A social cognitive - and developmental - model of counselor training. (response to article by Lisa M. Larson and Jeffrey A. Daniels in this issue, pp. 179, 219)

The articles that constitute the major contribution to this issue are significant additions to the growing literature on the application of Bandura's (1982, 1986) social cognitive theory (SCT) to the area of counselor supervision. In the first article, Larson and Daniels (1998 [this issue]) carefully review the existing studies, most of which are primarily focused on the self-efficacy construct of Bandura's theory. They note in this review that the data are somewhat equivocal concerning how well the notion of self-efficacy has translated to counselor training, but are promising in what the theory has to offer our understanding of this process.

Although I was struck by a number of aspects of the review article and what these results may mean, I would like to focus my attention on the presentation of the Social Cognitive Model of Counselor Training (SCMCT) presented in the second article. I think this piece forms the basis for subsequent research activity in this area and, in my opinion, some additional considerations may be in order to help guide this research.

STRENGTHS OF THE SCMCT

Larson (1998 [this issue]) is to be commended for her exhaustive translation of the SCT to counselor training. Of particular importance, I believe, is her attempt to present the entire theory rather than simply focusing on self-efficacy, as have most of the empirical investigations to date. In both articles, it was carefully articulated what we have learned, and what is left to learn, regarding the application of the SCT to this new area. The inadequacies of some of the prior studies, always the case when breaking new ground, were addressed, and directions for future research were presented.

Larson also went beyond the boundaries of the SCT in her SCMCT and incorporated constructs from other theoretical influences including social influence, the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), and other work, specifically addressing issues of counselor supervision. Finally, she states succinct hypotheses coming from the model as a guide for future research on the SCMCT as well as suggestions for supervisors in applying the model to their work with trainees.

Having recently completed an updated book on the Integrated Developmental Model of Supervision (IDM) with colleagues (Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1997), I was intrigued by the similarities in the issues and literatures addressed in Larson's article and our book. A major difference, however, would appear to me to be the perceptual lens through which we view the training and supervision process. Larson notes, "In its simplest form, SCT …