Conversation analysis of the two-chair self-soothing task in emotion-focused therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite an increasing recognition of the relevance and significance of self-compassion processes, little research has explored interventions that seek to enhance these in therapy. In this study, we examined the compassionate self-soothing task of emotion-focused therapy involving two-chair work, with seven clients. METHOD: Conversation analysis was used to examine client-therapst interaction. RESULTS: The analysis yielded a detailed description of interactional practices and processes involved in the accomplishment of self-soothing, drawing on Goffman's concept of the participation frame. We show how therapists and clients collaborate to move from the ordinary frame of therapeutic conversation to a self-soothing frame and back again by using various interactional practices: Therapists' instructions to clients, specific ways of sequencing actions in interaction, explanations and justification of the importance of the self-soothing task, pronouns as a way to distinguish among addressees (e.g., clients versus soothing agents), corrections of clients' talk, and response tokens (hm mm, yeah, good). These practices are used to help clients accomplish self-soothing in the form of self-praise, disclosing caring, and offering of helpful advice. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers therapists a specific account of how to respond to clients at specific junctures in self-soothing dialogues and how to structure and accomplish the self-soothing task.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 teacher head, 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".