Using interpersonal process recall to compare patients’ accounts of resistance in two psychotherapies for generalized anxiety disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a trial examining whether cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) could be improved by integrating motivational interviewing (MI) to target resistance, MI-CBT outperformed CBT over 12-month follow-up (Westra, Constantino, & Antony, 2016). Given that effectively addressing resistance is both a theoretically and an empirically supported mechanism of MI's additive effect, we explored qualitatively patients' experience of resistance, possibly as a function of treatment. For 5 patients from each treatment who exhibited early in-session change ambivalence, and thus were at risk for later resistance, we conducted interpersonal process recall interviews after a session. Transcripts were analyzed with grounded theory and consensual qualitative research. A salient contrast in patient narratives was a sense of compliance engendered in standard CBT versus connection in MI-CBT. Yet both narratives supported the superordinate category of resistance as an interpersonal process triggered by patient perceptions of therapist beliefs and behaviors. Findings contribute to the conceptualization of resistance from patients' first-hand accounts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".