“ Perhaps if I have this client slight his eyes at an increased speed, while exposing him to his foregone, and add some cerebral behavioral therapy while sitting next to a waterfall, he may be able to function more effectively in his life! ” Definitely this is reasonably fervent, however it demonstrates the abstraction that as professionals in the field of therapy, we oftentimes travel mosaic theories, techniques, and strategies to more effectively treat our consumers. A large amount of our precious time is spent seeking new theories and techniques to treat clients; evidence for this statement is shown by the thousands of theories and techniques that have been created to treat clients seeking therapy.
The actuality that theories are being created and the field is growing is certainly magnificent; however we may be searching for something that has always been right under our nose. Clinicians ofttimes flip over analyzing and making things more intricate that they truly are; when in reality what works is tolerably simple. This basic and uncomplicated ingredient for successful therapy is what will be explored in this article. This ingredient is termed the therapeutic relationship. Some readers may accede and some may disagree, however the challenge is to be unlatched minded and enshrine the consequences of “ contempt brother to investigation”.
Any successful therapy is grounded in a identical strong, true therapeutic relationship or more smartly put by Rogers, the “ Branch Relationship”. Without being skilled in this relationship, no techniques are likely to be effective. You are free to learn, study, research and labor over CBT, DBT, EMDR, RET, and ECT as well as eyeful infinite trainings on these and many other techniques, although without mastering the art and science of building a therapeutic relationship with your client, therapy will not be effective. You can even choose to spend thousands of dollars on a PhD, PsyD, Ed. D, and other advanced degrees, which are not being put down, however if you deny the vital importance of the quantum relationship you will again be calamitous. Rogers brilliantly articulated this point when he oral, “ Intellectual training and the acquiring of information has, I deem many costly results— but, becoming a therapist is not one of those results ( 1957 ). ”
This author will lick to reiterate what the therapeutic relationship involves; questions clinicians can ask themselves concerning the therapeutic relationship, as well as some heuristic literature that supports the importance of the therapeutic relationship. Please note that therapeutic relationship, therapeutic alliance, and branch relationship will be used interchangeably throughout this article.
Marked of the Therapeutic Relationship
The therapeutic relationship has several characteristics; however the most vital will be presented in this article. The characteristics may time in to be simple and basic knowledge, although the constant practice and integration of these characteristic need to be the spotlight of every client that enters therapy. The therapeutic relationship forms the foundation for treatment as well as large part of successful outcome. Without the factor relationship being the symbol one priority in the treatment process, clinicians are doing a great disservice to clients as well as to the field of therapy as a whole.
The following discussion will be based on the incredible work of Carl Rogers concerning the cut relationship. There is no other psychologist to turn to when discussing this subject, than Dr. Rogers himself. His extensive work gave us a foundation for successful therapy, no matter what theory or theories a clinician practices. Without Dr. Rogers impressive work, successful therapy would not be possible.
Rogers defines a apportionment relationship as, “ a relationship in which one of the participants intends that there should come about, in one or both parties, more appreciation of, more expression of, more functional use of the quiescent inner resources of the diacritic ( 1961 ). ” There are three characteristics that will be presented that Rogers states are essential and effectual for therapeutic change as well as being vital aspects of the therapeutic relationship ( 1957 ). In addition to these three characteristics, this author has more two final exclusive that develop to be effective in a fragment relationship.
1. Therapist’ s genuineness within the member relationship. Rogers discussed the vital importance of the clinician to “ freely and deeply” be himself. The clinician needs to be a “ real” human being. Not an all canny, all powerful, rigid, and controlling figure. A real human being with real thoughts, real feelings, and real problems ( 1957 ). All facades should be desolate out of the therapeutic environment. The clinician must be aware and have comprehension into him or herself. It is important to search out help from colleagues and fitting qualification to develop this awareness and drift. This specific discriminating fosters trust in the meed relationship. One of the easiest ways to develop conflict in the relationship is to have a “ better than” philosophy when working with a particular client.
2. Unconditional positive regard. This attribute of the relationship involves experiencing a pleasant acceptance of each attribute of the clients experience as being a part of the client. There are no conditions put on accepting the client as who they are. The clinician needs to care for the client as who they are as a onliest singular. One thing much pragmatic in therapy is the treatment of the diagnosis or a specific problem. Clinicians need to treat the odd not a diagnostic ticket. It is imperative to accept the client for who they are and footing they are at in their life. Memorize diagnoses are not real entities, however exclusive human beings are.
3. Rapport. This is a basic therapeutic aspect that has been taught to clinicians over and over again, however it is vital to be able to practice and interpret this concept. An accurate discerning understanding of the client’ s awareness of his own experience is crucial to the side relationship. It is essential to have the ability to enter the clients “ private world” and interpret their thoughts and feelings without concluding these ( Rogers, 1957 ).
4. Mutual agreement on goals in therapy. Galileo once stated, “ You cannot teach a man individual, you can just help him to find it within himself. ” In therapy clinicians must develop goals that the client would like to work on moderately than directive or impose goals on the client. When clinicians have their own agenda and do not aid with the client, this can cause resistance and a separation in the portion relationship ( Roes, 2002 ). The detail is that a client that is forced or mandated to work on something he has no notice in changing, may be compliant for the present time; however these changes will not be internalized. Just think of yourself in your personal life. If you are forced or coerced to work on something you have no excitement in, how much passion or energy will you put into it and how much respect will you have for the person doing the coercing. You may complete the goal; however you will not recollect or internalize much involved in the process.
5. Integrate humor in the relationship. In this authors own clinical experience throughout the senility, one thing that has helped to inaugurate a strong therapeutic relationship with clients is the integration of humor in the therapy process. It appears to teach clients to laugh at themselves without taking life and themselves too no-nonsense. It also allows them to espy the therapist as a down to earth human being with a sense of humor. Humor is an excellent coping skill and is exceedingly healthy to the mind, body, and spirit. Try thrilled with your clients. It will have a profound backwash on the relationship as well as in your own personal life.
Before crusade into the empitic literature concerning this topic, it is important to present some questions that Rogers recommends ( 1961 ) recourse yourself as a clinician concerning the development of a piece relationship.
These questions should be explored much and reflected upon as a ordinary routine in your clinical practice. They will help the clinician grow and keep up to work at developing the expertise needed to create a strong therapeutic relationship and in turn the successful practice of therapy.
1. Can I be in some way which will be perceived by the client as trustworthy, dependable, or consistent in some submerged sense?
2. Can I be real? This involves being aware of thoughts and feelings and being honest with yourself concerning these thoughts and feelings. Can I be who I am? Clinicians must accept themselves before they can be real and accepted by clients.
3. Can I let myself experience positive attitudes useful my client – for exemplification warmth, utilitarian, respect ) without fearing these? Regularly times clinicians spot themselves and compose it off as a “ professional” mindset; however this creates an unprepossessed relationship. Can I remind that I am treating a human being, just like myself?
4. Can I give the client the freedom to be who they are?
5. Can I be contrasting from the client and not mellow a dependent relationship?
6. Can I step into the client’ s discriminative world so deeply that I lose all wanting to evaluate or sheriff it?
7. Can I acquire this client as he is? Can I believe him or her absolutely and communicate this conjecture?
8. Can I retain a non - judgmental sensibility when dealing with this client?
9. Can I accommodated this peculiar as a person who is becoming, or will I be deadline by his ended or my recent?
Experimental Literature
There are obviously too many pragmatic studies in this compass to bounce off in this or any make good drama, however this contrive would like to present a summary of the studies throughout the second childhood and what has been through.
Horvath and Symonds ( 1991 ) conducted a Meta analysis of 24 studies which maintained high design standards, knowledgeable therapists, and clinically sound settings. They found an issue size of. 26 and ended that the vigor pertinency was a relatively sturdy versatile linking therapy process to outcomes. The relationship and outcomes did not blow in to be a function of type of therapy adept or length of treatment.
Augmented review conducted by Lambert and Barley ( 2001 ), from Brigham Young University summarized over one hundred studies concerning the therapeutic relationship and psychotherapy finding. They focused on four areas that influenced client oracle; these were added therapeutic factors, assumption effects, innate therapy techniques, and common factors / therapeutic relationship factors. Within these 100 studies they averaged the size of remittance that each predictor made to determination. They found that 40 % of the nonconformity was due to appearance factors, 15 % to fancy effects, 15 % to inborn therapy techniques, and 30 % of differentiation was predicted by the therapeutic relationship / common factors. Lambert and Barley ( 2001 ) washed-up that, “ Improvement in psychotherapy may best be proficient by learning to improve ones ability to relate to clients and tailoring that relationship to idiosyncratic clients. ”
One more important addition to these studies is a review of over 2000 process - outcomes studies conducted by Orlinsky, Grave, and Parks ( 1994 ), which identified several therapist variables and behaviors that consistently demonstrated to have a positive influence on treatment outcome. These variables included therapist credibility, skill, empathic understanding, affirmation of the client, as well as the ability to engage the client and target on the client’ s issues and emotions.
Sequentially, this author would like to mention an prepossessing statement made by Schore ( 1996 ). Schore suggests “ that experiences in the therapeutic relationship are encoded as unstated memory, often effecting change with the synaptic connections of that memory system with regard to bonding and passion. Attention to this relationship with some clients will help transform negative tacit memories of relationships by creating a new encoding of a positive experience of like. ” This suggestion is a topic for a whole other article, however what this suggests is that the therapeutic relationship may create or reassemble the ability for clients to bond or develop attachments in likely relationships. To this author, this is profound and apprehending blue. Much more discussion and research is needed in this area, however briefly mentioning it sheds some light on added important impetus that the therapeutic relationship is vital to therapy.
Throughout this article the therapeutic relationship has been discussed in detail, questions to explore as a clinician have been articulated, and pragmatic stay for the importance of the therapeutic relationship have been summarized. You may dispute the validity of this article or research, however please take an honest look at this area of the therapy process and actualize to practice and develop strong therapeutic relationships. You will recognize the difference in the therapy process as well as client outcome. This author experiences the gifting of the therapeutic relationship each and every day I work with clients. In fact, a client recently told me that I was “ the first therapist he has observed since 9 - 11 that he trusted and acted like a real person. He long on to say, “ that’ s why I have the goal that I can get better and truly trust augmented human being. ” That’ s quite a reward of the therapeutic relationship and process. What a hand!
Ask yourself, how you would like to be treated if you were a client? Always memorialize we are all part of the human chase and each human being is one and important, hence they should be treated that way in therapy. Our ulterior motive as clinicians is to help other human beings funk this journey of life and if this field isn’ t the most important field on earth I don’ t know what is. We help determine and create the subsequent of human beings. To conclude, Constaquay, Goldfried, Wiser, Raue, and Hayes ( 1996 ) stated, “ It is imperative that clinicians dwell upon that decades of research consistently demonstrates that relationship factors catalogue more highly with client outcome than do specialized treatment techniques. ”
References
Constaquay, L. G., Goldfried, M. R., Wiser, S., Raue, P. J., Hayes, A. M. ( 1996 ). Predicting the aftereffect of Reasoning therapy for depression: A study of singular and common factors. Notebook of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 497 - 504.
Horvath, A. O. & Symonds, B., D. ( 1991 ). Relation between a working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: A Meta Analysis. Periodical of Counseling Psychology, 38, 2, 139 - 149.
Lambert, M., J. & Barley, D., E. ( 2001 ). Research Summary on the therapeutic relationship and psychotherapy outcome. Psychotherapy, 38, 4, 357 - 361.
Orlinski, D. E., Grave, K., & Parks, B. K. ( 1994 ). Process and outcome in psychotherapy. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield ( Eds. ), Guide of psychotherapy ( pp. 257 - 310 ). New York: Wiley.
Roes, N. A. ( 2002 ). Solutions for the treatment resistant liable client, Haworth Press.
Rogers, C. R. ( 1957 ). The Necessary and Active Conditions of Therapeutic Personality Change. Logbook of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95 - 103.
Rogers, C. R. ( 1961 ). On Becoming a Person, Houghton Mifflin company, New York.
Schore, A. ( 1996 ). The experience dependent maturation of a regulatory system in the orbital prefrontal cortex and the origin of developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 59 - 87.
No comments:
Post a Comment