How nice is good for patients and for therapy outcome? The role of confrontation in the process of psychotherapy

It is well established that the therapeutic relationship contributes about as much to therapy outcome as 'technical' intervention. Furthermore, it follows clear prescriptive concepts in the same manner as technical interventions do. 'Motive Oriented Therapeutic Relationship' is such a concept for establishing a solid basis for whatever therapeutic work the patients' problems require (Grawe, 1980, 1992; Caspar, 1996). Yet, the therapeutic relationship doesn't explain everything because other factors play a significant role too. Previous studies showed that outcome is clearly better when therapists achieved a generally high quality of a therapeutic relationship when they did not shy away from possibly threatening interventions such as confrontations. This ratio of a fruitful alliance and marginally present confrontations in the same session also showed significant correlations with patient's assessment of alliance and progress in therapy (Figlioli et al., 2009).Aim: The current state of research in the field does not give any answers to questions like how good and bad confrontations can be characterized or what role does the intensity, respectively frequency of confrontations play in the process of psychotherapy. Methods: A sample of 80 therapies of 3 sessions each representing either good or bad outcome was judged moment by moment by independent raters if and how therapists used confrontative interventions. Results: Preliminary analyses show that successful confrontations are explicitly uttered, short but intense, related to important patients goals in therapy and embedded in prior complementarity. Discussion: The results will be discussed in terms of their implications for the clinical daily work.

How nice is good for patients and for therapy outcome? The role of confrontation in the process of psychotherapy

It is well established that the therapeutic relationship contributes about as much to therapy outcome as ‘technical’ intervention. Furthermore, it follows clear prescriptive concepts in the same manner as technical interventions do. ‘Motive Oriented Therapeutic Relationship’ is such a concept for establishing a solid basis for whatever therapeutic work the patients’ problems require (Grawe, 1980, 1992; Caspar, 1996). Yet, the therapeutic relationship doesn’t explain everything because other factors play a significant role too. Previous studies showed that outcome is clearly better when therapists achieved a generally high quality of a therapeutic relationship when they did not shy away from possibly threatening interventions such as confrontations. This ratio of a fruitful alliance and marginally present confrontations in the same session also showed significant correlations with patient’s assessment of alliance and progress in therapy (Figlioli et al., 2009). These findings are also very much in line with Sachse’s metaphor of accumulating, but then also using ‘relationship credits’ and Farrelly’s ‘Provocative Therapy’ (1986), as well as the ‘Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy’ by Davanloo (1980).Aim: The current state of research in the field does not give any answers to questions like how good and bad confrontations can be characterized or what role does the intensity, respectively frequency of confrontations play in the process of psychotherapy.Methods: A sample of 80 therapies of 3 sessions each representing either good or bad outcome was judged moment by moment by independent raters if and how therapists used confrontative interventions. Results / Discussion: The results will be discussed in terms of their implications for the clinical daily work. Preliminary analyses show that successful confrontations are explicitly uttered, short but intense, related to important patients goals in therapy and embedded in prior complementarity.

Moments of tension and strain in psychotherapy and how they promote a good alliance and outcome

It is well established that the therapeutic relationship contributes about as much to therapy outcome as ‘technical’ intervention. Furthermore, it follows clear prescriptive concepts in the same manner as technical interventions do. ‘Motive Oriented Therapeutic Relationship’ is such a concept for establishing a solid basis for whatever therapeutic work the patients’ problems require (Grawe, 1980, 1992; Caspar, 1996). Yet, the therapeutic relationship doesn’t explain everything because other factors play a significant role too. Previous studies showed that outcome is clearly better when therapists achieved a generally high quality of a therapeutic relationship when they did not shy away from possibly threatening interventions such as confrontations. This ratio of a fruitful alliance and marginally present confrontations in the same session also showed significant correlations with patient’s assessment of alliance and progress in therapy (Figlioli et al., 2009). The current state of research in the field, however, does not give any answers to questions like how good and bad confrontations can be characterized or what role does the intensity, respectively frequency of confrontations play in the process of psychotherapy. Therefore, we analyzed a sample of 80 therapies of 3 sessions each representing either good or bad outcome. Independent raters judged moment by moment how therapists used confrontative interventions. 20 cases, which showed an excellent or a very poor outcome, as well as an unexpected pattern were analyzed in further quantitative details. We found that confrontations are correlated to good outcome when they are uttered implicitly, related to an important topic of the patient (e.g. one of the defined therapy goals), long but weak, embedded in prior complementarity and not in the first three sessions of a therapy, as well as not an interactional discrepancy between the patient and the therapist.