Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2020, Vol. 52 Issue (2) : 197-206     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00197
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Interpersonal complementarity in counseling and its relationship with working alliance and therapeutic outcomes
NI Cong1,2,ZHU Xu2(),JIANG Guangrong2,LIN Xiubin2,YU Lixia3,LIANG Huanping4
1 Mental Health Education Center, Hubei University of Economics, Wuhan, 430205, China
2 School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Key Laboratory of Human Development and Mental Health of Hubei Province, Key Laboratory of Adolescent Cyberpsychology and Behavior (CCNU), Ministry of Education, Wuhan, 430079, China
3 Mental Health Education Center, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, 430079, China
4 The Hospital of Central China Normal University, Wuhan, 430079, China;
Download: PDF(680 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

Leary’s circumplex model of interpersonal behavior categorizes the manifestation of personality in interpersonal interactions into two dimensions: affiliation (i.e., hostile-friendly) and control (i.e., dominant-submissive). Interpersonal complementarity refers to mutually adjusted and complementary behaviors along the affiliation and control dimensions during dyadic interactions, such that greater dominance in one partner invites greater submissiveness in the other (i.e., reciprocity) and greater friendliness invites greater friendliness (i.e., correspondence). The first aim of the study was to develop an assessment manual to reliably measure interpersonal complementarity using the computer joystick method. Using this innovative measurement method, the study tested the high-low-high pattern of interpersonal complementarity in early, middle and late stages of therapy sessions, and examined the relationships between interpersonal complementarity and therapists’ experience, working alliance, session depth and therapeutic outcomes.

Segments of early (first session), middle (sessions between first and last sessions), and late (last session) stages of session videos were selected from the “Directiveness Research” database from a university counseling center in central region of China. 48 selected segments were from 16 clients (5 male and 11 female) working with 13 therapists (3 male and 10 female) for 4 to 8 sessions (M = 5.8). Using the Interpersonal Complementarity Evaluation Manual of Counseling, two well-trained raters performed joystick assessments of interpersonal complementarity. In addition, therapists and clients filled out WAI-SR and SEQ after each session, and clients filled out OQ-45 at the start of treatment and one week after termination.

The results showed that: (1) Therapists’ experience and counseling stage had an interactive effect on interpersonal complementarity. Specifically, experienced therapists (more than 3 years of experience) showed higher correspondence of affiliation in the early stage than that in the middle and late stages, and higher complementarity of dominance in the late stage than that in the early and middle stages. In contrast, novice therapists (less than 3 years of experience) showed no significant change in interpersonal complementarity over the three stages; (2) In the middle stage, the affiliation correspondence negatively predicted working alliance and interpersonal complementarity negatively predicted session depth; (3) The cases with a high-low-high pattern of affiliation correspondence tended to have better therapeutic outcomes.

Results provided partial support for the three-stage high-low-high model of interpersonal complementarity in psychotherapy. Findings help shed light on the underlying mechanism of the three-stage model of interpersonal complementarity, because lower interpersonal complementarity uniquely predicted greater working alliance and session depth in the middle stage of therapy.

Keywords interpersonal complementarity      working alliance      therapeutic outcomes      computer joystick     
ZTFLH:  395  
Corresponding Authors: Xu ZHU     E-mail: xzhu@mail.ccnu.edu.cn
Issue Date: 24 December 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Cong NI
Xu ZHU
Guangrong JIANG
Xiubin LIN
Lixia YU
Huanping LIANG
Cite this article:   
Cong NI,Xu ZHU,Guangrong JIANG, et al. Interpersonal complementarity in counseling and its relationship with working alliance and therapeutic outcomes[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(2): 197-206.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00197     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2020/V52/I2/197
  
  
咨询阶段 变量 M SD WA当事人 WA咨询师 D当事人 D咨询师 C互相关 R互相关 C绝对值 R绝对值
中期 WA当事人 42.94 7.68 1
WA咨询师 40.50 8.74 0.22 1
D当事人 26.19 5.04 0.79** 0.24 1
D咨询师 23.73 3.63 -0.06 0.48 0.08 1
C互相关 0.13 0.12 0.03 -0.09 -0.13 -0.55* 1
R互相关 -0.56 0.14 0.13 0.05 -0.00 -0.15 -0.13 1
C绝对值 92.14 63.19 0.72** 0.16 0.54* -0.14 0.06 -0.12 1
R绝对值 353.25 124.56 -0.35 -0.04 -0.27 0.45 -0.44 0.07 -0.26 1
后期 WA当事人 46.20 7.58 1
WA咨询师 44.33 9.40 0.42 1
D当事人 27.93 4.01 0.77** 0.57* 1
D咨询师 23.80 6.73 0.21 0.41 0.52* 1
C互相关 0.24 0.15 0.31 0.16 0.12 0.29 1
R互相关 -0.62 0.13 -0.24 0.06 -0.09 0.18 -0.30 1
C绝对值 65.02 77.76 0.45 -0.14 0.42 0.03 -0.07 -0.10 1
R绝对值 330.18 101.41 0.13 -0.07 0.21 0.47 -0.16 -0.09 0.10 1
  
  
  
因变量 自变量 回归系数 标准误 标准回归系数 t p R2
会谈深度当事人 情感轴一致性绝对值 0.043 0.018 0.539 2.396 0.031 0.291
会谈深度咨询师 情感轴一致性互相关 -16.419 6.864 -0.553 -2.392 0.033 0.306
  
[1] Altenstein D., Krieger T., & Grosse Holtforth M . (2013). Interpersonal microprocesses predict cognitive-emotional processing and the therapeutic alliance in psychotherapy for depression. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(3), 445-452.
[2] Benjamin L. S . (1979). Use of structural analysis of social behavior (SASB) and Markov chains to study dyadic interactions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88(3), 303-319.
[3] Bernier A., & Dozier M . (2002). The client-counselor match and the corrective emotional experience: Evidence from interpersonal and attachment research. Psychotherapy Theory Research & Practice, 39(1), 32-43.
[4] Carson R. C . (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. American Sociological Review, 35(4), 818-819.
[5] Chen E. C., & Bernstein B. L . (2000). Relations of complementarity and supervisory issues to supervisory working alliance: A comparative analysis of two cases. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(4), 485-497.
[6] Dermody S. S., Thomas K. M., Hopwood C. J., Durbin C. E., & Wright A. G. C . (2017). Modeling the complexity of dynamic, momentary interpersonal behavior: Applying the time-varying effect model to test predictions from interpersonal theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 54-62.
[7] Dietzel C. S., & Abeles N . (1975). Client-therapist complementarity and therapeutic outcome. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22(4), 264-272.
[8] Dong Y. N . (2015). The interaction of the counselor and client: Real-time research based on the theory of interpersonal complementary (Unpublished master’s thesis). Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan.
[8] [ 董艳宁 . (2015). 咨询师与当事人的互动:基于人际互补理论的实时研究(硕士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.]
[9] Friedlander M. L . (1993). When complementarity is uncomplimentary and other reactions to Tracey (1993). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40(4), 410-412.
[10] Hatcher R. L., & Gillaspy A. J . (2006). Development and validation of a revised short version of the working alliance inventory. Psychotherapy Research, 16(1), 12-25.
[11] Heller K., Meyers R. A., & Kline L. V . (1963). Interviewer behavior as a function of standardized client roles. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 27(2), 117-122.
[12] Horowitz L. M., Wilson K. R., Turan B., Zolotsev P., Constantino M. J., & Henderson L . (2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 10(1), 67-86.
[13] Kiesler D. J . (1983). The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90(3), 185-214.
[14] Kiesler D. J., & Watkins L. M . (1989). Interpersonal complementarity and the therapeutic alliance: A study of relationship in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 26(2), 183-194.
[15] Lambert M. J., & Hawkins E. J . (2004). Measuring outcome in professional practice: Considerations in selecting and using brief outcome instruments. Professional Psychology Research & Practice, 35(5), 492-499.
[16] Leary T. F. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York, NY: Ronald Press.
[17] Lizdek I., Woody E., Sadler P., & Rehman U. S . (2016). How do depressive symptoms in husbands and wives relate to the interpersonal dynamics of marital interactions?. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(6), 721-735.
[18] Markey P., Lowmaster S., & Eichler W . (2010). A real-time assessment of interpersonal complementarity. Personal Relationships, 17(1), 13-25.
[19] Markey P. M., & Kurtz J. E . (2006). Increasing acquaintanceship and complementarity of behavioral styles and personality traits among college roommates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 907-916.
[20] Maxwell H., Tasca G. A., Gick M., Ritchie K., Balfour L., & Bissada H . (2012). The impact of attachment anxiety on interpersonal complementarity in early group therapy interactions among women with binge eating disorder. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(4), 255-271.
[21] Pennings H. J., Brekelmans M., Sadler P., Claessens L. C., van der Want A. C., & van Tartwijk J . (2018). Interpersonal adaptation in teacher-student interaction. Learning and Instruction, 55, 41-57.
[22] Pennings H. J. M., Tartwijk J. V., Wubbels T., Claessens L. C. A., Want A. C. V. D., & Brekelmans M . (2014). Real-time teacher-student interactions: A dynamic systems approach. Teaching & Teacher Education, 37(1), 183-193.
[23] Sadler P., Ethier N., Gunn G. R., Duong D., & Woody E . (2009). Are we on the same wavelength? Interpersonal complementarity as shared cyclical patterns during interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1005-1020.
[24] Sharma K., Castellini C., Stulp F., & van den Broek E. L . (2017). Continuous, real-time emotion annotation: A novel joystick-based analysis framework. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 13 November, 1-8.
[25] Stiles W. B., Glick M. J., Osatuke K., Hardy G. E., Shapiro D. A., Agnew-Davies R., ... Barkham M . (2004). Patterns of alliance development and the rupture-repair hypothesis: Are productive relationships U-shaped or V-shaped? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 81-92.
[26] Stiles W. B., Reynolds S., Hardy G. E., Rees A., Barkham M., & Shapiro D. A . (1994). Evaluation and description of psychotherapy sessions by clients using the session evaluation questionnaire and the session impacts scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41(41), 175-185.
[27] Stiles W. B., & Snow J. S . (1984). Counseling session impact as viewed by novice counselors and their clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(1), 3-12.
[28] Thomas K. M., Hopwood C. J., Woody E., Ethier N., & Sadler P . (2014). Momentary assessment of interpersonal process in psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(1), 1-14.
[29] Thompson B. J., Hill C. E., & Mahalik J. R . (1991). A test of the complementarity hypotheses in the interpersonal theory of psychotherapy: Multiple case comparisons. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 28(4), 572-579.
[30] Teyber E., & McClure F . (2000). Handbook of psychological change: Psychotherapy processes & practices for the 21st century. In C. R. Snyder, R. E. Ingram (Eds.), Therapist variables (pp. 62-87). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
[31] Tracey T. J . (2004). Levels of interpersonal complementarity: A simplex representation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1211-1225.
[32] Tracey T. J., Bludworth J., & Glidden-Tracey C. E . (2012). Are there parallel processes in psychotherapy supervision? An empirical examination. Psychotherapy, 49(3), 330-343.
[33] Tracey T. J., & Hays K . (1989). Therapist complementarity as a function of experience and client stimuli. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 26(4), 462-468.
[34] Tracey T. J., & Ray P. B . (1984). Stages of successful time-limited counseling: An interactional examination. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(1), 13-27.
[35] Tracey T. J., Sherry P., & Albright J. M . (1999). The interpersonal process of cognitive-behavioral therapy: An examination of complementarity over the course of treatment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(1), 80-91.
[36] Watson R., Daffern M., & Thomas S . (2017). The impact of interpersonal style and interpersonal complementarity on the therapeutic alliance between therapists and offenders in sex offender treatment. Sexual Abuse, 29(2), 107-127.
[37] Zhu X., & Jiang G. R . (2010). Depth of counseling process: Exploring of a three-dimension model. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 24(1), 7-12.
[37] [ 朱旭, 江光荣 . (2010). 咨询过程的深度:一个三维模型的探索. 中国心理卫生杂志, 24(1), 7-12.]
[38] Zhu X., Hu Y., & Jiang G. R . (2015). The developmental patterns of working alliance in counseling: relationships to therapeutic outcomes. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(10), 1279-1287.
[38] [ 朱旭, 胡岳, 江光荣 . (2015). 心理咨询中工作同盟的发展模式与咨询效果. 心理学报, 47(10), 1279-1287.]
[1] ZHU Xu; HU Yue; JIANG Guangrong. The Developmental Patterns of Working Alliance in Counseling: Relationships to Therapeutic Outcomes[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(10): 1279-1287.
[2] ZHU Xu,JIANG Guang-Rong. The Working Alliance in Clients’ Eyes: A Qualitative Analysis[J]. , 2011, 43(04): 420-431.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech