重新审视“激进纯粹主义者”Barbara Temaner Brodley与Gendlin过程模型的关系

IF 0.5 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
R. Crisp
{"title":"重新审视“激进纯粹主义者”Barbara Temaner Brodley与Gendlin过程模型的关系","authors":"R. Crisp","doi":"10.1080/14779757.2020.1796772","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Four aspects of Barbara Temaner Brodley’s practice of ‘classical’ client-centered therapy (CCT) are appraised in ways to suggest a rapprochement with the process-guiding experiential therapies that she opposed. First, I discuss her affinity with, and alienation from, these therapies particularly in relation to her conceptions of the ‘empathic understanding response process’ and ‘presence.’ Second, her therapeutic work is analyzed utilizing Gendlin’s process model, particularly in terms of Gendlin’s ‘interaction first’ principle and his process conception of embodied time. Third, I discuss her scientific attitude in relation to her extensive empirical analysis of Rogers’ verbalized empathic responses that informed her distinctive CCT perspective and opposition to Gendlin. Finally, I focus upon the paradox of Brodley’s self-disclosure and therapist-frame responses when she responded to a client’s questions or requests for advice. I conclude that Brodley worked effectively with her clients at a deeper relational level than her theoretical exposition suggests.","PeriodicalId":44274,"journal":{"name":"Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies","volume":"19 1","pages":"48 - 63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-visioning the ‘radical purist’ Barbara Temaner Brodley in relation to Gendlin’s process model\",\"authors\":\"R. Crisp\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14779757.2020.1796772\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Four aspects of Barbara Temaner Brodley’s practice of ‘classical’ client-centered therapy (CCT) are appraised in ways to suggest a rapprochement with the process-guiding experiential therapies that she opposed. First, I discuss her affinity with, and alienation from, these therapies particularly in relation to her conceptions of the ‘empathic understanding response process’ and ‘presence.’ Second, her therapeutic work is analyzed utilizing Gendlin’s process model, particularly in terms of Gendlin’s ‘interaction first’ principle and his process conception of embodied time. Third, I discuss her scientific attitude in relation to her extensive empirical analysis of Rogers’ verbalized empathic responses that informed her distinctive CCT perspective and opposition to Gendlin. Finally, I focus upon the paradox of Brodley’s self-disclosure and therapist-frame responses when she responded to a client’s questions or requests for advice. I conclude that Brodley worked effectively with her clients at a deeper relational level than her theoretical exposition suggests.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44274,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"48 - 63\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2020.1796772\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2020.1796772","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Barbara Temaner Brodley的“经典”以客户为中心的治疗(CCT)实践的四个方面进行了评估,以建议与她所反对的过程导向体验疗法的和解。首先,我讨论了她对这些疗法的亲近感和疏离感,特别是与她的“共情理解反应过程”和“在场”的概念有关。其次,利用Gendlin的过程模型,特别是根据Gendlin的“互动第一”原则和他的体现时间的过程概念,分析了她的治疗工作。第三,我讨论了她的科学态度,与她对罗杰斯语言化共情反应的广泛实证分析有关,这些分析表明了她独特的有条件条件下治疗的观点和对詹德林的反对。最后,我将重点放在布罗德利在回答客户的问题或咨询请求时的自我表露和治疗师框架反应之间的矛盾。我的结论是,布罗德利与她的客户在更深层次的关系上的合作比她的理论阐述所表明的更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Re-visioning the ‘radical purist’ Barbara Temaner Brodley in relation to Gendlin’s process model
ABSTRACT Four aspects of Barbara Temaner Brodley’s practice of ‘classical’ client-centered therapy (CCT) are appraised in ways to suggest a rapprochement with the process-guiding experiential therapies that she opposed. First, I discuss her affinity with, and alienation from, these therapies particularly in relation to her conceptions of the ‘empathic understanding response process’ and ‘presence.’ Second, her therapeutic work is analyzed utilizing Gendlin’s process model, particularly in terms of Gendlin’s ‘interaction first’ principle and his process conception of embodied time. Third, I discuss her scientific attitude in relation to her extensive empirical analysis of Rogers’ verbalized empathic responses that informed her distinctive CCT perspective and opposition to Gendlin. Finally, I focus upon the paradox of Brodley’s self-disclosure and therapist-frame responses when she responded to a client’s questions or requests for advice. I conclude that Brodley worked effectively with her clients at a deeper relational level than her theoretical exposition suggests.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
33.30%
发文量
37
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信