Interpretation and Working through Contemptuous Facial Micro-Expressions Benefits the Patient-Therapist Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The significance of psychotherapeutic micro-processes, such as nonverbal facial expressions and relationship quality, is widely known, yet hitherto has not been investigated satisfactorily. In this exploratory study, we aim to examine the occurrence of micro-processes during psychotherapeutic treatment sessions, specifically facial micro-expressions, in order to shed light on their impact on psychotherapeutic interactions and patient-clinician relationships. METHODS: In analyzing 22 video recordings of psychiatric interviews in a routine/acute psychiatric care unit of Vienna General Hospital, we were able to investigate clinicians' and patients' facial micro-expressions in conjunction with verbal interactions and types. To this end, we employed the Emotion Facial Action Coding System (EmFACS)-assessing the action units and microexpressions-and the Psychodynamic Intervention List (PIL). Also, the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI), assessed after each session by both patients and clinicians, provided information on the subjective quality of the clinician-patient relationship. RESULTS: We found that interpretative/confrontative interventions are associated with displays of contempt from both therapists and patients. Interestingly, displays of contempt also correlated with higher WAI scores. We propose that these seemingly contradictory results may be a consequence of the complexity of affects and the interplay of primary and secondary emotions with intervention type. CONCLUSION: Interpretation, confrontation, and working through contemptuous microexpressions are major elements to the adequate control major pathoplastic elements. Affect-cognitive interplay is an important mediator in the working alliance.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".