Ambivalence and Alliance Ruptures in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Generalized Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Client ambivalence about change (or motivation) is regarded as central to outcomes in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). However, little research has been conducted to examine the impact of client ambivalence about change on therapy process variables such as the therapeutic alliance. Given the demonstrated limitations of self-report measures of key constructs such as ambivalence and motivation, the present study instead employed a newly adapted observational measure of client ambivalence. Client statements regarding change (change talk (CT) and counter-change talk (CCT)) were coded in early (session 1 or 2) therapy sessions of CBT for generalized anxiety disorder. The frequency of CT and CCT was then compared between clients who later experienced an alliance rupture with their therapist, and clients who did not. The results showed that clients in dyads who later experienced an alliance rupture expressed significantly more CCT at the outset of therapy than clients who did not later experience an alliance rupture. However, CT utterances did not significantly differ between alliance rupture and no-rupture groups. CCT may strain the alliance because clients expressing higher levels of CCT early in therapy may be less receptive to therapist direction in CBT. Consequently, it is recommended that clients and therapists work together to carefully address these key moments in therapy so as to prevent alliance rupture and preserve client engagement in 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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".