Using client positions as a technique for increasing the acceptability of marriage therapy interventions

Abstract

This study investigated the use of intervention rationales that matched the participant's positions or beliefs in marriage therapy. Positions were conceptualized as the implementation of a constructivist stance by making use of the participant's beliefs. Positions were investigated by comparing 3 rationale conditions. The rationales either matched a participant's positions or mismatched his or her positions, or no rationale was provided. Couples were instructed to role play a marital problem. The participants completed a questionnaire that allowed the experimenters to identify their positions, that is, their beliefs and feelings about their identified problem. Experimenters designed individualized treatment rationales that matched and mismatched the participants' positions. Three standard interventions were paired with an individually constructed matching rationale, a mismatching rationale, and a no-rotionale control condition to form 3 treatment recommendations. Participants rated each treatment recommendation for acceptability. The interventions paired with the rationales that matched