Description and First Steps Toward the Empirical Validation of the Plan Formulation Method for Couples

The aim of this paper is to empirically assess the reliability of the plan formulation method for couples, a procedure for formulating the case, planning, and monitoring the couple therapies according to control-mastery theory. We hypothesized that when couples are looking for couple therapy, they have an unconscious couple’s plan for the therapy, which includes the couple’s goals; the pathogenic beliefs that the partners want to disprove; the traumas from which these beliefs originated and that the partners want to master; the vicious relational circles that make the couple suffer and that the couple wants to break; the virtuous relational circles that are expressions of the couple’s resources and that the couple wants to fuel; and the relational insights that may help the couple get better. Our study involved 15 couples treated by four experienced therapists. Four raters independently formulated each couple’s plan based on the first three sessions following a standard procedure, and we calculated the intraclass correlation for pooled judges’ ratings. For a subsample of three couples—who before and after treatment had completed the dyadic adjustment scale (DAS) and the outcome questionnaire-45.2 (OQ-45.2)—the compatibility of the therapists’ interventions with the couples’ and partners’ plans was assessed. The relationship between the ratings of compatibility, DAS and OQ-45.2, was assessed. The results showed excellent interjudge reliability for each couple’s plan formulation (average ICC?=?0.82), attesting to the validity of the procedure; and preliminary data on the therapeutic process suggested that therapists’ interventions compatible with couple’s plans could help partners achieve good outcomes.

     

The Nature of Client Agency Prior to Therapy: A Qualitative Study on Clients’ Narratives

Client agency is considered a crucial contributor to good treatment outcome. Recent studies, however, differ strongly in how they conceptualise and investigate agency. The current study explores the nature of client agency in ten clients’ pre-treatment interviews. Applying Consensual Qualitative Research, we constructed three overarching categories, subdivided into 14 sub-categories capturing both between- and within-person differences in agency before therapy. We found that all participants oscillated between the experience of a lack of grip on problems on the one hand and noticing their involvement in the problem and taking action on the other. These results present a dynamic conceptualisation of client agency. This allows us to ask pertinent questions for both future research and clinical practice.     

Is future self-relevance necessary to increase saving for retirement? A replication study

Insufficient saving for retirement is one consequence of excessive discounting of the future but attempts to mitigate it often involve costly or time-intensive personalized interventions. Marques, Mariano, Lima, and Abrams, by contrast, found that using a generic Future Time Perspective questionnaire to increase future “self-relevance” was an effective method to increase money allocation to retirement when the salience of future aging was also higher. Originally conducted in Portugal, the present study aimed to replicate Marques et al’s findings in the UK context. In the present study (n = 219), participants were shown a website advertising a financial product. The results support Marques and colleagues’ assertion that, alone, a website priming future aging was insufficient to increase retirement savings in a money allocation task. However, in contrast to Marques et al’s original findings, we find no evidence that future self-relevance moderates the effect such that priming future aging becomes effective when individuals have higher future self-relevance. Instead, we find that aging primes are ineffective at increasing retirement saving regardless of whether individuals are high or low in future self-relevance. Possible explanations for this discrepancy in findings, including methodological and cultural differences, are explored as well as directions for future research.