Content uploaded by Katherine M Thomas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Katherine M Thomas on Mar 08, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Momentary Assessment of Interpersonal Process in Psychotherapy
Katherine M. Thomas and Christopher J. Hopwood
Michigan State University
Erik Woody and Nicole Ethier
University of Waterloo
Pamela Sadler
Wilfrid Laurier University
To demonstrate how a novel computer joystick coding method can illuminate the study of interpersonal
processes in psychotherapy sessions, we applied it to Shostrom’s (1966) well-known films in which a
client, Gloria, had sessions with 3 prominent psychotherapists. The joystick method, which records
interpersonal behavior as nearly continuous flows on the plane defined by the interpersonal dimensions
of control and affiliation, provides an excellent sampling of variability in each person’s interpersonal
behavior across the session. More important, it yields extensive information about the temporal dynamics
that interrelate clients’ and therapists’ behaviors. Gloria’s 3 psychotherapy sessions were characterized
using time-series statistical indices and graphical representations. Results demonstrated that patterns of
within-person variability tended to be markedly asymmetric, with a predominant, set-point-like inter-
personal style from which deviations mostly occurred in just 1 direction (e.g., occasional submissive
departures from a modal dominant style). In addition, across each session, the therapist and client showed
strongly cyclical variations in both control and affiliation, and these oscillations were entrained to
different extents depending on the therapist. We interpreted different patterns of moment-to-moment
complementarity of interpersonal behavior in terms of different therapeutic goals, such as fostering a
positive alliance versus disconfirming the client’s interpersonal expectations. We also showed how this
method can be used to provide a more detailed analysis of specific shorter segments from each of the
sessions. Finally, we compared our approach to alternative techniques, such as act-to-act lagged relations
and dynamic systems and pointed to a variety of possible research and training applications.
Keywords: psychotherapy, process, momentary assessment, spectral analysis, interpersonal circumplex
The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how a novel method
for the study of moment-to-moment interpersonal processes can be
applied to psychotherapy sessions and to illustrate how this
method could enhance understanding of psychotherapy process.
To depict the value of this method, we apply it to Shostrom’s
(1966) well-known films in which a client, Gloria, met with three
prominent psychotherapists with differing theoretical orienta-
tions—Albert Ellis (rational– emotive), Frederick Perls (gestalt),
and Carl Rogers (client-centered). These filmed therapy sessions
are useful for our purpose because they are widely familiar (e.g.,
Reilly & Jacobus, 2008; Weinrach, 1990) and because we can
contrast our novel approach with previous research applying a
more conventional measurement approach to these sessions (Kies-
ler & Goldston, 1988).
Assessing Dynamic Aspects of the
Therapeutic Relationship
It is virtually a truism that the interpersonal relationship in
therapy has a profound impact on therapy outcomes (e.g., Gold-
fried, in press; Horvath, Del Re, Flückiger, & Symonds, 2011).
The relationship provides the context in which interventions can be
successfully implemented, and it may be particularly relevant
when interpersonal difficulties are an important aspect of the
client’s problems (Anchin & Pincus, 2010). Not only is a positive
relationship associated with successful outcomes (Muran & Bar-
ber, 2010) but, in addition, strains in the relationship are associated
with therapeutic failure (Castonguay, Goldfried, Wiser, Raue, &
Hayes, 1996; Henry, Schacht, & Strupp, 1986, 1990). Hence,
studying the dynamic aspects of the therapeutic relationship— how
it develops, varies, and changes—is important for understanding
effective therapy.
However, variation, pattern, and change in interpersonal behavior
during an ongoing exchange are subtle and difficult to measure. One
previously employed approach has been to segment the stream of
behavior into discrete acts and then to examine how each kind of act
by one person is related to each subsequent kind of act by the other
person. This act-to-act approach has been used successfully to study
interpersonal processes in therapy and relate them to therapy out-
This article was published Online First September 2, 2013.
Katherine M. Thomas and Christopher J. Hopwood, Department of
Psychology, Michigan State University; Erik Woody and Nicole Ethier,
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada; Pamela Sadler, Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier Uni-
versity, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
This research was supported by Operating Grant SRG 410-2009-2164
from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to
Pamela Sadler and Erik Woody.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Katherine
M. Thomas, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail: thomas.kate.m@gmail.com
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Counseling Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association
2014, Vol. 61, No. 1, 1–14 0022-0167/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0034277
1
comes (e.g., Dietzel & Abeles, 1975; Lichtenberg & Heck, 1986;
Tracey, 1985; Wampold & Kim, 1989).
The presently proposed method addresses the dynamic aspects
of the therapeutic relationship in a different way by capturing
ongoing dynamics as a reasonably continuous flow, rather than as
a sequence of discrete acts. To some extent, the new method
simply imposes a different frame of reference, yielding its own
unique insights. Another advantage is that compared with the
act-to-act approach, the method described in the present study is
more time effective and thus would be more useful in practical
circumstances, such as psychotherapy training and supervision
(see Pincus et al., in press).
A Theoretical Framework for Assessing
Moment-to-Moment Interpersonal Behavior
To effectively measure interpersonal process, a well-validated
theoretical and measurement framework is needed. Evidence
across several domains of inquiry converges to suggest that two
fundamental dimensions, control (dominance to submission) and
affiliation (warmth to coldness), account for variability in rela-
tional functioning and behavior (Luyten & Blatt, 2013; Wiggins,
1991). These two dimensions can be operationalized using the
interpersonal circumplex (IPC; Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1996; Fig-
ure 1), which offers a measurement model for conceptualizing
clinically salient features of personality, psychopathology, and
social processes (Pincus, Lukowitsky, & Wright, 2010). An ad-
vantage of the IPC is that it reflects basic social processes and
therefore can be meaningfully applied across theoretical orienta-
tions. Indeed, the interpersonal model in general and the IPC in
particular have been fruitfully applied to a variety of therapies,
including cognitive (Safran, 1984, 1990a, 1990b), cognitive be-
havioral (Hayes, 2004), interpersonal (Anchin & Pincus, 2010;
Benjamin, 1996), gestalt (Benjamin, 1979), and psychodynamic
(Gurtman, 1996; Horowitz, Rosenberg, & Bartholomew, 1993;
Strupp & Binder, 1984). For instance, research applying the IPC to
psychotherapy has found that patients respond to hostile therapists
with self-blame (Henry et al., 1990) and that warmer patients
improve more quickly than colder patients in psychodynamic but
not in cognitive behavioral therapy (Puschner, Kraft, & Bauer,
2004).
The IPC also provides a framework for making testable predic-
tions about dyadic behavior as it unfolds over time. Empirical and
theoretical literature suggests that interactions are most harmoni-
ous (i.e., least anxiety provoking and most stable) when individ-
uals in a dyad behave in a manner that is similar with respect to
affiliation but opposite with respect to control—a pattern referred
to as complementarity (Kiesler, 1996; Sadler & Woody, 2003;
Sadler, Ethier, Gunn, Duong, & Woody, 2009; Tracey, 2004).
Based on this principle, the behaviors of one individual are pre-
dicted to invite particular behaviors from the other individual in
dyadic interactions (Kiesler, 1996; Leary, 1957). In brief, warmth
invites warmth, whereas dominance invites submission.
The principle of complementarity has been used to develop
elegant models explaining the persistence of maladaptive interper-
sonal behavior and the nature of psychotherapeutic interventions to
change such behavior (e.g., Anchin & Pincus, 2010; Andrews,
1989; Carson, 1982; Kiesler, 1996). Work by Tracey (1993;
Tracey, Sherry, & Albright, 1999) suggests that alliance-building
complementarity early in psychotherapy, followed by change-
promoting noncomplementarity once an alliance has been estab-
lished, is associated with positive therapeutic outcomes across
varied theoretical approaches. Thus, studying interpersonal com-
plementarity may provide an important window into client–
therapist relationship patterns that play an important role in treat-
ment.
A Computer Joystick Method for Coding Momentary
Interpersonal Behavior
Sadler and colleagues recently developed a novel joystick
method for assessing momentary interpersonal processes in dyadic
interactions (Lizdek, Sadler, Woody, Ethier, & Malet, 2012; Sadler
et al., 2009). As an observer uses a computer joystick to make
observational ratings of recorded interactions, data on interper-
sonal communications are captured twice per second and yield
time series for each individual’s level of control and level of
affiliation throughout an interaction. Data obtained using this
method have revealed novel phenomena that occur in interactions,
such as cyclical patterns of complementarity (Sadler et al., 2009).
Additional research using the joystick method found that female
peer dyads with greater complementarity on the warmth dimension
liked one another more and performed lab tasks more accurately
(Markey, Lowmaster, & Eichler, 2010) and that parallel processes
occur between therapy and supervision (Tracey, Bludworth, &
Glidden-Tracey, 2012). Each of these studies showed considerable
variability in the degree of complementarity observed across dy-
ads, indicating that the joystick method is sensitive to dyadic and
individual differences that affect interpersonal processes.
The Present Study
Kiesler and Goldston (1988) applied the IPC and the principle of
complementarity to Gloria’s sessions with Ellis, Perls, and Rogers
by having raters complete the Checklist of Psychotherapy Trans-
actions (CLOPT; Kiesler, Goldston, & Schmidt, 1991). This in-
strument is a 96-item checklist of interpersonal behaviors that the
Control
Affiliation
Warm
Cold
Dominant
Submissive
Figure 1. The interpersonal circumplex (IPC).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2
THOMAS, HOPWOOD, WOODY, ETHIER, AND SADLER
rater completes, once for the therapist and again for the client, after
having watched a therapy session. Kiesler and Goldston found that
in terms of aggregate measures of behavior, Gloria displayed the
highest degree of complementarity with Ellis, followed by Rogers,
and the least with Perls. Although useful, this approach does not
provide any information about the temporal dynamics that un-
folded in each session; indeed, it is even insensitive to how long
and how often any behavior occurred (each behavior is simply
marked as present or absent during a session). Kiesler (1996,p.91)
drew attention to the importance of techniques that might reveal
“patterned redundancies occurring over time,” rather than simply a
static snapshot of the partners’ overall interpersonal styles.
Accordingly, in the present study, we use the computer joystick
method to apply the IPC and the principle of complementarity to
the Gloria sessions. There are two main novel implications of this
approach.
1. The method provides an excellent sampling of within-person
variability in interpersonal behavior for each person in the inter-
action. Thus, we asked the following research questions: What
patterns of variability for each partner are evident in these psy-
chotherapy sessions? How might these patterns of variability illu-
minate the nature of the interaction?
2. The method provides a great deal of information about how
the streams of behavior by the therapist and client are interrelated.
Hence, we asked the following research questions: Do the partners
show shifts in their overall levels of control and affiliation, and are
these shifts consistent with the principle of complementarity (e.g.,
linear slopes with diverging levels of control)? Do partners show
cyclical or oscillating variations in control and affiliation, and to
what extent are these oscillations synchronized and entrained?
Finally, what might differing degrees of interpersonal entrainment
tell us about the nature of the therapeutic relationship in these
sessions?
Method
Procedure
To examine momentary interpersonal behavior throughout Glo-
ria’s sessions, raters recorded their impressions of the continuous
stream of interpersonal behavior by watching a session, focusing
their attention on either Gloria or the therapist, and using a com-
puter joystick apparatus to indicate the target person’s momentary
standing on the IPC. Subsequently, raters watched the session
again and made similar ratings of the other person in the session.
The order of these assessments was arranged such that Gloria was
never consecutively rated from two different sessions, nor was the
same session ever consecutively rated. The joystick was scaled
from ⫺1,000 (submissiveness; coldness) to 1,000 (dominance;
warmth), and the computer recorded the rater’s joystick placement
along both axes twice per second.
Seven undergraduate students underwent careful individual
training on the joystick method prior to rating Gloria’s sessions.
We used the training protocol outlined by Sadler et al. (2009) to
introduce raters to the joystick method. Raters were instructed to
make behaviorally anchored ratings by moving the joystick in
accord with any of the target person’s statements, nonverbal be-
haviors, fluctuations in tone, and so forth, that constituted an
increase or decrease in control or affiliation. Thus, raters moved
the joystick in a reasonably continuous way to represent their
perceptions of changes in interpersonal behavior. Raters were
informed that the joystick position should also represent any times
in which the absence of a behavior signified or sustained a mean-
ingful interpersonal action (e.g., if an individual remained silent
after being asked a question). When no discernible changes in
interpersonal behavior were displayed, raters maintained their joy-
stick position until the person made a meaningful interpersonal
gesture. However, slight gestures, such as eye contact, engage-
ment, tone, and so forth, were coded, and thus the joystick was
frequently in motion, capturing these behavioral variations. Raters
were not told about the concept of complementarity.
As part of their training, raters used the joystick to code the
interpersonal behavior in another set of therapy dyads, Shostrom’s
(1976) Three Approaches to Psychotherapy, with a client named
Kathy. This resulted in six trial assessments of a format identical
to the Gloria films. Prior to coding Gloria’s sessions, each rater
was required to demonstrate good consistency of his or her ratings
with those of previously trained raters (authors Thomas and Hop-
wood). All raters consistently demonstrated cross-correlations
above .50 with trained raters on the control and affiliation dimen-
sions for both individuals in each of the training videos. Sadler et
al. (2009) showed that this level of cross-correlation is sufficient to
obtain very good reliability of the moment-to-moment ratings,
once they are aggregated across the raters.
Once trained, raters coded all three therapists and Gloria with
each therapist (i.e., six total coding sessions). At this juncture,
further checks were performed on the quality of each rater’s data.
Specifically, 2 weeks after initially coding Gloria’s sessions, each
rater watched and recoded two individuals (always Gloria from
one session and a therapist from a different session). Cross-
correlations between initial and follow-up joystick ratings were
computed for both axes to assess self-consistency for each rater.
Because of relatively low self-consistency (cross-correlations ⬍
.50), one rater’s data were discarded from further consideration. In
addition, the consistency of each rater’s data with the group
average omitting that rater’s data were assessed. All six remaining
raters achieved cross-correlations ⱖ .50 (M ⫽ .55) with the group
average across at least 10 of the 12 variable sets (i.e., control and
affiliation for each therapist and Gloria with each therapist).
Final Joystick Data
The first 10 data points for each interactant were deleted to
allow raters5stoorient themselves to the interaction (as in Sadler
et al., 2009). Joystick data were then averaged across raters at each
time point to obtain the final time series data for each interactant
across both IPC dimensions. All subsequent analyses were con-
ducted using these data (aggregated across the six raters). These
half-second ratings for affiliation and control across the three
dyads yielded 12 total bivariate time series. Data collected for each
dyad differed based on the amount of time each therapist spent
with Gloria. We collected 2,185 data points for Ellis’s session with
Gloria (18 min, 12 s); 2,822 data points for Perls’s session (23 min,
31 s); and 3,811 data points for Rogers’s session (31 min, 45 s).
The reliability of the aggregated time series was assessed using
an approach that compares the true score (i.e., shared) variance to
the total variance for each time series, as described in Sadler et al.
(2009). Specifically, the true score variance was estimated as the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
3
MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT OF PROCESS
mean of the cross covariances of the individual raters’ times series,
and the total variance was estimated as the variance of the aggre-
gated time series. This approach yielded reliabilities of .80 for
control and .66 for affiliation, comparable to values obtained in
other published work using the joystick method (Markey et al.,
2010; Sadler et al., 2009).
In addition to using these data to characterize interpersonal
processes over time, we were interested in the global ratings
obtained by calculating the mean of each time series (control or
affiliation) for each rater and each interactant (i.e., Gloria with
Ellis, Ellis, etc.). Past research has demonstrated that these global
ratings have strong reliability (Markey et al., 2010; Sadler et al.,
2009). The present data are limited for assessing such reliability
because of the small number of cases (six targets); however, it is
reassuring that Cronbach’s alpha, calculated by treating raters as
items, yielded values of .80 (affiliation) and .95 (control).
Calculation of Indices
In addition to the global levels of control and affiliation, calcu-
lated as the means across each person’s entire aggregated time
series, we derived a variety of other indices, the calculations of
which are outlined below.
Indices of within-person variability. For each person in a
session, we calculated the standard deviation across the entire time
series for control and for affiliation. We also computed the corre-
lation between each person’s control and his or her affiliation
across the entire time series. These indices provide quantitative
information regarding the nature of a person’s variation in inter-
personal behavior across a session.
Density plots. As another way to characterize each person’s
pattern of interpersonal variability across a session, we used the
procedure smoothScatter (R Development Core Team, 2011)inthe
statistical software package R to derive a bivariate density plot on
the interpersonal plane defined by the affiliation and control axes.
The procedure parameters used were the following: nbin ⫽ 500,
bandwidth ⫽ 70, transformation ⫽ function(x) xˆ.8. The densest
parts of the distribution are colored black, and the less dense parts
successively lighter shades of gray. A major advantage of this
approach is that it preserves the actual shape of the density distri-
bution, which is particularly important if the distribution is not
bivariate normal.
Linear trends in levels. For each person in a session, we used
ordinary least squares regression to predict the individual’s
moment-to-moment interpersonal scores (control or affiliation)
using time as the predictor variable. Each regression yielded an
intercept, indexing the estimated value at the beginning of the
session, and a slope, indexing the rate of linear change over the
course of the session. We also calculated the R
2
, which indicates
the proportion of variance explained by the linear trend. The
residuals from these regression analyses also provided the data
used for spectral and cross-spectral analyses (in which linear
trends could otherwise serve as a confound; Warner, 1998).
Indices of oscillation and entrainment. To derive indices of
cyclical processes and entrainment, we conducted spectral and
cross-spectral analyses on the detrended data for each session
following the procedures detailed in Sadler et al. (2009). The
results of these analyses were summarized using three different
types of index: rhythmicity, average weighted coherence, and
average weighted phase. Rhythmicity was computed as the propor-
tion of variance in a time series that is accounted for by frequen-
cies with periods longer than 30 s (the rationale being that, at least
in social interactions, frequencies higher than this are likely to
represent noise). This range of frequencies was also used in the
calculation of the coherence and phase statistics. Rhythmicity
values indicate the extent to which variations in control or affili-
ation are explained by cyclical patterns.
The average weighted coherence was computed by weighting
the coherence value at each frequency band in the cross-spectral
analysis by the amounts of variance at the same frequency band in
the univariate spectral analyses (Sadler et al., 2009; Warner, 1998).
The resulting value is a nondirectional index of the proportion of
variance in one time series that can be predicted by the other time
series, thereby indicating the attunement of cycles across members
of a dyad. Coherence ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values
indicating greater entrainment. The average weighted phase was
computed by weighting the phase values at each frequency band in
the cross-spectral analysis in the same way as described for the
coherence. Phase values indicate proportions of a full cycle and
range from ⫺.5, through 0, to .5. (Because phase is a circular
statistic, the values of ⫺.5 and .5 are logically indistinguishable,
both falling half a cycle away from zero.) A phase value of zero
indicates that the partners’ behaviors are exactly in phase, with
peaks and troughs coinciding exactly. A phase value of .5 or ⫺.5
indicates that the partners’ behaviors are completely out of phase,
with peaks for one person coinciding with troughs for the other.
Intermediate values can be interpreted as one individual’s variation
leading the other person’s variation, as described later in the
Results section.
As a final index of entrainment that is not a component of the
spectral and cross-spectral analyses, we calculated the cross-
correlation of the time series for the two interacting partners for
control and for affiliation. This intuitively accessible, directional
value indicates how strongly correlated the two partners’ behaviors
were throughout the interaction.
Results
Global Levels of Control and Affiliation
The overall means of control and affiliation for Gloria and the
corresponding therapist are presented in Table 1. From these
means, it is clear that not only did the three therapists have very
different interpersonal styles but also that Gloria’s interpersonal
style was strongly affected by the therapist with whom she was
interacting. The configuration of means is readily appreciated in
Figure 2, where a white plus sign denotes each overall interper-
sonal style (the centroid, which is the intersection of the person’s
control mean and affiliation mean). Among the therapists, Ellis
and Perls had dominant styles, whereas Rogers had a submissive
style; Rogers had the warmest style and Perls the coldest. Gloria’s
overall interpersonal styles show striking complementarity with
Ellis and with Rogers. To Ellis’s warm– dominant style, she tended
to respond with a warm–submissive style, whereas to Rogers’s
warm–submissive style, she responded with a warm– dominant
style. In contrast, Gloria’s response to Perls’s cold–dominant style
shows the deviation from classical complementarity noted by
Orford (1986) and others; overall, she responded with a similarly
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
4
THOMAS, HOPWOOD, WOODY, ETHIER, AND SADLER
cold– dominant style. These findings for overall style are quite
similar to the findings of Kiesler and Goldston (1988), even though
our method differs considerably from theirs.
Within-Person Variability
Indices of variability of interpersonal behavior for each person
are also provided in Table 1. The standard deviations, which index
how much each person varied on each interpersonal dimension,
show some very large differences in the amounts of variability. For
example, Ellis showed almost three times as much variability in
control as Rogers, and Perls showed almost three times as much
variability in affiliation as Rogers. The amount of variability in
Gloria’s interpersonal behavior was generally quite large; for ex-
ample, her control behavior in the interaction with Ellis yielded the
largest standard deviation in this data set.
Another potentially useful index of the nature of within-person
variability is the correlation of control and affiliation (Table 1).
The most striking finding is the strong negative correlation be-
tween Gloria’s levels of control and affiliation in her interaction
with Perls. This finding indicates that as she became more domi-
nant with Perls, she also strongly tended to become colder. In
contrast, her tendency to be affiliative at times when she was
dominant was minimally, but positively, correlated in her sessions
with Ellis and Rogers.
These standard deviations and correlations provide valuable
quantitative indices of variability; however, they may be somewhat
limited in how fully they convey underlying patterns of variability.
This is because the actual patterns of variability do not necessarily
follow the assumptions of a bivariate normal distribution (e.g.,
symmetry of the data points around the intersection of the means).
Figure 2 shows the density distributions in a manner that preserves
their actual shapes. For each person’s interpersonal behavior, the
darkest area is, in effect, a bivariate mode, showing what may be
regarded as the person’s interpersonal set point in the interaction.
The gray areas show the patterns of deviation from this interper-
sonal set point.
Note that the actual patterns of variability are often quite asym-
metric. Consider, for example, the density distribution for Ellis.
His predominant style was strongly dominant, depicted at the top
like the head of a comet; however, he tended to diverge strongly
from this predominant pattern, switching periodically to a far more
submissive style, shown as the tail of the comet. Note that this
pattern is not at all bivariate normal. The deviations from the
predominant style are mostly in just one direction (downward);
indeed, these asymmetric deviations pull the centroid (denoted by
the white plus sign) well below Ellis’s modal style. In response to
Ellis, Gloria showed a predominantly warm–submissive style, but
the deviations from this interpersonal set point are very extensive,
reaching far up into dominant behavior and even straying occa-
sionally toward greater warmth. As for Ellis, these asymmetric
deviations (upward and to the right) pull Gloria’s centroid outside
what is actually her modal interpersonal style in the interaction.
Unlike Ellis, Perls’s pattern of variability around his modal
interpersonal style (cold– dominant) is reasonably symmetric. In
response to Perls, Gloria’s pattern of variability is very distinctive.
Her predominant response is near the origin (neutral in both
control and affiliation), but her deviations from this set point
extend diagonally very far to the upper left of the IPC (hostile–
dominant). The shape of her density distribution is consistent with
the strongly negative correlation found between her control and
affiliation (in Table 1).
Finally, Rogers and Gloria both show a narrow range of varia-
tion on affiliation, but striking variability on control. Note that
Rogers’s deviations from his warm–submissive set point are
mostly upward, toward greater dominance, whereas Gloria’s de-
viations from her warm–dominant set point are mostly downward,
toward greater submissiveness. As a result, their density distribu-
tions overlap considerably.
Temporal Dynamics That Interrelate the Partners’
Behaviors in the Interaction
Although the foregoing patterns of each partner’s within-person
variability are quite interesting, they cannot show important tem-
poral dynamic aspects of the interaction that crucially interrelate
the partners’ behaviors. To illustrate, consider again the density
plots for Ellis and Gloria with Ellis (in Figure 2). We wanted to
know whether the occasions during which Ellis’s interpersonal
style veers toward submissiveness are associated with the occa-
sions during which Gloria’s interpersonal style veers toward
greater dominance. Because the density plots collapse across time,
they cannot provide us with this kind of information.
One way in which partners’ behaviors may be associated across
the time course of the interaction concerns linear trends in each
person’s level over time. Information about these linear shifts is
provided in the linear regressions portion of Table 2. For example,
consider control in the interaction between Ellis and Gloria. For
Ellis, the intercept tells us that he began the interaction being
somewhat dominant, and the slope tells us that he increased in
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Within-Person Correlations
Variable
Control Affiliation
Correlation of control
and affiliationMSDMSD
Gloria’s behavior
Gloria w/Ellis ⫺116.17 283.59 105.36 108.50 .14
Gloria w/Perls 180.78 216.65 ⫺127.56 232.72 ⫺.56
Gloria w/Rogers 123.03 244.38 243.45 80.05 .12
Therapist’s behavior
Ellis 471.48 259.56 110.28 58.48 ⫺.32
Perls 295.84 169.94 ⫺11.23 113.56 ⫺.23
Rogers ⫺99.01 89.91 249.75 39.04 .11
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
5
MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT OF PROCESS
dominance rather steeply over the course of the interaction. This
linear trend explained 24% of his variance in control. For Gloria
with Ellis, her intercept tells us that she began the interaction being
slightly dominant, and her slope tells us that she decreased in
dominance quite steeply over the course of the interaction. This
linear trend explained 16% of her variance in control. Thus,
consistent with reciprocity of overall shifts in control, Ellis and
Gloria moved apart in control over the course of the interaction,
with Ellis becoming more dominant and Gloria more submissive.
For Gloria’s sessions with Perls and with Rogers, such linear
trends were much less substantial, as indicated by the small R
2
values.
Another way in which partners’ behaviors may be associated
across the time course of the interaction is probably more impor-
Figure 2. Density plots (centroids, or means on both dimensions, are shown with a white plus sign).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
6
THOMAS, HOPWOOD, WOODY, ETHIER, AND SADLER
tant for understanding interaction dynamics. As discussed previ-
ously, to the extent that the partners show cyclical or oscillating
patterns of interpersonal behavior, these oscillations may become
synchronized and entrained between the partners. Information
about these phenomena is provided in the spectral analysis portion
of Table 2. For example, consider again control in the interaction
between Ellis and Gloria. The rhythmicity values for Gloria with
Ellis and for Ellis tell us that both partners’ behavior in the
interaction strongly tended to fall in reasonably regular cycles
(specifically, once linear trends are removed, about 90% of the
variance in Gloria’s control behavior and about 87% of the vari-
ance in Ellis’s control behavior are attributable to cyclical trends).
Thus, there is certainly the potential that these cyclical varia-
tions could have become entrained between Gloria and Ellis.
The value for average weighted coherence indexes the extent of
such entrainment. This value is akin to a squared correlation
and takes on values between 0 and 1. The obtained value of .75
indicates a high degree of entrainment of cyclical variations in
levels of control between Gloria and Ellis. Note that the other
average weighted coherence values for control indicate that
Gloria and Rogers were similarly highly entrained, whereas
there was much more modest entrainment between Gloria and
Perls.
The average weighted coherence as an index of entrainment
emerges from relatively complex statistical machinations on the
data; however, the intuitive meaning of what these values
capture is readily conveyed. The top panel of Figure 3 shows
Gloria’s and Ellis’s moment-to-moment levels of control over
the first 10 min of their interaction. (Showing the entire inter-
action makes the time scale too compressed to see patterns
clearly.) First, note that as the rhythmicity values indicated, the
moment-to-moment variations for both people are reasonably
cyclical in nature; indeed, they tend to have a relatively con-
sistent period of roughly a minute. Second, note that as the
coherence value indicated, these cycles are strongly related,
with peaks for one person tending to occur together with
troughs for the other person. In contrast, the top panel of Figure
4, depicting moment-to-moment levels of control for Perls and
Gloria, shows a less consistently entrained pattern of variation,
which is consistent with the lower coherence value obtained
from their interaction data. Akin to Figure 3, the top panel of
Figure 5, depicting Gloria and Rogers’s moment-to-moment
levels of control, shows highly entrained cycles, consistent with
relatively high rhythmicity and coherence values.
An index of entrainment that is quite similar to the average
weighted coherence but more intuitively approachable is the cross-
correlation between the partners. Returning to the top panel of
Figure 3, showing Gloria’s and Ellis’s moment-to-moment levels
of control, this pattern should yield a strong negative correlation
between their moment-to-moment values. Cross-correlations are
presented in the last column of Table 2, and we see that the
correlation between Gloria’s and Ellis’s levels of control is a
whopping ⫺.84. This negative relation is very consistent with the
principle of reciprocity of control in interpersonal theory, but here
we are applying this principle at the level of moment-to-moment
variations in control, not at the level of global interpersonal style
(as in, e.g., Kiesler & Goldston, 1988). As shown in Table 2, the
cross-correlations for control are clearly negative for the other two
therapy interactions, and their relative magnitudes map consis-
tently onto the corresponding average weighted coherence values
and the time series graphs.
Table 2 also shows the results for entrainment of affiliation. The
values for the average weighted coherence indicate strong entrain-
ment of moment-to-moment levels of affiliation between Gloria
and Ellis, and more modest levels of such entrainment between
Gloria and Perls and between Gloria and Rogers. Note that the
corresponding cross-correlations for affiliation are positive, rather
than negative as for control. This positive relation is very consistent
with the principle of correspondence of affiliation in interpersonal
theory (e.g., warmth invites warmth; coldness invites coldness). The
lower panels of Figures 3–5 show the partners’ levels of affiliation
over the first 10 min of each session. It can be seen that with
affiliation, the prevailing tendency is for peaks in one person to go
together with peaks in the other person, and troughs with troughs.
Table 2
Results From Linear Regressions, Spectral and Cross-Spectral Analyses, and Cross-Correlations
Variable
Linear regressions Spectral analysis
Cross-correlationR
2
Intercept Slope
a
Rhythmicity
Avg. weighted
coherence
Avg. weighted
phase
Control
Gloria w/Ellis .16 84.58 ⫺438.42 .90 .75 .46 ⫺.84
Ellis .24 250.66 482.26 .87
Gloria w/Perls .00 199.94 ⫺32.43 .86 .39 ⫺.46 ⫺.45
Perls .00 313.43 ⫺29.79 .80
Gloria w/Rogers .00 131.14 ⫺10.17 .85 .69 .50 ⫺.77
Rogers .00 ⫺93.53 ⫺6.90 .83
Affiliation
Gloria w/Ellis .05 147.00 ⫺90.93 .94 .89 ⫺.01 .61
Ellis .00 116.29 ⫺13.11 .93
Gloria w/Perls .04 ⫺46.05 ⫺137.99 .96 .20 ⫺.07 .28
Perls .04 ⫺50.38 66.27 .93
Gloria w/Rogers .01 253.64 ⫺12.79 .84 .36 .03 .30
Rogers .06 266.04 ⫺20.44 .79
Note. Avg. ⫽ average.
a
Slope is the linear change over a 10-min period.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
7
MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT OF PROCESS
From the cross-spectral analysis, as a supplement to the average
weighted coherence, it is possible to calculate the average
weighted phase. These phase values for control and for affiliation
in each of the three therapy interactions are provided in Table 2.
Consider first the phase values for affiliation. If the peaks in one
person’s oscillations in affiliation exactly coincided with the peaks
in the other person’s oscillations in affiliation, and troughs coin-
cided with troughs, then the phase value would equal zero. In these
data, positive phase values indicate that the peaks for Gloria were
tending to lead the peaks for the therapist, whereas negative values
indicate that peaks for the therapist were tending to lead the peaks
for Gloria. The values in Table 2 are quite close to zero, but the
⫺.07 for the session between Gloria and Perls suggests that Perls
tended to lead the variations in Gloria’s affiliation levels.
According to the principle of reciprocity on control, we would
expect the peaks in each person’s oscillations to occur together
Figure 3. Bivariate time series for Gloria’s (solid) and Ellis’s (dotted) control and affiliation behavior.
Figure 4. Bivariate time series for Gloria’s (solid) and Perls’s (dotted) control and affiliation behavior.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
8
THOMAS, HOPWOOD, WOODY, ETHIER, AND SADLER
with the troughs in the other person’s oscillations. In this case, the
phase value would equal .50 (or –.50, which is logically equiva-
lent, as explained earlier). This is the value obtained for the session
between Gloria and Rogers, which indicates that neither was
leading the other. The phase value of .46 for Gloria with Ellis,
because it is .04 less than .50, suggests a slight tendency for
Gloria’s peaks in control to precede the troughs for Ellis (specif-
ically, by about 4% of a full cycle, or roughly 2.5 s). The phase
value of –.46 for Gloria with Perls, because it is .04 away from
⫺.50, suggests a slight tendency for Perls’s peaks to precede
Gloria’s troughs. Although these phase values can suggest lead–
lag relations between the partners, it is important not to interpret
them too simplistically (Warner, 1998).
To summarize the most important findings concerning entrain-
ment of interpersonal behavior, Ellis and Gloria showed high
levels of entrainment of both control and affiliation, and Rogers
and Gloria also showed fairly high levels of entrainment, particu-
larly for control. In contrast, Perls and Gloria showed relatively
low levels of entrainment for both control and affiliation. In other
words, at the level of moment-to-moment variations, their session
tended not to follow the interpersonal principles of oppositeness on
control and sameness on affiliation. Most likely, this stemmed
from an intentional strategy by Perls, in which the client’s inter-
personal expectations are deliberately disconfirmed for therapeutic
reasons (e.g., Beier & Valens, 1975; Carson, 1982; Kiesler, 1996).
Indeed, in the filmed aftermath to the sessions, it became clear that
although Gloria found Perls’s behavior frustrating, she also found
the session to be intriguing and thought provoking.
Examining Windows of an Interaction
When examining graphs and results from a complete interaction,
one might note patterns in the data at particular times that merit
further exploration (e.g., showing marked deviations from com-
plementarity). Furthermore, if a clinician were to recall a qualita-
tively key moment in an interaction, data from this window could
be explored further, both graphically and statistically. In either
case, these patterns and key moments can be explored by zooming
in to a specified segment of an interaction and examining data
from this window of the interaction. Because the joystick method
provides so much data (e.g., a 5-min interaction yields 600 data
points), the analyses described above, among many others, can
generally be applied to brief segments from an interaction. To
illustrate this possibility, we examined cross-correlations for no-
table segments of Gloria’s interaction with each therapist to test
their complementarity during these selected times.
Gloria and Ellis. This dyad exhibited the highest degree of
complementarity on the affiliation dimension, with the highest
cross-correlations and coherence of the three dyads. They also both
tended to behave neutrally to warmly. Therefore, in examining
their bivariate time series for affiliation (Figure 3), it was notable
that partway through the interaction Gloria became less friendly
and was rated on the cold half of the circumplex, even though
ratings for Ellis generally remained warmer during this time. To
examine this shift in Gloria’s affiliation, we looked at the tran-
script
1
and data from the 450- to 550-s window:
Ellis: You’re not merely concerned, you’re overconcerned; you’re
anxious. Because if you were just concerned, you’d do your best, and
you’d be saying to yourself, “If I succeed, great; if I don’t succeed,
tough, right now I won’t get what I want.” But you’re overconcerned,
1
From Three Approaches to Psychotherapy, by E. L. Shostrom, 1966,
1976, Santa Ana, CA: Psychological and Educational Films. Copyright
1966, 1976, by E. L. Shostrom. Transcript used with permission. Note that
in making behaviorally anchored ratings, tone, gestures, expressions, pos-
ture, and so forth were critical. Thus, these transcripts cannot capture all of
the important processes occurring in this interaction.
Figure 5. Bivariate time series for Gloria’s (solid) and Rogers’s (dotted) control and affiliation behavior.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
9
MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT OF PROCESS
you’re anxious, you’re really saying again what we said a moment
ago: “If I don’t get what I want right now, I’ll never get it, and that
would be so awful that I’ve got to get it right now.” That causes the
anxiety, doesn’t it?
Gloria: Yes, or else work towards it.
Ellis: Yes, but if you . . .
Gloria (interrupts): But if I don’t get it right now, that’s all right, but
I want to feel like I’m working toward it.
Ellis: Yeah, but you want a guarantee, I hear. My trained ears hear you
saying, “I would like a guarantee of working towards it.” And there
are no certainties and guarantees.
Gloria: Well, no, Dr. Ellis, I don’t know why I am coming out that
way. What I really mean is “I want a step toward working towards it.”
I want . . .
Ellis (interrupts): Well, what’s stopping you?
Gloria: I don’t know, I thought . . . Well, what I was hoping is that
whatever this is in me, why I don’t seem to be attracting these kinds
of men, why I seem more on the defensive, why I seem more afraid,
you could help me [with] what it is I’m afraid of, so I won’t do it so
much.
Ellis: Well, my hypothesis is so far that what you’re afraid of is not
just failing with this individual man, which is really the only issue
when you go out with a new—and we’re talking about eligible males
now, we’ll rule out the ineligible ones—you’re not just afraid that
you’ll miss this one: You’re afraid that you’ll miss this one, and
therefore you’ll miss every other, and therefore you’ll prove that you
are really not up to getting what you want and wouldn’t that be awful.
You’re bringing in these catastrophes.
Gloria: Well, you sound more strong at it, but that’s similar. I feel like
this is silly if I keep this up.
Ellis: If you keep what up?
Gloria: There’s something I’m doing; there’s something I’m doing
not to be as real a person with these men that I’m interested in.
Ellis: That’s right. You’re defeating your own ends.
Panel A of Figure 6 shows the bivariate time series for affiliation
during this segment of their session. In addition to Gloria’s low levels
of friendliness during this time, cross-correlations indicate a very
noncomplementary pattern of affiliation (r ⫽ –.48). Qualitative anal-
ysis of the transcript suggests that Ellis was presuming the extent of
Gloria’s problems to be more severe and pervasive than she felt they
were. It is also notable that he interrupts her during this time and
asserts dominance with phrases such as “my trained ears.” Given that
their session was otherwise highly complementary with regard to
affiliation, a windowed analysis such as this can illuminate times
when their interaction did not flow smoothly and might prove useful
for evaluating client–therapist transactions in therapy.
Gloria and Perls. Therapists may employ anticomplementary
patterns as a means of increasing anxiety and arousing affect.
Among the therapists in this study, Perls’s behavior was the least
complementary, and he often challenged Gloria. We examined
complementarity during a time when Perls clearly aroused nega-
tive affect in Gloria. We chose the following window, which
occurred approximately a third of the way into their interaction
(data ranging from 300 to 375 s):
Perls: No, you’re a bluff. You’re a phony.
Gloria: Do you believe, are you meaning that seriously?
Perls: Yeah, if you say you’re afraid, and you laugh, and you giggle,
and you squirm, it’s phony. You put on a performance for me.
Gloria: Oh, I resent that, very much.
Perls: Can you express this?
Gloria: Yes sir, I most certainly am not being phony. I will admit this:
It’s hard for me to show my embarrassment, and I’m afraid to be
embarrassed, but boy, I resent you calling me a “phony.” Just because
I smile when I’m embarrassed or when I’m being put in a corner
doesn’t mean I’m a phony.
Perls: Wonderful, thank you. You didn’t smile for the last minute.
Gloria: Well, I’m mad at you.
Perls: That’s (Gloria tries to interrupt), that’s right. You didn’t have
to cover up your anger with your smile. Now in that moment, in that
minute, you were not phony.
Figure 6. Windows into sessions: Gloria (solid) with therapists (dotted).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10
THOMAS, HOPWOOD, WOODY, ETHIER, AND SADLER
Gloria: Well, at that minute I was mad though, I wasn’t embarrassed.
Perls: Exactly, when you’re mad, you’re not a phony.
Gloria: I still resent that. I’m not a phony when I’m nervous (hits the
couch).
Perls (interrupts): What is that? Again.
Gloria (hits couch): I want to get mad at you. I, I, you know what I
would like to do?
Perls (mockingly interrupts): I, I, I.
Gloria: I want you on my level, so I can pick on you just as much as
you are picking on me.
Perls: Okay, pick on me.
Panel B of Figure 6 shows the bivariate time series of control
during this segment. Cross-correlations suggest that Gloria and
Perls’s interaction was not complementary on either dimension
during this time (affiliation: r ⫽ –.03; control: r ⫽ .39). Further,
the cross-correlation between Gloria’s own dominance and
friendliness was strongly negative (r ⫽ –.86) during this win-
dow, suggesting that her simultaneous movements toward in-
creased dominance and unfriendliness were sometimes even
more strongly associated than her overall cross-correlation in
Table 2 suggests. These ratings are understandable given that
anger projects into the cold– dominant quadrant of the IPC
(McCrae & Costa, 1989), and Gloria twice states that she is
“mad” during this segment.
Gloria and Rogers. We evaluated data from the following
segment of Gloria’s session with Rogers, which has received prior
empirical attention (e.g., Reilly & Jacobus, 2008; Weinrach, 1990)
and is notably sentimental. Near the end of the session (data
ranging from 1,500 to 1,690 s), Gloria and Rogers have the
following interchange:
Rogers: You know perfectly within yourself a feeling that occurs
when you’re really doing something that’s right for you.
Gloria: I do, I do. And I miss that feeling other times; it’s right away
a clue to me.
Rogers: You can really listen to yourself sometimes and realize: “No,
no, this isn’t the right feeling; this isn’t the way I would feel if I was
doing what I really wanted to do.”
Gloria: But yet, many times I’ll go along and do it anyway. Say, “Oh
well, I’m in the situation now, I’ll just remember next time.” Uh, I
mention this word a lot in therapy, and most therapists grin at me or
giggle or something when I say “utopia.” But when I do follow a
feeling, and I feel this good feeling inside me, that’s sort of utopia;
that’s what I mean, that’s a way I like to feel whether it’s a bad thing
or a good thing. But I feel right about me. This is what I want to
accomplish.
Rogers: I sense that in those utopian moments you really feel kind of
whole, you feel all in one piece.
Gloria: Yeah, yeah, it gives me a choked-up feeling when you say that
because I feel I don’t get that as often as I’d like. I like that whole
feeling, that’s real precious to me.
Rogers: I expect none of us get it as often as we’d like, but I really do
understand. Mm– hmm, that really does touch you, didn’t it?
Gloria: You know what else I was just thinking? I feel dumb saying
it. (Pause) All of a sudden as I’m talking to you I thought, “Gee how
nice I can talk to you, and I want you to approve of me, and I respect
you, but I miss that my father couldn’t talk to me like you are.” I
mean, I’d like to say, “Gee, I’d like to have you for my father.” I don’t
even know why that came to me.
Rogers: You look to me like a pretty nice daughter.
Cross-correlations of the control dimension at this time suggest
an especially high degree of dominance reciprocity (r ⫽ –.84), and
examination of the bivariate time series for control (Panel C of
Figure 6) indicates the presence of cycling. During this portion of
the interview, as Rogers becomes more dominant, Gloria becomes
more submissive, and vice versa, with these behaviors occurring in
near perfect synchrony. Gloria and Rogers were also especially
correspondent (r ⫽ .44) in their levels of friendliness during this
segment. Therefore, close examination of this portion of their
interview provides a window for viewing strong patterns of inter-
personal complementarity, with each individual taking control and
then stepping back to allow the other to take control, and mutually
adjusting to one another as this process unfolds.
Discussion
We used these psychotherapy sessions with Gloria to demon-
strate some of the fruitful ways in which the joystick method can
be applied to psychotherapy research. Some of the phenomena
revealed are very intriguing and would be difficult to capture using
other methods.
With regard to our first set of research questions, the patterns of
within-person variability in levels of control and affiliation were
quite interesting. For example, Ellis showed a very clear predom-
inant pattern of moderately friendly, very strongly dominant be-
havior, from which he periodically diverged to a markedly more
submissive style. What kind of underlying mental process would
yield such a pattern? One intriguing possibility is that highly
dominant behavior was Ellis’s default, relatively automatic mode,
and that the more submissive episodes may have been intentional
overrides of this mode, in which, for example, Ellis was trying to
be more collaborative. This is the kind of pattern one might see in
novice therapists who are highly dominant but whose clinical
supervisor has told them to be more collaborative. Effortful pro-
cessing would produce the less dominant episodes, and repeated
return to the more automatic default would produce the highly
dominant set point.
The other density plots also tended to show patterns of variabil-
ity in which there was a clear interpersonal set point, with diver-
gences away from it in just one direction. In their asymmetry, these
patterns are strikingly unlike a bivariate normal distribution. In
addition, they are unlike other patterns reported in the interper-
sonal literature. Mainly on the basis of the study of multiple-
occasion diary data, Moskowitz and Zuroff (2004) have described
within-person variability in interpersonal behavior in terms of
characteristics like pulse and spin, which are defined in terms of
patterns of divergence from a person’s predominant interpersonal
style. However, the patterns found here appear to be different from
pulse and spin. For pulse, we would expect variation along a radius
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
11
MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT OF PROCESS
from the origin through the person’s predominant style; such a
direction of variation does not characterize any of the density plots,
except perhaps Perls’s. For spin, we would expect angular varia-
tion perpendicular to this radius, which also does not characterize
any of the density plots well. In short, further study of the partic-
ular patterns of variation found in psychotherapy sessions should
avoid preconceptions about the form these patterns may take.
The patterns of variability in interpersonal behavior shown by
Gloria were remarkably different in response to the three thera-
pists. For example, only with Perls did she show a strong inverse
relation between her levels of control and affiliation. Her periodic
efforts to take control and reset the nature of their interaction
tended to be accompanied by striking decreases in her warmth.
Indeed, comparing her behavior across the three therapists, her
interpersonal variation was mainly in three different directions:
with Ellis, toward greater dominance (and sometimes greater
warmth); with Perls, toward greater hostile dominance; and with
Rogers, toward greater submissiveness. These different patterns of
variability provide striking evidence of the powerful effect of a
therapist’s style on a client’s interpersonal dynamics.
With regard to our second set of research questions, the dynamic
patterns interlinking the partners’ interpersonal behaviors were
also quite telling. Of the greatest importance were differences in
the degree of entrainment between partners’ oscillating levels of
control and affiliation. Relatively high degrees of entrainment,
such as those seen in the sessions with Ellis and with Rogers,
probably contribute crucially to the sense of a satisfying, predict-
able therapeutic alliance, because the entrained variations follow
the principles of interpersonal complementarity. In contrast, as
mentioned earlier, the relatively low levels of entrainment in the
session with Perls probably reflected a deliberate therapeutic strat-
egy on his part, in which the client’s typical interpersonal expec-
tations are not met or even disconfirmed. This noncomplementary
strategy may be an important technique for eliciting reflection
about and change in the client’s interpersonal behaviors (e.g.,
Carson, 1969; Kiesler, 1996; Tracey et al., 1999). In short, inter-
personal strategies enacted by the therapist should show up as
different patterns of dynamics in the therapy sessions, and the dynamical
patterns obtained can be examined to study whether the therapist’s
interventions are having the desired effects on the client’s inter-
personal patterns.
As we have pointed out elsewhere (Sadler et al., 2009, Sadler,
Ethier, & Woody, 2011), measuring variation in interpersonal
behavior over time opens up the possibility of distinguishing
multiple, and conceptually separate, levels of complementarity.
In addition to the degree of complementarity of two partners’
global interpersonal styles, we can examine the complementa-
rity of steady shifts in overall levels over the course of an
interaction (Sadler & Woody, 2003), conceptualized in the
present study as linear trends. For example, we can look for
diverging slopes on control, as found here for Gloria and Ellis.
Possibly of even greater importance, we can also examine the
complementarity of cyclical variations in interpersonal behav-
ior. For example, are one person’s oscillations in control at-
tuned to the other person’s oscillations in control? As found in
the present study, cycles that are opposite in phase (peaks in one
person going together with troughs in the other person) are
consistent with the interpersonal principle of oppositeness on
control, but the degree of such entrainment varied strikingly
across the various psychotherapy interactions.
In addition to allowing us to examine the foregoing kinds of
interpersonal dynamics, the computer joystick method has some
interesting advantages as a way of measuring global interpersonal
style. In particular, it provides a careful and thorough sampling of
interpersonal behavior from moment to moment across the entire
course of the interaction. Aggregating across this time sampling
avoids several possible shortcomings of techniques that rely on
retrospection at the conclusion of the interaction. For example, at
the conclusion of an interaction, raters may tend to remember
better the acts that were consistent with their overall view of the
person, or the acts that stood out to them for any reason (e.g.,
because they were emotional, unexpected, significant, or the like),
or the acts that occurred first or last (Kahneman, 2011; Stone &
Shiffman, 1994). Thus, an advantage to using the joystick method
to measure global interpersonal style is that ratings are made
directly and immediately while the interaction is being viewed,
limiting error attributable to recall effects.
Comparison With Act-to-Act Relations and
Other Statistical Methods
As mentioned earlier, a novel aspect of the computer joystick
method is that it captures interaction dynamics as reasonably
continuous flows. An approach that is more familiar to many
researchers involves segmenting each partner’s stream of behavior
into a sequence of discrete acts and then studying time-lagged
relations of one person’s behaviors to the other person’s. This
method has proven to be very generative in previous research on
psychotherapy process (e.g., Lichtenberg & Heck, 1986; Tracey,
1985; Wampold, 1986; Wampold & Kim, 1989). The general
assumption underlying much of this work is that a relation found
with a time lag supports the hypothesis that one person’s behavior
was leading or driving the other person’s behavior. In the cross-
spectral analyses of the time-series data from the joystick method,
the average weighted phase is analogous to the time lag in the
act-to-act approach. Phase indexes the degree of displacement
from one person’s peaks to the other person’s peaks, which could
readily be expressed as a time lag.
However, it is important to point out that the presence of
oscillations in interpersonal behavior (as indicated by the high
rhythmicity values in this study) tends to radically transform the
possible meaning of a time-lagged relation. To illustrate, consider
a case in which two people’s behaviors have exactly the same
frequency and are exactly in phase. With a time lag of 0, this
would yield a correlation of 1. As we increasingly lag one person
behind the other, the correlation drops to 0 and then reverses in
sign. When the time lag is long enough that peaks for one person
are paired with the lagged troughs for the other person, the corre-
lation reaches –1. With further increasing lags, the correlation
heads back to 0 and then reaches 1 again. Real data would be more
complex, with multiple frequencies superimposed and varying
amplitudes (heights of the peaks). Under these conditions, inter-
preting the fluctuating values of the various lagged correlations
can be very challenging.
Moreover, the presence of oscillations in behavior has important
conceptual implications. One is that the future value of a fairly
consistently oscillating behavior can be anticipated well ahead of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
12
THOMAS, HOPWOOD, WOODY, ETHIER, AND SADLER
time. This means that the causes of a later behavior can occur long
before the immediately preceding behavior. In addition, oscillations
are consistent with circular causality, in which the partners are in a
feedback loop and neither can be said to be driving the obtained
pattern. In short, with oscillating behaviors such as those evident in
these therapy interactions, time-lagged relations need to be interpreted
with caution.
In this article, we mostly focused on the spectral and cross-spectral
analysis of the time-series data obtained with the joystick method.
However, joystick data are very well suited to other promising statis-
tical approaches, such as dynamic systems analyses (Boker, 2002;
Boker & Wenger, 2007; Salvatore & Tschacher, 2012). These possi-
bilities provide a rich vein for further exploration.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates the utility of measuring momentary
interpersonal processes in psychotherapy and provides a step to-
wards more accurate measurement of interpersonal process. The
fine-grained level of analysis outlined in this study has the poten-
tial to augment current research on meaningful psychological
processes as they occur within therapy sessions. Hill, Nutt, and
Jackson (1994) noted the relative infrequency with which the same
measure of process is used in multiple studies. One explanation for
this may be that measures used to study particular constructs or
techniques that are more prominent in particular therapy orienta-
tions are less likely to be used by researchers with differing
interests and orientations. An advantage of the IPC is that it is
reasonably trans-theoretical and hence could allow for increased
communication regarding therapy processes across various re-
search paradigms (Hopwood, 2010).
As technological advances allowing for the collection and mea-
surement of psychological data continue to advance, research that
focuses on dynamic processes will play an increasingly important
and sophisticated role in psychotherapy research. Some types of
disorders, such as borderline personality disorder, may be charac-
terized by distinctive cyclical patterns, and these patterns, as well
as changes in them due to psychotherapy, could be captured using
the methods advanced here (Pincus & Hopwood, 2012). In addi-
tion, questions regarding the degree to which interpersonal pro-
cesses coalesce and diverge across different therapies are highly
amenable to investigation using the methods advanced in this
article. Furthermore, using these methods to investigate interper-
sonal processes in psychotherapy may be informative for specify-
ing the conditions under which particular intervention techniques
are most likely to be effective. Finally, the joystick method could
also be used in the training and supervision of psychotherapists, as
outlined in Pincus et al. (in press).
References
Anchin, J. C., & Pincus, A. L. (2010). Evidence-based interpersonal
psychotherapy with personality disorders: Theory, components, and
strategies. In J. J. Magnavita (Ed.), Evidence-based treatment of person-
ality dysfunction: Principles, methods, and processes (pp. 113–166).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/
12130-005
Andrews, J. D. W. (1989). Psychotherapy of depression: A self-
confirmation model. Psychological Review, 96, 576 – 607. doi:10.1037/
0033-295X.96.4.576
Beier, E. G., & Valens, E. G. (1975). People-reading: How we control
others, how they control us. Oxford, United Kingdom: Stein & Day.
Benjamin, L. S. (1979). Use of structural analysis of social behavior
(SASB) and Markov chains to study dyadic interactions. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 88, 303–319. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.88.3.303
Benjamin, L. S. (1996). Interpersonal diagnosis and treatment of person-
ality disorders (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Boker, S. M. (2002). Consequences of continuity: The hunt for intrinsic
properties within parameters of dynamics in psychological processes.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 37, 405– 422. doi:10.1207/
S15327906MBR3703_5
Boker, S. M., & Wenger, M. J. (2007). Data analytic techniques for
dynamical systems. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago, IL:
Aldine.
Carson, R. C. (1982). Self-fulfilling prophecy, maladaptive behavior, and
psychotherapy. In J. Anchin & D. Kiesler (Eds.), Handbook of interper-
sonal psychotherapy (pp. 64 –77). New York, NY: Pergamon.
Castonguay, L. G., Goldfried, M. R., Wiser, S. L., Raue, P. J., & Hayes,
A. M. (1996). Predicting the effect of cognitive therapy for depression:
A study of unique and common factors. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 64, 497–504. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.64.3.497
Dietzel, C. S., & Abeles, N. (1975). Client–therapist complementarity and
therapeutic outcome. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 264 –272.
doi:10.1037/h0076731
Goldfried, M. R. (in press).What should we expect from psychotherapy?
Clinical Psychology Review.
Gurtman, M. B. (1996). Interpersonal problems and the psychotherapy
context: The construct validity of the Inventory of Interpersonal Prob-
lems. Psychological Assessment, 8, 241–255. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.8
.3.241
Hayes, S. C. (2004). Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame
theory, and the third wave of behavior and cognitive therapies. Behavior
Therapy, 35, 639 – 665. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80013-3
Henry, W. P., Schacht, T. E., & Strupp, H. H. (1986). Structural analysis
of social behavior: Application to a study of interpersonal process in
differential psychotherapeutic outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clin-
ical Psychology, 54, 27–31. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.54.1.27
Henry, W. P., Schacht, T. E., & Strupp, H. H. (1990). Patient and therapist
introject, interpersonal process, and differential psychotherapy outcome.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 768–774. doi:
10.1037/0022-006X.58.6.768
Hill, C. E., Nutt, E. A., & Jackson, S. (1994). Trends in psychotherapy
process research: Samples, measures, researchers, and classic publica-
tions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 364–377. doi:10.1037/
0022-0167.41.3.364
Hopwood, C. J. (2010). An interpersonal perspective on the personality
assessment process. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 471–479.
doi:10.1080/00223891.2010.513284
Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., & Bartholomew, K. (1993). Interper-
sonal problems, attachment styles, and outcome in brief dynamic psy-
chotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 549–
560. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.61.4.549
Horvath, A. O., Del Re, A. C., Flückiger, C., & Symonds, D. (2011).
Alliance in individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 48, 9 –16. doi:
10.1037/a0022186
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Toronto, Canada: Double-
day/Random House.
Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Per-
sonality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kiesler, D. J., & Goldston, C. S. (1988). Client–therapist complementarity:
An analysis of the Gloria films. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35,
127–133. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.35.2.127
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
13
MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT OF PROCESS
Kiesler, D. J., & Goldston, C. S., & Schmidt, J. A. (1991). Manual for the
Check List of Interpersonal Transactions–Revised (CLOIT–R) and the
Check List of Psychotherapy Transactions–Revised (CLOPT–R). Rich-
mond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York, NY:
Ronald Press.
Lichtenberg, J. W., & Heck, E. (1986). The analysis of pattern and
sequence in process research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33,
170 –181. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.33.2.170
Lizdek, I., Sadler, P., Woody, E., Ethier, N., & Malet, G. (2012). Capturing
the stream of behavior: A computer-joystick method for coding inter-
personal behavior continuously over time. Social Science Computer
Review, 30, 513–521. doi:10.1177/0894439312436487
Luyten, P., & Blatt, S. J. (2013). Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition in
normal and disrupted personality development: Retrospect and prospect.
American Psychologist, 68, 172–183. doi:10.1037/a0032243
Markey, P. M., Lowmaster, S., & Eichler, W. (2010). A real-time assess-
ment of interpersonal complementarity. Personal Relationships, 17,
13–25. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01249.x
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits:
Wiggins’s circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 56, 586 –595. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.586
Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2004). Flux, pulse, and spin: Dynamic
additions to the personality lexicon. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86, 880 – 893. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.880
Muran, J. C., & Barber, J. P. (Eds.). (2010). The therapeutic alliance: An
evidence-based guide to practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Orford, J. (1986). The rules of interpersonal complementarity: Does hos-
tility beget hostility and dominance, submission? Psychological Review,
93, 365–377. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.365
Pincus, A. L., & Hopwood, C. J. (2012). A contemporary interpersonal
model of personality pathology and personality disorder. In T. A. Wi-
diger (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality disorders (pp. 372–398).
Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199735013.013.0018
Pincus, A. L., Lukowitsky, M. R., & Wright, A. G. C. (2010). The
interpersonal nexus of personality and psychopathology. In T. Millon R.
Krueger & E. Simonsen (Eds.), Contemporary directions in psychopa-
thology: Toward DSM–V and ICD-11 (pp. 523–552). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Pincus, A. L., Sadler, P., Woody, E., Roche, M. J., Thomas, K. M., &
Wright, A. G. C. (in press). Assessing interpersonal dynamics. In C. J.
Hopwood & R. F. Borstein (Eds.), Multimethod clinical assessment.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Puschner, B., Kraft, S., & Bauer, S. (2004). Interpersonal problems and
outcome in outpatient psychotherapy: Findings from a long-term longi-
tudinal study in Germany. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 223–
234. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8303_06
R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A Language and Environment for
Statistical Computing [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www
.R-project.org/
Reilly, J., & Jacobus, V. (2008). Students evaluate Carl Rogers and his
relationship with Gloria: A brief report. Journal of Humanistic Psychol-
ogy, 48, 32– 41. doi:10.1177/0022167807311944
Sadler, P., Ethier, N., Gunn, G. R., Duong, D., & Woody, E. (2009). Are
we on the same wavelength? Interpersonal complementarity as shared
cyclical patterns during interactions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 97, 1005–1020. doi:10.1037/a0016232
Sadler, P., Ethier, N., & Woody, E. (2011). Interpersonal complementarity.
In L. M. Horowitz & S. N. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal
psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions
(pp. 123–142). New York, NY: Wiley.
Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you’re talking to?
Interpersonal style and complementarity in mixed-sex interactions. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 80 –96. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.84.1.80
Safran, J. D. (1984). Assessing the cognitive interpersonal cycle. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 8, 333–347. doi:10.1007/BF01173309
Safran, J. D. (1990a). Towards a refinement of cognitive therapy in light of
interpersonal theory: 1. Theory. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 87–
105. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(90)90108-M
Safran, J. D. (1990b). Towards a refinement of cognitive therapy in light of
interpersonal theory: 2. Practice. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 107–
121. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(90)90109-N
Salvatore, S., & Tschacher, W. (2012). Time dependency of psychotherapeutic
exchanges: The contribution of the theory of dynamic systems in analyzing
process. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00253
Shostrom, E. L. (Producer & Director). (1966). Three approaches to psychother-
apy [Film]. Santa Ana, CA: Psychological and Educational Films.
Shostrom, E. L. (Producer & Director). (1976). Three approaches to psychother-
apy [Film]. Santa Ana, CA: Psychological and Educational Films.
Stone, A. A., & Shiffman, S. (1994). Ecological momentary assessment (EMA)
in behavioral medicine. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 199 –202.
Strupp, H. H., & Binder, J. L. (1984). Psychotherapy in a new key: A guide
to time-limited dynamic psychotherapy. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Tracey, T. J. (1985). Dominance and outcome: A sequential examination.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 119 –122. doi:10.1037/0022-
0167.32.1.119
Tracey, T. J. G. (1993). An interpersonal model of the therapeutic process.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 396 – 409. doi:10.1037/0022-
0167.40.4.396
Tracey, T. J. G. (2004). Levels of interpersonal complementarity: A sim-
plex representation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,
1211–1225. doi:10.1177/0146167204264075
Tracey, T. J. G., Bludworth, J., & Glidden-Tracey, C. E. (2012). Are there
parallel processes in psychotherapy supervision? An empirical exami-
nation. Psychotherapy, 49, 330 –343. doi:10.1037/a0026246
Tracey, T. J. G., Sherry, P., & Albright, J. M. (1999). The interpersonal
process of cognitive–behavioral therapy: An examination of comple-
mentarity over the course of treatment. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 46, 80 –91. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.46.1.80
Wampold, B. E. (1984). Tests of dominance in sequential categorical data.
Psychological Bulletin, 96, 424 – 429. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.96.2.424
Wampold, B. E. (1986). State of the art in sequential analysis: Comment on
Lichtenberg and Heck. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 182–185.
Wampold, B. E., & Kim, K.-H. (1989). Sequential analysis applied to
counseling process and outcome: A case study revisited. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 36, 357–364. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.36.3.357
Warner, R. M. (1998). Spectral analysis of time-series data. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Weinrach, S. G. (1990). Rogers and Gloria: The controversial film and the
enduring relationship. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice,
Training, 27, 282–290. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.27.2.282
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates
for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In W.
Grove & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays
in honor of Paul E. Meehl (Vol. 2, pp. 89 –113). Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Wiggins, J. S. (1996). An informal history of the interpersonal circumplex
tradition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 217–233. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa6602_2
Received August 15, 2012
Revision received April 16, 2013
Accepted April 18, 2013 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
14
THOMAS, HOPWOOD, WOODY, ETHIER, AND SADLER
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Counseling Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
