Brief strategic psychotherapy with chronic pain patients: Reframing and problem resolution.

Shutty, Michael S.; Sheras, Peter L.

doi:10.1037/0033-3204.28.4.636

Cited by 8 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In brief strategic psychotherapy, reframing represents a central technique that acts on the change of the originary and habitual patient ' s frame of reference so that a rapid therapeutic change can be enacted (Shutty & Sheras, 1991). From an application point of view, this technique plays a very important role and can be defined as a process of intervention that promotes therapeutic change by enabling patients to expand their perspective beyond their own value system and frames of reference (Shutty & Sheras, 1991). Reframing is one of the most accepted techniques in the mental health literature and deals with the issue of how therapeutic mechanisms are applied in practice (Karpetis, 2015).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patients and psychotherapists using concessive counter‐argumentation: Co‐constructing new framings

Luciani

Convertini

2023

Couns and Psychother Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shifting point of view and imagining alternative scenarios can be considered crucial goals of every therapeutic path. Reframing is aimed at stimulating other hypotheses and new viewpoints of the same situation and at adding complexity to one's own and to the others' world images. An interesting aspect to be investigated is the linguistic mechanisms through which this reframing can be enacted. Our work has an interdisciplinary focus and can be staged in between theories and techniques of psychotherapy on the one side and argumentation theory on the other side. The aim of this contribution was to explore the potential role that concessive counter‐argumentation plays in amplifying and redefining patients' framing. Our study consists of an in‐depth single‐case analysis based on two psychotherapeutic sessions. The analysis comprises different steps: first, we identified the concessive sentences in the transcriptions of the psychotherapy sessions and we considered them as counter‐argumentations; second, we identified the two parts of the concessive counter‐argumentations; third, we identified the inferences that could be drawn from these two parts; and finally, we reconstructed the contextual framing that was enacted and endorsed by both the patient and the therapist. The findings show that both the therapist's and the patient's concessive counter‐argumentations help in detecting key passages of sessions that open new, previously unimagined scenarios, thereby also contributing to clinical theory.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%