An Examination of Changes in Therapist Expressed Empathy and Therapist-client Interpersonal Patterns during and After Alliance Rupture, and their Contributions to Outcome in the Treatment of Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of the current study was to examine changes in therapist expressed empathy and therapist-client interpersonal patterns in order to uncover the processes through which alliance ruptures and resolutions occur, as well as their contributions to post-rupture session working alliance and post-treatment outcome. The data included 20 clients who received 16-weeks of treatment for depression and 11 therapists who provided either cognitive-behavioural or process-experiential/emotion-focused therapy. The Working Alliance Inventory was used to identify pre-rupture, rupture, and post-rupture sessions for each client. The selected sessions were then coded on the Measure of Expressed Empathy and the Structural Analysis of Social Behaviour. Results revealed that therapist empathy and therapist-client positive interpersonal patterns significantly declined from pre-rupture session to rupture session, whereas negative and mixed interpersonal patterns significantly increased. Results further showed that clients often deferred to the therapist during rupture, while therapists most commonly pursued their own agenda or controlled the therapy process by adhering to psychoeducation or technique. Therapists also contributed to rupture by listening passively, merely following the client without offering any guidance, not heeding the client’s expressed emotions or needs, illogically initiating a new topic of discussion, or (less frequently) blaming or criticizing the client. The post-rupture session for clients who reported rupture resolution showed a significant increase in therapist empathy and therapist-client positive interpersonal patterns and a significant decrease in negative and mixed interpersonal patterns. Specifically, therapists attempted to respond to the client in more empathic and nurturing ways and were less neglectful. Clients also appeared more connected to and trusting of the therapist at post-rupture and less frequently deferred, withdrew, or asserted and separated. In contrast, negative interpersonal patterns, including therapist controlling behaviours and client protesting and distancing behaviours, remained at a significantly higher level at post-rupture for clients who did not report immediate rupture resolution. Contrary to the study hypotheses, no significant relationship was found between the process variables and post-treatment outcome. However, changes in therapist empathy as well as therapist-client positive and negative interpersonal patterns strongly predicted post-rupture session working alliance. Implications for clinical practice and recommendations for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".