The relationship between cognitive errors, coping strategies, and clients' experiences in session: An exploratory study

Abstract

Aim: Cognitive errors (CE) and coping strategies (CS) can bear weight on how individuals relate to others and perceive interpersonal relationships. However, there is little research into how clients' erroneous beliefs and maladaptive coping strategies can interfere with the therapeutic process. This study utilised a sample of healthy clients to explore the relationship between their CEs and CSs and their evaluation of therapy. Method: Therapy sessions of undergraduate student clients (N 026) were rated using the Cognitive Error Rating Scale (CERS Á 3rd edition), the Coping Patterns Rating Scale (CPRS;), the Session Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ) and the Session Impact Scale (SIS). Results: Clients who engaged in dichotomous thinking endorsed problem solving less and were more likely to feel unsupported and misunderstood by the therapist. Clients who discounted the positive tended to feel more pressured and judged by therapists. Conversely, those who engaged in problem solving were more likely to find sessions deeper and more valuable as compared to those who reacted to stressful events by submission, escape, or opposition. Implications: Better understanding how and when a client's cognitive errors and coping mechanisms are at play during therapy can help clinicians to address them and intervene appropriately.

Group member affect and session evaluations in intergroup dialogue.

“…Therefore, future research should examine session impact (i.e., depth and smoothness) in relation to overall changes that may occur as the result of participation in IGD (i.e., pre- to postdialogue change over 8 weeks). Research on other group interventions (e.g., group counseling) suggests that both session depth (e.g., Antunes-Alves et al, 2014; Cummings et al, 1995; Duan, & Kivlighan, 2002; Lingiardi et al, 2011; Romano et al, 2008; and Thompson, & Hill, 1993) and session smoothness (Pesale, 2011; Pesale et al, 2012) relate to positive member outcome, and that session impact mediates the relationship between session level processes and overall outcomes of an intervention (Stiles et al, 1994). Therefore, research examining session depth and smoothness in IGD in relation to both session-level variables like the experiences of positive and negative emotion, and overall outcomes (e.g., changes in attitudes toward outgroup members).…”

“…According to Stiles and colleagues (Stiles, 1980; Stiles et al, 1994), session depth and smoothness vary independently. Session depth has been associated with therapeutic success and linked to a number of other positive variables like problem solving, perceptions of session helpfulness, emotional and intellectual empathy, therapeutic alliance, attachment security in psychotherapy, and therapist competence (Antunes-Alves, Thompson, Kramer, & Drapeau, 2014; Cummings, Barak, & Hallberg, 1995; Duan, & Kivlighan, 2002; Lingiardi, Colli, Gentile, & Tanzilli, 2011; Romano, Fitzpatrick, & Janzen, 2008; and Thompson, & Hill, 1993, respectively). Less research has focused on smoothness, but some research does suggest that smoothness across sessions is associated with improved symptoms (Pesale, 2011; Pesale, Hilsenroth, & Owen, 2012).…”

Is flexibility always associated with mental health? A study of coping and depression

“…The measure has been used in numerous studies and its validity and reliability are well established [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. The rating scale comprises 12 categories of coping originating from a landmark study conducted by Skinner and colleagues [31].…”