Peluso, Paul

The present study investigates therapist factors (such as conversation analysis, affectual interactions, and therapist facilitative skills) on client premature termination and the therapeutic relationship. The interactions of clients and therapists in a total sample of 76 psychotherapy sessions were analyzed using Hills Skills System (2017), Gottman, Woodin, and Coan’s (1998) Specific Affect Coding System, and scales of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI) and Real Relationship Inventory (RRI). Coded data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests which found significant differences between clients who dropout and the types of questions being asked in session (HSS). There were also significant differences between clients who dropout and the therapist and client SPAFF scores, SPAFF and HSS scores on the WAI and RRI, as well as the quality of questions being asked (HSS) over time (from initial session to fourth session). Coded data for differences between clients who dropout and the therapist and client assessment of the quality of the working alliance and real relationship were assessed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests and found no significant differences. Analysis of the results support the presence of therapist factors on the therapeutic relationship and client premature termination. These findings can also be added to the literature regarding the outcomes of the therapeutic relationship on client premature termination. The implications for psychotherapy practice, education, and research are discussed.

The present study applies a Gottman Method Couples Therapy (GMCT) intervention, the Trust Revival Method (TRM), to couples' relationships following an affair, using a randomized control waitlist design. Couples (n= 84) were recruited nationally and internationally and subsequently randomized to either an immediate treatment group or a 3-week waitlist group. A 6-month post-trial follow-up was conducted for couples that completed treatment. The revised Specific Affect Coding System (Coan & Gottman, 2007) was used to code couples' interactions during a 10–15-minute conflict discussion. Significant effects were found when comparing couples' codes against treatment retention and later relationship functioning. Couples also completed various assessments three times during the study, including the 480-question Gottman Connect (GC) assessment tool. Couples on the 3-week waitlist completed one additional pre-treatment assessment before their 3-week wait commenced. Multivariate statistics with appropriate univariate follow-up procedures were employed to determine group differences between the control and experimental groups. Follow-up procedures were also conducted to investigate any differential rates of symptom reduction or treatment success. The researcher used path analysis procedures following Actor Partner Interdependence Model (APIM- Kenny et al., 2020) assumptions to examine the effects of the intervention on overall relationship satisfaction and subsequent affair recovery, revealing significant effects between assessment scores and coded behaviors. Clinical significance testing also showed significant effects in specific relationship domains. The results add to the current research literature, validating GMCT as an effective broad-based couple therapy approach to repair relationships following infidelity. Implications for clinical practice, graduate training, and research are discussed.