Disruption and Desire Discussion: Commentary on Papers by Dianne Elise and Jonathan H. Slavin

Dr. Slavin's and Dr. Elise's paper are discussed, with reference to clinical theory.     

Evaluating Differences in Cognitive Appraisal and Coping Over Stages of a Transaction

We evaluated appraisal of and coping with a college examination over three stages of the transaction for 138 American undergraduate students. The transactional process approach allowed for the identification of differences in the magnitude and direction of appraisal and coping between adjacent stages and stages separated by an intervening stage. Repeated measures tests revealed that differences in appraisal and coping could occur between all pairs of stages, suggesting that, in research limited to investigating changes between adjacent stages only, the concept of a transactional process may be attenuated and important changes overlooked as the process of a stressful encounter unfolds.     

Are waves of relational assumptions eroding traditional analysis?

The author designates as ‘traditional’ those elements of psychoanalytic presumption and practice that have, in the wake of Fordham's legacy, helped to inform analytical psychology and expand our capacity to integrate the shadow. It is argued that this element of the broad spectrum of Jungian practice is in danger of erosion by the underlying assumptions of the relational approach, which is fast becoming the new establishment. If the maps of the traditional landscape of symbolic reference (primal scene, Oedipus et al.) are disregarded, analysts are left with only their own self‐appointed authority with which to orientate themselves. This self‐centric epistemological basis of the relationalists leads to a revision of ‘analytic attitude’ that may be therapeutic but is not essentially analytic. This theme is linked to the perennial challenge of balancing differentiation and merger and traced back, through Chasseguet‐Smirgel, to its roots in Genesis. An endeavour is made to illustrate this within the Journal convention of clinically based discussion through a commentary on Colman's (2013) avowedly relational treatment of the case material presented in his recent Journal paper ‘Reflections on knowledge and experience’ and through an assessment of Jessica Benjamin's (2004) relational critique of Ron Britton's (1989) transference embodied approach.     

Group Session Rating Scale: Preliminary psychometrics in substance abuse group interventions

Background: Although ultra‐brief outcome and process measures have been developed for individual therapy, currently there are no ultra‐brief alliance measures for group therapy. Method: The current study examined 105 clients in group therapy for issues related to substance abuse or with issues related to the substance abuse of a significant other. We tested whether a newly developed group therapy alliance measure – the Group Session Rating Scale would be related to other commonly used group process measures (Working Alliance Inventory, Group Cohesion, Group Climate) and early change (change over the first four sessions of group therapy). Results: The findings provided support for reliability based on Cronbach alphas and test‐retest coefficients. Additionally, the GSRS was a one‐factor measure that was related to other group process measures as well as predicted early change. Discussion: Clinical implications for how to utilise ultra‐brief outcome and alliance measures are provided.     

Client and therapist variability in clients' perceptions of their therapists' multicultural competencies

This study examined therapist differences in their clients' ratings of their therapists' multicultural competencies (MCCs) as well as tested whether therapists' who were rated as exhibiting more MCCs also had clients who had better therapy outcomes (N = 143 clients and 31 therapists). All clients completed at least 3 sessions. Results demonstrated that therapists accounted for less than 1% of the variance in their clients' Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory–Revised (CCCI-R; T. D. LaFromboise, H. L. K. Coleman, & A. Hernandez, 1991) scores, suggesting that therapists did not differ in terms of how clients rated their MCCs. Therapists accounted for approximately 8.5% of the variance in therapy outcomes. For each therapist, their clients' CCCI-R scores were aggregated to provide an estimate of therapists' MCCs. Therapists' MCCs, based on aggregate CCCI-R scores, did not account for the variability in therapy outcomes that were attributed to them. Additionally, clients' race/ethnicity, therapists' race/ethnicity, or the interaction of clients'–therapists' race/ethnicity were not significantly associated with clients' perceptions of their therapists' MCCs.