This chapter looks at the impact of the perceived confidence of negative thought patterns, including the frequency and prevalence, in the work of sign language interpreters in postsecondary education with varying lengths of experience. The study uses the lens of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and cognitive distortions to analyze common stressors within the field of interpreting. Bamber (2011) describes occupational stress as stress experienced in the doing of a job. The construct of occupational stress led Karasek (1979) to offer a demand-control schema that clearly identifies potential sources of stress. Dean and Pollard (2001) show that this schema can be readily applied to sign language interpreting. The demands, or sources of potential stress, include environmental, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and linguistic factors. Dean and Pollard cite Heller et al. (1968) and theorize that these demands feed the stress of the interpreter and are exaggerated by the perception of role strain. Dean and Pollard (2001) state that role strain occurs owing to a variety of factors within the working environment such as

unattainably high performance expectations, conflicting views among consumers’ understanding of the interpreter’s role, emotional reactions and duress with no outlet for dealing with them, involvement in private and sensitive situations, limited ability to help consumers other than through the direct translation role, and real or perceived skill inadequacies. (pp. 3–4)

Impact of Stress on Interpreters

The study of temperament and interpreting is a growing field of inquiry. Bontempo et al. (2014) suggest that aptitude is essential in predicting a person’s ability to develop the necessary skills to become an interpreter. They suggest that anxiety may be an important factor in assessing an individual’s aptitude for interpreting, that anxiety impedes language learning (Bontempo et al., 2014; Gardner et al., 1976), and that anxiety impairs the quality of language task performance (Bontempo et al., 2014; Eysenck, 1979; Holroyd & Appel, 1980). In a study of 2,193 responses from interpreters in 38 different countries, Bontempo et al. (2014) explored personality traits of sign language interpreters and the link between conscientiousness and perfectionism. The study also highlighted the potentially debilitating effect of high levels of perfectionism on an individual. They found that high self-esteem is an indicator of competence among sign language interpreters. Further, their research suggests that low self-esteem correlates with stress, depression, and poor psychological well-being and also supports the view that those with low self-esteem are more susceptible to vicarious trauma within the work environment (Bontempo & Malcolm, 2012). An individual’s perception of self-worth can be positively or negatively impacted from performance feedback on a job with a colleague (Thompson, 1994).

Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) general transactional model of stress, which considers variation, suggests that not all people experience stress in the same way. Lazarus and Folkman define stress as a result of a relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding their resources and endangering their well-being. Dean and Pollard’s (2001) demand control schema identifies four categories of demands that an interpreter may face. These categories are linguistic, environmental, interpersonal, and intrapersonal demands. They acknowledge that the interpreting profession is characterized by high demands and low decision latitude and that interpreters are faced with a multitude of demands but lack the authority to make important decisions within the settings in which they are working. This places interpreters at high risk for stress-related illness, injury, and low job satisfaction and, eventually, burnout (Dean & Pollard, 2001).

Cognitive Load Theory and Interpreters

Gile (1995) developed the effort models of interpreting to determine where an interpreter is putting in effort during the task of interpreting. The efforts that Gile offers are listening, short term memory, speech production, and monitoring. Gile’s model draws from cognitive psychology in describing automatic and nonautomatic operations that occur during the interpreting process. Simultaneous interpreting is perceived by interpreters as fundamentally difficult because of the awareness of gaps in their work as well as the desire to be more proficient in the target language (Gile, 1995). Some interpreters remain unsatisfied with their work throughout their career because of their lack of satisfaction with their abilities even when they are interpreting effectively. Emphasizing the high variability of demands that interpreters experience, Gile describes the task of interpreting as “incoming speech segments, processing capacity requirements of individual efforts that can vary rapidly over time, in seconds or fractions of seconds” (pp. 53–54). Professional interpreters use a variety of strategies to negotiate the task of interpreting. Gile recommends that new interpreters set high standards for themselves and their abilities while seeking out opportunities to work with more seasoned interpreters, either as mentors or as colleagues in order to gain feedback about their work and ability to monitor the cognitive load they are experiencing.

Cognitive load theory is defined as the difference between task demands and the ability of people to master them (Plass et al., 2010). Johnson (2016) cites Moreno and Park (2010) and offers an application for the concept of cognitive load and its impact on interpreters by dividing “load” into three distinct categories: extraneous load, intrinsic load, and germane load. Extraneous load is defined as processing and/or the way information is being presented (Johnson, 2016; Moreno & Park, 2010). Intrinsic load is the inherent complexity of the information being learned and the number of elements that must be simultaneously processed in the individual’s working memory (Johnson, 2016; Moreno & Park, 2010). Germane load is the mental effort that is required given the individual’s prior experience and their ability to form a schema and for any given interpreting scenario that leads to automation while interpreting (Johnson, 2016; Moreno & Park, 2010). According to Johnson (2016), there is a discrepancy between veteran and novice interpreter’s cognitive load. When an interpreter feels unable to adequately cope with the cognitive load, they experience psychological stress (Johnson, 2016; Lazarus, 1966), examples of which include self-judgment and a fear of failure (Johnson, 2016). Psychological stressors have the potential to lead the interpreter to a point of cognitive overload, thus decreasing their level of performance (Johnson, 2016).

Overview of Cognitive Behavior Therapy

Aaron Beck coined the term cognitive therapy in the early 1960s, and in the mid-1970s the term “cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)” emerged from Beck’s work with other cognitively oriented behavior therapists (see Rosner’s discussion of these works [2014]). The assumption underlying CBT is that dysfunctional thinking can lead to those thoughts becoming automatic and thus impact mood and actions. When people experience automatic thoughts, a response is elicited in the form of a feeling or a reaction. By reflecting on these automatic thoughts, an individual can learn to reframe their thinking to produce a more positive outcome in the future. These internal thoughts are also referred to as self-talk, which is used to interpret one’s feelings and perceptions (Hackfort & Schwenkmezger, 1993; Maddux & Nicodemus, 2016)

Maddux and Nicodemus (2016), in a study of 471 sign language interpreters, found that 65% of them reported that their self-talk was demotivational and that 14% stated their self-talk was always negative. This negative self-talk was experienced unconsciously or as a mix of conscious and unconscious, was pervasive, and was reported as having facilitative as well as debilitating effects on the interpreter’s work. They recognized that many interpreters leave the profession because of its stressful nature (Maddux & Nicodemus, 2016; Schwenke 2012; Schwenke et al., 2014). However, they suggest that interpreters may positively benefit from self-talk that is motivating and that they would need to acquire motivational strategies for application to their work.

Thus, if it is possible to identify forms of demotivational or negative self-talk that interpreters are experiencing pre-, during, and post interpreting assignment, we can begin to develop strategies to reduce the frequency at which they experience them. The information about commonly experienced forms of demotivational or negative self-talk could also be used to support students throughout their interpreter education programs (IEP) as well as increase the retention rate of current working interpreters.

Methodology

This study investigated the frequency and prevalence of negative thought patterns in the work of sign language interpreters to see (1) whether negative thought patterns change/decrease with more years of experience and (2) whether negative thought patterns impact the interpreters’ perceived confidence in their work. This study drew from an existing list of 10 common cognitive distortions or negative thought patterns from Riggenbach (2013), which were incorporated in the pre- and postquestionnaires that the participants were asked to fill out and were used by the participants when sharing their experiences during the interview portion of the focus group.

•Rationalization—Creating excuses for life events that don’t go well or for poor choices made in an attempt to protect oneself.

•Overgeneralization—Perceiving a global pattern of negatives on the basis of a single incident.

•All-or-Nothing Thinking—Also known as dichotomous thinking. Uses absolute terms and does not allow for consideration of alternatives.

•Discounting the Positives—Claiming that the accomplishments attained are trivial.

•Fortune-Telling—Predicting that things will go wrong or get worse.

•Mind Reading—Assuming what people think without having sufficient evidence of their thoughts.

•Should Statements—Interpreting events in terms of how things should be rather than simply focusing on what is.

•Emotional Reasoning—Letting feelings guide perceptions of reality.

•Magnification—Exaggeration of the importance of things, blowing them out of proportion.

•Personalization—Attributing a disproportionate amount of blame for negative events to oneself and failing to see that certain events are caused by others.

All of the participants in this study interpreted in a postsecondary education setting. Interpreters were recruited through electronic mail at the private university in northeastern United States where the research was conducted. There was an initial email with a description of the research study and questionnaire regarding interpreter availability to participate in a focus group. The researcher provided several dates and times, and interpreters responded accordingly. Fifty-six interpreters expressed interest in participating in a focus group. In total, 37 individuals participated in the focus groups. The demographics of the participants can be seen in Table 1. The table includes years of experience of the interpreters, total number of interpreters within each range of years of experience, and the percentage of the total number of interpreters fit into each range of years of experience.

Data Collection

Four focus groups were established for participants to discuss their interpreting experiences, specifically those that were impacted by negative thought patterns. The number of participants per focus group is given in Table 2.

Focus groups were scheduled on the basis of availability, and all of them were conducted in spoken English and voice recorded for future analysis. Participants were asked to identify themselves with a self-determined false name that was recorded and used for coding and analysis purposes. All the participants were exposed to the concept of cognitive behavior therapy and the ten common negative thought patterns or automatic thoughts identified by Riggenbach (2013) in a presentation at the start of the focus group and given examples of how they may relate to their interpreting work (Appendix A). The participants were asked to reflect and identify which negative or automatic thoughts were experienced most frequently. For this part of the focus group, participants split into groups of three to four interpreters per group. They were given half an hour to discuss the questions regarding the frequency at which they perceive that they experience negative thought patterns and record their answers. The group came together later to share those patterns that were most common for those in the group, and participants shared examples of their personal experiences as they related to the negative thought patterns. After coming together to discuss what they had written as a group, the participants were asked to fill out an 18-item questionnaire (Appendix B). One week after the focus group, participants were asked to fill out the same questionnaire again to see whether they noted an increase or a decrease in the frequency of their negative or automatic thoughts. Participants were asked to fill out the questionnaire a second time a week after the focus group in the interest of time and to see whether the information regarding the negative thought patterns increased their awareness of them directly after participating in the focus group. The second set of questionnaires were sent and filled out electronically by the participants.

Table 1. Years of Experience Distribution of Participants

Table 2. Focus Group Distribution of Participants

Data Analysis

Analysis of the qualitative data, collected from focus groups discussions, helped to identify trends in the findings. Transcripts were prepared from the voice recordings of the focus groups. These transcripts were then reviewed and used to identify common themes regarding negative thought patterns and their effect on the interpreter. Analysis of the quantitative data, collected through pre- and postquestionnaire responses, was used to identify whether a correlation exists between years of experience and sense of confidence in one’s work (determined by frequency of negative or automatic thoughts). A variance analysis (ANOVA) test was applied to the answers of each question that participants provided through the post focus group and follow-up questionnaire. This was aimed at testing whether there was a significant difference in the years of experience that an interpreter had in the field and the frequency with which they experienced negative thoughts. The questionnaire answers were in the form of a Likert scale of one to five, one being the most frequently experienced negative thoughts and five being infrequently experienced negative thoughts. The data was recoded to group an answer of one or two together, leaving three on its own, and grouping answers of four or five together. A chi-square test was then completed to determine whether there was a significant difference between the expected and observed frequencies for each group of years of experience.

Results

Quantitative Data

A total of 37 participants answered questions one through 18 (Appendix B). The demographics of the participants are presented in Table 1. The table displays years of experience of the interpreters, total number of interpreters within each range of years of experience, and the percentage of the total number of interpreters fit into each range of years of experience. The analysis of the variance test found that the mean answers for each grouping (0–2 years, 3–5 years, 6–10 years, and 11+) of years of experience were overall not statistically significant except questions four and 12. Question four: “How confident are you when working with a colleague you’ve never worked with before?” As shown in Figure 1, the mean answers for the four different levels of experience depict what was hypothesized, namely, that an interpreter will become more confident with more years of experience. During the interview portion of the focus groups, interpreters with 0–2 years of experience commented on feeling they had to prove themselves all over again with every new colleague. They worries were related to being judged, receiving unsolicited and negative feedback, and having to focus on what their colleague was doing instead of the message at hand. Conversely, veteran interpreters with 11+ years of experience felt more comfortable in their skills and that they had a good toolbox to face any new challenges. They would see new colleagues either as people they could coach or as their peers that they didn’t need to worry about.

Figure 1. Graph showing the chi-square analysis results and the mean values of participants’ answers grouped by level of experience.

Question 12, “In the past 30 days, how often have you found yourself ‘discounting the positives’?”, is one of the ten common negative or automatic thoughts identified by Riggenbach (2013). As Figure 1 shows, interpreters with 0–2 years of experience discounted the positives and claimed their accomplishments were trivial, far more often than any other grouping of years of experience. During the interview portion of the focus groups, interpreters commented on feeling anxious and apprehensive about new assignments. When starting out, every interpreting assignment felt new to them. They were quickly realizing the differences between learning and actually practicing interpreting. They reported they felt they couldn’t admit they had done anything well or right, because in school, it was always based on the mindset of “I could have done this differently/better.” As for those in groups with more experience, those interpreters commented on becoming comfortable with interpreting content that they might have already interpreted. They reported that they had also developed a better understanding of what it is to actually interpret, not just simulate situations in a classroom. They had started to develop their own perspective on success and gave up on being perfect. As mentioned by a more experienced interpreter, they had also started to mentor and quickly realized that if they did not feel the need to comment on something their mentee did, they could not look down on themselves for doing the same thing. Therefore, they felt more comfortable taking compliments and admitting to success.

Figure 1 displays the mean levels for the four groupings of level of experience (0–2 years, 3–5 years, 6–10 years, and 11+ years). As stated previously, when coding the data that was collected from the questionnaire in the form of a Likert scale, answers of one and two were grouped together, three remained on its own, and answers of either four or five were grouped together and graphed to show the average responses for each group. Mean level 1 represents the average response of interpreters with 0–2 years of experience. Mean level 2 represents the average response of interpreters with 3–5 years of experience. Mean level 3 represents the average response of interpreters with 6–10 years of experience. Finally, mean level 4 represents the average response of interpreters with 11+ years of experience. The overall results of this study reveal a general trend. Generally, participants in level 4 with 11+ years of experience are the most confident in their work and experience less frequent negative self-talk as compared with levels 1–3 with 0–2 years of experience, 3–5 years of experience, and 6–10 years of experience. Participants in level 1 with 0–2 years of experience identified themselves as being the least confident in their work and having more frequent negative thought patterns. For questions 1–7 participants were asked about their level of confidence in their work, a higher number representing feeling more confident in one’s work. Conversely, questions 8–18 asked about the frequency of negative thought patterns one experiences, a lower number representing a lower frequency in negative thought patterns. The same questionnaires were distributed to the participants to determine whether or not there was any significant difference in their self-reporting of perceived level of confidence or frequency of specific negative thought patterns postfocus group as compared with one-week postfocus group.

Themes

The transcripts were analyzed and used to identify common themes. The analysis revealed five main themes: (1) physiological response, (2) negative thoughts and loss of control, (3) resistance to being assigned to various interpreting assignments, (4) unwillingness to accept feedback, and (5) feeling negatively toward their work while in their IEP. Each of these themes was present across all levels of experience.

1. Physiological Responses to Negative Thoughts

Negative physiological response was the most common theme that participants reported experiencing when dealing with negative thought patterns while interpreting. This was determined from the information that was gathered from the interview portion of the focus groups. It manifested in the forms of sweating, face reddening, tension, soreness, and shaking. Participants experienced physical manifestations of the internal negativity, such as their hands not working how they wanted them to, because the brain is distracted with negative thoughts. Participants also noted repercussions such as injury caused by working in an unsafe manner.

Another way negative thought patterns influence my work is in my biomechanics. I am a shoulders up person. So, the more I feel like I’m not getting the message clearly, then the more I try to repair. So, my hands are in the air more, and also my anxiety’s increasing, which makes my shoulders increase or go up, and I walk away feeling sore.

Some physical or physiological effect … sometimes I’ll notice I hold my breath, we get tense, maybe shake a little bit, turn red, sweat, and all of those things, biomechanics problems start to happen, which can affect confidence. If you start sweating or turning red, then you’re embarrassed “cause people notice and everyone is looking at you and then you go back to blocking processing.”

Especially in a new assignment, my heart starts going, I start breathing fast, and my signs—I feel like my hands are disembodied. I feel like they’re somebody else’s hands, like I can’t control them. Sign production seems off. When I videotape myself, it doesn’t look as great as I think it [did in the moment].

2. Negative Thoughts and Loss of Control

The second most common experience reported by the participants was a spiraling of negativity and losing control of the interpretation. Once participants started to think more negatively of their work, it was harder to ignore the thoughts and focus on the message to be interpreted. Experiences such as this led to dwelling on negative thoughts that would last well into the next interpreting assignment, causing the interpreter/participant’s work to continue to be negatively impacted. While continuing to engage in negative thoughts and negative thought patterns, one can become distracted and distant. This experience of negative thought patterns led to distrust with consumers, emotional and mental exhaustion, participants feeling unqualified, and holding back in terms of allowing themselves to succeed or improve. This is because while engaging in negative thoughts and patterns, one can become distracted, distant, and less inclined to interact with consumers.

So, I was saying that, you know, if you got negative stuff going on in your head before you get [to the assignment], and then you get there, sometimes that will hurt your work because you already set yourself up in a bad light.

I can say that there’ve been different points where I experience quite a bit of burnout. And prior to a move that has given me a different role in the work over all that we do here, I was at a point where it was “I have to leave the field.” And there was no escape from the negative.

3. Resistance to New Interpreting Experiences

Resistance to expanding horizons and trying different types of assignments was the third most common theme reported by participants. Many experienced being too scared to branch out of their comfort zone, which caused them to become stagnant and their skills to plateau. They experienced a halt in their own professional growth because they stopped challenging themselves to be better. These issues stemmed from participants recognizing they had negative thoughts, but never addressing them for want of the necessary tools to change or reduce their negative or automatic thoughts.

I can look back on assignments that went really poorly and there’s a fear that still lives, because the longer you’re around the [department as staff], the more you can go “Well I don’t have to do that anymore, because there’s a million and two other people around here who want to do that thing. Let them go do it and I’m gonna go retreat to the things I’m best at.”

Well, like, implications of all this [negative self-talk] … is you can’t grow. [Thinking negatively and not feeling confident about your work] means that you’re going to stagnate. You know? You’re only going to be working with the same people who know you, and you’re not going to take challenging assignments that make you grow.

4. Unwillingness to Accept Feedback

Along the same lines of resistance, the fourth common theme reported by participants was an unwillingness to accept feedback. The participants that discussed this theme reported their own resistance to feedback from any other interpreter (newer or more experienced), which led to other interpreters not wanting to work with them. They reported an uneasiness with the way that interpreters criticize each other’s work, which did not help with confidence in their skills or allow people to feel safe enough to branch out and try something new.

I think another [issue] is not being able to accept compliments and to discount the positives. If you get caught up in discounting the positives, you don’t allow yourself the base of success upon which to grow.

And when I get feedback, it doesn’t fully sink in because I’m always with the perception of what I do isn’t any more special than what everyone else in this room could do.

I mean, interpreters are the hardest on each other.

5. Negative Thoughts and Interpreter Education Programs

Finally, as mentioned previously, the participants reported having dealt with negative thoughts regarding their interpreting work from the time they began their IEP. This theme reveals negative thought patterns around IEPs and/or students enrolled in those programs. Both novices and experienced interpreters reported these experiences. The participants noted that during their time in training programs¹ they were taught to look for areas of improvement in order to give feedback to other interpreting students. Although they were taught to look for positives in someone else’s work, it was emphasized that they should still give feedback about how to improve the interpretation.

Interpreting students can be really hard on working interpreters.

I would go to events where working interpreters were being ripped apart in the audience, and that was so disheartening and the culture in my [interpreter training program] was generally very cold and critical.

I am wondering if the experience most of us got going through an [interpreter training program] creates these “should” thoughts and also discounts the positives. I was doing that just last year and part of the program is to watch your video and ask “What should you have done?” In my program, there was also a lot of watching your partner and giving feedback. A lot of that is “here are some good things but also, here are a lot of negative things I saw.” So it’s like a visual representation of “Great, I have two positives and all of the negatives.” The positives don’t matter because of all the negatives. We are trained to do that … I will never see what I am doing well because I’m only focusing on the negatives and not the positives.

These findings suggest that years of experience in the field of interpreting do not always decrease the frequency with which an interpreter experiences negative thoughts about their work or their confidence.

Discussion

This study explored American Sign Language (ASL)–English interpreters’ experiences of negative thought patterns, and their impact on their confidence as interpreters, through the lens of the ten common negative or automatic thoughts as identified by Riggenbach (2013). As anticipated, data collected from the questionnaires found that the interpreters with 0–2 years of experience reported the highest frequency of negative or automatic thoughts, whereas those with 3–5 years, 6–10 years, and 11+years of experience reported a lower frequency of negative or automatic thoughts. However, it is important to note that according to the results of the chi-square test, the mean answers for all of the groups of level of experience showed no notable difference. The lack of noticeable difference suggests that interpreters with more years of experience do not always experience a decrease in frequency of negative or automatic thoughts about their work. This study was able to identify general themes of negative thought patterns and the responses that interpreters experience, all of which could benefit from more in-depth study with a larger sample size consisting of interpreters that work in a variety of interpreting settings. Themes that arose from the focus group analysis encompass adverse physiological responses, dwelling on negativity, losing control of the interpreting process, resisting to trying new types of assignments, an unwillingness to accept feedback, and IEPs.

For the interpreting field, the ability to discuss the work with a shared vocabulary and from a shared understanding of the framework is crucial. In order to improve one’s perspective of the work and one’s career, it is important that all generations of interpreters contribute their experiences to the discussion. Maddux and Nicodemus (2016) suggested that self-talk is at times motivating and can be an asset to the interpreter. It is when they are unable to create reasonable goals for themselves that their self-talk may become demotivating and impact negatively on their work (Maddux & Nicodemus, 2016). A future study could attempt to identify how both negative and positive thought patterns impact the work, which interpreters are impacted the most, which programs are these individuals graduates from, and have they personally developed more or less positive/negative balance. Bontempo et al.’s (2014) study indicated that the interpreter’s feeling of self-worth has an impact on perceived interpreter competence, which is correlated with the level of interpreter accreditation.

On the basis of data gathered from participant questionnaire responses and the interview portion of the focus groups, the following recommendations may be noted:

1.Review the curriculum of interpreter education programs to ensure courses are in place to educate interpreters on how to positively assess themselves, their peers, and future colleagues.

2.Ensure the availability of resources for best practices in self-care.

3.Review the frequency and availability of continued mentoring and supervision opportunities for interpreters after their graduation from an interpreter education program.

Limitations of the Study

It is important to recognize the inherent limitations that may have impacted the findings. The sample size of the study was limited to only 37 educational interpreters working in a postsecondary setting, implying a sample bias. In addition, this study chose to use Riggenbach’s (2013) 10 common negative thought patterns. Participants’ responses and comments were shaped by the briefing given by the researcher on the ten common thought patterns that they were introduced to at the beginning of the focus group and may have limited alternative ideas regarding the topic. Furthermore, there was inherent weakness in the approach that we chose for the questionnaire studies. Participants were asked to fill out the questionnaire once after participating in the focus group and once again a week later. Respondents were completing these when the topic was in the forefront of their minds and when they had been exposed to the memories and experiences of others. They were then asked to complete the questionnaire a second time a week after their participation in the focus group, possibly leading to deficiencies in the information that was reported. The researcher further notes that the themes that arose, namely, adverse physiological responses, dwelling on negativity, and losing control of the interpreting process, resistance to trying new types of assignments, and an unwillingness to accept feedback, may also have been influenced by the filter of the focus group discussions. Another limitation to the study is that the data analysis did not consider variables such as age, gender, and work environment. It would be interesting to examine these variables in future studies.

Conclusion

It was hypothesized that the frequency and prevalence of negative thought patterns in the work of sign language interpreters and their perceived confidence would increase with more years of experience in the field. The results indicate that both novice and experienced interpreters appeared to experience just as many negative thoughts and just as little growth in confidence. In the past, interpreters have felt they could not talk about what they were experiencing, such as feeling isolated and incompetent. By bringing to light the similarities in frequency of negative and automatic thoughts in novice interpreters and experienced interpreters, we can begin reshaping the discussion surrounding the work. This level of transparency among practitioners in the interpreting community can help it to grow, improve, and retain those that enter the field.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to all the participants for their contributions of experience and knowledge; we appreciate your insight on the topic and your passion for the field. Sincere thanks to Dr. Robyn Dean for her guidance and support in the early stages of this project and Dr. Carol Marchetti for her expert knowledge with the statistical analysis of our quantitative data. Thank you to Emilee Linahon for her contributions to the research process. Thank you to Dr. Betsy Winston for all of her support and guidance throughout the writing process. Lastly, I also thank Dr. Rico Peterson for his encouragement, support, and enthusiasm throughout this entire process.

Note

1.Interpreters in this study represent five interpreter education and interpreter training programs in the United States.

References

Bamber, M. R. (2011). Overcoming your workplace stress: A CBT-based self-help guide. Routledge.

Bontempo, K., & Malcolm, K. (2012). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Educating interpreters about the risk of vicarious trauma in healthcare settings. In K. Malcolm & L. Swabey (Eds.), In our hands: Educating healthcare interpreters (pp. 105–130). Gallaudet University Press.

Bontempo, K., Napier, J., Hayes, L., & Brashear, V. (2014). Does personality matter? An international study of sign language interpreter disposition. Translation & Interpreting, 6(1), 23–46. https://doi.org/ti.106201.2014.a02

Dean, R. K., & Pollard, R. Q. (2001). Application of demand-control theory to sign language interpreting: Implications for stress and interpreter training. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/6.1.1

Eysenck, M. W. (1979). Anxiety, learning and memory: A reconceptualization. Journal of Research in Personality, 13(4), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(79)90001-1

Gardner, R. C., Smythe, P. C., Clement, R., & Gliksman, L. (1976). Second language acquisition: A social psychological perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 32(3), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.32.3.198

Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8

Hackfort, D., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1993). Anxiety. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 328–364). Macmillan.

Heller, B., Stansfield, M., Stark, G., & Langholtz, D. (1986). Sign language interpreter stress: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 1985 Convention of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association (pp. 432–455). ADARA.

Holroyd, K. A., & Appel, M. A. (1980). Test anxiety and physiological responding. In I. G Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research and applications (pp. 129–151). Erlbaum.

Johnson, J. E. (2016). Effect of mindfulness training on interpretation exam performance in graduate students in interpreting (Order no. 10147173) [Doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–307. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. McGraw-Hill.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.

Maddux, L., & Nicodemus, B. (2016). The committee in my head. Translation & Interpreting Studies, 11(2), 177–201. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.11.2.03mad

Moreno, R., & Park, B. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Historical development and relation to other theories. In J. Plass, R. Moreno, & P. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 9–28). Cambridge University Press.

Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brüncken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press.

Riggenbach, J. (2013). The CBT toolbox: A workbook for clients and clinicians. Premier.

Rosner, R. (2014). The “splendid isolation” of Aaron T. Beck. Isis, 105(4), 734–758. https://doi.org/10.1086/679421

Schwenke, T. (2012). Sign language interpreters and burnout. Journal of Interpretation, 20(1), 31–54. http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol20/iss1/7

Schwenke, T., Ashby, J., & Gnilka, P. (2014). Sign language interpreters and burnout: The effects of perfectionism, perceived stress, and coping resources. Interpreting, 16(2), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.2.04sch

Thompson, T. (1994). Self-worth protection: Review and implications for the classroom. Educational Review, 46(3), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191940460304

Appendix A

Negative Thought Patterns

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)

•An assumption that a thought affects your feelings and in turn will affect your behavior

•Negative, dysfunctional thinking affects a person’s mood, sense of self, behavior, and even physical state

•The goal is to help a person recognize negative thought patterns, evaluate their validity, and replace them with healthier ways of thinking

Dr. Aaron T. Beck

•Graduated from Brown University in 1942

•Worked as a psychiatrist at the University of Pennsylvania

•Developed CT/CBT in the 1960s

•Founder of the Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy Research

Personal Schema

•Core beliefs

•Automatic thoughts

Examples of Core Beliefs

•Failure

•Approval-seeking/unlovable or unlikeable

•Helplessness

•Worthlessness/defectiveness

•Abandonment

•Punishment

•Insufficient self-control

•Emotional deprivation

•Emotional inhibition

•Vulnerability

•Mistrust

•Subjugation

•Entitlement

Fortune-Telling

•Predicting that things will go wrong or get worse

•For example, “I won’t understand the Deaf student”

Mind Reading

•Assuming you know what people think without having sufficient evidence of their thoughts

•For example, “The student thinks I’m a terrible interpreter”

Magnification

•You exaggerate the importance of things, blowing them way out of proportion

•For example, “It will be terrible if I have to voice this presentation”

Dichotomous Thinking

•Viewing events or people in all-or-nothing terms

•For example, “Prepping was a waste of time”

Discounting the Positives

•You claim that the accomplishments you or others attain are trivial

•For example, “That class was easy, so just because I did well doesn’t mean I’m a good interpreter”

Overgeneralizing

•You perceive a global pattern of negatives on the basis of a single incident

•For example, “This usually happens to me. I seem to fail at interpreting often”

Shoulds

•You interpret events in terms of how things should be rather than simply focusing on what is

•For example, “I should have known the sign for that”

Rationalization

•In an attempt to protect yourself, you create excuses for events in life that don’t go your way or for poor choices you make

•For example, “My colleague is to blame for the way I feel right now”

Emotional Reasoning

•You let your feelings guide how you perceive reality

•For example, “I feel anxious; therefore, my interpretation won’t be successful”

Personalizing

•You attribute a disproportionate amount of blame for negative events to yourself and fail to see that certain events are caused by others

•For example, “That class with four different students went poorly because I failed to match their language preferences”

Appendix B

A.How many years of experience do you have in the interpreting field?

0–2 years

3–5 years

6–10 years

11+years

B.How confident are you in an on-call that requires primarily voicing for a student presentation?

1.How confident are you when voicing for a student’s presentation in your ongoing assignment?

2.How confident are you in an on-call that requires voicing for a professor using ASL?

3.In general, how confident are you in an on-call situation where the topic is unfamiliar?

4.How confident are you when working with a colleague you’ve never worked with before?

5.How confident are you when working with a Deaf student you’ve never worked with before?

6.How confident are you when asked to talk with your manager about your strengths related to interpreting?

7.How confident are you when asked to talk with your colleagues about your strengths related to interpreting?

8.In the past 30 days, how often have you noticed yourself “fortune telling”?

9.In the past 30 days, how often have you noticed yourself “mind reading”?

10.In the past 30 days, how often have you experienced “magnification”?

11.In the past 30 days, how often have you experienced “dichotomous thinking”?

12.In the past 30 days, how often have you found yourself “discounting the positives”?

13.In the past 30 days, how often have you found yourself “overgeneralizing”?

14.In the past 30 days, how often have you found yourself “discounting the positives”?

15.In the past 30 days, how often have you experienced “should statements”?

16.In the past 30 days, how often have you experienced “rationalization”?

17.In the past 30 days, how often have you experienced “emotional reasoning”?

18.In the past 30 days, how often have you experienced “personalization”?