Varieties of corrective experiencing in context: A study of contrasts.

Abstract

Consistent with Goldfried's (1980; see also Chapter 2, this volume) description of corrective experiences (CEs) as principles of change, we argue that CEs may be best understood as operating within the broader context of a person's cultural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal experiences. Goldfried suggested that clinical strategies or principles of change might be useful clinical heuristics that fall between abstract theoretical frameworks (with their associated philosophical stances) and therapeutic techniques and procedures. As one of these "essential ingredients of change," CEs integrate various common psychotherapy factors for the purpose of helping the client replace old experiences and patterns with new emotional and psychological experiences. We also argue that Goldfried's notion can be extended to aid in understanding the interplay between other common factors within the contextual (Frank & Frank, 1991) and generic (Orlinsky & Howard, 1986) models of psychotherapy.We further define CEs operationally as including a new experience or experiences in which there is significant contrast to the client's set of prior

Psychotherapy outcome: An issue worth re-revisiting 50 years later.

“…Other studies presented in the two books that have emerged from the first two series of conferences (Castonguay & Hill, 2005 have investigated how client narrative expression facilitates (and is fostered by) clients' new perspective of self (Angus & Hardtke, 2005), how such a new perspective (or insight) can develop when working with dreams (Hill et al, 2005), how clients view corrective experiences (Heatherington, Constantino, Friedlander, Angus, & Messer, 2012;Knox, Hess, Hill, Crook-Lyon, & Burkhard, 2012), and how these experiences take place in various forms of therapy and in supervision (Anderson, Ogles, Heckman, & MacFarlane, 2012;Berman et al, 2012;Holtforth & Flückiger, 2012;Ladany et al, 2012). In addition, each of the two series of conferences has led to a list of recommendations for future research that has begun to stimulate new studies.…”

Corrective relational experiences in psychodynamic-interpersonal psychotherapy: Antecedents, types, and consequences.

“…Thus, some clients realized that therapy could be useful or productive in unexpected ways, whereas other clients realized that the therapist understood the client more than the client was accustomed to in interpersonal relationships. Relatedly, Knox et al (2012) found that clients sometimes saw therapists in a new way, and Anderson, Ogles, Heckman, and MacFarlane (2012) found that five clients (of 27) discovered a new experience of therapist warmth. This type of shift fits with Alexander and French’s (1946) original formulation about corrective emotional experiences, as well as psychoanalytic theories of change (e.g., Levenson, 2003), wherein positive shifts in the therapy relationship are a mechanism by which clients learn new ways of thinking, feeling, behaving, and/or relating, and then generalize these learning to their interactions outside of therapy.…”

Common factors as a therapeutic approach: What is required?

“…Consensus on language is needed. Can be operationalized Operationalized by Anderson et al (2012) as "contrast" experiences for the client; that is, a change to contrast with prior experiences.…”

“…Although other approaches to treatment mention facing fears as an important element of treatment, less research evidence has accumulated to support these statements. Anderson et al (2012) contributed to relatively sparse evidence for a broader definition of corrective experiences as such. Still, facing fears is present at the theoretical and practical level in other approaches.…”

“…Corrective experiencing has a growing body of research demonstrating its utility across approaches (Castonguay & Hill, 2012). For example, multiple chapters in Castonguay and Hill’s edited book described corrective experiencing within various perspectives on treatment, such as relational (Christian, Safran, & Muran, 2012), cognitive-behavioral (Hayes, Beck, & Yasinski, 2012), humanistic–experiential (Greenberg & Elliot, 2012), person-centered (Farber, Bohart, & Stiles, 2012), and even from a contextual model perspective (Anderson et al, 2012). Existential approaches focus on helping clients to accept or confront fears and to become accountable for their actions.…”