus cognition-focused
therapeutic approaches. A significant interaction
emerged for Modality × Restrictive Emotionality,
F(2, 182) ⳱ 3.41, p < .05. In examining the interac-
tion at the univariate level, a significant effect was
found for counseling approach, F(1, 183) ⳱ 6.65, p

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Postintervention Data by Modality, Restrictive Emotionality, and
Counseling Approach
Face-to-face Online
Low RE High RE Low RE High RE
Emotion Cognitive Emotion Cognitive Emotion Cognitive Emotion Cognitive
(n ⳱ 21) (n ⳱ 23) (n ⳱ 28) (n ⳱ 24) (n ⳱ 30) (n ⳱ 20) (n ⳱ 19) (n ⳱ 26)
Measure M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
CAEF 27.33 (5.69) 30.35 (4.37) 26.04 (7.17) 25.71 (6.99) 25.00 (8.38) 25.75 (6.89) 27.63 (8.53) 27.77 (6.83)
CRF 57.67 (6.58) 57.00 (6.40) 56.02 (7.95) 54.79 (7.48) 56.00 (11.08) 57.20 (6.99) 57.47 (9.73) 55.88 (8.17)
OCAS(V)
Pretest 16.52 (6.07) 16.61 (5.19) 15.21 (5.94) 14.79 (7.00) 14.67 (5.24) 15.00 (5.66) 15.47 (7.18) 17.04 (5.73)
Posttest 17.10 (6.31) 18.85 (5.17) 16.25 (6.40) 15.52 (7.01) 16.50 (6.13) 17.40 (5.19) 18.21 (8.16) 19.12 (5.57)
OCAS(D)
Pretest 15.76 (4.71) 14.35 (4.66) 18.30 (5.93) 17.71 (4.93) 15.08 (4.59) 17.40 (4.69) 16.53 (6.67) 16.96 (4.80)
Posttest 15.24 (4.97) 15.22 (3.97) 18.07 (6.41) 17.38 (5.67) 14.00 (5.38) 16.60 (3.99) 15.53 (6.64) 13.73 (4.54)
Note. Low RE ⳱ low scores on the Restrictive Emotionality subscale; High RE ⳱ high scores on the Restrictive
Emotionality subscale; CAEF ⳱ Counseling Approach Evaluation Form; CRF ⳱ Counselor Rating Form—Short Form;
OCAS(V) ⳱ Online Counseling Attitudes Scale (Value of Online Counseling subscale); OCAS(D) ⳱ Online Counseling
Attitudes Scale (Discomfort With Online Counseling subscale).
 ONLINE VERSUS FACE-TO-FACE COUNSELING
< .01, but not counselor evaluation. Post hoc pairwise
comparisons for counseling approach revealed sig-
nificant differences for participants in the face-to-
face conditions, F(1, 183) ⳱ 4.26, p < .05, but not
the online conditions, F(1, 183) ⳱ 2.52, p < .11.
These results suggest that men with low levels of
restrictive emotionality reported more favorable re-
views of the face-to-face counseling vignettes than
men with high levels of restrictive emotionality.
Posttesting attitudes toward online counseling.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
To examine improvements in online counseling atti-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tudes from participation in the study, we conducted a
repeated measures MANOVA with three between-
groups and one within-groups factors. The between-
groups factors were modality (online vs. face to
face), approach (emotion vs. cognition oriented), and
restrictive emotionality (high vs. low). The within-
group factor, time, was comprised of the pre- and
postadministrations of the Value of Online Counsel-
ing and Discomfort With Online Counseling subs-
cales. No main effects emerged for the between-
groups factors of mode, approach, or restrictive
emotionality. This suggested no overall differences
in the extent of improvement in attitudes based on
assigned condition, approach of the therapist, or level
of restrictive emotionality.
A main effect did emerge for time, F(2, 182) ⳱
19.89, p < .001. At the univariate level, improve-
ments in attitudes were observed via an increase in
online counseling value, F(1, 183) ⳱ 37.76, p < .001,
and a decrease in online counseling discomfort, F(1,
183) ⳱ 5.73, p < .05, across the entire sample. In
addition, a Mode × Time interaction emerged, F(2,
181) ⳱ 3.91, p < .05. Univariate analysis indicated
significant findings for online counseling value, F(1,
183) ⳱ 4.07, p < .05, and discomfort, F(1, 183) ⳱
4.96, p < .05. Post hoc pairwise comparisons sug-
gested that men assigned to review one of the online
counseling conditions reported less discomfort with
online counseling at posttesting than participants in
the face-to-face counseling conditions, F(1, 183) ⳱
3.80, p < .05. Post hoc analyses indicated no signifi-
cant differences between participants assigned to the
online versus face-to-face counseling conditions in
the posttesting perceptions of online counseling
value.
Discussion
The purpose of this project was to evaluate men’s
perceptions of online versus face-to-face counseling
as conducted using an emotion- versus cognition-
based therapeutic approach. Collectively, the results
suggest few differences in perceptions between on-
197
line and face-to-face counseling by the sample of
men in the current study. There was some evidence of
the appeal of online counseling as compared with
face-to-face counseling, particularly for men with
self-described discomfort expressing their emotions.
Reviewed in further detail below, this evidence
emerged from the correlational data, perceptions of
the counseling vignettes, and the improvements in
online counseling attitudes.
A review of the correlations prior to the interven-
tion reveals a mixed relationship between several di-
mensions of gender role conflict and online counsel-
ing attitudes. Men who had higher levels of
restrictive emotionality reported a greater apprecia-
tion for the value of online counseling than men with
lower levels of restrictive emotionality. Importantly,
this relationship stands in contrast to the robust pat-
terns suggesting that men with various dimensions of
gender role conflict, including Restrictive Emotion-
ality, report negative help-seeking attitudes (Blazina
& Watkins, 1996; Good et al., 1989; Good & Wood,
1995; Wisch et al., 1995). Evidence of this relation-
ship does support one commonly cited potential ben-
efit of online counseling, namely its appeal to popu-
lations who are uncomfortable with verbal expression
of feelings (Alleman, 2002; Zack, 2004). However,
some of the correlations between gender role conflict
and online counseling emerged in the opposite direc-
tion, with heightened online counseling stigma re-
ported by men with conflict between work and family
relations and overall gender role conflict (based on
total score). In consideration of the mixed patterns of
responses, more research is needed to clarify what
may be important disparities between expressed
value and discomfort with online counseling by dif-
ferent types of men.
Additional important information regarding men’s
perceptions toward online counseling emerged from
participants’ ratings of the various counseling vi-
gnettes. Overall, the participants’ evaluations were
not significantly different across modality (online vs.
face to face), approach (emotion vs. cognition cen-
tered), or restrictive emotionality (high vs. low lev-
els). These findings parallel recent research demon-
strating similar and positive evaluations of the
process and outcome of online as compared with
face-to-face counseling (Cook & Doyle, 2002; Day &
Schneider, 2002). Contrary to our prediction, there
were no significant differences between the evalua-
tions of the cognition- and the emotion-centered vi-
gnettes, regardless of the level of restrictive emotion-
ality. These findings do not support research that has
suggested the appeal of cognition-focused orienta-
tions for men with traditional gender role orientations
 198 ROCHLEN, LAND, AND WONG
(Hurst, 1997; Wisch et al., 1995). In interpreting this
discrepancy, one possible explanation is that the use
of audio recordings in our study was less effective in
accentuating the differences between the two thera-
peutic approaches (as contrasted with video record-
ings). An alternative interpretation is that men with
differing levels of restrictive emotionality appear to
be equally comfortable with cognition- and emotion-
centered approaches to counseling. This interpreta-
tion is supported by a distinction between the current
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
study and past research designs. In the current study,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
participants directly evaluated the counselor and the
counseling approach used in the vignettes, whereas
past studies utilized help-seeking measures as the de-
pendent variables. Further research is needed to
clarify the types of therapeutic approaches to coun-
seling resistant men might prefer.
Our hypothesis regarding evaluations of online
counseling by men with high levels of restrictive
emotionality received mixed support. We predicted
that men with high levels of restrictive emotionality
would evaluate the online counseling conditions
(both approach and counselor) more favorably than
the face-to-face counseling conditions. Men who had
more discomfort expressing their emotions had less
favorable reviews of the counseling approaches in the
face-to-face conditions than men with less discomfort
expressing their feelings. However, men with high
and low levels of restrictive emotionality had ap-
proximately equal ratings of the counselor approach
in the online conditions. In other words, men with
high as opposed to low levels of restrictive emotion-
ality reported less favorable evaluations of face-to-
face counseling and roughly equal evaluations of on-
line counseling. Considering the call for validation of
a greater range of nonverbal counseling options
(Fischer & Good, 1997; Heesacker & Prichard,
1992), these preliminary findings are encouraging.
In contrast to the above results regarding evalua-
tions of the counseling approaches, there were no
significant findings relevant to counselor evaluations.
One possible explanation for the difference in results
between the assessment of the counseling approach
and that of the counselor is that the participants were
able to draw a distinction between the personal at-
tributes (e.g., level of trustworthiness) of the coun-
selor and the approach to counseling (which focuses
more on his theoretical orientation in counseling).
Hence, some participants might have had positive
impressions of the counselor as a person and yet not
have liked the approach to counseling. This might
account for why the participants with high and low
levels of restrictive emotionality had similar evalua-
tions of the counselor, but men with greater restric-
tive emotionality had poorer evaluations of the coun-
seling approach in the face-to-face condition
compared with men with low levels of restrictive
emotionality.
A promising conclusion from the study was the
generally positive impact of participation in the study
on attitudes toward online counseling. Our data sug-
gest that overall, participation in the project led to
increases in reported levels of value of online coun-
seling and decreases in online counseling discomfort.
These findings are consistent with past studies dem-
onstrating that providing men with informative por-
trayals of psychotherapy can positively influence
their opinions, attitudes, and expectations about vari-
ous help-seeking services (Blazina & Marks, 2001;
Gonzalez et al., 2002; Rochlen et al., 2002).
However, we had expected that participants as-
signed to the online condition would evidence more
substantial improvements in both value and discom-
fort with online counseling. The findings did indicate
that participants in the online counseling conditions
experienced greater decreases in discomfort with on-
line counseling but equivalent levels of improvement
in the perceived value of online counseling than par-
ticipants in the face-to-face counseling conditions.
These results suggest that the primary benefit of our
intervention could have been the exposure of partici-
pants to the process of how an online counseling
session might unfold, thus normalizing the experi-
ence of online counseling for them. This exposure
seemed to have had the effect of decreasing the par-
ticipants’ discomfort with online counseling but not
yielding substantially higher levels of perceived
value. Perhaps more experiential interventions would
yield greater increases in expressed level of value
with the process of online counseling.
Of importance, there are several limitations in this
study that suggest the need for further research. For
one, the participants in this study were exposed to
portrayals of online and face-to-face counseling and
were not involved in the counseling process. Future
research should evaluate whether and how different
populations benefit from actual participation in coun-
seling using varied therapeutic techniques and/or mo-
dalities. Such research may want to include further
evaluation of online counseling as well as a range of
therapeutic interventions and modalities that may be
more appealing and/or effective for counseling resis-
tant men (e.g., coaching, workshops, self-help manu-
als). Second, the current study is limited by its focus
on the general dichotomy between cognition- versus
emotion-centered approaches to counseling. More
commonly practiced in the field are a wide range of
theoretical approaches that can be empirically evalu-
 ONLINE VERSUS FACE-TO-FACE COUNSELING
ated in studies using similar methodologies. Third,
our study did not examine other types of distance
therapy apart from a chat-based approach to online
counseling. Future research should compare and
evaluate varied forms of distance therapy, such as the
use of video conferencing and e-mail. Fourth, it is
possible that a range of other variables not included
in the current study influenced perceptions of online
versus face-to-face counseling. Variables that should
be considered in future research include expectations
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and/or knowledge of online counseling, familiarity
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
with using technology, use of the Internet, and even
typing speed. Finally, the generalizability of our
study is further limited by the homogenous nature of
the sample, consisting of primarily Caucasian, col-
lege-aged men with moderate levels of gender role
conflict and restrictive emotionality. Future research
should study more diverse populations in regard to
age, ethnicity, restrictive emotionality, and online
counseling attitudes.
References
Addis, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2003). Men, masculinity,
and the contexts of help seeking. American Psychologist,
58, 5–14.
Alleman, J. R. (2002). Online counseling: The Internet and
mental health treatment. Psychotherapy, 39, 199–209.
Barak, A., & LaCrosse, M. B. (1977). Comparative percep-
tion of practicum counselor behavior. A process and
methodological investigation. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 16, 202–208.
Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Individuality and
diversity: Theory and research in counseling psychology.
Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 343–381.
Blazina, C., & Marks, L. I. (2001). College men’s affective
reactions to individual therapy, psychoeducational work-
shops, and men’s support group brochures: The influence
of gender-role conflict and power dynamics upon help-
seeking attitudes. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research,
Practice, Training, 38, 297–305.
Blazina, C., & Watkins, C. E. (1996). Masculine gender role
conflict: Effects on college men’s psychological well-
being, chemical study usage, and attitude toward help-
seeking. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 461–465.
Bloom, J. W. (1998). The ethical practice of Web counsel-
ing. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 26,
53–59.
Brooks, G. B., & Gilbert, L. A. (1995). Men in families: Old
constraints, new possibilities. In R. Levant & W. Pollack
(Eds.), The new psychology of men (pp. 252–279). New
York: Basic Books.
Brooks, G. R., & Good, G. E. (Eds.). (2001). The new
handbook of psychotherapy and counseling with men.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cook, J. E., & Doyle, C. (2002). Working alliance in online
199
therapy as compared to face-to-face therapy: Preliminary
results. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 5(2), 95–105.
Corrigan, J. D., & Schmidt, L. D. (1983). Development and
validation of revisions in the Counselor Rating Form.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 64–75.
Cournoyer, R. J. (1994). A developmental study of gender
role conflict in men and its changing relationship to psy-
chological well-being (Doctoral dissertation, Boston Col-
lege, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54,
6476.
Cournoyer, R. J., & Mahalik, J. R. (1995). Cross-sectional
study of gender role conflict examining college-aged and
middle aged men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42,
11–19.
Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and
their influence on men’s well-being. Social Science and
Medicine, 50, 1385–1401.
Day, S. X., & Schneider, P. L. (2002). Psychotherapy using
distance technology: A comparison of face-to-face,
video, and audio treatment. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 49, 499–503.
Fischer, A. R., & Good, G. E. (1997). Men and psycho-
therapy: An investigation of alexithymia, intimacy, and
masculine gender roles. Psychotherapy, 34, 160–170.
Gonzalez, J. M., Tinsley, H. E., & Kreuder, K. R. (2002).
Effects of psychoeducational interventions on opinions of
mental illness, attitudes towards help seeking, and expec-
tations about psychotherapy in college students. Journal
of College Student Development, 43, 51–63.
Good, G. E., Dell, D. M., & Mintz, L. B. (1989). Male role
and gender role conflict: Relations to help seeking in
men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 295–300.
Good, G. E., Gilbert, L. A., & Scher, M. (1990). Gender
aware therapy: A synthesis of feminist therapy and
knowledge about gender. Journal of Counseling and De-
velopment, 68, 376–380.
Good, G. E., & Wood, P. K. (1995). Male gender role
conflict, depression, and help-seeking: Do college men
face double jeopardy? Journal of Counseling and Devel-
opment, 74, 70–75.
Guinee, J. P., Tracey, T. J., & Terence, J. G. (1997). Effects
of religiosity and problem type on counselor. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 76, 65–73.
Heesacker, M., & Prichard, S. (1992). In a different voice,
revisited: Men, women, and emotion. Journal of Mental
Health Counseling, 14, 274–290.
Heinlen, K. T., Welfel, E. R., Richmond, E. N., & Rak, C.
F. (2003). The scope of Web counseling: A survey of
services and compliance with NBCC standards for the
ethical practice of Web counseling. Journal of Counsel-
ing and Development, 81, 61–69.
Heppner, P. P., & Gonzales, D. S. (1987). Men counseling
men. In M. Scher, M. Stevens, G. Good, & G. A. Eichen-
field (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy
with men (pp. 30–38). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hurst, M. A. (1997). The best fit in counseling men: Are
there solutions to treating men as the problem? Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Ball State University, Mun-
cie, IN.
 200 ROCHLEN, LAND, AND WONG
Kraus, R., Zack, J. S., & Stricker, G. (2004). Online coun-
seling: A handbook for mental health professionals. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Levant, R. F. (2001). Desperately seeking language. In G.
R. Brooks & G. E. Good (Eds.), The new handbook of
psychotherapy and counseling with men (pp. 424–443).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lyddon, W. J. (1989). Personal epistemology and prefer-
ence for counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
35, 423–429.
Lyddon, W. J., & Adamson, L. A. (1992). Worldview and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
counseling preference: An analogue study. Journal of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Counseling and Development, 71, 41–47.
O’Neil, J. M. (1981a). Male sex role conflicts, sexism, mas-
culinity: Psychological implications for men, women, and
the counseling psychologist. The Counseling Psycholo-
gist, 9, 61–81.
O’Neil, J. M. (1981b). Patterns of gender role conflict and
strain: Sexism and fear of femininity in men’s lives. Per-
sonnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 203–210.
O’Neil, J. M., Good, G. E., & Holmes, S. (1995). Fifteen
years of theory and research on men’s gender role con-
flict: New paradigms for empirical research. In R. Levant
& W. Pollack (Eds.), The new psychology of men (pp.
164–206). New York: Basic Books.
O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., &
Wrightsman, L. S. (1986). Gender Role Conflict Scale:
College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335–350.
Robertson, J. M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1992). Overcoming
the masculine mystique: Preferences for alternative forms
of assistance among men who avoid counseling. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 39, 240–246.
Rochlen, A. B., Beretvas, S. N., & Zack, J. S. (in press).
Development and validation of the on-line and face-to-
face Counseling Attitude Scales. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development.
Rochlen, A. B., Blazina, C., & Raghunathan, R. (2002).
Gender role conflict, attitudes toward career counseling,
career decision-making, and perceptions of career coun-
seling advertising brochures. Journal of Men and Mas-
culinity, 3, 127–137.
Rochlen, A. B., & O’Brien, K. M. (2002). The relation of
male gender role conflict and attitudes toward career
counseling to interest in and preferences for career coun-
seling styles. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3,
9–21.
Rochlen, A. B., Zack, J. S., & Speyer, C. (2004). Online
therapy: Review of relevant definitions, debates, and cur-
rent empirical support. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
60, 269–283.
Scher, M. (1981). Men in hiding: A challenge for the coun-
selor. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 199–
202.
Sharpe, M. J., & Heppner, P. P. (1991). Gender role, gender
role conflict, and psychological well-being in men. Jour-
nal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 323–330.
Stofle, G. S. (2001). Choosing an online therapist. Harris-
burg, PA: White Hat Communications.
Tracey, T. J., Glidden, C. E., & Kokotovic, A. M. (1988).
Factor structure of the Counselor Rating Form—Short.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 330–335.
Wilcox, D. W., & Forrest, L. (1992). The problems of men
and counseling: Gender bias or gender truth? Journal of
Mental Health Counseling, 14, 291–303.
Wisch, A. F., Mahalik, J. R., Hayes, J. A., & Nutt, E. A.
(1995). The impact of gender role conflict and counseling
technique on psychological help-seeking in men. Sex
Roles, 33, 77–89.
Zack, J. S. (2004). The technology of online counseling. In
R. Kraus, J. Zack, & G. Stricker (Eds.), Online counsel-
ing: A handbook for mental health professionals (pp. 93–
121). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Received November 3, 2003
Revision received January 28, 2004
Accepted February 17, 2004 䡲