AIM: We understand ambivalence as a cycle of opposing expressions by two internal voices. The emergence of a suppressed voice produces an innovative moment (IM), challenging the dominant voice, which represents the client's problematic self-narrative. The emergence of the IM is opposed by the dominant voice, leading to a return to the problematic self-narrative. This study analyzed therapist and client responses to each other in episodes of ambivalence. METHOD: The therapeutic collaboration coding system (TCCS) assesses whether and how the therapeutic dyad is working within the therapeutic zone of proximal development (TZPD) by examining client responses to therapist interventions. We applied the TCCS to episodes in which a good- and a poor-outcome client in narrative therapy expressed ambivalence. RESULTS: In both the good- and poor-outcome cases, the therapist responded to the emergence of ambivalence similarly, balancing challenging and supporting. The good-outcome case responded at the developmental level proposed by the therapist when challenged, while the poor-outcome case lagged behind the level proposed. DISCUSSION: This supports the theoretical explanation that the therapist did not match client's developmental level in the poor-outcome case, working beyond the client's current TZPD and contributing to the maintenance of ambivalence.
AIM: We understand ambivalence as a cycle of opposing expressions by two internal voices. The emergence of a suppressed voice produces an innovative moment (IM), challenging the dominant voice, which represents the client's problematic self-narrative. The emergence of the IM is opposed by the dominant voice, leading to a return to the problematic self-narrative. This study analyzed therapist and client responses to each other in episodes of ambivalence. METHOD: The therapeutic collaboration coding system (TCCS) assesses whether and how the therapeutic dyad is working within the therapeutic zone of proximal development (TZPD) by examining client responses to therapist interventions. We applied the TCCS to episodes in which a good- and a poor-outcome client in narrative therapy expressed ambivalence. RESULTS: In both the good- and poor-outcome cases, the therapist responded to the emergence of ambivalence similarly, balancing challenging and supporting. The good-outcome case responded at the developmental level proposed by the therapist when challenged, while the poor-outcome case lagged behind the level proposed. DISCUSSION: This supports the theoretical explanation that the therapist did not match client's developmental level in the poor-outcome case, working beyond the client's current TZPD and contributing to the maintenance of ambivalence.
Entities:
Keywords:
ambivalence; assimilation; narrative; process research