Advertisement

Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy

, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 141–151 | Cite as

Battles of the Comfort Zone: Modelling Therapeutic Strategy, Alliance, and Epistemic Trust—A Qualitative Study of Mentalization-Based Therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder

  • E. J. FolmoEmail author
  • S. W. Karterud
  • M. T. Kongerslev
  • E. H. Kvarstein
  • E. Stänicke
Original Paper

Abstract

We propose a model for how therapeutic strategy, alliance, and epistemic trust interact to foster or hinder therapeutic processes. Four individual mentalization-based treatment (MBT) sessions were subjected to an in-depth qualitative comparison and interpretative phenomenological analysis. Two sessions had high adherence and quality ratings, and two exemplified low evaluations. The sessions were from an MBT program for patients with borderline personality disorder. The high-rated therapists were more prone to strategically identify and investigate maladaptive patterns, were more challenging, and brought the patients out of their comfort zone. This therapeutic endeavour seemed to facilitate therapeutic alliance and a productive therapeutic process. Low-rated therapists seemed to be brought out of their own comfort zone (e.g. transferences/counter-transferences), and attempted to amend the relational atmosphere by being supportive. In these sessions, the therapeutic alliance seemed weak, and therapeutic progress was not observed. When therapists strategically and competently challenged problematic patterns, despite disclosing discomfort, alliance was strengthened. It seemed that a clear therapeutic strategy, and skilfull battling of the patients’ comfort zone, fostered the therapeutic process. We hypothesize that epistemic trust may develop as a product of a fruitful and persistent focus on tasks and goals in therapy.

Keywords

Mentalization-based treatment (MBT) Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) Strategic competence Therapeutic alliance Process research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Björn Phillips and Roland Pålsson at the Stockholm Centre for Dependency Disorders, Sweden, Samantha Karrebæk and Kirsten Aaskov Larsen at Psychiatric Clinic Roskilde, Denmark, and Turid Helene Bergvik at The Section for Personality Psychiatry, Oslo University Hospital, Norway for providing us with material to this study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any financial disclosure/conflict of interest related to this manuscript.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Bales, D. L., Timman, R., Andrea, H., Busschbach, J. J., Verheul, R., & Kamphuis, J. H. (2015). Effectiveness of day hospital mentalization-based treatment for patients with severe borderline personality disorder: A matched control study. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 22(5), 409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman, A., & Fonagy, P. (2001). Treatment of borderline personality disorder with psychoanalytically oriented partial hospitalization: An 18-month follow-up. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(1), 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman, A., & Fonagy, P. (2009). Randomized controlled trial of outpatient mentalization-based treatment versus structured clinical management for borderline personality disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 166(12), 1355–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betan, E., Heim, A. K., Conklin, Z., C., & Westen, D. (2005). Countertransference phenomena and personality pathology in clinical practice: An empirical investigation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(5), 890–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binder, P. E., Holgersen, H., & Moltu, C. (2012). Staying close and reflexive: An explorative and reflexive approach to qualitative research on psychotherapy. Nordic Psychology, 64(2), 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bo, S., Sharp, C., Fonagy, P., & Kongerslev, M. (2017). Hypermentalizing, attachment, and epistemic trust in adolescent BPD: Clinical illustrations. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8(2), 172–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16(3), 252–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boswell, J. F., Gallagher, M. W., Sauer-Zavala, S. E., Bullis, J., Gorman, J. M., Shear, M. K., … Barlow, D. H. (2013). Patient characteristics and variability in adherence and competence in cognitive-behavioral therapy for panic disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(3), 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colli, A., Tanzilli, A., Dimaggio, G., & Lingiardi, V. (2014). Patient personality and therapist response: An empirical investigation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(1), 102–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davanloo, H. (1990). Unlocking the unconscious. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Folmo, E. J., Karterud, S. W., Bremer, K., Walther, K. L., Kvarstein, E. H., & Pedersen, G. A. (2017). The design of the MBT-G adherence and quality scale. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 58(4), 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E., & Target, M. (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. New York: Other Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., Allison, E., & Campbell, C. (2018). Reconciling psychoanalytic ideas with attachment theory. New York: Guilford Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henry, W. P., & Strupp, H. H. (1994). The therapeutic alliance as interpersonal process. In A. O. Horvath & L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), Wiley series on personality processes. The working alliance: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 51–84). Oxford: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Henry, W. P., Strupp, H. H., Butler, S. F., Schacht, T. E., & Binder, J. L. (1993). Effects of training in time-limited dynamic psychotherapy: Changes in therapist behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(3), 434–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karterud, S. (2012). Manual for mentaliseringbasert gruppeterapi (MBT-G). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
  17. Karterud, S., & Bateman, A. (2010). Manual for mentaliseringbasert terapi (MBT) og MBT vurderingsskala. Versjon individualterapi. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
  18. Karterud, S., Pedersen, G., Engen, M., Johansen, M. S., Johansson, P. N., Schlüter, C., … & Bateman, A. W. (2013). The MBT Adherence and Competence Scale (MBT-ACS): development, structure and reliability. Psychotherapy Research, 23(6), 705–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Killingmo, B., Varvin, S., & Strømme, H. (2014). What can we expect from trainee therapists? A study of acquisition of competence in dynamic psychotherapy. The Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review, 37(1), 24–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kvarstein, E. H., Pedersen, G., Urnes, Ø, Hummelen, B., Wilberg, T., & Karterud, S. (2015). Changing from a traditional psychodynamic treatment programme to mentalization-based treatment for patients with borderline personality disorder—Does it make a difference? Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 88(1), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laska, K. M., Gurman, A. S., & Wampold, B. E. (2014). Expanding the lens of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy: A common factors perspective. Psychotherapy, 51(4), 467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lemma, A., Target, M., & Fonagy, P. (2011). Brief dynamic interpersonal therapy: A clinician’s guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(3), 438–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCullough, L. (1991). Davanloo’s short-term dynamic psychotherapy: A cross-theoretical analysis of change mechanisms. In R. Curtis & G. Stricker (Eds.), How people change: Inside and outside of psychotherapy (pp. 59–79). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Möller, C., Karlgren, L., Sandell, A., Falkenström, F., & Philips, B. (2017). Mentalization-based therapy adherence and competence stimulates in-session mentalization in psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder with co-morbid substance dependence. Psychotherapy Research, 27(6), 749–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morken, K., Karterud, S., & Arefjord, N. (2014). Transforming disorganized attachment through mentalization-based treatment. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 44(2), 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nissen-Lie, H. A., Havik, O. E., Høglend, P. A., Rønnestad, M. H., & Monsen, J. T. (2015). Patient and therapist perspectives on alliance development: Therapists’ practice experiences as predictors. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 22(4), 317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Østlie, K., Stänicke, E., & Haavind, H. (2016). A listening perspective in psychotherapy with suicidal patients: Establishing convergence in therapists and patients private theories on suicidality and cure. Psychotherapy Research, 1–14.Google Scholar
  29. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  30. Rønnestad, M. H. (2016). Is expertise in psychotherapy a useful construct? Psychotherapy Bulletin, 51, 11–13.Google Scholar
  31. Rossouw, T. I., & Fonagy, P. (2012). Mentalization-based treatment for self-harm in adolescents: A randomized controlledtrial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(12), 1304–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (2000). Negotiating the therapeutic alliance: A relational treatment guide. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sandler, J. (1960). The background of safety. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 41, 352–356.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phoneomological analysis: Theory, method and research. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, J. A. (2011). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stoffers, J. M., Voellm, B. A., Rücker, G., Timmer, A., Huband, N., & Lieb, K. (2012). Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. The Cochrane Library.Google Scholar
  37. Strupp, H. H. (1998). Negative process: Its impact on research, training, and practice. Empirical Studies of Psychoanalytic Theories, 8, 1–26.Google Scholar
  38. Wampold, B. E., & Imel, Z. E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: The evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zilcha-Mano, S., Solomonov, N., Chui, H., McCarthy, K. S., Barrett, M. S., & Barber, J. P. (2015). Therapist-reported alliance: Is it really a predictor of outcome? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(4), 568–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Personality Psychiatry, Section for Personality PsychiatryOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  2. 2.The Norwegian Institute for MentalizingOsloNorway
  3. 3.Psychiatric Clinic RoskildeRegion Zealand PsychiatryRoskildeDenmark
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  5. 5.Section for Personality PsychiatryOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  6. 6.Institute of Clinical MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  7. 7.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations