Acceptability of paradoxical interventions: Some paradoxes of psychotherapy research.

The impact of paradoxical interventions on perceptions of the therapist and ratings of treatment acceptability.

“…However, the practical dif-ferences in acceptability ratings (i.e., "acceptable" vs. "unacceptable") might be explained by methodological differences (i.e., simulation vs. strict analogue methods). Perhaps physical exposure to the therapist and other contextual factors associated with therapy influence treatment acceptability ratings, as Kolko and Milan (1986) have suggested. If this is true, the potential benefit of simulation methods (i.e., closer approximation of actual therapy settings) is evident.…”

“…In the two previous studies by Cavell et al (1986) and Mittl and Robin (1987), not only did paradoxical interventions receive lower-acceptability ratings than nonparadoxical interventions, but they also were judged as generally unacceptable. Kolko and Milan (1986) offered several possible explanations for the low acceptability ratings ascribed to paradoxical inter- Note. CRF-S = Counselor Rating Form-Short Version; TEI-SF = Treatment Evaluation Inventory-Short Form; PD = paradoxical directive; NPD = nonparadoxical directive.…”

Clinical psychologists' views of the acceptability of paradoxical techniques.

“…The defiancebased rationales were therefore more elaborate and possibly more reasonable than the simple statements often found in the literature that the treatment was designed to paradox the client or to trick the client out of having the problem. Although the data do not allow a test of this possibility, it may be that some of the concerns voiced about PTs may be due to the imprecise and overly simplistic ways in which some authors have described their use of PTs (see also Kolko & Milan, 1986).…”

“…Teachers rated the paradoxical procedures as less acceptable than an option to continue a contingency contracting procedure that had been described as ineffective. Even though the authors’ failure to accurately depict Kolko and Milan’s (1983) treatment may have compromised the study’s external validity (Kolko & Milan, 1986), Cavell et al’s (1986) work is noteworthy for its attempt to empirically examine the issue of treatment acceptability. Although investigations of treatment acceptability are commonplace in the behavioral treatment literature (Elliott, 1988; McMahon & Forehand, 1983), they are almost nonexistent in other areas of psychotherapy research.…”

Client cognitive responses to counselor paradoxical and nonparadoxical directives

“…(See reviews by DeBord, 1989; Dowd & Milne, 1986; Katz, 1984. ) A wide variety of paradoxical directives have been described in the literature, with different labels used t o denote similar techniques (Ascher & Turner, 1980;Dowd & Milne, 1986; Kolko & Milan, 1986; Ridley & Tan, 1986). Ascher and Efran (1978) define paradoxical interventions as "a behavioral prescription requiring clients to perform responses that appear to be incompatible with the goal for which they are seeking therapeutic assistance" (p. 547).…”