Advertisement

Interactional Practices of Psychotherapy

  • Liisa Voutilainen
  • Anssi Peräkylä
Chapter

Abstract

Psychotherapy is done through interaction between the therapist and the client. Obviously, the ways in which psychotherapists interact with their clients are very much informed by the psychotherapeutic schools that the therapists represent. On the other hand — like interaction in any institutional context — also, psychotherapy, in its various forms, is bound in general norms of conversation, for example regarding turn-taking or general preference for agreement (see Sidnell & Stivers, 2012). Based on conversation analytical (CA) research, this chapter discusses relations between the interactional side of psychotherapy and clinical theories concerning psychotherapeutic work. Because CA is independent from any specific clinical theories of psychotherapy, its methodic tools make it possible to investigate how psychotherapy is done through the ‘generic’ means of social interaction.

Keywords

Therapeutic Alliance Problematic Experience Conversation Analytical Therapeutic Change Psychotherapy Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehiläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 26–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bänninger-Huber, E. (2014). Prototypical Affective Microsequences (PAMs), working alliance and psychothera-peutic process. In C. de Sousa & A. M. Oliveira (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Facial Expression. New Challenges for Research, Almada (Portugal) July 16–18, 2012 (pp. 27–33). Coimbra (Portugal): Universidade de Coimbra, Instituto de Psicologia Cognitiva, Desenvolvimento Vocacional e Social (IPCDVS).Google Scholar
  3. Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bercelli, F., Rossano, F., & Viaro M. (2013). Supra-session courses of action in psychotherapy. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 118–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buttny, R. (1996). Client’s and therapist’s joint construction of the client’s problems. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(2), 125–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Falk, H. (2013). Discussing Anorexia. A conversation analytical study on treatment discussions between anorectic patients and professionals. Publications of the Department of Social Research 2013:11, Sociology, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  7. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  9. Greenberg, L. (2004). Emotion-focused therapy. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 11(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenson, R. (1967). The technique and practice of psychoanalysis. New York, NY: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  11. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  12. Heritage, J., & Watson, R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language (pp. 123–162). New York: Irvington Press.Google Scholar
  13. Horvath, A. O., & Symonds, B. D. (1991). Relation between working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38(2), 139–149.Google Scholar
  14. Hutchby, I. (2002). Resisting the incitement to talk in child counselling: Aspects of the utterance ‘I don’t know’. Discourse Studies, 4, 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. —. (2005). ‘Active listening’: Formulations and the elicitation of feelings-talk in child counselling. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 303–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35(4), 418–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jefferson, G., & Lee, J. (1992). The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of a ‘troubles-telling’ and a ‘service encounter’. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 521–548). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Koivisto, A., & Voutilainen, L. (2014). Responding to what is left implicit: Therapist’s for-mulations after a turn-final että (that/so). Paper presented at International Conference on Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy, Gent, Belgium.Google Scholar
  19. Leiman, M. & Stiles, W. B. (2001). Dialogical sequence analysis and the zone of proximal development as conceptual enhancements to the assimilation model: The case of Jan revisited. Psychotherapy Research, 11(3), 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences in progress. Language in Society, 20(03), 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lilja, A. (2011). Kohti psykoterapiaprosessin metamallia — mikä psykoterapiassa vaikut-taa? [Towards meta model of psychotherapeutic process — what effects in psychotherapy?] Psykoanalyyttinen psykoterapia, 7, 52–67.Google Scholar
  22. MacMartin, C. (2008). Resisting optimistic questions in narrative and solution-focused therapies. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehviläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 80–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Madill, A., Widdicombe, S., & Barkham M. (2001). The potential of conversation analysis for psychotherapy research. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(3), 413–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Melander, H., & Sahlström, F. (2009). In tow of the blue whale. Learning as interactional changes in topical orientation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1519–1537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muntigl, P. (2013). Resistance in couples counselling: sequences of talk that disrupt progressivity and promote disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics, 49, 18–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muntigl, P., & Horvath, A. O. (2014). The therapeutic relationship in action: How therapists and clients co-manage relational disaffiliation. Psychotherapy Research, 24(3), 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Muntigl, P., and Kwok, T. C. (2010). Not remembering as a practical epistemic resource in couples therapy. Discourse Studies, 12(3), 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muntigl, P., Knight, N., Watkins, A., Horvath, A. O., & Angus, L. (2013). Active retreating: Person-centered practices to repair disaffiliation in therapy. Journal of Pragmatics, 53, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norcross, J. C., & Goldried, M. R. (Eds.) (2005). Handbook of psychotherapy integration. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Pawelczyk, J. (2011). Talk as therapy: Psychotherapy in a linguistic perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peräkylä, A. (2004). Making links in psychoanalytic interpretations: A conversation analytic view. Psychotherapy Research, 14(3), 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. —. (2005). Patients’ responses to interpretations. A dialogue between conversation analysis and psychoanalytic theory. Communication & Medicine, 2(2), 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. —. (2008). Conversation analysis and psychoanalysis: Interpretation, affect and intersubjectivity. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehiläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 100–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. —. (2011). After interpretation: Third position utterances in psychoanalysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(3), 288–316.Google Scholar
  36. —. (2012). Conversation analysis in psychotherapy. In T. Stivers & J. Signell (Eds.), Blackwell handbook in conversation analysis (pp. 551–574). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peräkylä, A., Antaki, C., Vehviläinen, S., & Leudar, I. (2008a). Analysing Psychotherapy in Practice. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehiläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 5–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. —. (2008b). Conversation analysis and psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peräkylä, A., & Vehviläinen, S. (2003). Conversation analysis and the professional stocks of interactional knowledge. Discourse & Society, 14(6), 727–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruusuvuori, J. (2007). Managing affect. Integration of empathy and problem solving in health care encounters. Discourse Studies, 9(5), 597–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (2006). Has the concept of the alliance outlived its usefulness? Psychotherapy, 43(3), 286–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Safran, J. D., Muran, J. C., & Eubanks-Carter, C. (2011). Repairing alliance ruptures. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 80–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2012). Handbook of conversation analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  45. Stern, D. (2004). The present moment in psychotherapy and everyday life. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  46. Stiles, W. B. (1992). Describing talk: A taxonomy of verbal response modes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Stiles, W. B., Elliott, R., Llewelyn, S. P., Firth Cozens, J. A., Margison, F. R., Shapiro, D. A., & Hardy, G. (1990). Assimilation of problematic experiences by clients in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 27(3), 411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vehviläinen, S. (2003). Preparing and delivering interpretations in psychoanalytic interaction. Text, 23(4), 573–606.Google Scholar
  49. —. (2008). Identifying and managing resistance in psychoanalytic interaction. In Peräkylä, A., Antaki, C., Vehviläinen, S., & Leudar, I. (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 120–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Voutilainen, L., Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2010a). Misalignment as a therapeutic resource. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(4), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. —. (2010b). Recognition and interpretation: Responding to emotional experience in psychotherapy. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. —. (2011). Therapeutic change in interaction: conversation analysis of a transforming sequence. Psychotherapy Research, 21(3), 348–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vehviläinen, S., Peräkylä, A., Antaki, C., & Leudar, I. (2008). A review of the conversational practices of psychotherapy. In Peräkylä, A., Antaki, C., Vehviläinen, S., & Leudar, I. (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 188–197) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  56. Warner, M. A. (1997). Does empathy cure? A theoretical consideration of empathy, processing, and personal narrative. In A. C. Bohart & L. Greenberg (Eds.), Empathy reconsidered: New directions in theory research & practice (pp. 125–141). Washington, DC: APA Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weiste, E. (2015). Describing therapeutic projects across sequences: Balancing between supportive and disagreeing interventions. Journal of Pragmatics, 80, 22–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weiste, E., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Prosody and empathic communication in psychotherapy interaction. Psychotherapy Research, 24(6), 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weiste, E., Voutilainen, L., & Peräkylä, A. (2015). Epistemic asymmetries in psychotherapy interaction: Therapists’ practices to display access into clients’ inner experiences. Sociology of Health andIllness. doi: 10.1111/1467–9566.12384Google Scholar

Recommended reading

  1. • Peräkylä, A., Antaki, C, Veheviläinen, S., & Leudar, I. (Eds.) (2008). Conversation analysis and psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. • Fitzgerald, P. (2013). Therapy talk: Conversation analysis in practice. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. • Muntigl, P., & Horvath, A. O. (2013). The therapeutic relationship in action: How therapists and clients co-manage relational disaffiliation. Psychotherapy Research, 24(3), 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. • Vehviläinen, S. (2003). Preparing and delivering interpretations in psychoanalytic interaction. Text, 23(4), 573–606.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Liisa Voutilainen and Anssi Peräkylä 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liisa Voutilainen
  • Anssi Peräkylä

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations