Premium
‘Bad Therapy’ as a Training Technique: An Empirical Analysis
Author(s) -
Cross Darryl G.,
Gaffney Lisa Rosenthal
Publication year - 1984
Publication title -
australian journal of family therapy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1467-8438
pISSN - 0156-8779
DOI - 10.1002/j.1467-8438.1984.tb00078.x
Subject(s) - session (web analytics) , set (abstract data type) , psychotherapist , psychology , directive , assertion , style (visual arts) , empirical research , computer science , epistemology , philosophy , archaeology , world wide web , history , programming language
The purpose of the present study was to gather empirical data to examine the usefulness of an intriguing training technique called “bad therapy”. The technique, developed by Lang (1980, 1982), is utilized in a role‐play setting for experienced therapists who are having difficulty with specific clients showing little improvement. The therapist is instructed to disregard his or her usual style of treatment, and instead, within a role‐play format with a colleague who plays the part of a client, to try an alternative style of treatment. This new treatment, termed “bad therapy”, instructs the therapist to try to make the client worse rather than better. Interestingly, reports from both the role‐play therapist and client indicate that the “bad therapy” session was considered more beneficial than the therapist's usual mode of treatment. As well as empirically investigating Lang's assertion, the present study also attempted to look at different perspectives of bad therapy. Is “bad therapy” a directive to be harmful and destructive, or is it a suggestion to be more daring and to take more risks? Subjects were 56 therapists who formed twenty eight pairs of therapist‐client dyads. First, each pair conducted a “session” where the therapist performed his or her typical therapy. Then, therapists in one group (N= 11) were given directives to try to make their clients worse rather than better (“destructive” set), while therapists in another group (N=11) were told to say and do things that they wished to, but never dared (“daring” set). Finally, six therapists were told to simply repeat their usual type of therapy (“control” set). Results indicated that clients perceived the destructive and daring groups differently with the daring group being perceived more favourably, yet more authoritarian. Similarly, therapists perceived the daring and control groups more positively than the destructive group. The results are discussed in terms of training techniques and current trends in psychotherapy.