Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35360596›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Formulation and Clients' Agency in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.

Xueli Yao, Boyu Dong, Weining Ji

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Xueli YaoSchool of Foreign Languages, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao, China.
Boyu DongSchool of Foreign Languages, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao, China.
Weining JiSchool of Foreign Languages, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The experience of loss of agency is one of the reasons for clients to go for psychotherapy. Enhancing clients' agency has been considered a fundamental factor for successful treatment in psychiatry and psychotherapy, yet few studies have investigated the interactional realization of how therapists do this in authentic psychotherapeutic encounters. Drawing on audio-recorded talk-in-interaction between clients and psychotherapists in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) encounters at a mental health center in China, this paper uses the method of conversation analysis to demonstrate how therapists ascribe agency positions to clients by issuing formulations of what the clients have just said. Two types of formulation were identified: affirmative formulations and challenging formulations. In the first type, the therapists highlight the positive aspect of the clients' description of their experiences and ascribe an agentic position to the clients. In the second, the therapists challenge the clients' implausible views and their non-agentic positioning of themselves. This study shows that the therapists' formulation could be employed to manage the epistemic difficulties associated with claiming knowledge about the clients' inner states and assessing their feelings. In this sense, the formulation is a robust interactional device in negotiating epistemic problems in addressing the clients' experiences and promoting their agency in therapy. However, it is noteworthy that in the challenging formulation, therapists claim privileged access to the clients' knowledge domain and challenge their prior epistemic status, which might run the risk of engendering clients' resistance.

Indexed as

agencycognitive behavioral therapyconversation analysisformulationtalk-in-interaction

Identifiers

PMID35360596
PMCPMC8960440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.