You asked about the theory behind the new therapist's recommendation not to treat this client when the client is angry. The therapist may be basing this on principles of operant conditioning. Behaviour which is immediately followed by a reinforcer is likely to increase in frequency. Attention from a therapist is something that many clients find reinforcing. So if the client's angry behaviour is followed by attention from the therapist, the client is likely to use more angry behaviour with this therapist in the future. In contrast, if the therapist only interacts with the client when the client exhibits non-angry behaviour, the client's non-angry behaviour should increase in frequency. A therapist using this approach might explicitly state to the client what consequences will follow specific client behaviours. For example, some treatment centres for substance abuse tell clients that the client will not receive a scheduled therapy session if they are intoxicated when they arrive. So the client behaviour (arriving intoxicated) is followed by a therapist consequence (cancelling or postponing the session). In the alternative situation, the client behaviour (arriving sober) is followed by a reinforcing consequence by the therapist (conducting a therapy session). An important general principle for both client and therapist well-being is that there are limits to what therapists will do for clients. Setting and enforcing limits does not necessarily constitute "abandonment". In my opinion, having limits is a necessary part of ethical professional practice. Sometimes the limit might arise out of a mismatch between client and therapist, so one option might be for the client to see a different therapist who has a different approach to dealing with anger. I hope this is helpful.
Replies:
There are no replies to this message.
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.