Getting to “Yes”: Overcoming Client Reluctance to Engage in Chair Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goals Securing clients’ active and enthusiastic collaboration to participate in activities therapists would like to implement in therapy (e.g., free association, in-vivo exposure, or the engagement in chair work) is a core mission in therapy. However, from the clients’ perspective, these tasks frequently represent novel challenges that can trigger anxiety and reluctance. Thus, a key element in therapy is the negotiation between therapist and client to move beyond such reluctance to potentially effective therapy activities and, at the same time, maintain positive relational affiliation between therapist and client. In this research we examined 1) a collection of therapist proposal/client response sequences that were geared toward recruiting participation in chair work and 2) sequences containing hesitation or instances where decisions to engage in chair work were deferred and related relational disaffiliation. Our goal was to identify the conversational resources (both verbal and non-verbal) that worked to reject a proposed activity (or convey impending rejection) and examine the interactional practices directed at resolving client reluctance. Method We used the conceptual and methodological resources of Conversation Analysis to examine a corpus of proposal/response sequences that targeted chair work entry in Emotion-focused Therapy. Results The resulting data set included some smooth and successful engagements and others more challenging, involving clients delaying or resisting engagement with chair work. Clients were found to defer or refuse engagement through a range of resources such as withholding a response (silence), questioning the authenticity of the task, or directly refusing. We identified specific therapist practices that facilitated engagement in ‘refusal-implicative’ contexts such as proffering “or” alternatives, offering extended rationales for the activity (accounting), and elaborating on the proposals. We observed that the therapists’ deontic stance (mitigated and reduced claims to authority) and moderated epistemic positioning (deference to the client’s primacy of knowledge and information) played an important role in facilitating engagement. Conclusions Our research highlights the kinds of interactional sequences in which clients and therapists are able to achieve alignment in mutually working towards chair work entry. Based on these observations, we offer some practical advice to therapists in formulating proposals to engage clients during in-therapy work.
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 | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".