The co-therapy relationship: Mutuality,agreement and client outcome

This project, utilizing a pretest and posttest design, studied interactions between co-therapists and the relationships of their interactions to client outcome. Six co-therapist pairs at a counseling center saw two clients in multiple treatments yielding twelve cases. The study investigated co-therapist relationships in regard to: (a) their level of mutuality or caring for their partners, (b) their ratings of the quality of their relationships, and (c) their agreement as to perceptions and behavior during sessions. Also investigated were: the relation of co-therapist interaction to client outcome and the personal growth of the therapists over the course of therapy. Results supported success claims of the literature concerning co-therapy.     

Successful psychotherapy

This paper develops an existential explanation for the position that different psychotherapeutic modalities enjoy comparable success rates. The explanation provides necessary and sufficient conditions for a successful outcome, related to the actualization level of both client and therapist, and is shown to imply equal theoretical probability of success across modalities.     

Multidimensional assessment of depression

A brief version of the Multiscore Depression Inventory was evaluated. Good coefficient alpha and test-retest reliabilities were obtained for the total score and the subscales. Two factor analyses were reported which appear to justify the use of a multiscore approach for at least 8 of the 9 subscales: helplessness, energy level, guilt, social introversion, cognitive difficulty, irritability, pessimism, and low self-esteem. Sad mood apparently overlapped with energy level on one analysis (replicating findings with the 118-item Multiscore Depression Inventory), and with self-esteem on the second analysis. Normative data are provided on diverse samples totaling 849 subjects.     

The efficient assessment of need for cognition

A short form for assessing individual differences in need for cognition is described.     

Attributions, beliefs about control, and adjustment to breast cancer

Attributions for cancer and beliefs about control over cancer were examined for their association with adjustment to breast cancer. Although 95% of the respondents made attributions for their cancer, no particular attribution (e.g., stress, diet) was associated with better adjustment. Analyses of attributions of responsibility for the cancer to the self, environment, another person, or chance yielded only a negative relation between adjustment and blaming another person. In contrast, both the belief that one could now control one's cancer and the belief that others (e.g. the physician) could now control the cancer were significantly associated with good adjustment. Of the different types of control, cognitive control was most strongly associated with adjustment, behavior control was less strongly associated with adjustment, and information control and retrospective control were unassociated with adjustment. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.     

Personal control and stress and coping processes: a theoretical analysis

Laboratory and field research indicates that the relationships between personal control and stress, coping, and adaptational outcomes are more complex than was once assumed. Believing that an event is controllable does not always lead to a reduction in stress or to a positive outcome, and believing that an event is uncontrollable does not always lead to an increase in stress or to a negative outcome. These complex relationships involving control are examined in the context of Lazarus's cognitive theory of stress and coping. The first part of the article elaborates this theory and shows how two forms of control, generalized beliefs about control and situational appraisals of control, fit into the overall model. Situational appraisals of control are explored in this section, including the question, Control over what? which must be addressed in order to explain some of the perplexing findings. The second part of the article draws on the theoretical formulation of stress and coping to examine three important issues: (a) how believing one has control in a stressful transaction can heighten threat, (b) the relationship between control and coping, and (c) pathways through which control can affect the adaptational outcomes of stressful encounters.     

Challenge seeking and the type A coronary-prone behavior pattern

The present investigation sought to further delineate the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern and to elucidate the psychophysiological process through which this behavioral disposition is translated into heart disease. Type A and Type B male subjects engaged in tasks that required varying degrees of activity before an assessment of challenge-seeking tendencies. Type A participants sought greater degrees of challenge than did their Type B counterparts. In addition, the more active the person with Pattern A had been immediately before the challenge-seeking opportunity, the greater the degree of challenge sought. Precedent activity level did not significantly influence challenge seeking in the Type B population. The Type A subjects also had significantly faster heart rates during performance of a challenging task. Pattern A behavior may be translated into heart disease through the cumulative deleterious effects of chronic and excessive challenge-induced cardiovascular excitation.     

Task-related arousal of type A and type B persons: level of challenge and response specificity

To determine whether different levels of challenge had differential effects on the arousal levels of Type A and Type B persons, 30 Type A and 30 Type B male subjects worked on an intelligence test task (digits backwards recall) that was easy, moderately difficult, or extremely difficult. Arousal was measured in terms of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate, pulse volume, skin resistance, and subjective arousal. Results indicated that while working on the extremely difficult task, the Type A subjects evidenced reliably higher systolic blood pressure than did the Type B subjects (p = 0.1; difference = 7.52 mm of Hg) and that there were not reliable differences between the subjects in systolic blood pressure at other levels of challenge or on other measures of arousal.