The therapeutic relationship in cognitive therapy with difficult-to-engage clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotion-focused therapy (EFT: Greenberg, 2002; Greenberg & Watson, 2006) views the relationship, characterized by the therapist's presence and the provision of empathy, acceptance and congruence, as an affectregulating bond. It also posits that this type of bond provides an optimal therapeutic environment for the facilitation of deeper emotional processing and experiencing. Empathy, acceptance and congruence not only create an optimal therapeutic environment in which clients feel safe to engage fully in the process of self-exploration and new learning, but also contribute to clients' affect regulation by providing interpersonal soothing. Over time this interpersonal regulation of affect is internalized into self-soothing and enhances the capacity to regulate inner states. In this view, the therapist's overall attitude, not only his/her techniques, are seen as in¯uencing the client's well-being. This chapter will discuss elements such as pacing and facial, tonal and postural communication of affect that create a therapeutic emotional climate. In addition to the climate's role in promoting enhanced affect regulation, its role in providing the optimal environment for facilitating emotional processing will be discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".