Therapist emotional reactions and client resistance in cognitive behavioral therapy.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although extensively discussed in theoretical papers, empirical studies of therapist emotional reactions to clients are lacking, particularly within the context of client resistance and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). The present study examined the early positive and negative emotional reactions to clients of four therapists, together with observed client in-session resistance, and changes in resistance from early to midtreatment, in a sample of 30 outpatients receiving eight sessions (14 hr) of CBT for generalized anxiety disorder. Findings indicated that greater therapist early positive reactions to clients, especially liking, enjoyment, and attachment, were associated with significantly lower levels of client resistance midtreatment and greater reductions in client resistance from early to midtreatment. These effects were independent of therapist competence in delivering CBT, suggesting a potentially unique and important role for therapist feelings about clients beyond the skillful delivery of treatment techniques. Greater early negative therapist reactions to clients were less consistently related to client resistance but power struggles, and feeling drained, helpless, guilty, and frustrated were associated with higher levels of client subsequent resistance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it