Palmer Simon, Brockmeyer Timo, Zipfel Stephan, Wild Beate, Resmark Gaby, Teufel Martin, Giel Katrin, de Zwaan Martina, Dinkel Andreas, Herpertz Stephan, Burgmer Markus, Löwe Bernd, Tagay Sefik, Rothermund Eva, Zeeck Almut, Herzog Wolfgang, Friederich Hans-Christoph
Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, University of Goettingen.
Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Center of Excellence in Eating Disorders, University Hospital Tuebingen.
Psychotherapy (Chic). 2023 Dec;60(4):488-496. doi: 10.1037/pst0000499. Epub 2023 Oct 12.
It is generally assumed that psychodynamic therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) differ in terms of applied techniques and processes. To date, however, little is known about whether and how such differences can actually be observed at a basic linguistic level and in what the two treatment approaches differ most strongly (i.e., how psychodynamic and CBT therapists differ in what they actually say word-by-word in therapy sessions). Building on theoretical models and previous research that used observer ratings, we formulated specific hypotheses regarding which word categories psychodynamic and CBT therapists who treat patients with an eating disorder should differ in. To investigate these hypotheses, we used verbatim transcripts from 297 therapy sessions of a randomized controlled trial in which patients with anorexia nervosa ( = 88) received either focal psychodynamic therapy (FPT) or CBT. These transcripts were then examined using computerized quantitative text analysis. In line with our hypotheses, we found that CBT therapists overall spoke more than their FPT counterparts and that they used more words related to eating. Also in line with our hypotheses, FPT therapists used more words related to social processes. Contrary to our expectations, CBT therapists did not show a stronger focus on the future but talked more about emotions than FPT therapists. The latter effect, however, appears to be driven by a stronger focus on positive emotions. These findings suggest that computerized quantitative text analysis can differentiate meaningful language characteristics of CBT and FPT on spoken-word level and that it holds potential as a tool for researchers and therapists. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
人们通常认为精神动力疗法和认知行为疗法(CBT)在应用技术和过程方面存在差异。然而,迄今为止,对于这种差异是否以及如何能在基本语言层面实际观察到,以及这两种治疗方法在哪些方面差异最为显著(即精神动力疗法和CBT治疗师在治疗过程中逐字所说的内容有何不同),人们知之甚少。基于理论模型和先前使用观察者评分的研究,我们针对治疗饮食失调患者的精神动力疗法和CBT治疗师在哪些词类上应该存在差异提出了具体假设。为了研究这些假设,我们使用了一项随机对照试验中297次治疗会话的逐字记录,在该试验中,神经性厌食症患者( = 88)接受了焦点精神动力疗法(FPT)或CBT。然后使用计算机化定量文本分析对这些记录进行检查。与我们的假设一致,我们发现CBT治疗师总体上比FPT治疗师说得更多,并且他们使用了更多与饮食相关的词汇。同样与我们的假设一致,FPT治疗师使用了更多与社会过程相关的词汇。与我们的预期相反,CBT治疗师并没有更关注未来,而是比FPT治疗师更多地谈论情绪。然而,后一种效应似乎是由对积极情绪的更强关注所驱动的。这些发现表明计算机化定量文本分析可以在口语层面区分CBT和FPT有意义的语言特征,并且它作为研究人员和治疗师的工具具有潜力。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023美国心理学会,保留所有权利)