Premium
Synchronicity in the therapeutic setting: A survey of practitioners
Author(s) -
Roxburgh Elizabeth C.,
Ridgway Sophie,
Roe Chris A.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
counselling and psychotherapy research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.38
H-Index - 32
eISSN - 1746-1405
pISSN - 1473-3145
DOI - 10.1002/capr.12057
Subject(s) - synchronicity , feeling , psychology , perception , interpretation (philosophy) , clinical psychology , psychotherapist , social psychology , psychoanalysis , neuroscience , computer science , programming language
Aims In this study, we intended to explore whether there are any differences between counsellors, psychologists and psychotherapists in the reporting and interpretation of synchronicity experiences ( SE s) in the therapeutic setting. SE s are defined as psychologically meaningful connections between inner events (such as a thought, vision or feeling) and one or more external events occurring simultaneously or at a future point in time. Design An online survey link was emailed to a random sample of counsellors, psychologists and psychotherapists drawn from membership lists of the B ritish A ssociation for C ounselling and P sychotherapy ( BACP ), B ritish P sychological S ociety ( BPS ) and the U nited K ingdom C ouncil for P sychotherapy ( UKCP ). The survey was designed to investigate the following research questions: do practitioners report SE s in the therapeutic setting? Are there any differences between types of practitioners in terms of explanations for SE s? Were SE s believed to be more likely to occur at certain points in therapy? Results A total of 226 respondents completed the survey. One hundred respondents (44%) reported that they had experienced synchronicity in the therapeutic setting, of whom 55 were psychotherapists, 21 counsellors and 24 psychologists. The majority of respondents (67%) felt that SE s could be useful for therapy. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between practitioner types in their interpretation of SE s but no differences in perception of when synchronicity events were likely to occur. Conclusion Findings have important implications for how practitioners may respond to clients who report SE s and are discussed alongside suggestions for future research.