The relationship between cognitive errors, coping strategies, and clients' experiences in session: An exploratory study.
Saved in:
| Title: | The relationship between cognitive errors, coping strategies, and clients' experiences in session: An exploratory study. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Antunes-Alves, Sara, Thompson, Katherine, Kramer, Ueli, Drapeau, Martin |
| Source: | Counselling & Psychotherapy Research. Jun2014, Vol. 14 Issue 2, p93-101. 9p. 5 Charts. |
| Subjects: | Psychological adaptation, Cognition, Psychotherapy, Questionnaires, Research, Statistics, Video recording, Data analysis, Client relations, Inter-observer reliability, Undergraduates, Patients' attitudes, Descriptive statistics |
| Abstract: | Aim:Cognitive errors (CE) and coping strategies (CS) can bear weight on how individuals relate to others and perceive interpersonal relationships. However, there is little research into how clients' erroneous beliefs and maladaptive coping strategies can interfere with the therapeutic process. This study utilised a sample of healthy clients to explore the relationship between their CEs and CSs and their evaluation of therapy.Method:Therapy sessions of undergraduate student clients (N =26) were rated using the Cognitive Error Rating Scale (CERS – 3rd edition), the Coping Patterns Rating Scale (CPRS;), the Session Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ) and the Session Impact Scale (SIS).Results:Clients who engaged in dichotomous thinking endorsed problem solving less and were more likely to feel unsupported and misunderstood by the therapist. Clients who discounted the positive tended to feel more pressured and judged by therapists. Conversely, those who engaged in problem solving were more likely to find sessions deeper and more valuable as compared to those who reacted to stressful events by submission, escape, or opposition.Implications:Better understanding how and when a client's cognitive errors and coping mechanisms are at play during therapy can help clinicians to address them and intervene appropriately. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER] |
| Copyright of Counselling & Psychotherapy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Aim:Cognitive errors (CE) and coping strategies (CS) can bear weight on how individuals relate to others and perceive interpersonal relationships. However, there is little research into how clients' erroneous beliefs and maladaptive coping strategies can interfere with the therapeutic process. This study utilised a sample of healthy clients to explore the relationship between their CEs and CSs and their evaluation of therapy.Method:Therapy sessions of undergraduate student clients (N =26) were rated using the Cognitive Error Rating Scale (CERS – 3rd edition), the Coping Patterns Rating Scale (CPRS;), the Session Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ) and the Session Impact Scale (SIS).Results:Clients who engaged in dichotomous thinking endorsed problem solving less and were more likely to feel unsupported and misunderstood by the therapist. Clients who discounted the positive tended to feel more pressured and judged by therapists. Conversely, those who engaged in problem solving were more likely to find sessions deeper and more valuable as compared to those who reacted to stressful events by submission, escape, or opposition.Implications:Better understanding how and when a client's cognitive errors and coping mechanisms are at play during therapy can help clinicians to address them and intervene appropriately. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 14733145 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/14733145.2013.770894 |
