Acknowledgments |
|
xi | |
Foreword by Peter D. Campion |
|
xiii | |
Preface |
|
xv | |
|
1 The dynamics of careseeking and caregiving |
|
|
|
|
1 | (8) |
|
Origins of interest in attunement in therapy |
|
|
9 | (4) |
|
|
13 | (2) |
|
2 Research on the process of interaction in adult psychotherapy |
|
|
|
|
15 | (3) |
|
The work of the Chicago Group: 1940-1960 |
|
|
18 | (5) |
|
From a focus on the individual to a focus on interaction: 1960-1980 |
|
|
23 | (2) |
|
Psychotherapy research: 1980-2000's |
|
|
25 | (3) |
|
|
28 | (2) |
|
3 Infant/caregiver interactions: the process of affect identification, communication, and regulation |
|
|
|
|
30 | (2) |
|
From deduction to construction: from Melanie Klein to Gyorgy Gergely |
|
|
32 | (3) |
|
Affect regulation is linked with caregiving from the start of life |
|
|
35 | (2) |
|
Correct identification of affect by the caregiver affects the infant's developing sense of self |
|
|
37 | (3) |
|
How caregivers communicate to infants that they understand their affective state: the process of affect attunement |
|
|
40 | (3) |
|
Infants' responsiveness to affective interaction with caregivers and their response to loss of contact with caregivers |
|
|
43 | (3) |
|
Caregiver/infant interactions: the patterning of relationship |
|
|
46 | (1) |
|
Patterns of affect attunement associated with effective caregiving |
|
|
47 | (2) |
|
Affect attunement and empathy |
|
|
49 | (2) |
|
|
51 | (3) |
|
4 Patterns of careseeking/caregiving relationships: research into attachment behaviour in infants and young children |
|
|
|
|
54 | (2) |
|
|
56 | (1) |
|
Internal working models of the experience of relationship |
|
|
56 | (1) |
|
Attachment classification: stable and persistent over time |
|
|
57 | (1) |
|
The adult attachment interview |
|
|
58 | (1) |
|
Careseeker/caregiver dyads: communication patterns in relation to affect |
|
|
59 | (1) |
|
Careseeker/caregiver dyads: interaction patterns in relation to play |
|
|
60 | (1) |
|
Careseeker/caregiver dyads: interaction strategies based on secure or insecure relationships |
|
|
61 | (3) |
|
Effective caregiving: attunement to a range of affect |
|
|
64 | (2) |
|
|
66 | (4) |
|
5 Presenting the concept of goal-corrected empathic attunement: effective caregiving within psychotherapy |
|
|
|
|
70 | (1) |
|
|
71 | (2) |
|
The system for exploration |
|
|
73 | (1) |
|
Goal-corrected empathic attunement: a process involved in effective caregiving |
|
|
74 | (1) |
|
The psychotherapeutic relationship: an account of interactional sequences using the concept of goal-corrected empathic attunement |
|
|
75 | (8) |
|
Where have we come so far? |
|
|
83 | (6) |
|
6 First experiment: the identification of affect attunement in adult psychotherapy |
|
|
|
|
89 | (1) |
|
|
90 | (1) |
|
|
91 | (1) |
|
|
92 | (1) |
|
|
93 | (1) |
|
|
93 | (5) |
|
Table 1: Ratings of excerpts given by the experts |
|
|
94 | (1) |
|
Table 2: Rating of the excerpts by experts and students |
|
|
94 | (9) |
|
Characteristics of an 'attuned' therapist |
|
|
96 | (1) |
|
Characteristics of a 'non-attuned' therapist |
|
|
97 | (1) |
|
|
98 | (3) |
|
|
101 | (1) |
|
7 Second experiment: is empathic attunement interactive? |
|
|
|
|
102 | (1) |
|
|
102 | (1) |
|
Overview of the experiment |
|
|
102 | (1) |
|
|
103 | (1) |
|
Method of allocation to groups |
|
|
103 | (1) |
|
Table 3: The experimental group and the control group |
|
|
103 | (1) |
|
|
104 | (1) |
|
Materials and practical arrangements |
|
|
104 | (1) |
|
|
104 | (1) |
|
|
105 | (1) |
|
The mechanics of the debriefing |
|
|
105 | (1) |
|
My experience of the debriefing sessions |
|
|
106 | (1) |
|
Manging and collating the qualitative material |
|
|
106 | (1) |
|
|
107 | (1) |
|
Correct identification of attuned and non-attuned excerpts by the experimental group and the control group |
|
|
107 | (1) |
|
|
108 | (10) |
|
Chart 1: Correct and incorrect identification of verbal and non-verbal behaviour |
|
|
110 | (5) |
|
Chart 2: Interpretation of non-attuned extract |
|
|
115 | (3) |
|
|
118 | (2) |
|
|
120 | (2) |
|
8 Third experiment: an experiment designed to test whether secure attachment style correlates with empathic attunement and whether empathic attunement can be improved with training |
|
|
|
|
122 | (1) |
|
|
123 | (1) |
|
Table 4: The design and rationale for the study |
|
|
124 | (1) |
|
Reasons for employing professional actors |
|
|
124 | (1) |
|
|
125 | (1) |
|
Reasons for deciding the number of actors and students to be involved |
|
|
125 | (1) |
|
Constructing the scenarios |
|
|
126 | (1) |
|
Creating a control group and an experimental group for the purposes of training |
|
|
127 | (1) |
|
The process of creating matched pairs |
|
|
127 | (1) |
|
Creating a measure of caregiving: the careseeker's and caregiver's perspectives |
|
|
127 | (1) |
|
Briefing for the students |
|
|
128 | (1) |
|
|
129 | (1) |
|
Briefing for the cameramen |
|
|
129 | (1) |
|
|
130 | (2) |
|
|
132 | (1) |
|
|
132 | (1) |
|
|
133 | (1) |
|
Attachment questionnaires |
|
|
133 | (2) |
|
|
135 | (1) |
|
9 The process of obtaining a reliable measure for goal-corrected empathic attunement |
|
|
|
|
136 | (1) |
|
|
137 | (1) |
|
Creating a measuring instrument |
|
|
137 | (2) |
|
Obtaining the clinical material |
|
|
139 | (4) |
|
Modifying the rating instrument |
|
|
143 | (1) |
|
Creating a second measuring instrument |
|
|
143 | (2) |
|
|
145 | (2) |
|
Issues arising from the first attempt at getting a reliable rating |
|
|
147 | (1) |
|
Involving a second independent rater |
|
|
147 | (1) |
|
Table 5: Empathic attunement score correlation between two independent raters and self |
|
|
148 | (1) |
|
|
148 | (3) |
|
Table 6: Empathic attunement between independent rater and self |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
Table 7: Scores of all three raters for each of the 12 students |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
Learning from our mistakes or repeating our mistakes |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
Analysis of our attempts so far |
|
|
152 | (5) |
|
Example 1: Goal-corrected empathic attunement within the context of psychotherapy |
|
|
155 | (1) |
|
Example 2: Poor goal-correctedempathic attunement |
|
|
156 | (1) |
|
|
157 | (1) |
|
Technique for managing defensive processes |
|
|
158 | (3) |
|
Table 8: Correlation between the two independent raters on21 segments of tape taken from four interviews |
|
|
159 | (1) |
|
Table 9: Correlation between the two independent raters on the average of 1.5-minute segments of tape from twelve interviews |
|
|
160 | (1) |
|
Table 10: Correlation between the two independent raters on twelve tapes |
|
|
160 | (1) |
|
|
161 | (1) |
10 Results of the Third Experiment |
|
|
|
162 | (1) |
|
|
163 | (1) |
|
Table 11: Internal consistency of the scales involved in caregivers' measure of caregiving |
|
|
164 | (1) |
|
Table 12: Frequency of distribution: caregivers' (students') score |
|
|
164 | (1) |
|
Subjective measures of empathic attunement: careseekers' (actors') score |
|
|
164 | (4) |
|
Chart 3: Students' score/frequency of distribution |
|
|
165 | (1) |
|
Table 13: Internal consistency of the scales involved in careseekers' measure of caregiving |
|
|
166 | (1) |
|
Table 14: Frequency of distribution: careseekers' (actors') score |
|
|
166 | (1) |
|
Chart 4: Actors' score/frequency of distribution |
|
|
167 | (1) |
|
Chart 5: Independent measure of GCEA/frequency of distribution |
|
|
167 | (1) |
|
Correlations between the measurers |
|
|
168 | (2) |
|
Table 15: Correlation between measures of careseeker/caregiver interaction |
|
|
168 | (1) |
|
Chart 6: Student score by actor score |
|
|
169 | (1) |
|
|
170 | (1) |
|
Table 16: Analysis of variance student score |
|
|
170 | (1) |
|
Table 17: Analysis of variance actor score (total score) |
|
|
170 | (1) |
|
Table 18: Analysis of variance: independent measure |
|
|
171 | (1) |
|
|
171 | (1) |
|
Goal-corrected empathic attunement and attachment style |
|
|
172 | (4) |
|
Table 19: Correlation between measures of compulsive caregiving and insecure attachment with the careseekers', caregivers' and the independent scores for empathic attunement |
|
|
173 | (1) |
|
Chart 7: Goal-corrected attunement score by attachment score |
|
|
174 | (1) |
|
Chart 8: Mean goal-corrected attunement score by predicted GCEA score |
|
|
175 | (1) |
|
Results of training: Experimental group |
|
|
176 | (3) |
|
Table 20: Trained students' average scores: day one and day two |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
Table 21: Student, time and student score: an analysis of variance |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
Table 22: Student, time and actor score: an analysis of variance |
|
|
178 | (1) |
|
Table 23: Student, time and independent score: an analysis of variance |
|
|
178 | (1) |
|
Results of training: Control group |
|
|
179 | (2) |
|
Table 24: Average scores for untrained students on day one and day two: self-assessment. Actors' scores and empathic attunement scores |
|
|
179 | (1) |
|
Table 25: Student, time and score: an analysis of variance |
|
|
180 | (1) |
|
Table 26: Student, time and actor score: an analysis of variance |
|
|
180 | (1) |
|
|
181 | (3) |
|
Table 27: Students' average score at time 1: independent rater |
|
|
181 | (1) |
|
Table 28: Caregivers' (students') average score at time 2: independent rater |
|
|
181 | (1) |
|
Table 29: Improvement score for experimental and control groups |
|
|
182 | (1) |
|
Table 30: Improvement score for careseeker (actor) and caregiver (student) |
|
|
182 | (1) |
|
Table 31: Student, time and independent score: an analysis of variance |
|
|
183 | (1) |
|
|
184 | (1) |
|
Attachment style and independent measure of goal-corrected empathic attunement |
|
|
185 | (1) |
|
|
186 | (2) |
|
|
188 | (1) |
11 Patterns of functional and dysfunctional careseeking-caregiving partnerships |
|
|
|
189 | (2) |
|
Extended attachment theory and goal-corrected instinctive systems |
|
|
191 | (2) |
|
|
193 | (3) |
|
Interactions patterns and the emotive messages that accompany them |
|
|
196 | (1) |
|
The regulation or lack of regulation of careseeker vitality states through effective or ineffective misattunement or non-attunement by the caregiver |
|
|
196 | (5) |
|
Sequences of interaction depicting affect regulation through purposeful misattunement to affect |
|
|
201 | (5) |
|
Affect identification, regulation and containment |
|
|
206 | (2) |
|
Non-attunement to affect giving rise to self-defence in the careseeking-caregiving partnership |
|
|
208 | (2) |
|
Instinctive fear system overriding the arousal of exploratory caregiving |
|
|
210 | (4) |
|
Goal-corrected empathic attunement: amplification of affect and affect regulation |
|
|
214 | (4) |
|
|
218 | (1) |
|
Careseeking: typical styles of communication |
|
|
219 | (1) |
|
Caregivers: typical responses to careseeking |
|
|
220 | (1) |
|
Patterns of interaction associated with effective and ineffective caregiving |
|
|
221 | (6) |
|
Example of a successful consultation |
|
|
227 | (11) |
|
|
238 | (1) |
12 Interactions between therapists and patients and their roots in infancy |
|
|
|
239 | (1) |
|
|
239 | (5) |
|
|
244 | (3) |
|
|
247 | (1) |
|
Five styles of careseeking behaviour |
|
|
247 | (1) |
|
|
248 | (1) |
|
The power of vitality affects to convey emotional states |
|
|
248 | (1) |
|
|
249 | (1) |
Appendix 1 Role play scenarios for day one |
|
250 | (2) |
Appendix 2 Measure of student attunement to be completed by the student after each interview |
|
252 | (2) |
Appendix 3 Measure of student attunement to be completed by the actor after each interview |
|
254 | (2) |
Appendix 4 Role play scenarios for day two |
|
256 | (3) |
References |
|
259 | (6) |
Index |
|
265 | |