Disentangling the Impact of Resistance and Ambivalence on Therapy Outcomes in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Generalized Anxiety Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resistance and ambivalence about change are increasingly recognized as important determinants of treatment outcomes. Moreover, resistance and ambivalence are thought to be theoretically related in that clients who are more ambivalent about change are more likely to demonstrate resistance to the process and tasks of treatment. In the context of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for generalized anxiety disorder, the present study simultaneously examined early resistance and ambivalence using two observer-based coding systems in order to determine their inter-relationship and, importantly, to investigate their relative contributions to outcome. Resistance was also coded during mid-treatment in order to investigate possible mediation pathways. Early ambivalence (clients' arguments against change or counter-change talk) was found to be no longer related to outcomes when early resistance was taken into account, suggesting that disharmony in the therapeutic relationship is more important to outcomes than ambivalence per se. Moreover, mid-treatment resistance partially mediated the relationship between early resistance and post-treatment worry severity. That is, higher early opposition to therapist direction is related to poorer outcomes, in part because it is associated with greater resistance during the working phase of CBT. The findings underscore the critical need for therapists to be sensitive to identifying resistance early and throughout treatment.
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 | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".