咨询会谈中的人际互补及其与工作同盟、咨询效果的关系

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00197

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

Leary的人际理论将人际互动行为划分为“情感”和“控制”两个维度, 互动双方在情感维度的一致性和控制维度的互补性统称为人际互补。为探究心理咨询过程中人际互补的发展趋势及其与工作同盟、咨询效果的关系, 采用电脑操纵杆方法, 编制《咨询会谈人际互补行为评分手册》, 对16个个案的48个心理咨询会谈录像进行评估。结果表明：有经验的咨询师在咨询前期的情感轴一致性高于中期和后期, 在咨询后期的控制轴互补性高于前期和中期, 新手咨询师的情感轴一致性和控制轴互补性均无阶段性差异; 咨询中期的情感轴一致性负向预测工作同盟和会谈深度; 情感轴一致性呈高-低-高发展趋势的个案咨询效果更好。结论: 心理咨询的人际互补三阶段模型得到一定程度的支持, 其作用机制有待进一步验证。

关键词: 人际互补, 工作同盟, 咨询效果, 电脑操纵杆

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.

Key words: interpersonal complementarity, working alliance, therapeutic outcomes, computer joystick

中图分类号:

倪聪, 朱旭, 江光荣, 林秀彬, 于丽霞, 梁焕萍. (2020). 咨询会谈中的人际互补及其与工作同盟、咨询效果的关系. 心理学报, 52(2), 197-206.

NI Cong, ZHU Xu, JIANG Guangrong, LIN Xiubin, YU Lixia, LIANG Huanping. (2020). Interpersonal complementarity in counseling and its relationship with working alliance and therapeutic outcomes. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(2), 197-206.

图/表 6

参考文献 38

[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.
	[ 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.
	[ 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.
	[ 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.]

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

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

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