More than one way home - Student raters´ Impressions of interventions and group processes in mentalization based group psychotherapy and group analytic psychotherapy

Author:

Pries JohannesORCID,Niecke AlexanderORCID,Vetter Annekatrin,Schultz-Venrath UlrichORCID

Abstract

Abstract Introduction In a controlled psychotherapy outcome study comparing mentalization based treatment in groups (MBT-G) and group analytic treatment (GAP) in a day clinic, both psychodynamic group psychotherapy forms were found to be highly effective (Brand et al., 2016). But how did specific interventions and processes in both groups differ? The present article describes student raters impressions. Methods Twelve psychology students listened to 100 audio recordings of 90 minutes group psychotherapy sessions of GAP(Lorentzen, 2013) and MBT-G (Karterud, 2015). Each session was randomly assigned to two student raters, who were asked to write down their impressions. These rater impressions were analyzed following Mayring (1983). Results Group conductors in MBT-G used more questions, had short shares of speech, used group dynamics and fostered multiple perspectives on issues discussed. Affect perception was stimulated by asking questions. In GAP, conductors used more interpretations, confrontations and supportive interventions, and they had longer shares of speech; handling of affects was based on „allowing to get infected“. Discussion It is hypothesized that symptom reduction in both groups occured via different ways: Following Felsberger (2017), in GAP the pathic (affective contagion) function of interactions was more relevant, while in MBT-G it was the phatic (contact keeping) function. Results are also discussed in relation to previous findings on group processes and interventions.

Publisher

PAGEPress Publications

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health,Clinical Psychology

Reference50 articles.

1. Rosendahl, J., Alldredge, C. T., Burlingame, G. M., & Strauss, B. (2021). Recent developments in group psychotherapy research. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 74(2), 52-59.

2. Blackmore, C., Beecroft, C., Parry, G., Booth, A., Tantam, D., Chambers, E., Simpson, E., Roberts, S. & Saxon, D. (2009). A systematic review of the efficacy and clinical effectiveness of group analysis and analytic/dynamic group psychotherapy. Centre for Psychological Services Research, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK.

3. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.120473!/file/IGA_GAS_FINAL_REPORT.pdf

4. last visited 13.6.2022

5. Janssen, P. L., & Sachs, G. (2018). Psychodynamische Gruppenpsychotherapie: Theorie, Setting und Praxis. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3