The Relationship Between State Mindfulness and Working Alliance Among Counselors‐in‐Training

Abstract

The author used structural equation modeling to estimate the relationship between the working alliance and state mindfulness while controlling for dispositional mindfulness and empathy in 200 counselors‐in‐training (CITs). Results indicated a moderate to large relationship between working alliance and mindful state. The author discusses the distinction between state and dispositional mindfulness, suggests directions for future research, and offers strategies for enhancing state mindfulness among CITs.

Evaluating Differences in the Working Alliance Based on Frequency of Mindfulness Practices Among Counselors‐in‐Training

“…Results of the CFA indicated good factor structure for Goal, χ 2 (4, N = 200) = 2.18, p = .34, χ 2 / df = 1.09, root‐mean‐square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .02, 90% confidence interval (CI) [.00, .14], comparative fit index (CFI) = .99, standardized root‐mean‐square residual (SRMR) = .01; Task, χ 2 (4, N = 200) = 6.47, p = .04, χ 2 / df = 3.23, RMSEA = .11, 90% CI [.02, .20], CFI = .99, SRMR = .02; and Bond, χ 2 (4, N = 200) = 5.50, p = .07, χ 2 / df = 2.60, RMSEA = .09, 90% CI [.00, .19], CFI = .98, SRMR = .02. A detailed interpretation of the CFAs is available in prior publications (see Johnson, 2018.) Cronbach’s alphas were adequate to good for the three subscales (see Table 1).…”

“…Mindfulness has been associated with multiple complex cognitive processes, such as sustained attention, metacognitive awareness, and dereification (see Lutz, Jha, Dunne, & Saron, 2015, for a full review). While mindfulness is a situationally specific and discrete mode of attention, the general tendency to engage in mindful awareness differs among individuals, thus yielding both state‐specific and dispositional conceptualizations of mindfulness (Bishop et al, 2004; Johnson, 2018). For example, a counselor may tend to be present‐oriented, aware, and accepting of thoughts, emotions, and experiences in everyday life events (i.e., dispositional mindfulness) but struggle to be mindful with a specific client during a specific session (i.e., state mindfulness) due to outside distractions (e.g., preoccupation with a previous client or administrative tasks) or negative self‐evaluations of thoughts or experiences about the client (e.g., “I am a bad counselor because I do not think I can help this client,” “I should not be disappointed with this client”).…”

“…These benefits include enhanced focus (Campbell & Christopher, 2012), management of intrusive thoughts and distracting internal emotional reactions (McCollum & Gehart, 2010), avoidance of negative evaluations of the client (Hicks, 2010), and improved recognition of and response to alliance ruptures (Safran & Muran, 2000). The results of prior research indicate that the working alliance has a positive association between dispositional mindfulness (Greason & Welfare, 2013; Ryan et al, 2012; Wexler, 2006) and state‐specific, in‐session mindfulness (Johnson, 2018). Researchers have also reported that client improvements are associated with dispositional counselor mindfulness (Ryan et al, 2012) and with counselor mindfulness practices (Grepmair et al, 2007).…”

“…Although previous authors have collectively provided support for the association between counselor mindfulness and the working alliance (Greason & Welfare, 2013; Ryan et al, 2012; Wexler, 2006), they have not addressed the relationship between the working alliance and counselors’ engagement in mindfulness practices. Most studies that have examined the relationship between the working alliance and counselor mindfulness have focused on dispositional mindfulness (Ryan et al, 2012) or state mindfulness expressed in a counseling session (Johnson, 2018), rather than on engagement in counselor mindfulness practices. Studies that examined counselor mindfulness practices evaluated the presence or absence of a weekly mindfulness practice (Greason & Welfare, 2013) or had participants complete similar mindfulness practice programs that did not differ in regard to frequency of weekly mindful practices for participants (Schomaker & Ricard, 2015).…”

“…To better specify differences in the working alliance among the four groups, we evaluated differences for the goal, task, and bond components, rather than for the working alliance composite score, because the goal and task components of the working alliance involve complex cognitive processes and the bond component involves affective‐based motivational processes (Safran & Muran, 2000), which may be differentially influenced by mindfulness practices (Kline, 2009). Furthermore, prior research has suggested that the components of the working alliance may have distinct relationships with mindfulness and mindfulness practices (Greason & Welfare, 2013; Johnson, 2018). Based on prior conceptual and empirical findings, we decided to conduct three analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) to evaluate group differences for the dependent variables of goal, task, and bond, rather than conducting a single multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) with goal, task, and bond as dependent variables.…”