Predicting resistance management skill from psychotherapy experience, intellectual humility and emotion regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Resistance management in psychotherapy remains a foundational skill that is associated with positive client outcomes (Westra, H. A., & Norouzian, N. (2018). Using motivational interviewing to manage process markers of ambivalence and resistance in cognitive behavioral therapy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 42(2), 193–203). However, little is known about which therapist characteristics contribute to successful management of resistance. Research has suggested that psychotherapy performance does not improve with experience (Goldberg, S. B., Rousmaniere, T., Miller, S. D., Whipple, J., Nielsen, S. L., Hoyt, W. T., & Wampold, B. E. (2016). Do psychotherapists improve with time and experience? A longitudinal analysis of outcomes in a clinical setting. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(1), 1–11), that psychotherapists lack humility (Macdonald, J., & Mellor-Clark, J. (2015). Correcting psychotherapists’ blindsidedness: Formal feedback as a means of overcoming the natural limitations of therapists. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 22(3), 249–257), and that difficult therapeutic moments may dysregulate therapist emotions (Muran, J. C., & Eubanks, C. F. (2020). Therapist performance under pressure: Negotiating emotion, difference, and rupture. American Psychological Association). This study aimed to 1) identify whether psychotherapy experience (i.e., training versus no training and number of years of psychotherapy experience) was associated with resistance management skill, and 2) identify whether humility and difficulties regulating emotions among trained individuals were each associated with resistance management.Method: A sample of 76 trained and 98 untrained participants were recruited for the present study. All participants completed the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale (CIHS, Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., & Rouse, S. V. (2016). The development and validation of the comprehensive intellectual humility scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(2), 209–221), the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41–54), and the Resistance Vignette Task (RVT; Westra, H. A., Nourazian, N., Poulin, L., Hara, K., Coyne, A., Constantino, M. J., Olson, D., & Antony, M. M. (2021). Testing a deliberate practice workshop for developing appropriate responsivity to resistance markers: A randomized clinical trial. Psychotherapy, 58, 175–185 ) which was used to assess resistance management skill.Results: Trained individuals performed significantly better on resistance management than untrained individuals; however, years of experience within the trained sample were not associated with resistance management. Conversely, lower humility and greater difficulties regulating emotions were each associated with significantly poorer resistance management in trained individuals.Conclusion: These findings suggest the possibility of improving training to focus on key skills, like resistance management, through supporting humility and emotion regulation in training, as opposed to simply acquiring more experience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".