From Reflection to Intervention, an interpretation of the process of clientcentered therapy in interaction terms — Most theories of psychotherapy consider variables in interactional processes as the main conditions for development of human suffering and pathology. Also relational processes (i.e. the psychotherapeutic relationship) are indicated as the main vehiculum for modifying problem behavior. But there has been little reflection on the consequences of these premises for the interpretation of the therapeutic process.
In part I problem-behavior is interpreted as manifesting the limited interactional repertoire of the client (cf. Leary, Carson). Because clients are limited in ways of relating to people, they avoid situations in which those interaction-responses (which they cannot perform) are requested. If they cannot avoid the situations, they take refuge in a variety of indirect messages and tactics, in which they deny on one level of communication the message given at another level. In this way they never have to accept responsibility for what they communicate (cf. Haley, Beier). Some examples are discussed, illustrating this concept of pathology.
In part II the goal of psychotherapy is seen as the broadening of the clients interactional repertoire. The client will also manifest his interactional stereotypes in the relationship with his therapist. The therapist must create interactional conditions that block these interactional patterns so that the client will have to try out new ways of dealing with his therapist.
The therapist frustrates his client in the interactional conditions and manoeuvres that the uses in his relating to the therapist: Some examples are discussed to illustrate this process.
In part III the process in a client-centered therapy session is described in the model presented above. How does a client-centered therapist view a client that requests therapy? (Rogers-process-scale). What implications does this have for the interactional conditions that he offers his therapist? What is the usual response to these interactional conditions? What is the reaction of the therapist? The interactional conditions that a clientcentered therapist offers (empathy-acceptance, etc.) are described as an 'a-social' response (Beier) to the client's appeals. In this way he frustrates his client. Therefore the therapeutic conditions create more than a nonthreatening climate for the client (Rogers); they serve also to frustrate the client's style of relating. In this sense the Rogerian therapist has an unconditional non-acceptance for the interaction stereotype of his client!