TPC Journal-Vol 9- Issue 4-FULL ISSUE

408 The Professional Counselor | Volume 9, Issue 4 PSND. An independent samples t- test was conducted between groups to examine if a significant difference existed on the PSND subscale. The mean scores between APPS ( M = 2.95, SD = .410) and ATTS groups ( M = 2.79, SD = .276), t (394) = 4.50 p < .01, were significantly different. Based on these results, participants who received the survey with “trafficking” labels indicated significantly stronger beliefs that trafficked women who engaged in sex acts were engaging in deviant rather than normative acts. Research Question 2 A regression analysis for the APPS and ATTS was conducted to examine whether the linear combination of APPS or ATTS scores and counselor age, race/ethnicity, gender, work experience, and education significantly predicted participants’ overall scores of empathy on the EAI. Table A1 (see Appendix) outlines the regression analyses for the EAI overall and for each of the five subscales. The results of the regression overall indicated that race was a significant predictor of empathy ( R 2 = .07, F (6,186) = 2.357, p < .01) and explained 7% of the variance for empathy within the APPS group. The results of the regression were not significant ( R 2 = .05, F (6,194) = 1.829, p > .05) for the ATTS group. APPS scores and counselor demographics did not predict scores of Affective Mentalizing on the EAI ( R 2 = .05, F (6,186)=1.952, p > .05). Within the ATTS group, age and attitude were significant predictors of Affective Mentalizing ( R 2 = .071) and explained 7% of the variance. APPS scores and counselor demographics did not predict scores of Affective Response on the EAI ( R 2 = .05, F (6,186) = 1.802, p > .05). Within the ATTS group, gender and attitude were significant predictors of Affective Response ( R 2 = .089) and explained 9% of the variance. When examining the linear combination of APPS scores and counselor demographics, the results of the regression were significant ( R 2 = .086) although there were no individually significant predictors for Emotion Regulation on the EAI. ATTS scores and counselor demographics did not predict scores on the Emotion Regulation subscale of the EAI ( R 2 = .089, F (6,194) = 3.14, p > .05). Within the APPS group, race and gender significantly predicted the empathy construct of Perspective Taking ( R 2 = .105) and explained 10% of the variance. ATTS scores and counselor demographics did not predict scores on the Perspective Taking subscale of empathy ( R 2 = .044, F (6,195) = 1.494, p > .05). Neither linear combinations of APPS scores and counselor demographics ( R 2 = .043, F (6,186)=1.401, p > .05) nor ATTS scores and counselor demographics ( R 2 = .045, F (6,194) = 1.532, p > .05) predicted scores of Self–Other Awareness on the EAI. Research Question 3 Two hierarchical regressions were conducted to test whether the linear combination of APPS or ATTS scores and counselor age, race/ethnicity, gender, work experience, and education significantly predicted participants’ overall scores of rape myth acceptance on the IRMA-SF. Table 4 outlines the regression analyses for the IRMA-SF. The results of the regression were significant within the APPS group ( R 2 = 156, F (6,186) = 5.717, p < .05). Gender significantly predicted rape myth acceptance ( β = .272, p < .05), as did age ( β = .236, p < .05) and attitude ( β = -.175, p < .05). Based on these results, male counselors and participants exposed to prostitute labels were more likely to accept rape myths. The results also indicated that the older counselors were, the more likely they were to accept rape myths. Gender, age, and SDD attitudes explained 16% of the variance within the APPS group. The results of the regression were significant within the ATTS group ( R 2 = .065, F (6,194) = 2.231, p < .05). Gender significantly predicted rape myth acceptance ( β = .178, p < .05) and explained 7% of the variance within the ATTS group. Within both groups, male counselors were more likely to accept rape myths compared to female counselors.