Patients’ experiences of clinicians’ crying during psychotherapy for eating disorders.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many psychotherapists have cried in a therapy session. Those clinicians who do cry see it as likely to have a positive impact on the therapy or to have no impact, and therapist personality characteristics have not shown reliable associations to crying in therapy. However, it is not known how patients experience therapists' crying, or whether the patient's view of the therapist's characteristics is related to that experience. This study used an online survey, recruiting 202 patients with eating disorders, 188 of whom had received therapy for an eating disorder, and 105 of whom had experienced a therapist crying. Retrospective data from those 105 individuals indicated that therapists' crying tended to be seen positively, by patients but that perception was influenced by the patients' perceptions of the demeanor of their therapist and their understanding of the meaning of the crying. Although they need to be extended to other disorders, these findings suggest that therapists' crying needs to be understood in the context of the therapist's perceived characteristics and demeanor, rather than being assumed to be positive or to have no impact on the therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".