UsingMicroanalysis of Communication to Compare Solution-Focused andClient-Centered Therapies

ChristineTomori BeavinBavelas Janet

in psychotherapy ABSTRACT. Microanalysis is the closeexamination of the moment-by-moment communicative actions of thetherapist. This studymicroanalyzed demonstration sessions by experts on solutionfocused andclient-centered therapies, specifically, the first 50 therapist utterances of sessions by Steve de Shazer, InsooKim Berg,CarlRogers, and NathanielRaskin.The first analysis examinedhow the therapist communicated, namely,whetherthe therapist's contributiontook the (e.g., paraphrasing). fbrm of questions or of fbrmulations Thesecond analysis ratedwhethereachquestion or lbrmulationwas positive,neutral, or negative. Two analysts high-independent-agreement demonstrated for both methods. Resultsshowedthat the solution-focused and clientcentered expeftsdilfered in how they structured The clientthe sessions: centered therapists usedtbrmulations almost exclusively, thatis, theyresponded to client's contributions. Solution-fbcused expertsusedboth fbrmulations andquestions, thatis, tliey both initiatedandresponded to clientcontributions. Theyalsodifl'ered in thetenorof theircontributions:
ChristineTornori (E-rnail:ctomori@gmail.com) is CommunityDevelopment Coordinator at the BC Coastal Regionof the Canadian Red CrossSociety, Victoria, BC. Sheis alsoafflliatedwith the Department of Psychology, Universityof Victoria. Victoria,BC. (E-nrail:bavelas@uvic.ca) Janet BeavinBavelas is Emeritus Profe'ssor of Psychology at the Universityof Victoria.Victoria,BC. . Journal ofFamily Psychotherapy, Vol. l8(3) 2007 Availableonlineat http://jfp.haworthpress.com @ 2OO7 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1300/J085v18n03 03

25

26

JOURNALOF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY Thesolution-focused therapists' questions andformulations were primarily positive, whereas those of theclient-centered therapists wereprimarily negative and rarely neutralor positive.Microanalysis can complement outcome research by providingevidence aboutwhattherapists do in their sessions. doi:10.1300/J085v18n03_03 copies awiltblefor a feefront [Anicte TlteHaworthDoarntent Deliverysewice:t-800-HAW)RTH. i-mail-adtlre.ss: website: <ltttp://luwv,.Hautorthpress.com> 1d991e_!iver;,-@haworthpress.cont> @2007h),The Haworth Press, In<:. All rights reien,ed.l

Therapt' in Solutiort-Focused Reseorch

27

betheseareexplicit and specifiable because and trainers for teachers (or to nraster seek to of and aware can become novices haviorsthat is micro-. issues for these base provide evidence an to avoid).One way of the therapist's analysis which is the moment-by-moment analysis, actions. communicative observable

KEYWORDS. Solution-focused therapy, solution-fbcused, research, micro-analysis, communication, client-centered, client-centered therapy

nessof various therapeuticpractices.However, outcome researchstill leavesopen questionsabout what happenedduring the therapy sessions that may have led to change (or not). In this respect, we ioncur with Kazdin and Nock (2oo3) on the need for researchon the "mechanisms

importantto keepin mind that the It is therefore of the conversation. with the statusof an expertand therecomesto the session therapist power to validateor even inherent fore, arguably,has considerable for the client. We problem the solution and shapethe natureof the powerdeliberthis to exercise therapist believethat it is betterfor the what thetherapist of close analysis and that a atelyratherthanby default understand to for therapists (vs. is essential to do) intends actuallydoes we need to begin In short, in a session. rnaking theyare fully thechoices proceeds and process of therapy how the to know more aboutexactly our from third article This is the it. to contributes what the therapist knowledge such to can contribute group how microanalysis on research Del Vento,& Bavelas,2005). (see et al.,2000;McGee, alsoBavelas two strikinglydifferenttherapeutic compared research The present therapydeveloped "client-centered non-directive" or the approaChes: and Raskin,1996) Brink, & (e.g., Farber, 1965; Rogers, by Carl Rogers de Shazer "solution-focused" by Steve developed brief therapy the 1985;De Jong& Berg,2002). andInsooKim Berg (e.g.,de Shazer, of representatives by two distinguished videos teaching We examined and Carl Rogers, Kim Berg, Insoo Shazer, de each approach-Steve that suchvideoswould bestreRaskin-onthe assumption Nathanial wantedto conveyabouthis or her techpresentwhat eachtherapist ratherthananyform of Thatis, we useda "bestcase"approach niques. sampling. for approaches therapeutic two particular these to contrast We chose

28

JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

FocusedTherctpy in SolutionResecn'ch

go beyondtheories of the client and takea standon therapeutic practices. Rogeriantherapistsaim to interveneminimally, by listening closely and limiting their contributionto paraphrasing while clients present theirproblems andcometo theirown insights into thepresumed cause of thoseproblems. They alsoemphasize the specificimportance positiveregardfor the client.Solution-focused of conveying therapists intervene more deliberately, using questions that seekto identify the clients' existingresources and solutions, emphasizing strengths, and minimizing discussion of problems.It is therefore possibleto assess practitioners whether these aredoing what theyadvocate. The present microanalysis focused on two specificaspects of these sessions. First,in whatform did thetherapist contribute to thedialogue? Thatis, weretheymorelikely to initiatetopicswith questions or to wait andrespond to whattheclienthadsaid? Client-centered therapy emphasizesnon-intervention and therefore seeks to reflectwhat the client is sayingratherthandirectingit. Paraphrasing, summarizing, andreflecting are its major techniques. Thesecontributions, technicallycalled "formulations" (Garfinkl& Sacks, 1970,p.350), occuraftertheclient's statements, wherethey are intertdedto function as a kind of mirror for whattheclienthassaid.Two typicalformulations from thesessions we analyzedwere the therapists'italicized responses in the following (CC) session: excerpts of a client-centered Client:. . . andah, doomedto fail-not that I will die or anything. I think doomedto fail and to be therefor children,in a positive, cheerful, warm,loving way. And beinga singleparent,likeI will be,their support system to a largeextent. And it scares me to think of their main support asbeingexhausted andirritatedandRogers;[paraphrasing client] "I just feel I may be ablenot be able to makeit. I maybedoomed to failureby theverycircumstances." Clienr:Right. (SF) session From a solution-focused we havethe following: Client:Well, right now I'm dealingwith a drinkingproblem. de Shazer; Uh-hum. Client:Yeah.

OK, and ah de Shazer: I drinkClienr.Sometime right now. You saY, de Shazer: thatis, to request is to askquestions, Anotheroptionfor thetherapist is anutterance question a from theclient.Functionally, newinformaiion doesnot have.Although,like informationthe therapist that requests a "not-knowing"position (SF)therapy advocates CC, solution-focused it or solutions, insights particular impose not does in which thetherapist clifrom information of kinds specific is much moreactivein seeking and abouipositivefutures,currentsuccesses, entsby askingquestions the cliprecede obviously questions client goals.finiit formulations, " onto to directtheclient'scontribution wheretheyserve ent'sulterance, 2005). Bavelas, & vento, (McGee, Del others topicsratherthan certain directiveand questions would consider It is likely that CC therapists CC and SF expect would preferformulations, so we would generally versus therapiJtto diifer in the extentto which they usefonnulations to their sessions' for their contributions questions whetherthese was to investigate research this of focus The second specifically, abouj, talks "what" therapist the in differ two apprbdches aimsto therapy cc neutral. or negative, is positive, thbpontent wtrettreS or to utterances' neutral whichwouldleadto stance, takea nonrdirective positive positive regard,which would lead to convey urlcJnditional CC problemwould consider SF therapists most However, comments. of theclient's nature the into insight on of theiremphasis because focused problem the client's acknowledge SF tfierapists problem.In contrast, goals' or actions of theclients' positiveaspects tut primarilyemphasize their how to ascertain of thJfour experts ttreutterances We examineO Was what they saidprirnarily in practice: goalsmanifested theoretical "negative?" "neutral,"or even "positive," ^ on the form and For the purposeof comparing5F and CC therapists analytical develop to necessary it wat contentof tneir contributions, interhigh establish and to tools for identifying thesecharacteristics in utterances thefirst 50 therapist reliability.We thenanalyzed analyst The next from eachapproach. utterances eachsession,ldo therapist and definitions, operational the data, the of thesource describes section thereliability of the analYsis.

.10

JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

Resectrchin Solutiott-Fttcused Thentpv

-l I

METHOD Data

which of eachtherapist; the first 50 utterances covered The analysis of eachses| 5 minutes of thebeginning to approximately corresponded Raskinwhich took an addiby Nathaniel sion,exceptfor the session the client spokeat length and Dr. Raskin tional 15 minutesbecause (seedefinitionbelow). responses with minimal listener usuallyresponded Materials (www.b-way.com) to digitizeandanaWe usedBroadwaysoftware four speThe alsoused videotaped sessions. analysts originally lyzethe to the booklet analyze and an instruction cially formattedffanscripts from the authors. canbe obtained data.The writtenmaterials ANALYilS Tomoli analysts in this study,Christine Thereweretwo independent reliability.The of demonstrating Elterman,for the purpose and Jesse anandthesecond all of thedatafor bothphases, first analyst examined I and the first 7SVo of the datafor phase approximately alystexamined phases of analysis: II. Thereweretwo sequential for phase thefir'st5OVo made(e.g.,fonnuthetherapist I identifiedthe kind of utterance Phase thatthetheruII determined thedirection andphase lationor question), (e.g.,positiveor negative). The analysis tll' pist took in that utterance played thc First, eachanalyst eachphaseinvolvedthreebroadstages. madeby the therapisl ratedeachutterance digitizedtherapysession, theratingon the [trrto the instruction booklet,andrecorded according During analysis, he or shefocusedon the digitiz.ctl mattedtranscript. utttl and prosody(e.9.,intonation video,includingfacialexpressions sltcct, only asa guideandrecording word stress) andusedthetranscript their 1-*-rthe analysts compared their ratingsand calculated Second, on sontcrulif did not agree agreement. Third, the analysts centage of necessary, recruitcd u and,if ings,they resolved their disagreements (Bavelas) for eachutteratlcc, to cometo a final decision third analyst PhaseI: Questionsand Formulations utter.ttlccs lth ratedeachtherapist's In the first phase,the analysts or neithcr u lrlt'a formulation andquestion, a formulation, a question, wc and exatttltlcs mulationnor a question. The extensive definitions

32

JOURNALOF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

Therapt Researcltin Solution-Focusetl

33

developed for eachof theseratingsare available from the authors and will be summarized here.

(e.g.,"yeah.")'(5) It response theclient.(4) It inviteda minimallistener "so. . . ." markersuchas oftenbeganwith a discourse that inquire aboutsomethingand invite the areutterances Qwest-ions inquiry,usuallyby providinginformaclientto reply to the therapist's have asgivenin thefollowingexample: not does therapist the tion that to get to schooltoday? Berg: So,how did you manage theclienthow he was asked thetherapist because This wasa question that was not diwas information which difficult, ableto do something oneor moreof meet hadto A question to the therapist. rectly available new information,(2) The pitch the following criteria:(1) It requested (prosody), or (3) It invited more higherat the end of utterance became criterionwasmole first the However, fesponse. thana minimallistener questions synresemble importantthanthe others.Someformulations rather but they areconfirmingunderstanding tacticallyor prosodically, example, For information. new thanseeking Client:. . . I mean,whenI wason thatbus,I wasjust thinking,the crazylike first thing I'm going to clois go off and do something 'n' on thinking I kept hand, kiil myself.But thenon the other try live,I wouldn't I wouldhurtif I do do it, youknow,I all thepeople wouldn't,you know, seemy family wouldn't seemy graduation,I andjustgrow, so thosethingsjust combined

Client:No financial support, andit's notlike I will havemy mother nextdoor or something. Rogers: You will bealonewith a heavyburden andit is a sadprospectfeeling. Client:It feelssad.

Client:Yeah.I guess if I reallythought hardenough I couldprobably find somemore. Raskin:If you could dig arounda little you could comeup with more. Client: Yeah,probably. alsousedoneor moreof thefollowing criteriato guide Tt q analysts theirdecisions: (l) A formulation did not introduce new informati-on: it restated what the client hadsaidearlier.(Therefore, thefirst utterance of a session could not be a formulationbecause it preceded any utterance madeby the client andtherefore could not formulatewhatthe client had (2)lt wasa reasonable saidearlier.) summary of whattheclienthadsaid earlier.(3) It functioned aspartof grounding (e.g., Clark, lgg6),thatis, thetherapist seemed to be demonstrating thathe or shehadunderstood

that you weregoing to live? It's betterfor Berg: So you decided die? yoLlto live than Clienr.Yeah,I wentthroughit, but I cameout of if all right. part of what the clienthadjust said, was summarizing The therapist not askingfor new information. anda quesresponse botha minimallistener thatincluded Utterances for example: tion weresimplyquestions; Okay. And, but therearesomedaysyou don't do any, de Shazer; you don't drink at all? two parts,one a that contained There were also some utterances example: following in the question as one a and formulation Client:I like basketball.

34

JOURNALOF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

Research in SoLution-Focused Therap'v

35

de Shazer: Basketball. Huh-hm.What else? Thefirst part of thetherapist's utterance wasa fo'nulation, themid.. dle part was a minimarlistenerresponse, and the rurt p*loi'the same utterance wasa.question. Therefore, theentireutteraniewastreated as oom a tormulationandquestion. Therewere severalkinds of utterances that could not be eithera for_ mulationor a question. ,.yes,,, .,okay,,, 1. "Minimal listener responses,, suchas,,Mhm,,, and evenwhentheyoccurred asa separute rp"akingiurn, *"i" neither a formulationnora questionbecause tt ry n"i?t capt-ured what theclient had saideairiernor requested "i nlw informatlon. 2. words suchas "r," "me," or "my-"wereindicationsthat the therapist wasofferinghis or herap inionregarding thecrieni;, ,ituution. The following weretwo examples of whena therapist wasofferinghis or her own opinion: Rogers: Thenthat'swhatI'd like you to discuss. Berg: Oh my goodness! Theseexampleswere not formulationsbecause they were not paraphrasing what the client said earlier;rathertt"y *iie explicitly addinginformationaboutwhat the therapist thoughtibil;h; crient,s ..I" situatio.n. However,the therapist could usethe w-ord in iilei, paruphrase in a way thatwe consid-ered a formulation ratherthananopinion: client:. . . andah,doomedto fail-not that I will die or anything. I think doomedto fail and to be therefor children,in a positive, cheerful, warm' loving way. And beinga singte fareru,liie I will be,their support system to a rarge extent. Rno-itscures me to think of their main support as beingJxhausted andirritatedandRogers: crient]"I just feel I may be abrenot be abre [paraphrasing to makeit. I maybedoomed to failureby theverycircumstances.,, Clienr:Right. 3. Anotherutterance that was neithera formulationnor a question ..agreed" could occurwhen the therapist with the u, whenthetherapist "Gntlu.n said:"yei you di-d!" or.iyes!" These uiterances

neither requestednew information from the client nor restated whattheclienthadsaidearlier; theyonly expressed thetherapist's opinion aboutwhat the client had saidearlier. giving "instructions" to a clientwas neithera for4. The therapist's mulationnor a question as seen in the following example: question, strange de Shazer: So, this might seemlike a somewhat but suppose thatwhenyou go hometonightandyou go to bedand you go to sleep. A miraclehappens andtheproblemthatbringsyou while here is solved.But you can't know it because it happens you're sleeping. would be neithera formulation nor a quesInstrnctions suchasthese tion because the therapist wasexplicitlyguidingtheclientinto a particular perspective and requesting the client to irnaginea novel idea or from theclientor forratherthanrequesting new information situation, mulating whattheclientjust said. utterances by thetherapists wereneithera formulation 5. Incomplete nor a question asgiven in the following example: Berg;.. . easyfor you. In this case,the utterance was not complete, so the analystdid not haveenoughinformationto rateit as a formulationor question. Reliahility For phase for I of theanalysis, theanalysts' achieved 807o agreement Carl Rogers,95Va for Nathaniel Raskin,86Va for InsooKim Berg,and 95Voagreement for Stevede Shazer. PhaseII: Positive, Negative, or Neutral Contributions phase, In thesecond formulations theanalysts classified thetherapists' "both positiveandnegative," or questions aseither"positive,""negative," "neuffal" (neitherpositivenor negative), The guidor "not analyzable." ing principle was"wouldthisbea "positive"or "negative" for theanalyst direction for me if I werein this situation?" of all of these Seeexamples options, ignoredall utterances below.The analysts thattheyhadagreed were categorized as, both formulations and questions, and as neither

36

JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

Resecu'chin Sttlution-Focused Therapy'

37

formulationsnor questions. Thesewere predominantly minimal listenerresponses, which could not be classified aspositive,negative, or neutral. Therewerefour steps to guidetheanalyst in makingthese decisions. First,theanalysts readtheclient'sbackground informa-tion andwatched thetranscribed partof thedigitizedsession. An example of background informationwasthis summary: The clientwasa teenage boy named carl who attended an alternative high,school for at-riskyouth.The therapist, InsooKim Berg, was conductinga workshopat his high school.After the *or[shop,carl approached her and discloiedthat he had tried to kill himselfby cuttinghis throatthe night before.Because this was a high-risk situation,Berg madearrangements to havea therapysession with Carl as soonaspossible. It was.important for analyststo have sufficient backgioundinformationaboutthe client because they oftenhad to considJr the specific nature of theproblemin orderto hssess whether thetherapist's utterance was positiveor negative, given the problem.For example,when the client lived in a poor neighborhood with a high rateof ufremployment, then.asking in an upbeat tone,"How do you pay your bills?" wai positive because it presupposed that he could anitdi.i pay them.The iame question in a concerned toneto someone who wasoveitlv worriedabout finances would be considered a negative question, beiauseit presupposed thattheclientmaynot bepayingthem.Theanalysts alsowatched andattended to thecontext of theentireunfoldingdialogue between the therapistand client in order to avoid losingthe mEaningof their dialogue. playedthe digitizedsegment and followed the -. second,the analysts dialogue with the formatted transcripi. Theypaid closeattention to the ' utterances madeby the therapist,their prosody,and their facial expressions. This wasimportant because a therapist couldsaythe sameutterancewith a surprised or encouraging toneor with a heavyor assertive tone..A therapist could also say an utterance with negative contentin a positiveway prosodically, or vice versa. Therefore, whentheanalvsts were making a decisionaboutpositive,negative, etc.,they needed to makeit based on bothcontentandprosody. The analysts aisoattended to facialexpressions duringthisphase beciuse a therapist coulduseambiguous wordswith a srnileon his or her face.Based bn boththewords and the facial expression, the analysts might decidethat the utterance

prosody, facial usedthe content, the analysts waspositive.Altogether, context and the client, the about information background expressions, in the to decidewhetherthe directionof the dialogue ofihe dialogue,

made who justtried to commitsuicidelastnightl?Finally,the analysts decisions: oneof the following would be a positive. "Yes," theutterance answered l. If the analysts Carl: asked Berg Kim question Insoo that For the in school? Berg: Ah,Carl,um, which what is your bestsubject boy who hadjust The answerwould be "yes": If I were a teenage my bestsubquestion about a were asked I and suicide triedto commit

much simpler; it is positive to talk about things one does well and topics. to talk aboutunpleasant negative "No," thentheutterance would be negaanswered 2. lf theanalysts Kim Bergasked Carl,Insoo with interview same the tive. Laterin night before: the attempt suicide aboutCarl's to ju'sta to follow up on whatwe just started Berg:O.k.I wanted had five we right], talk time to much have clidn't we littl; bit [C: minutesto talk this morning.So, I wantedto follow up on that. to kill yourself to . . . you wanted You weresayingthatyou wanted yesterday?

J8

JOURNALOF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

Resecu'clr. itt Solut iott- Focusetl Therapy

This question would be negative; If I am a teenage boy who hadjust triedto commitsuicide thenight before,Iwouldrino it veryundesirable to discuss thetopic.It wouldmakemethinkaboutthefeelings thatwere so painful I wantedto end my life. (It is important to mentionherethat completelyavoidingany discussion aboutthe suicideattemptwould havebeenirresponsible and unethical). 3. If the analysts answered both "yes" and "No," thenit would be both a positiveand negative utterance. This would happen when one utterance includedboth desirable and undesirable directions as in the following example: Rogers:Sortof a newphase of your rife, is that-It hasexcitement aswell asdreadin it I guess. 4. If the utterance was open-ended anddid not committhe analysts in any direction(positiveor negative), then they classifiedthe utterance as neutralasgiven in the following example: Client:I put on my happyface.yeah, that,swhat I call it. Berg: That's what you call it? The analysts would consider this utterance, spoken in a matter-of-fact way,to be noncommittal. It hadneither positive nor negative implicationsfor the client. Noticeagainthat the analysts did n-ot hypothesize anydeeper meanings or motivations for askingthequestion; theyfocused instead on how theclientwould understand it. 5. If theanalyst couldnotresolvewhether theutterance waspositive or negative, he or shecould call it not analyzable. This decision meant it was too difficult to rate, whereai a rating of neutral meantthattheutterance did not go in eithera positivior negative direction. Reliability For phase II of theanalysis, g6voagreement theanalysts achieved for carl Rogers,S|vo for Nathaniel Raskin,l00vo for InsooKi-mBerg,and 9O7o agreement for Stevede Shazer.

RESALTS differedin theiruseof for-. As shownin Table 1,the two approaches 69 of their 100utterquestions. For theCC therapists, versus mulations The SF therapists and only I was a question. were formulations ances 29 of their utterand questions: usedan equalamountof formulations The solution-focused were questions and 28 were formulations. ances (neither quesresponses moreminimallistener therapists hadsomewhat tionsnor formulations). by the CC or questions only the 70 formulations Phase II included thertherapists and the 57 of thesetwo kinds by the solution-focused questions As shownin Table 2, ll of the 70 client-centered apists. or formulationswere in a positive direction,4 were neutral,and44 versus SoluContribution by Client-Centered 1. Formof Therapist TABLE tion-Focused Therapists
Solution-FocusedTherapists Client-CenteredTherapists Rogers Raskin Formulations Questions Formulations andquestions Neither formulations nor questions Total 47 22 101 101 26329 50 50 69 de Shazer Berg 5 20 4 21 23 929 o4 18 50 Both 28

39 100

100

and Questionsby TABLE 2. Positive,Negative,or Neutral Formulations Therapists Client-Centered and Solution-Focused
Therapists Therapists Solution-Focused Client-Centered
Rogers Positive Negative Positiveand negative Neutral Not analyzable Total 'Raskin Both 11 44 11 4 0 70

de Shazer Berg Both 20 268 000 314 000 25 25 45

0 19 2 2 0 23

11 25 I 2 0 47

32

57

lrquonclol" Note:The main eflect of therapyon positiveversusnegativewas tesled with th itallcized x " ( , N = 1 0 8 )= 4 s . 5 4 ,p < 0 . 0 0 1 .

40

JOURNALOF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

Reseurt:h in Solution-Focused Therttpt'

4l

DISCUSSION

FIGURE1. Frequency of Positive versusNegative Formulations or euestions in client-centered(Total N = b5) and Solution-Focused rherapies (Total N=53)

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

poin thetherapist's inherent Giventhepowerandauthority statement. will betakenby theclientas thattheformulation sition,thereis a chance the corect versionof what he or shehasjust said.Thereis, therefore, cancloseoff eachof theclient'sconpossibilitythatformulations some this As with questions, ratherthaninviting new information. tributions pulposes; we areonly drawing for manydifferent possibility canbe used conversation. to their inevitablepowerto affectthe therapeutic attention of questions and formulations predicted, the have would As they most surprising positive. The predominantly were andBerg de Shazer andRaskinwerenot often resultin this studywasthatthoseof Rogers rnightwonderwhether One positive,rarelyneutral,andmainly negative. this result could be an artifact of a differencein what the clients thecliaimto reflect Thatis, if CC therapists to theirsessions. brought would lead to more thenclientswith worseproblems ents'ltterances, problems presenting in However, the negativetherapistutterances. direction.Rogers'client to differ in the opposite this studyhappened about being a single,working mother,and Raskin's was concerned clientwas worriedaboutinitiatinga singleviolentincidentwith her theSFclients concerns, those legitimate Withouttrivializing husband. presented more seriousproblems:de Shazer'sclient had long-standing and Berg's young drinking problem with severalpreviousrelapses, to kill himself who hadjust attempted clientwasan at-riskadolescent input from that thepossibilityof positiveor negative again.It appears of casedetails,and it is regardless is alwayspresent, the therapist which direction the therapy the therapist'schoice that determines will go in. to intended theircomments We haveno doubtthatthe CC therapists perhaps uninbut the their clients, for and clarifying be sympathetic toneto their communinegative resultwas an overwhelmingly tended in informalexperiment (1994,pp.66-67)proposed an cation. De Shazer situations: to the following is to respond which the reader [I]maginethat you have spentthe previoushalf-hourtalking to particularly on in his life, focusing Mr. A aboutall of theproblems . '. you this half-hour? feelafter How do of depression. his feelings whatthe clientmustfeel like? [C]an you irnagine half-hourtalking [Now] imaginethatyou havespenttheprevious to Mr. B aboutall of the thingsthat havegonewell in his life, How do you feel on his feelingsof success. focusingparticularly

42

JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHEMPY

Resettrcltin Solutiott-Focusetl Therttpy

43

after this half-hour? . . . [C]an you imaginewhat the client must feellike...? Recallthat we distinguished at theoutsetbetween outcome andprocessresearch. our resultssuggest thereare significantdifferences in what hapqgnswithin a sessionin thesetwo different therapeuticapproaches. we makeno claimsherefor whattheultimateeffeclsof theie differences would be on therapeutic outcome, but we propose thatevidence-based practiceshouldconsider both process and outcome. We needto know whathappened in the session(s) in orderto know how to account for good(or poor) outcomes. As notedat the outset, interest in

REFERENCES
(1980). Tfte (Producer). American Associationfor counseling and Development session1/with carl stiuggle,for self Acceptance:TheInner world of Coun,seling, Rogers [Motion Picture]. Ameriian PsychologicalAssociation(Producer).(1994). Client CenteredTherapy: NathanielJ. Raskin. [Motion Picture].(Availableon the AmericanPsychological I 0250'htnl. http://www.apa.org/videosi43 website: Association of comMicroanalysis R. (2000). J.B.,McGee,D., Phillips,B., & Routledge, Bavelas, I I ' 47 -66. Human Systents, in psychotherapy. munication Kint Berg(2004). An Interviewwith In,sott Brief Family Theiapycenter (Pfoducer). ,,1,m YoutlrlMotion picture].(Avail. . ." Workingwitl Suicidcrl Clid to be-Alive able from the Brief Family TherapyCenter,Milwaukee' WI). cambridge,England:cambridge tlniversity clar.k, H.H. (1996). IJsinglanguaSe. Press. (2nd ed). Pacific Grove, De Jong, P. & Berg, I.K. (2002). Intefliewing for solutiotts CA: Brooks/Cole. New York, NY: Nofton' in brief therap-r'. S. (1985).Keysto solutions de Shazer, with Stevede Shazer] videotaped therapysession S. (1990).[Restricted de Shazer, motionpicture. Unpublished originallyrragic.New York, NY: Norlon' de Shaler,S. (1994).Wordsvvere of CarL B.A., Brink, D.C., & Raskin,P'M. (Eds').(1996).Theps1'6he17srctpy Farber, Rogers:Caseand commerilan.New York: NY The Guiltbrd Press. of practical actions.In Garfinkl, H. & Sacks,H. (1970). On formal structures (pp.337-366)' New sociology J.C.McKinney& E.A. Tiryakian(Eds.),Theorerical York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofis. obiects.In as conversational Heritage,J. & Watson,R. (1979), Formulations (pp, 123-162)' in etlmomethodology Studies (Ed.),Everydav language: G. Fasathas New York: Irvington. in child and of change mechauisms Kazdin,A.E. & Nock, M.K. (2003).Delineating Jow'nal rccomtnendations. andresearch al issues therapy:Methodologie adolescent 44, ll16-1129. Psychiatry' cud Psychology of Child lnodelof questions An interactional J.B.(2005). D., Del Vento,A., & Bavelas, McGee, -j1, 37 1-384. Tlrc rapy, F ly r ul and emi Jo tuttttlof M a it interventions. astherapeutic and therap\,:Itscurret$practice,intpliccttions, Cliint-centeretl Rogers, C.if. (ISOS). Mifflin Conpany. theoty.Boston.MA: Houghton Lexical itt psycllalfusrapv: of cotnnutnicatiort Tomori, C. (2004).A microanalysis of PsycholDepartnrent thesis, Honours clirectionUnpublished cmdtherapy clrcice ogy, Universityof Victoria.

would be possible.Theseanalytictools may also be gameanalyses helpful for training,for helpingnew therapists become more awareof what they are doing (and can do). Moreover,thereare myriad other featuresof therapeuticcommunicationthan the two wc examined here,which are also amenable to study underthe microscope of this technique. When we focusmoreandmorecloselyon communication,we may cometo seepsychotherapy lessin termsof nouns(e.g.,empathy, inslght) and more in terms of verbs,as something therapistand client"do" together.

NOTE
thatthisanalysis violated theassumption of independence - l. I.tmay initially appear for Chi-square. However, statistical dependence means thattheniereoccurrence ofone eventnecessarily determines theprobability of otherevents. In our datathereis no reasonwhy. havingmadea positiveutterance. the therapist would haveto makemoreor fewer suchutterances later-unless this pattern was the therapist's style,which is the phenomena under studyhere.

I 8n03-03 doi:10.1300/J085v