The role of pre-treatment interpersonal problems for in-session emotional processing and long-term outcome in emotion-focused psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Interpersonal problems may lead to, uphold, or follow from depression. However, we know little of how depressed patients' different interpersonal problems are associated with patients' emotional processing during psychotherapy and whether distinct processes are helpful for their long-term reduction. Method: 23 adult outpatients who received emotion-focused therapies lasting 16-20 sessions filled the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems at pre- and post-treatment and 18-month follow-up. These problems were related to emotional processing in two mid-therapy sessions, rated by observers with the Classification of Affective-Meaning States. Results: All pre-treatment interpersonal problems were clearly associated with patients' negative evaluations of themselves during therapy. Self-experiences of vindictiveness were most pronouncedly linked to in-session emotional expressions of rejecting anger, and self-experiences of social inhibition to expressions of fear and shame, following a circumplex model. In the long-term reduction of interpersonal problems, especially reaching emotional states of hurt and grief seemed beneficial for patients who experienced themselves as socially inhibited, non-assertive, self-sacrificing, or overly accommodating. Conclusions: For clients suffering from particular interpersonal problems, accessing particularly beneficial emotional processes, such as hurt and grief, may form specific therapeutic process goals. Further studies should verify these findings, which link interpersonal theory with research on emotional processing in psychotherapy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".