Abstract
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), when applied to mood disorders, is designed to alleviate symptoms of depression and help clients learn more effective ways of dealing with the difficulties that contribute to their suffering. In CBT, therapists are encouraged to engage clients in a highly collaborative process in which there is joint responsibility for decision-making about therapy goals. This chapter explores sequences of interaction that involve decisions about clients’ future actions in a sample of recorded CBT sessions. In particular, the analysis compares sequences in which clients proposed their own ideas for future action with other sequences in which therapists proposed the action themselves. Clients typically resisted therapists’ proposals by indexing their superior epistemic authority in the domain of their experience, thereby invoking their ultimate right to reject the therapist’s proposed course of action. The findings highlight the complexities of implementing joint decision-making practices within therapy interactions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehviläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis of psychotherapy (pp. 26–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Antaki, C. (2012). Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 531–547.
Beck, A. T., Rush, J., Shaw, B., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitve therapy of depression. New York: The Guilford Press.
Beutler, L. E., Moleiro, C., & Talebi, H. (2002). Resistance in psychotherapy: What conclusions are supported by research? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(2), 207–217.
Blackburn, I.-M., & Davidson, K. (1990). Cognitive therapy for depression and anxiety: A practitioner’s guide. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Butler, C., Potter, J., Danby, S., Emmison, M., & Hepburn, A. (2010). Advice implicative interrogatives: Building ‘client centred’ support in a children’s helpline. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(3), 265–287.
Clift, R. (2006). Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(5), 569–595.
Collins, S., Drew, P., Watt, I., & Entwistle, V. (2005). ‘Unilateral’ and ‘bilateral’ practitioner approaches in decision-making about treatment. Social Science and Medicine, 61(12), 2611–2627.
Curl, T., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
He, A. (1993). Exploring modality in institutional interactions: Cases from academic counselling encounters. Text: Transactions of the Society for Textual Scholarship, 13(2), 503–528.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), “Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 42–68). New York: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52.
Heritage, J. (2013a). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 551–578.
Heritage, J. (2013b). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 370–394). Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38.
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2010). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In J.-P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions (pp. 179–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1990). Accounting for proposals. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(1), 111–124.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–23). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Kent, A. (2012). Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when responding to directives. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 711–730.
Land, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Some uses of third-person reference forms in speaker self-reference. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 493–525.
Landmark, A. M. D., Gulbrandsen, P., & Svennevig, J. (2015). Whose decision? Negotiating epistemic and deontic rights in medical treatment decisions. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 54–69.
Leahy, R. (2001). Overcoming resistance in cognitive therapy. New York: The Guilford Press.
Lerner, G. (2004). Collaborative turn sequences. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 225–256). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lerner, G., & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective self-reference. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 526–557.
Lindström, A., & Weatherall, A. (2015). Orientations to epistemics and deontics in treatment discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 39–53.
Muntigl, P. (2013). Resistance in couples counselling: Sequences of talk that disrupt progressivity and promote disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics, 49(1), 18–37.
Neenan, M., & Dryden, W. (2000). Essential cognitive therapy. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
Pilnick, A. (2008). “It’s something for you both to think about”: Choice and decision making in nuchal translucency screening for Down’s syndrome. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30(4), 511–530.
Raymond, G. (2010). Grammar and social relations: Alternative forms of yes/no-type initiating actions in health visitor interactions. In A. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), “Why do you ask”: The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 87–107). New York: Oxford University Press.
Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (1996). The resolution of ruptures in the therapeutic alliance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(3), 447–458.
Schegloff, E., & Lerner, G. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 42(2), 91–115.
Stevanovic, M. (2012). Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 779–803.
Stevanovic, M. (2013). Constructing a proposal as a thought: A way to manage problems in the initiation of joint decision-making in Finnish workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 23(3), 519–544.
Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.
Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society, 43(2), 185–207.
Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2), 131–158.
Toerien, M., Shaw, R., & Reuber, M. (2013). Initiating decision-making in neurology consultations: ‘Recommending’ versus ‘option-listing’ and the implications for medical authority. Sociology of Health & Illness, 35(6), 873–890.
Waring, H. Z. (2007). The multi-functionality of accounts in advice-giving. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(3), 367–391.
Wright, J., Basco, M., & Thase, M. (2006). Learning cognitive-behavioural therapy. Washington: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc.
Zinken, J., & Ogiermann, E. (2011). How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of Polish trzeba x (“one needs to x”). Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(3), 263–287.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ekberg, K., LeCouteur, A. (2020). Clients’ Resistance to Therapists’ Proposals: Managing Epistemic and Deontic Status in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Sessions. In: Lindholm, C., Stevanovic, M., Weiste, E. (eds) Joint Decision Making in Mental Health. The Language of Mental Health. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43531-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43531-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43530-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43531-8
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)