Do patients internalize the positive regard they are offered? A dyadic test of a Rogerian condition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Positive regard (PR) reflects a therapist’s unconditional prizing of their patient, which meta-analytically correlates positively with patient improvement. However, most research has been limited to single-participant ratings of PR at a specific time, which neglects the dyadic and dynamic nature of PR (i.e., fundamental to benefitting from therapist-offered PR is that a patient internalizes it). Testing this premise, we hypothesized that therapist-offered PR at one session would predict patient-felt PR at a subsequent session (two sessions later), which would in turn predict the patient’s next-session outcome (within-patient mediation).Method Eighty-four patients with generalized anxiety disorder received cognitive–behavioral therapy with or without motivational interviewing. Therapists and patients provided postsession ratings of their offered and felt PR, respectively, at odd-numbered sessions throughout treatment. Patients rated their worry following each even-numbered session. We used multilevel structural equation modeling to test our hypothesis. We explored whether treatment condition moderated the mediational path.Results As predicted, when a therapist regarded their patient more than usual following one session, the patient felt more regarded than usual. In turn, this internalized regard was negatively associated with worry. Treatment condition did not moderate this path.Discussion Results support internalized positive regard as a treatment-common, ameliorative relationship process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".