Abstract
Decades of psychotherapy research suggest that patient–therapist match accounts for outcome beyond single patient or therapist variables. This study examines the associations between different patterns of patient–therapist matching (in terms of orientation on relatedness or self-definition) and outcomes at termination of psychoanalytic psychotherapy with young adults. Thirty-three patients and their therapists were classified as predominately anaclitic or introjective at baseline. Patients in the convergent patient–therapist dyads (both anaclitic or both introjective) showed significantly greater symptom reduction and increased developmental levels of representations of mother than patients in the complementary dyads (opposite personality configurations). Moreover, convergent patient–therapist match was connected with larger effect sizes on all outcome measures and lower proportion of non-improved patients. These findings suggest the importance of the therapists’ early adjusting their orientation on relatedness or self-definition to their patients’ predominant personality configuration in order to enhance treatment outcomes.
Highlights
Background and AimsThe crucial role of the therapeutic relationship in the change process and outcome, as well as the therapist’s significant contribution to that relationship (Del Re et al 2012), is increasingly acknowledged in psychotherapy research (Norcross and Wampold 2011a)
Decades of psychotherapy research suggest that patient–therapist match accounts for outcome beyond single patient or therapist variables
We examine the associations between different patterns of patient–therapist matching and outcomes at termination of psychotherapy with young adults
Summary
The crucial role of the therapeutic relationship in the change process and outcome, as well as the therapist’s significant contribution to that relationship (Del Re et al 2012), is increasingly acknowledged in psychotherapy research (Norcross and Wampold 2011a). The personality of the therapist does influence the psychotherapeutic process. A recent systematic literature review (Lingiardi et al 2018) confirmed what every clinician knows: the therapist’s subjective characteristics influence results of psychodynamic psychotherapists. Decades of psychotherapy research suggest that patient–therapist match accounts for outcome beyond single patient or therapist variables. This issue touches upon the challenging question of the nature of matching. Matching more objective or more subjective characteristics? Matching what does matter? Matching more objective or more subjective characteristics? Convergent match based on similarities or complementary match based on opposites? The research findings are inconsistent
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
