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.

Book Review: Regulating Code : Good Governance and Better Regulation in the Information Age

Digital technologies have profoundly changed not only the ways we create, distribute, access, use and re-use information but also many of the governance structures we had in place. Overall, "older" institutions at all governance levels have grappled and often failed to master the multi-faceted and multi-directional issues of the Internet. Regulatory entrepreneurs have yet to discover and fully mobilize the potential of digital technologies as an influential factor impacting upon the regulability of the environment and as a potential regulatory tool in themselves. At the same time, we have seen a deterioration of some public spaces and lower prioritization of public objectives, when strong private commercial interests are at play, such as most tellingly in the field of copyright. Less tangibly, private ordering has taken hold and captured through contracts spaces, previously regulated by public law. Code embedded in technology often replaces law. Non-state action has in general proliferated and put serious pressure upon conventional state-centered, command-and-control models. Under the conditions of this "messy" governance, the provision of key public goods, such as freedom of information, has been made difficult or is indeed jeopardized.The grand question is how can we navigate this complex multi-actor, multi-issue space and secure the attainment of fundamental public interest objectives. This is also the question that Ian Brown and Chris Marsden seek to answer with their book, Regulating Code, as recently published under the "Information Revolution and Global Politics" series of MIT Press. This book review critically assesses the bold effort by Brown and Marsden.

Notch signaling in the brain: in good and bad times.

Notch signaling is an evolutionarily conserved pathway, which is fundamental for neuronal development and specification. In the last decade, increasing evidence has pointed out an important role of this pathway beyond embryonic development, indicating that Notch also displays a critical function in the mature brain of vertebrates and invertebrates. This pathway appears to be involved in neural progenitor regulation, neuronal connectivity, synaptic plasticity and learning/memory. In addition, Notch appears to be aberrantly regulated in neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease and ischemic injury. The molecular mechanisms by which Notch displays these functions in the mature brain are not fully understood, but are currently the subject of intense research. In this review, we will discuss old and novel Notch targets and molecular mediators that contribute to Notch function in the mature brain and will summarize recent findings that explore the two facets of Notch signaling in brain physiology and pathology.

The Good Society. A Comparative Study of Denmark and Switzerland

Denmark and Switzerland are small and successful countries with exceptionally content populations. However, they have very different political institutions and economic models. They have followed the general tendency in the West toward economic convergence, but both countries have managed to stay on top. They both have a strong liberal tradition, but otherwise their economic strategies are a welfare state model for Denmark and a safe haven model for Switzerland. The Danish welfare state is tax-based, while the expenditures for social welfare are insurance-based in Switzerland. The political institutions are a multiparty unicameral system in Denmark, and a permanent coalition system with many referenda and strong local government in Switzerland. Both approaches have managed to ensure smoothly working political power-sharing and economic systems that allocate resources in a fairly efficient way. To date, they have also managed to adapt the economies to changes in the external environment with a combination of stability and flexibility.

Disrupting the prefrontal cortex diminishes the human ability to build a good reputation.

Reputation formation pervades human social life. In fact, many people go to great lengths to acquire a good reputation, even though building a good reputation is costly in many cases. Little is known about the neural underpinnings of this important social mechanism, however. In the present study, we show that disruption of the right, but not the left, lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) with low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) diminishes subjects' ability to build a favorable reputation. This effect occurs even though subjects' ability to behave altruistically in the absence of reputation incentives remains intact, and even though they are still able to recognize both the fairness standards necessary for acquiring and the future benefits of a good reputation. Thus, subjects with a disrupted right lateral PFC no longer seem to be able to resist the temptation to defect, even though they know that this has detrimental effects on their future reputation. This suggests an important dissociation between the knowledge about one's own best interests and the ability to act accordingly in social contexts. These results link findings on the neural underpinnings of self-control and temptation with the study of human social behavior, and they may help explain why reputation formation remains less prominent in most other species with less developed prefrontal cortices.

Good just isn't Good Enough: Humean Chances and Boltzmannian Statistical Physics

Statistical physicists assume a probability distribution over micro-states to explain thermodynamic behavior. The question of this paper is whether these probabilities are part of a best system and can thus be interpreted as Humean chances. I consider two Boltzmannian accounts of the Second Law, viz.\ a globalist and a localist one. In both cases, the probabilities fail to be chances because they have rivals that are roughly equally good. I conclude with the diagnosis that well-defined micro-probabilities under-estimate the robust character of explanations in statistical physics.

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.