Interpersonal guilt and the working alliance in psychotherapy: The moderating role of childhood experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpersonal guilt often encompasses pathogenic beliefs that imply omnipotent responsibility for others and concerns about abandoning, humiliating or threatening others. This study sought to examine how interpersonal guilt may influence patients' and therapists' ratings of early working alliance and the potential moderating effect of perceived adverse parenting in childhood. Ninety-five patients and their 19 therapists in an outpatient psychotherapy clinic rated their early working alliance after the first and the fifth session in treatment. We conducted separate moderation analyses for patient and therapist-reported working alliance and controlled for psychological distress at baseline. Results suggest that perceived adverse parenting in childhood significantly moderated the effect of interpersonal guilt on the working alliance in such a way that for patients reporting very low levels of perceived adverse experiences, the interpersonal guilt beliefs had a positive effect on working alliance, whereas for those with very high levels of perceived adverse experiences, interpersonal guilt had a negative effect on working alliance. This same pattern of moderation was found for patient- and therapist-reported working alliance at session 1 and therapist-reported working alliance at session 5. Thus, although the effect of interpersonal guilt on the working alliance depends somewhat on the perspective of the working alliance rating (patient or therapist), it mainly depends on developmental experiences of the patient.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".