Prevalence & Characteristics of Relational Depth Events

1. Prevalence & Characteristics of Relational Depth Events BY SUE WIGGINS UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE

2. Relational Depth Mearns (1996, 1997) - an extension of Rogers’ (1957) facilitative conditions of therapeutic change. Mearns (2003) - serves as a distinctive hallmark of Person-centred therapy at is best- ‘an extraordinary depth of human contact (p.5)’. Mearns and Cooper (2005), who describe it as ‘a state of profound contact and engagement between two people, in which each person is fully real with the Other, and able to understand and value the Other’s experiences at a high level’ (p.xii) Mearns and Cooper (2005), relational depth takes two forms: a particular general quality of a relationship, and specific moments of encounter - ‘moments’, ‘times’, ‘experiences’.

3. Comparable Concepts outwith Person-centred approach • Stern (2004), moments of meeting - particular type of present moment which consists of two people experiencing an inter-subjective meeting where each party is aware of what the other is experiencing. • Intersubjective or relational models (within psychodynamic), put forward the idea of a “third space” or “analytical third” (Ogden 1994). • Moodley (2007) “analytic third” where disclosure is possible “beyond technique and skill and supports the development of empathy, compassion and relational interaction” (p.49).

4. Questionnaire • Items created from categories in a grounded theory analysis of over 300 therapist and client descriptions of RD • Asks for description of any significant event in therapy • Ps asked to rate how accurately each of the items fits experience of the event • Example items were ‘spiritual’, ‘both of us were connected in some way’, ‘mutuality’, ‘love’ ‘other person respected me’. • Each item was presented on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not at all, 2=slightly, 3=somewhat, 4=very much, 5=completely).

5. Participants • 343 respondents completed questionnaire mainly online. • 189 (55%) therapists • Age range 25-68, • 30% male, 70% female, • 152 (44%) clients • Age range 24-65, • 16% male, 84% female, • 2 (1%) did not specify whether client or therapist

6. Relational Depth Content Analysis (RDCA) • Significant event descriptions - rated as to the likelihood RD was present • Inter-rater reliability good (Alpha .79). • 0=clearly not present, 1=probably not present, 2=probably present, 3=clearly present. • The end result was a set of rating scores, each on a scale from 0 to 3 • We could then use to conduct analyses regarding role, gender and which items correlated with RD events (characteristics).

7. Prevalence of relational depth (RD) • Clients’ significant events, • 8% RD clearly present (ratings of 3) • 26% RD probably present (ratings of 2) • Total 34% RD either probably or clearly present in their significant event in therapy. • Therapists significant events, • 14% RD clearly present (ratings of 3) • 24% RD probably present (ratings of 2) • Total 38% RD either probably or clearly present in their significant event in therapy • This suggests that over a third of significant events in therapy have a presence of relational depth.

8. Characteristics of relational depth (RD) • Role (client or therapist)? • No difference was found between clients and therapists rating scores. • This suggests that role does not have any bearing on whether RD is present in sig events in therapy. • Gender? • Females ratings scores (mean = 1.38, SD =.97) were significantly higher on average than males (mean = 1.13, SD = .85). Sig. level was p = .03 - theoretically, we can be 97% sure that this difference did not happen by chance alone. • Suggests females are more likely to experience a presence of relational depth during sig events in therapy.

9. Characteristics cont... *PC - Pearson correlation coefficient between item scores and relational depth rating scores

10. Implications • Gender - females are more likely to experience RD presence during sig events – supports research • e.g. Jones and Zoppel, 1982 – clients thought that women formed more effective therapeutic alliances, • Supports theory • Gillon, 2007 – men less likely to seek therapy and less likely to engage. • Characteristics: • Implications for therapists – being open to RD means being open to connectedness, love, respect, intimacy etc • Helps construct validation for final version of questionnaire

11. Issues • Questionnaire was entitled ‘The relationship between therapist and client’ – this could have encouraged a larger % of relationship-based descriptions. • Analyses conducted here assume interval data and this data was not interval. It arguably is not even ordinal but is nominal. • Rasch analysis converts Likert scale data into true interval data by converting raw scores to natural log units (logits). • Uses observations to estimate item endorsability (‘difficulty’) and person ‘ability’.

12. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or comments. Please take part in my research at www.surveymonkey.com/therapyquestV2 Sue Wiggins Email: spwiggins@googlemail.com

13. References Gillon, E. (2007). Gender differences in help seeking. Therapy Today; December 13-16 Jones, E., & Zoppel, C. L. (1982). Impact of client and therapist gender on psychotherapy outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 259-272. Mearns, D. (1996). Working at relational depth with clients in person-centred therapy. Counselling, 7, 307-311. Mearns, D. (1997) Person-centred counselling training. London : Sage. Mearns, D. (2003). Developing person-centredcounselling (2ndedn.). London: Sage Mearns, D. & Cooper, M. (2005). Working at Relational Depth in Counselling and Psychotherapy. London: Sage Moodley, R. (2007). Beyond the Boundary of Analytic Revelation: Culture, Self-Disclosure (Analyst and Patient) and Anonimity. Psychologist – Psychoanalyst, 27, 49-51. American Psychological Association. Stern, D. N. (2004). The present moment in psychotherapy and everyday life. New York: W.W. Norton.