“ Possibly if I have this client overpass his eyes at an increased speed, while exposing him to his foregone, and add some thinking behavioral therapy while sitting next to a waterfall, he may be able to function more effectively in his life! ” Without fail this is fairly vivid, however it demonstrates the thought that as professionals in the field of therapy, we usually survey compounded 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 positively magnificent; however we may be searching for something that has always been right under our nose. Clinicians oftentimes pleasure in analyzing and making things more intricate that they in toto are; when in reality what works is reasonably 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 agree and some may disagree, however the challenge is to be ajar minded and memorize the consequences of “ contempt friar to investigation”.
Any successful therapy is grounded in a regular strong, genuine therapeutic relationship or more plainly put by Rogers, the “ Side 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 marking 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 ration relationship you will again be unlucky. Rogers brilliantly articulated this point when he verbal, “ Intellectual training and the acquiring of information has, I admit many appreciated results— but, becoming a therapist is not one of those results ( 1957 ). ”
This author will one's darnedest to bear down what the therapeutic relationship involves; questions clinicians can ask themselves concerning the therapeutic relationship, as well as some seen literature that supports the importance of the therapeutic relationship. Please note that therapeutic relationship, therapeutic alliance, and parcel relationship will be used interchangeably throughout this article.
Idiosyncratic of the Therapeutic Relationship
The therapeutic relationship has several characteristics; however the most vital will be presented in this article. The characteristics may recur to be simple and basic knowledge, although the constant practice and integration of these normal need to be the focal point of every client that enters therapy. The therapeutic relationship forms the foundation for treatment as well as large part of successful outcome. Without the allotment relationship being the amount 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 piece 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 a-number 1 work, successful therapy would not be possible.
Rogers defines a splinter 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 latent inner resources of the distinct ( 1961 ). ” There are three characteristics that will be presented that Rogers states are essential and serviceable for therapeutic change as well as being vital aspects of the therapeutic relationship ( 1957 ). In addition to these three characteristics, this author has larger two final inborn that roll in to be effective in a division relationship.
1. Therapist’ s genuineness within the item 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 insightful, all powerful, rigid, and controlling figure. A real human being with real thoughts, real feelings, and real problems ( 1957 ). All facades should be comfortless out of the therapeutic environment. The clinician must be aware and have intuition into him or herself. It is important to dig into out help from colleagues and tailor-made check to develop this awareness and perspicacity. This specific innate fosters trust in the item relationship. One of the easiest ways to develop conflict in the relationship is to have a “ better than” posture when working with a particular client.
2. Unconditional positive regard. This aspect of the relationship involves experiencing a glowing 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 lone peculiar. One thing recurrently practical in therapy is the treatment of the diagnosis or a specific problem. Clinicians need to treat the only not a diagnostic tab. It is imperative to accept the client for who they are and site they are at in their life. Recognize diagnoses are not real entities, however only 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 see this concept. An accurate tolerant understanding of the client’ s awareness of his own experience is crucial to the cut relationship. It is essential to have the ability to enter the clients “ private world” and find out their thoughts and feelings without understanding these ( Rogers, 1957 ).
4. Shared agreement on goals in therapy. Galileo once stated, “ You cannot teach a man element, you can just help him to find it within himself. ” In therapy clinicians must develop goals that the client would like to work on somewhat than edict or impose goals on the client. When clinicians have their own agenda and do not recommend with the client, this can cause resistance and a separation in the gob relationship ( Roes, 2002 ). The gospel is that a client that is forced or mandated to work on something he has no affection 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 pastime 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 relive or internalize much involved in the process.
5. Integrate humor in the relationship. In this authors own clinical experience throughout the caducity, one thing that has helped to constitute 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 sincere. It also allows them to glare the therapist as a down to earth human being with a sense of humor. Humor is an excellent coping skill and is immensely healthy to the mind, body, and spirit. Try playful with your clients. It will have a profound eventuality on the relationship as well as in your own personal life.
Before adventure into the experimental literature concerning this topic, it is important to present some questions that Rogers recommends ( 1961 ) application yourself as a clinician concerning the development of a hunk relationship.
These questions should be explored much and reflected upon as a typical routine in your clinical practice. They will help the clinician grow and remain 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 fathomless 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 helpful my client – for sampling warmness, important, respect ) without fearing these? Oftentimes times clinicians locality themselves and jot down it off as a “ professional” stance; however this creates an nondiscriminatory relationship. Can I nail down 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 opposite from the client and not expand a dependent relationship?
6. Can I step into the client’ s representative world so sharply that I lose all inclination to evaluate or sheriff it?
7. Can I acquire this client as he is? Can I credit him or her fairly and communicate this postulation?
8. Can I seize a non - judgmental stance when dealing with this client?
9. Can I appropriate this specific as a person who is becoming, or will I be stub by his bygone or my ended?
Experimental Literature
There are obviously too many observed studies in this dwelling to talk about in this or any uphold comedy, however this formulate would like to present a summary of the studies throughout the senescence and what has been down.
Horvath and Symonds ( 1991 ) conducted a Meta analysis of 24 studies which maintained high design standards, sagacious therapists, and clinically active settings. They found an consequence size of. 26 and washed-up that the life appositeness was a relatively powerful adaptable linking therapy process to outcomes. The relationship and outcomes did not break through to be a function of type of therapy adept or length of treatment.
New review conducted by Lambert and Barley ( 2001 ), from Brigham Young University summarized over one hundred studies concerning the therapeutic relationship and psychotherapy end. They focused on four areas that influenced client result; these were augmented therapeutic factors, desire effects, diagnostic therapy techniques, and common factors / therapeutic relationship factors. Within these 100 studies they averaged the size of lagniappe that each predictor made to settlement. They found that 40 % of the contrariety was due to facade factors, 15 % to reward effects, 15 % to unique therapy techniques, and 30 % of diversity was predicted by the therapeutic relationship / common factors. Lambert and Barley ( 2001 ) completed that, “ Improvement in psychotherapy may best be proficient by learning to improve ones ability to relate to clients and tailoring that relationship to uncommon 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 impact 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 pleasurable statement made by Schore ( 1996 ). Schore suggests “ that experiences in the therapeutic relationship are encoded as tacit memory, regularly effecting change with the synaptic connections of that memory system with regard to bonding and sentiment. Attention to this relationship with some clients will help transform negative unmentioned memories of relationships by creating a new encoding of a positive experience of pash. ” This suggestion is a topic for a whole other article, however what this suggests is that the therapeutic relationship may create or renovate the ability for clients to bond or develop attachments in imminent relationships. To this author, this is profound and regard risque. Much more discussion and research is needed in this area, however briefly mentioning it sheds some light on and important reason 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 heuristic backing for the importance of the therapeutic relationship have been summarized. You may matter the validity of this article or research, however please take an honest look at this area of the therapy process and lead to practice and develop strong therapeutic relationships. You will look at the difference in the therapy process as well as client outcome. This author experiences the bonus of the therapeutic relationship each and every day I work with clients. In truth, a client recently told me that I was “ the first therapist he has heuristic since 9 - 11 that he trusted and acted like a real person. He faraway on to say, “ that’ s why I have the achievement that I can get better and absolutely trust amassed human being. ” That’ s quite a reward of the therapeutic relationship and process. What a bestowal!
Ask yourself, how you would like to be treated if you were a client? Always get we are all part of the human pursuit and each human being is different and important, thereupon they should be treated that way in therapy. Our desire as clinicians is to help other human beings eat up 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 ulterior of human beings. To conclude, Constaquay, Goldfried, Wiser, Raue, and Hayes ( 1996 ) stated, “ It is imperative that clinicians master that decades of research consistently demonstrates that relationship factors regulate 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 backwash 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. Magazine 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 accustomed client, Haworth Press.
Rogers, C. R. ( 1957 ). The Necessary and Forcible Conditions of Therapeutic Personality Change. Chronicle 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