Ackerman - 2003 - A Review of Therapist Characteristics and Techniques Positively Impacting The Therapeutic Alliance

Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1 – 33
A review of therapist characteristics and techniques

positively impacting the therapeutic alliance
Steven J. Ackermana,*, Mark J. Hilsenrothb
a
The Austen Riggs Center, P.O. Box 962, 25 Main Street, Stockbridge, MA 01262, USA
b
The Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies, Adelphi University, Garden City, NY, USA
Received 15 March 2001; received in revised form 26 July 2001; accepted 2 May 2002
Abstract
The present review is a comprehensive examination of the therapist’s personal attributes and in-
session activities that positively influence the therapeutic alliance from a broad range of psychotherapy
perspectives. Therapist’s personal attributes such as being flexible, honest, respectful, trustworthy,
confident, warm, interested, and open were found to contribute positively to the alliance. Therapist
techniques such as exploration, reflection, noting past therapy success, accurate interpretation,
facilitating the expression of affect, and attending to the patient’s experience were also found to
contribute positively to the alliance. This review reveals how these therapist personal qualities and
techniques have a positive influence on the identification or repair of ruptures in the alliance.
D 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Therapist characteristics; Therapist technique; Alliance
1. Introduction
The therapeutic alliance has emerged as an important variable for psychotherapy process/
change in various schools of psychotherapy (Orlinsky, Grawe, & Parks, 1994). Originally, the
therapeutic alliance was believed to be positive transference from the patient toward the
therapist (Freud, 1913; Frieswyk et al., 1986). The perception of the therapeutic alliance later
developed into a conscious and active collaboration between the patient and therapist.
Currently, most conceptualizations of the therapeutic alliance are based in part on the work of
Bordin (1979), who defined the alliance as including ‘‘three features: an agreement on goals,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-413-298-5511; fax: +1-413-298-4020.

E-mail address: steven _ ackerman@hms.harvard.edu (S.J. Ackerman).
0272-7358/03/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 7 2 - 7 3 5 8 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 4 6 - 0
2 S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33
an assignment of task or a series of tasks, and the development of bonds’’ (p. 253). The
emphasis that contemporary psychotherapy research has placed on the examination of
the technical and relational aspects of the alliance has made it an important variable in the
understanding of psychotherapy process.
In the last two decades, the technical and relational aspects of the alliance such as patient
characteristics and therapist activity have been the focus of a great deal of empirical research
studying the relationship between the alliance and therapy outcome (Barber et al., 1999; Blatt
et al., 1996; Frieswyk et al., 1986; Gaston, Thompson, Gallagher, Cournoyer, & Gagnon,
1998; Hillard, Henry, & Strupp, 2000; Horvath & Greenberg, 1994; Horvath & Luborsky,
1993; Horvath & Symonds, 1991; Martin, Garske, & Davis, 2000; Stiles, Agnew-Davies,
Hardy, Barkham, & Shapiro, 1998). However, an area of research that has been less
developed is the therapists’ contributions to the development of the alliance. Although there
has been some research focusing specifically on the therapist’s in-session activity that impacts
the therapeutic alliance (for a review of the literature examining therapist activity to treatment
outcome, see Orlinsky et al., 1994), for the most part therapist contributions have been
overlooked. More importantly, the findings from these studies have not been integrated across
studies in a manner that clarifies the relationship between the therapist’s specific in-session
contributions (e.g., personal attributes and technical interventions) and the development of a
positive alliance.
In a recent review of the literature on alliance and technique in short-term dynamic therapy,
Crits-Christoph and Connolly (1999) identified only four studies that directly examined the
relationship between technique and alliance. Although the Crits-Christoph and Connolly
review had a narrow focus and only surveyed studies using short-term psychodynamic
techniques, they concluded that there is not enough evidence to draw a link between
technique and alliance. Similar conclusions were reported by Whisman (1993) in a review
of the theoretical and empirical literature related to the therapeutic environment in cognitive
therapy (CT) of depression. The therapeutic environment included the therapeutic alliance,
therapist’s adherence, and competence, as well as patient characteristics. Whisman stated that
historically research examining the core components of CT have devoted ‘‘little discussion to
the importance of the therapeutic relationship’’ (p. 253) and suggested that future research
investigations need to focus on this interaction between the patient and therapist.
Therefore, psychotherapy research may benefit from a close examination of the relation-
ship between therapist’s variables (including personal attributes and technique) and alliance.
As Saketopoulou (1999) states researchers should aim to better understand ‘‘the development
of alliance in the course of therapy’’ (p. 338). In order to identify the distinctive elements of
the therapist’s variables that impact the development and maintenance of the alliance a review
of existing empirical findings from a variety of therapeutic orientations (i.e., psychodynamic,
cognitive, cognitive–behavioral, family therapy, etc.) is necessary. The present review is a
comprehensive examination of the therapist’s personal attributes and in-session activities that
positively influence the therapeutic alliance from a broad range of psychotherapy perspec-
tives. This broad focus on the therapist’s variables positively impacting the alliance facilitates
a closer examination of the psychotherapy process and is a step toward the integration of past
research. This review is not intended to be a critique of methodological issues or measures of
S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33 3
the alliance (although a review of this sort would be a significant contribution to the
literature). The present review is clinically focused with the aim of increasing the applied
understanding of the therapists’ unique contributions to the development of a positive
treatment relationship. It is reasoned that focusing on the therapist’s positive contributions
to the alliance will not only refine and enhance our understanding and assessment of the
construct, it may also guide future research toward the discovery of more efficacious and
clinically superior therapeutic techniques. More importantly, this review may help therapists
with a range of experience, in various forms of psychotherapy to obtain greater success
developing stronger therapeutic connections with their patients.
The first step in the present review was a literature search using PsychLIT from 1988 to
2000 with the search terms: therapist activity, therapeutic alliance, and psychotherapy
process. We also reviewed Horvath and Greenberg’s (1994) book, The Working Alliance:
Theory, Research, and Practice, chapters 8 and 11 in Bergin and Garfield’s (1994) Handbook
of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, and Psychoanalytic Abstracts through 1999. Next,
to identify additional studies we reviewed the references of the material meeting our inclusion
criteria. As a final step, we manually reviewed the previous 12 months of the journals that
provided therapist activity and alliance material in the previous steps (e.g., Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Journal of Clinical Psychology, Journal of Counseling
Psychology, Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, Psychotherapy, and Psycho-
therapy Research).
Our inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) The investigation had to report a quantifiable
relationship between some index of therapist variables and the alliance. (b) The focus of the
study had to be identified as specifically examining therapist’s personal attributes and/or
technical activity related to the development, management, and/or maintenance of the
alliance. This does not include studies examining the relationship between alliance and
outcome, unless the author(s) also examined and reported a quantifiable relationship between
therapist variables and alliance. We chose to define therapist variables to include only those
studies reporting therapist’s personal attributes and/or use of therapeutic technique as
positively impacting the alliance. Moreover, we chose to define the alliance based on
Bordin’s (1979) conceptualization of the alliance. These criteria revealed a total of 25 studies
reporting therapist variables positively contributing to the alliance. The present review will be
organized according to two categories (therapist attributes and therapist techniques) and in-
clude recommendations for future research examining the relationship between therapist
activity and alliance.
2. Therapist variables that contribute positively to the alliance
2.1. Personal attributes
The ability of a therapist to instill confidence and trust within the therapeutic frame is
essential to therapeutic success. Related to the development of these ideals is the therapist’s
capacity to connect with the patient and convey an adequate level of competence to
effectively help patients under distress. Moreover, the therapist’s attributes similar to
dependability, benevolence, and responsiveness are expected to be related to the development
and maintenance of a positive alliance. It is also expected that therapist’s confidence in their
ability to help his/her patients will be related to a positive alliance. In an effort to organize and
further understand the role of therapist’s personal attributes in the development of the
alliance, this section of the review examines studies linking the therapist’s personal attributes
with his/her ability to form an alliance with patients.
In the development and validation of a new alliance measure, Horvath and Greenberg
(1989) compared therapist self-ratings on the Counselor Rating Form (CRF) and the Working
Alliance Inventory (WAI) scales. The WAI is a 36-item measure that consists of three
subscales (Goals, Bond, and Task) based on Bordin’s (1975) tripartite conceptualization of
the alliance. Using ratings from the third session of psychotherapy, they found that the WAI
Bond scale was significantly related to CRF scales trustworthiness and expertness. A feeling
of positive connectedness early in the therapeutic relationship was related to therapist
training, consistency, nonverbal gestures (e.g., eye contact, leaning forward), verbal behaviors
(e.g., interpretation, self-disclosure), and the maintenance of the therapeutic frame. This study
also reported a strong correlation between the WAI Bond scale and the Empathy scale of the
Relationship Inventory (RI; Barrett-Lennard, 1962) that measures a therapist’s demonstration
of empathy, congruence, and positive regard. These findings suggest that the therapist’s
ability to understand and relate to the patient’s experience may be an important component in
building a strong alliance.
Similar findings were reported in recent studies (Coady & Marziali, 1994; Hersoug,
Hoglend, Monsen, & Havik, 2001; Price & Jones, 1998). Coady and Marziali (1994)
examined the relationship between specific and global estimates of the alliance at Sessions
3, 5, and 15 of time-limited psychodynamic psychotherapy using the Therapeutic Alliance
Rating System (TARS; Marmar, Horowits, Weiss, & Marziali, 1986) and the Structural
Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB; Benjamin, 1984). The TARS is a 42-item scale that
focuses on the therapist–patient relationship and the individual contributions each makes
toward that relationship. The authors found that the percentage of SASB therapist’s
affiliative thought units were correlated with patient rating of therapist’s contribution to
the alliance at Session 3 and external judges ratings of therapist’s contributions to the
alliance at Session 15. A significant positive correlation was also found between therapist’s
helping and protecting behaviors and therapist’s ratings of his/her own contribution to the
alliance at Session 15.
To assess the relationship between alliance and therapist process, Price and Jones (1998)
compared judges’ ratings of psychodynamic psychotherapy Sessions 5 and 14 on the
California Psychotherapy Alliance Scale (CALPAS) and Psychotherapy Process Q-Sort
(PQS). The CALPAS is comprised of 24 items that break into four scales (Patient Working
Capacity, Patient Commitment, Working Strategy Consensus, and Therapist Understanding
and Involvement) intended to reflect different components of the alliance and taken together
are believed to portray the overall alliance. The authors reported that the global alliance rating
was significantly correlated with the Therapist Understanding and Involvement subscale. A
significant positive correlation was found between the alliance and PQS items related to
therapist’s affiliative behaviors (‘‘Therapist adopts supportive stance’’ and ‘‘Therapist is

sensitive to patient’s feelings, attuned to patient, empathic’’). A significant positive correla-
tion was also found between the alliance and the patient–therapist interaction factor of the
PQS that represents the therapist conveying an understanding of the patient as well as being
supportive of the patient. In addition, the patient–therapist interaction factor was found to
significantly predict the alliance. The authors suggested that the interaction represents the
productive communication between the patient and therapist including both affective (i.e.,
empathic) and working-related (i.e., understanding) aspects of the alliance. It was proposed
that the therapist capacity to express him/herself lucidly and be perceived as proficient in
enacting therapeutic strategies might lead to higher overall alliance ratings.
In a study examining the quality of the working alliance, Hersoug et al. (2001) assessed
therapist personal variables early and late in psychodynamic therapy. The WAI was used to
assess the alliance at Sessions 3 and 12. The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP;
Horowitz, Rosenberg, & Baur, 1988), SASB, and Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker,
Tuplin, & Brown, 1979) were used to assess therapist personal variables at the same sessions.
Positive (warm) early memories of caregivers were related to higher therapist early and
patient late ratings of the alliance. Greater amounts of training (i.e., experience) were related
to higher therapist late alliance ratings. Moreover, a dominant interpersonal style was
predictive of higher patient late alliance rating that supports the belief that patients’ may
feel comfortable with a confident and involved therapist. Taken together, the findings from
these studies suggest that the patient–therapist interaction plays a key role in the defining and
maintaining the alliance.
Mallinckrodt and Nelson (1991) used the WAI to examine the relationship between
training level and the formation of a working alliance at Session 3. They surveyed patient–
therapist dyads from three separate training sites that included novice (in first practicum),
advanced (in second practicum through predoctoral internship), and experienced (postdoc-
toral staff) therapists. The authors reported that both patients and therapists rated therapists
with greater levels of training higher on the Tasks and the Goals subscales of the WAI.
However, there were no significant differences found across the level of training on the Bond
subscale of the WAI for either patient or therapist ratings. These findings suggest that less
experienced therapists are capable of forming a bond with the patient but may be less
effective at establishing treatment goals and performing the tasks necessary to achieve these
goals early in the treatment process.
Utilizing patient and therapist dyads from an university outpatient clinic, Al-Darmaki and
Kivlinghan (1993) compared patient and therapist alliance ratings on the WAI with external
judges ratings on the Revised Psychotherapy Expectancy Inventory (PEI-R; Berzins, 1971)
from Session 3 of formal psychotherapy. The therapists were in various levels of training
from beginning student therapists to senior supervising psychologists. They reported that if
the therapist expected the relationship to be positive (i.e., positive, egalitarian), it facilitated
the development of a better working alliance (higher ratings on the WAI Bond, Agreement on
Tasks, and Agreement on Goals subscales). These findings support Mallinckrodt and
Nelson’s (1991) notion that training level does not necessarily impact the development of
a therapeutic bond early in treatment.
Using the WAI with a sample of undergraduate students who were given courses credit to
act as patients, Kivlighan, Clements, Blake, Arnzen, and Brady (1993) examined counselor
sex role orientation, flexibility, and the formation of a working alliance across four sessions.
The recruited patients were expected to present personal concerns from their current lives
and rate the alliance after each sessions. The authors reported no significant relationship
between counselor sex role orientation and patient ratings of the working alliance averaged
across all sessions. However, they found a significant relationship between increased
counselor flexibility and higher patient ratings of the working alliance on the WAI average
across all sessions.
Mohl, Martinez, Tichnor, Huang, and Cordell (1991) asked patients to rate their therapist
using the Helping Alliance Questionnaire (HAq; Luborsky, Mintz, Auerbach, et al., 1980)
and the Osgood Semantic Differential (OSD; Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbarum, 1975) after an
initial screening interview. They reported that those patients who experienced a stronger
helping alliance felt they gained new understanding, liked the therapist, and felt more liked
and respected by the therapist. In general, therapists who were recognized as being warm,
friendly, and facilitating a greater sense of understanding had higher helping alliance ratings
early in the treatment process.
Najavits and Strupp (1994) also used the HAq as well as the Vanderbilt Psychotherapy
Process Scale (VPPS; Suh, Strupp, & O’Malley, 1986), the Vanderbilt Negative Indicators
Scale (VNIS; Suh et al., 1986), and the Vanderbilt Therapeutic Strategies Scale (VTSS;
Butller, Lane, & Strupp, 1988) to examine the relationship between alliance and
therapist’s in-session behavior. Using the ratings of the patient, therapist, supervisor,
and an external observer at various points in treatment, the authors found that most of the
significant results were connected to a relational aspect of the treatment process. Najavits
and Strupp reported that therapists with higher alliance scores were rated by both
themselves and patients as more affirming and understanding than therapist with lower
alliance ratings. These findings suggest that being accepting of patients may help them
feel even more connected to the therapist, and in turn increase their confidence in the
treatment process.
Bachelor (1995) used a qualitative analysis to assess the patient’s perceptions of the
alliance. Patients described the main characteristics of a ‘‘good client–therapist relation-
ship’’ (p. 524) at three separate points in therapy (pretherapy, initial session, and a later
session). Approximately one-half of the patients in the sample reported that therapist
competence and respect for the patient was characteristic of a good working relationship.
These results were consistent at all three measurement points. These findings highlight the
idea that the quality of the alliance may be influenced by the patient’s perception of the
therapist at various stages of the treatment process.
In a study focusing on the assessment of the session affective environment and overall
quality, Saunders (1999) hypothesized that the patient’s in-session emotional state may be
related to his/her perception of the therapist’s emotional state at Session 3. To assess the
affective environment in the session, Saunders utilized the Therapist Confident Involvement
(TCI; therapist interested, alert, relaxed, and confident), Therapist Distracted (TD; therapist
distracted, bored, and tired), and Reciprocal Intimacy (RIn; conceptually represented the
alliance and included items related to the patient feeling close and affectionate, as well as
the therapist being perceived as close, affectionate, and attractive) subscales of Therapy
Session Report (TSR; Orlinsky & Howard, 1986). Session quality was estimated from the
average of patient ratings on two individual items from the TSR. The first item asked
patients to rate the session just completed on a seven-point Likert-type scale with higher
ratings equal to increased quality. The second item asked patients to rate how effective the
session was in dealing with their problems on a five-point Likert-type scale again with
higher ratings equal to increased quality. Saunders reported that TCI and RIn (alliance)
ratings were significantly related to each other. Furthermore, it was found that higher patient
ratings of the session quality were significantly related to higher scores on the TCI and RIn,
as well as lower scores on the TD subscales. Patient’s perceptions of the therapist as
confident and interested were found to be related to feeling intimate with the therapist as
well as a feeling of being helped. These findings suggest that when patients perceived the
session as worthwhile, they perceived the therapist as involved and felt more connected
with the therapist.
The research reviewed in this section revealed that specific therapist’s personal attributes
were significantly related to the development and maintenance of a positive alliance (see
Table 1). It appears that the therapist’s attributes may influence the development of an
alliance early and late in treatment. A potential methodological concern regarding the studies
in this section is that many only report data from one or two points in treatment (typically
Session 3 and a point at which 75% of the treatment is completed). While this is common
practice within psychotherapy research, it may limit the generalizability of the findings to
other points in treatment (i.e., the middle phase) where a decline in the experience of a
positive alliance may occur in some forms of therapy. Significant relationships were found
between early alliance and therapist’s attributes such as conveying a sense of being
trustworthy (Horvath & Greenberg, 1989), affirming (Najavits & Strupp, 1994), flexible
(Kivlinghan, Clements, Blake, Arnez, & Brady, 1993), interested, alert, relaxed, confident
(Hersoug et al., 2001; Saunders, 1999), warm (Mohl et al., 1991), and more experienced
(Hersoug et al., 2001; Mallinckrodt & Nelson, 1991). In addition, patient’s perception of a
therapist as competent and respectful (Bachelor, 1995) early in the treatment process were
found to be characteristic of a positive alliances. Therapist’s affiliative type behavior such as
helping and protecting were found to be significantly related to alliance ratings taken later in
the treatment process. A possible explanation for these findings is that the therapist’s personal
qualities such as dependability, benevolence, responsiveness, and experience help patients
have the confidence and trust that their therapist has the ability to both understand and help
them cope with the issues that brought them to therapy. Moreover, it is important to keep in
mind that it may be necessary for a patient to have an affirmative opinion of the therapist
before s/he has enough influence to facilitate therapeutic change. A benevolent connection
between the patient and therapist helps create a warm, accepting, and supportive therapeutic
climate that may increase the opportunity for greater patient change. If a patient believes the
treatment relationship is a collaborative effort between her/himself and the therapist, s/he may
be more likely to invest more in the treatment process and in turn experience greater
therapeutic gains.
8
Table 1
S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33

Summary of therapist personal attributes that contribute positively to the alliance
Study Participants Therapist Treatment Instruments and raters Findings
Al-Darmaki 25 outpatients 25 therapists not reported WAI: Therapist expectation of
and at a university (2 senior comfortable and egalitarian
Kivlighan clinic psychologists, relationship is predictive of
(1993) 2 predoctoral therapist-rated WAI Bond
interns, 11 (R2=.44, adjusted R2=.42,
beginning student F=18.19); Agreement on
therapists, and 10 Tasks (R2=.36, adjusted
advanced student R2=.33, F=12.81);
therapists) Agreement on Goals
(R2=.49, adjusted R2=.47,
F=21.89).
Therapist version:
Cronbach’s alpha=.91 – .93
Patient version:
Cronbach’s alpha=.88 – .93
PEI-R Patient and
Therapist ratings on
the WAI from Session 3
External judges ratings on
the PEI-R from Session 3
Bachelor 34 self-referred 23 master’s level Treatment was Open-ended self-report Therapist competence and
(1995) outpatients psychology dependent on inquiry of patient’s respect for the patient were
trainees being supervisors’ perception of the alliance characteristics of good
trained in a orientation (36.4% (pretherapy, initial session, working relationship.
broad range of cognitive – behavioral, and at a later phase)
therapies 36.4% humanistic –
existential, 15.1%
analytic, and 12.1%
gestalt)
Coady and 9 outpatients psychodynamically time-limited (20 sessions) TARS: Cronbach’s Patient ratings on the TARS
Marziali seeking oriented therapists individual alpha=.81 – .91. are related to SASB Therapist
(1994) psychotherapy with a minimum of psychodynamic Affiliative Thought Unit at
4 years postgraduate therapy Session 3 (r=.76, P<.01);
clinical experience external judges ratings on the
TARS are related to SASB

Therapist Affiliative Thought
Unit at Session 15 (r=.65,
P<.05); therapist ratings on
the TARS are related to SASB
Therapist Helping/Protecting
behavior at Session 15
(r=.76, P<.01).
SASB
Patient, therapist, and
external judges
ratings on the TARS
and SASB from
Sessions 3, 5, and 15
Hersoug et al. 270 outpatients 39 clinical open-ended WAI Patient ratings on the WAI
(2001) from seven sites psychologists, psychodynamic are related to PBI warm father
13 psychiatrists, psychotherapy care (r=.20, P<.01) and warm
4 social workers, mother care (r=.15, P<.05) at
and 3 nurses Session 12. Therapist ratings
of the WAI are related to warm
mother care (r=.24, P<.01),
skill (r=.24, P<.01), and
progress as a psychotherapist
(r=.26, P<.01) at Session 3.
Therapist ratings of the WAI
are related to skill (r=.24,
P<.01) at Session 12. Patient
WAI ratings at Session 12
predicted by therapist’s
dominant style (t=1.98, P<.05).
(continued on next page)
9
10
Table 1 (continued)
IIP
SASB
PBI

Horvath and 25 outpatients 25 experienced short-term counseling WAI: Cronbach’s WAI Bond scale is related to CRF
Greenberg seeking services professionals from (less than 15 sessions) alpha=.87 Trustworthiness (r=.72) and
(1989) on a fee for various orientations Expertness (r=.66) scales. WAI
services basis (client-centered, Bond scale is related to RI
analytic, Jungian, Empathy scale (r=.76).
behavioral,
or cognitive)
CRF
RI Empathy Scale
Patient and therapist
ratings at Session 3
Kivlighan 42 undergraduate 42 master’s level counseling interview WAI: Cronbach’s Counselor flexibility is related to
et al. psychology counseling students alpha=.92 WAI average score across sessions
(1993) students enrolled in a (r= .26; lower flexibility scores
recruited to counseling represent greater flexibility).
present real skills course
personal
concerns
Intentions list
Counselor flexibility
Ratings are taken
after each session
(total of four sessions)
Mallinckrodt 58 outpatients 18 novice graduate eclectic time-limited WAI: Significant main effects found
and Nelson students, 24 brief therapy model for training level [ F(6,90)=4.18,
(1991) advanced P<.001]. Patients rated therapists
graduate students, with more training higher on WAI
and 8 experienced Tasks [ F(2,47)=3.27, P<.05] and
counselors Goals [ F(2,47)=5.84, P<.01]
subscales. Therapists rated
therapists with more training
higher on WAI Tasks [ F(2,47)=
3.48, P<.05] and Goals
[ F(2,47)=8.39, P<.01] subscales.
Therapist version:
Cronbach’s alpha=
.88 – .93

Patient version:
Cronbach’s alpha=
.88 – .91
ratings on the WAI
after Session 3
Mohl et al. 80 outpatients four senior faculty initial screening HAq and OSD after Higher alliance ratings are related
(1991) seeking psychiatrists interview the initial screening to therapist being warm and
psychotherapy interview friendly (t= 2.41, P .02).
Najavits and 80 outpatients 16 experienced time-limited dynamic Helping Alliance Higher alliance ratings are related
Strupp recruited psychodynamic psychotherapy Scale (HA) to increased warmth/friendliness
(1994) through therapists with at (25 sessions) ( F=4.34, P=.01); affirming/
newspaper least 2 years understanding ( F=4.91, P=.05),
announcements postdegree and decreased belittling/blaming
experience ( F=5.03, P=.05) and attacking/
(8 psychiatrists and rejecting ( F=6.00, P .03).
8 psychologists)
VPPS
VNIS
VTSS
SASB
Independent observer
ratings on the HA and
VNIS at Session 3 and
VPPS, VTSS, and SASB
at Sessions 3 and 16
11
12
Table 1 (continued)

Price and 30 outpatients 15 psychodynamic brief psychodynamic CALPAS: Cronbach’s CALPAS total alliance score is
Jones therapists psychotherapy alpha=.96 related to CALPAS Therapist
(1998) (8 psychiatrists, treatment Understanding scale (r=.76,
6 psychologists, P<.001), CALPAS is related
and 1 psychiatric to PQS items ‘‘therapist
social worker communicates with patient in
with an average a clear, coherent style’’ (r=.24,
of 6 years, P<.05), ‘‘therapist adopts a
range=1 – 19 years, supportive stance’’ (r=.22,
of private practice P<.05), and ‘‘therapist is sensitive
experience) to patient’s feelings, attuned to
patient; empathic’’ (r=.21, P<.05).
PQS
External ratings on
the CALPAS and
PQS from Sessions
5 and 14
Saunders 268 not reported unstructured and TSR: coefficient RIn is related to TCI (r=.28,
(1999) outpatient open-ended individual alpha=.62 – .82 P<.001) and Patient Remoralized
cases psychotherapy (median (r=.38, P<.001). Session Quality
length of treatment=26 is related to TCI (r=.43, P<.008),
sessions) RIn (r=.28, P<.008), and TD
(r= .29, P<.008).
patient ratings
on the TSR from
Session 3
2.2. Therapist application of technique
The strategic interventions used by the therapist in treatment may be at least one
discernable component of the overall alliance that develops between the patient and
therapist. The focus of this section of the review is to explore the application of therapeutic
techniques that increase the therapist’s ability to identify with the patient and the patient’s
ability to identify with the therapist. This includes, but is not limited to the therapist ability
to develop an affiliative atmosphere within the nucleus of the therapeutic setting. Creating
an environment in which the patient and therapist are working together with one another
requires contributions from both participants. Therapists who work toward cultivating a
comfortable (and productive) therapeutic environment are expected to be rated by patients,
external observers, and themselves as having strong alliances. The studies in this section
of the review specifically explore the therapist application of techniques that contribute
positively to the alliance. It is predicted that therapist interventions that contribute
positively to the alliance will demonstrate to the patient an investment in the treatment
process, help the patient attach to the treatment, and deepen therapeutic understanding
(Freud, 1913).
The findings of several studies suggest that more responsive and collaborative therapist
activities often lead to the growth of a positive alliance. Working on the development of
measures of the helping alliance in psychotherapy, Luborsky, Crits-Christoph, Alexander,
Margolis, and Cohen (1983) compared the ratings of external judges for counting signs of
therapist behaviors that facilitate or inhibit alliance growth with external ratings of the helping
alliance both early and late in treatment. The authors reported that therapist’s helping and
‘‘we’’ behaviors that were found to facilitate the development of an alliance included
communicating a sense of hope for patients to achieve their goals, noting patient progress
toward goals, understanding, accepting, and respecting patients, being open-minded and
enthusiastic, referring to common experiences between the patient and therapist, conveying a
feeling of working together in a shared effort against the patient’s anguish, communicating a
trust in the patient’s growing ability to use what has been learned in treatment, as well as
facilitating the use of healthy defenses and supportive activities. Similar findings were
reported by Allen et al. (1996) using supportive–expressive (SE) psychotherapy. The authors
examined sessions from various points in treatment and reported that higher proportions of
interpretation and clarification were associated with higher ratings on the HAq patient
collaboration subscale.
Saunders, Howard, and Orlinsky (1989) set out to develop a scale to measure the patient’s
perspective of the therapeutic relationship early in treatment (Session 3 or 4). The authors
conceptualized the therapeutic relationship as consisting of three dimensions—investment,
understanding, and acceptance. Saunders et al. assessed the therapeutic relationship using
four scales that consisted of items taken from the TSR (Orlinsky & Howard, 1986), the
Working Alliance scale (WA), Empathic Resonance scale (ER), Mutual Affirmation scale
(MA), and Global Bond (GB) scale. Saunders et al. reported that the GB scale was
significantly related to all three scales (WA, ER, and MA). In addition, the WA scale was
positively correlated with the MA scale and the MA scale was positively correlated with the
ER scales. In general, it was found that in sessions rated highly by patients they felt
understood by their therapist, that their therapist expressed her/himself well, and that s/he was
genuinely invested in the process. The authors concluded that a therapeutic relationship
consists of both investment of personal energy (i.e., WA) and relational variables (i.e., ER). A
methodological advantage of the scales utilized in this study was that items were grouped
conceptually and then subjected to psychometric modification to obtain high reliability and
validity. However, a potential methodological limitation of this study was that the ratings
were from only one point early in treatment.
As described earlier, Mohl et al. (1991) reported that higher alliance ratings were related to
therapist warmth and friendliness. The authors also found that intake interviewers with higher
helping alliance averages were seen as more active, explorative, and potent compared to
intake interviewers with lower helping alliance averages. One of the aspects of activity and
potency described by the authors included the therapist leading a discussion with the patient
about the psychotherapy process that emphasized the patient could be helped but that it would
require hard work from both the patient and therapist. This particular activity may help to
ensure that the patient understands the therapy process and assess whether s/he is comfortable
with the demands of therapy.
Bachelor (1991) used the Penn Helping Alliance Rating Method (PENN; Morgan,
Luborsku, Crits-Christoph, Curtis, & Solomon, 1982), Therapeutic Alliance Rating System
(TARS; Marziali, 1984), and the VPPS (Gomez-Schwartz, 1978) to compare patient’s and
therapist’s perceptions of what constitutes the alliance in various types of treatment at
Sessions 3 and 10. Both patient’s and therapist’s ratings at Sessions 3 and 10 revealed a
significant positive relationship between the therapeutic relationship being a joint or team
effort (alliance) and therapist explorative behaviors. This finding was consistent across the
PENN Type I (patient experience of receiving help or a helpful attitude from the therapist)
and PENN Type II (patients experience of being in a joint or team effort with the therapist)
alliances both earlier and late in therapy. These results highlight that the patient and therapist
have similar views about the positive impact therapist exploration can have on the
development of the alliance early and late in treatment.
Using the Inventory of Therapeutic Strategies (ITS) to measure therapist technique, Gaston
and Ring (1992) also reported that increased exploration was related to higher alliance ratings
across 15 sessions of psychotherapy (cognitive – behavioral and brief dynamic). Taken
together, the findings from these studies (Bachelor, 1991; Gaston & Ring, 1992) suggest
that the use of exploratory strategies may communicate an interest in the patient’s experience
as well as increase feelings of connectedness between the patient and therapist. If a patient
experiences the therapist as more engaged, they are more likely to have trust in the therapist
and more importantly the therapeutic process. Moreover, patients may perceive the therapist’s
continued attempts to explore problems as a manifestation of an empathic connection
demonstrating warmth and concern.
One study was found that do not support the use of exploration to aid in the development
of the alliance (Kolden, 1996). Kolden, assessed the relationship between ratings on the
TSR and the Therapeutic Procedures Inventory—Revised (TPI-R; Orlinsky, Lundy,
Howard, Davidson, & O’Mahoney, 1987) at the third session of dynamic therapy. It was
reported that therapeutic bond (alliance) ratings from Session 3 were not significantly
related to therapist prescriptive interventions (such as suggesting behavior changes, giving
explicit advice), as well as exploratory interventions (e.g., focusing on past events,
interpreting defenses, and encouraging patient exploration of the meaning behind his/her
thoughts, behaviors, or feelings). A possible explanation for these findings is that the ratings
are from Session 3 only and the interventions described may be premature for the early
sessions of dynamic therapy. Since the author did not present the correlations of bond and
therapist interventions from a later phase in treatment it is unclear whether the same
interventions used later in treatment would enhance or at least maintain a bond between the
patient and therapist.
Crits-Christoph, Barber, and Kurcias (1993) examined the relationship between the
accuracy of interpretation and the development of the alliance early and late in the
treatment process. The authors used the ratings of two early and two late sessions from
independent judges on the Helping Alliance Counting Signs Method (HAcs; Luborsky et al.,
1983). These ratings were compared with independent judges’ ratings of the accuracy of
interpretations of the patients Core Conflictual Relationship Theme (CCRT; Luborsky,
1984). The CCRT contains three key components: a statement of the patient’s wish (W), an
expected (imagined) or actual response from another (RO), and a subsequent response
from self (RS). The W is understood in the context of a real or imagined relationship and
the RO is rooted in the context of this wish. The RS includes both the actions/behaviors
and the feelings/affect associated with this response (Book, 1998; Luborsky, 1984;
Luborsky & Crits-Christoph, 1997). An interpretation was rated as accurate when it
addressed the patient’s CCRT wishes, responses from others, and responses of self. Since
interpretations of the wish and response from other components of the CCRT were found to
be highly correlated in this study, the authors combined them into a single composite
interpersonal interpretation rating. Alliance early in treatment was not found to be
significantly correlated with the alliance later in treatment. In addition, the accuracy of
interpretations of the RS component of the CCRT was not found to be significantly related
to either early or late alliance. However, the authors did report a significant positive
relationship between both early and late alliance with the accuracy of interpretations related
to the interpersonal components of the CCRT (W and RO). The authors conducted
exploratory analyzes to determine if the significant relationships found were more a
function of the W or RO dimension. They found a significant positive relationship between
both the W and RO dimensions and the alliance later in therapy. These findings suggest
that interpersonal dimensions of a patient’s CCRT were more related to the development of
a strong alliance than intrapersonal dimensions of a patient’s CCRT. Based on these
findings, Crits-Christoph et al. concluded that a weak alliance early in treatment may be
improved through accurate interpretation of a patient’s CCRT later in treatment and that
high alliance early in treatment may be maintained through accurate interpretation of the
CCRT later in treatment.
As described earlier, Bachelor (1995) completed a qualitative analysis that examined the
patient’s perspective of the therapeutic alliance. The results also revealed three types of
alliance that may help to identify some distinct qualities of the overall therapeutic alliance.
The nurturant type was characterized by therapist facilitative behaviors such as being
nonjudgmental, listening attentively, and conveying a feeling of understanding the patient.
The collaborative type included therapist contributions such as helping the patient recognize
alternate ways to interpret situations as well as a willingness to accept criticism or
confrontation within the therapeutic relationship. The therapist’s willingness to address these
issues and ability to respond nondefensively to them enhanced the patient’s trust and feeling
of being heard and understood. Therapist contributions to the insight-oriented type included
the identification and clarification of patient problems, the facilitation of patient expression of
affect, and keeping the patient focused on therapy relevant topics. These findings underscore
the influence of therapist’s strategic interventions on the development of a positive
therapeutic environment.
Dolinsky, Vaughan, Luber, Mellman, and Roose (1998) conducted a study of the
therapeutic relationship focusing on the agreement about the quality of the ‘‘goodness of
fit’’ between the patient and therapist (alliance) and whether this match correlated with other
variables such as the therapist verbal activity. Both patients and therapists reported a
significant relationship between positive match (alliance) and the therapist being more active
in verbal exchanges. These results may be interpreted bidirectionally, meaning that an active
therapist facilitates the experience of a positive match and the experience of a positive match
may lead to the therapist being more verbally active.
Sexton, Hembre, and Kvarme (1996) examined the interaction of the alliance and therapy
microprocesses (i.e., questioning, interpretation, verbal content, emotional content, listening,
etc.) using sequential analyses at early, middle, and late phases of cognitively oriented
psychotherapy. The results indicated that alliance was formed early in treatment and was
maintained in the middle and late phases of treatment by therapist techniques such as the use
of reflection, listening, interpreting, questioning, and advising.
Joyce and Piper (1998) used patient and therapist ratings taken before therapy began on
a modified version of the Session Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ; Stiles, 1980) that asked
the patient and therapist to respond to the stem ‘‘the typical therapy session will be. . ..’’ In
addition, the authors used patient and therapist ratings after each session on the SEQ to
evaluate the patient’s and therapist’s experience of sessions. Based on the SEQ ratings the
authors calculated an expected and evaluation Depth–Value score (perceived usefulness of
the session; valuable, deep, full, powerful, and special) and an expected and evaluation
Smoothness–Ease score (perceived comfort of the session; easy, relaxed, pleasant, smooth,
and comfortable). In addition, the authors subtracted the SEQ expectancy score from the
SEQ evaluation score to obtain a discrepancy score. A positive discrepancy score indicated
the session exceeded the initial expectancy, and a negative discrepancy score indicated
the session failed to meet the initial expectations. To rate the alliance, the authors had
patients and therapists independently rate 6 seven-point items. Four items were rated
immediately after each session and addressed whether the patient felt understood by the
therapist, was able to understand the therapist’s intervention, and how the patient
experienced the usefulness of the session. The remaining two items were rated reflectively
after Sessions 7, 14, and 20. These two items addressed the collaboration and helpfulness
of the session. The ratings on the alliance questions were aggregated together to form
patient impression score, a therapist immediate impression score, and a therapist reflective
impression score.
The authors reported a significant positive relationship between the patient-rated
impression of the alliance and the patient expectancy Depth–Value (usefulness) rating; a
significant positive relationship between the therapist-rated immediate impression of the
alliance and the therapist expectancy Depth–Value rating. In other words, both the patient
and therapist expectancy of usefulness were found to be significantly related to the
alliance. These findings suggest that starting therapy with the expectation that it will be
useful may positively influence the actual experience of therapy as useful and increase
the development of an alliance. A significant positive relationship was also reported be-
tween the therapist-rated reflective impression of the alliance and therapist expectancy
Smoothness–Ease (comfort) rating. In other words, if the therapist feels s/he will be com-
fortable in the session, the overall perceptions of the treatment relationship will likewise
be positive.
Similar results were reported in a recent study examining the relationship between therapist
technique and alliance during the assessment phase of treatment (Ackerman, Hilsenroth,
Baity, & Blagys, 2000). The authors reported that patients rated the assessment as more
positive on the SEQ when therapists worked toward developing and maintaining an empathic
connection, interacted collaboratively with patients to develop individualized goals, and
explored assessment results with patients. Moreover, it was reported that patient’s experience
of the assessment as deep and positive was related to the patient’s experience of a positive
working alliance.
Svenson and Hanson (1999) reported comparable results assessing the therapeutic alliance
in the initial phase of cognitive treatment. Specifically, they reported patient’s rating of the
therapeutic alliance was significantly correlated with the SEQ Depth index. Taken together,
these findings help to further expand the understanding of the interaction between the
therapeutic alliance and process in various types of treatment. They suggest that increased
exploration of salient interpersonal themes in a powerful, valuable, deep, full, and special
way, regardless of treatment modality, may increase the patient’s experience of a positive
alliance with the therapist.
Crits-Christoph et al. (1998) compared the effects of training in Cognitive (CT), SE, and
Individual Drug Counseling (IDC) therapies on the treatment and development of alliance
with cocaine-dependent patients. The authors measured the alliance using ratings from
clinical supervisors and independent judges at Sessions 2, 5, and 24 on the Helping Alliance
Questionnaire—Revised (HAq-R; Luborsky et al., 1996) and the CALPAS (Gaston, 1991).
They reported no significant linear changes in the SE or IDC types of treatment on either
alliance measure. However, they did find a significant training effect over sessions for CT on
the HAq-R, CALPAS total score, CALPAS Working Strategy subscale, and the CALPAS
Therapist Understanding subscale. The specific therapist behaviors used in the CT therapy
included guided discovery, focusing on essential cognitions, planning for change, and
homework. These findings suggest that over the course of CT treatment the alliance may
be further developed through the therapist’s understanding of how different interventions
might impact cocaine-dependent patients.
In a recent study describing the use and validity of a new measure of psychotherapy
process (Interpretive and Supportive Technique Scale, ISTS), Ogrodniczuk and Piper
(1999) examined the relationship between therapist adherence to treatment guidelines
and the strength of the alliance. The authors measured the degree of therapist adherence to
therapeutic strategy using the ISTS as well as two other measures of therapist technique,
the Therapist Intervention Rating System (TIRS; Piper, Debbane, deCarufel, et al., 1987)
and the Perception of Technique Scale (PTS; Piper, Joyce, McCallum, et al., 1993). They
tested the hypothesis that greater adherence to treatment guidelines in a form of short-term
psychodynamic psychotherapy would lead to a stronger alliance. In addition, they
investigated whether the amount of technique used in treatment would have a curvilinear
relationship with alliance. The authors utilized both therapist’s and patient’s ratings of the
alliance taken after each session on 6 seven-point Likert-type questions focusing on the
patient feeling understood, whether or not the therapist was helpful, and whether the patient
and therapist worked well together. Ogrodniczuk and Piper reported that the adherence and
amount of interpretive technique was significantly related (positively) to therapist-rated
alliance. They also found that across all cases, adherence to supportive technique was
positively related to the strength of the alliance. However, no significant curvilinear
relationships were found between the amount of technique and either patient- or the-
rapist-rated alliance.
Therapist’s application of techniques that convey support, increase the patient’s under-
standing of the problems that brought them to treatment, as well as enhance the level of
connection between the patient and therapist have been found to aid in the development and
maintenance of the alliance (see Table 2). The studies reviewed in this section underscore the
importance of exhibiting a sense of understanding (Allen et al., 1996; Bachelor, 1991; Crits-
Christoph et al., 1998; Gaston & Ring, 1992; Mohl et al., 1991) and fostering greater session
depth (Ackerman et al., 2000; Price & Jones, 1998; Svenson & Hansson, 1999) in the
development of a positive alliance earlier in treatment. Although most of the evidence
presented in this section supports the goal of the therapist being engaged with the patient to
aid in developing the alliance (Dolinsky et al., 1998; Gaston & Ring, 1992; Saunders et al.,
1989; Sexton et al., 1996), one study (Kolden, 1996) failed to support this goal. Specifically,
the use of either prescriptive or exploratory techniques failed to aid in developing the alliance
at the third session of dynamic psychotherapy. A possible explanation for these contrary
findings is that in the Kolden (1996) study the ratings were taken only early in treatment and
the techniques investigated (e.g., suggesting behavior changes, and focusing on past events)
may be more related to alliance later in treatment. In general, when therapist’s activities
convey a sense of understanding and connectedness in the therapeutic process a greater sense
of partnership and trust may transpire in the therapeutic relationship (Coady & Marziali,
1994; Crits-Christoph et al., 1998; Joyce & Piper, 1998; Price & Jones, 1998; Saunders et al.,
1998). The therapist’s ability to form a relationship with the patient may enhance the
patient’s perception of being understood and help him/her feel even more connected to
the treatment process. A greater feeling of connection to the treatment process may also
provide even more opportunity for patient change and therapeutic growth throughout the
treatment process.
Table 2
Summary of therapist application of technique that contribute positively to the alliance
Ackerman et al. 38 outpatients 10 advanced doctoral psychodynamic Combined Alliance Patient SEQ Bad/Good
(2000) seeking services students enrolled in psychotherapy Short Form (CASF): ratings are related to CASF

at a university an APA approved Cronbach’s total score (r=.71, P<.0001),
based clinical PhD program alpha=.84 – .91 the HAq-R (r=.70, P<.0001).
psychological CASF total score is related
clinic to SEQ Depth ratings
(r=.66, P<.0001) and
Positivity ratings (r=.64,
P<.0001). HAq-R total
score is related to SEQ
Depth ratings (r=.59,
P<.0001) and Positivity
ratings (r=.62, P<.0001).
Penn HAq-R:
Cronbach’s alpha
Session 3 – .91
Session 9 – .88
SEQ
ratings on the CASF
and SEQ after
assessment feedback
session; patient and
therapist ratings on
the CASF and HAq-R
after Sessions 3 and 9
Allen et al. 39 patients experienced therapists open-ended SE Menninger Global Menninger Global
(1996) diagnosed with from three different psychotherapy Collaboration scale: Collaboration scale is
borderline psychotherapy research intraclass reliability significantly related
personality centers coefficient=.72 to Interpretation (r=.43,
disorder P<.01) and Clarification
(r=.45, P<.01).
19
20
Table 2 (continued)
HAq: intraclass HAq Type 1 alliance is
reliability significantly related to
coefficient=.83 Interpretation (r=.35, P<.05)

and .71 and Type II alliance is
significantly related to
Interpretation (r=.38, P<.05).
Bachelor 47 self-referred 23 master’s level Treatment is PENN: Cronbach’s Therapist PENN Type I
(1991) clients seeking students in a first-year dependent on alpha=.91 alliance ratings are related
outpatient practicum supervisors’ to VPPS therapist
services at a therapeutic exploration (r=.57, P>.0007),
university orientation warmth/friendliness (r=.82,
counseling (39% humanistic – P>.0007), patient PENN
center existential, 22% Type I alliance ratings are
humanistic, 17.5% related to VPPS therapist
analytic, 17.5% exploration (r=.61, P<.0007),
bioenergetic, and warmth/friendliness (r=.66,
4% cognitive – P<.0007). Patient PENN
behavioral) Type II alliance ratings are
related to VPPS therapist
exploration (r=.61, P<.0007),
warmth/friendliness (r=.56,
P<.0007). Therapist rating
on TARS therapist positive
scale is related to VPPS
therapist exploration
(r=.69, P<.007), patient
rating on TARS therapist
positive scale is related
to VPPS therapist
exploration (r=.77, P<.007),
warmth/friendliness (r=.68,
P<.007), patient rating on
TARZ therapist positive
scale is related to VPPS
therapist warmth/friendliness
(r=.82, P<.007).
TARS: Cronbach’s
alpha=.18 – .93
VPPS: Cronbach’s
alpha=.65 – .95

ratings on the PENN,
TARS, and VPPS from
Sessions 3 and 10
Bachelor 34 self-referred 23 master’s level Treatment was Open-ended self-report Three types of alliance are
(1995) outpatients psychology trainees dependent on inquiry of patient’s found: nurturant
being trained in a broad supervisors’ perception of the (nonjudgmental, listening
range of therapies orientation (36.4% alliance (pretherapy, attentively, understanding),
cognitive – initial session, and at collaborative (helping
behavioral, 36.4% a later phase) patient recognize alternative
humanistic – ways to interpret situations
existential, 15.1% and willing to accept
analytic, and criticism), and insight-
12.1% gestalt) oriented (identification and
clarification of patient
problems, facilitate
expression of affect,
keeping patient focused
on therapy topics).
Crits-Christoph, 33 outpatients 25 psychiatrists (33% brief psychodynamic HAcs Early alliance is not related
Barber, and psychoanalytic and psychotherapy to late alliance (r=.16, n.s.);
Kurcias 66% eclectic) late alliance is related to
(1993) utilizing accuracy of wish and
response of other (r=.52,
P<.005) but not to response
of self (r=.06, n.s.).
two independent judges
ratings of two early
and two late sessions
21
22
Table 2 (continued)
accuracy of Core

Conflictual Relational
Theme interpretation
(wish, response of
other, response of self)
three independent
judges ratings of two
early and two late
sessions
Crits-Christoph 202 cocaine- 65 therapists: 20 CT, CT (based on Beck’s HAq-R Reported no significant
et al. (1998) dependent 25 SE, and 20 IDC cognitive model), training effect for SE or
outpatients SE therapy IDC on alliance, with
(a psychodynamic significant training effect
treatment derived over session of CT on
from Luborsky), HAq-R total score
and IDC (based ( P<.0001), CALPAS total
on the 12-step score ( P<.01), CALPAS
addiction model) Working Strategy subscale
( P<.05), and CALPAS
Therapist Understanding
subscale ( P<.0005).
CALPAS
CT Scale
Penn Adherence and
Competence Scale for
SE therapy
Adherence and
Competence Scale for
Addiction Counseling
Independent judges
ratings at Sessions 2, 5,
and 24
Dolinsky et al. 50 undergraduate 31 psychiatric twice weekly, open- Questionnaire was Found a positive match
(1998) and graduate residents being ended psychodynamic designed to assess (a) between therapist activity
students referred supervised in psychotherapy attitude toward the and patient responses
by student health psychoanalytic therapy and therapist (c2=10.9, P=.001, r=.48)
services for treatment (or patient) and (b) as well as therapist
long-term perceptions of similarities responses (c2=4.0,

psychodynamic and differences between P=.05, r=.28).
psychotherapy therapist and patient in
terms of characterological
traits such as humor or
cognitive style
Gaston and 16 outpatients four therapists (two cognitive – behavioral CALPAS: ICC CALPAS total score is
Ring (1992) diagnosed with cognitive – behavioral guided by Beck or (2,3) .72 related to ITS exploration
current major and two dynamic) manualized brief scale (r=.65, P<.01).
depressive dynamic therapy
disorder
Therapist Understanding
and Involvement Scale:
ICC (2,3) .61
ITS cognitive – behavioral:
ICC (2,2)=.61 – .98
Brief Dynamic: ICC
(2,2)=.21 – .91
clinical judge’s ratings
from Sessions 5, 10,
and 15
Joyce and 64 outpatients three psychiatrists, time-limited To measure alliance, Patient expectancy of
Piper (1998) one psychologist, dynamically patients and therapists usefulness is related to
and four social oriented therapy rated therapeutic patient-rated alliance
workers with an relationship after each (r=.46, P<.001). Therapist
average of 11.5 session on six questions expectancy of usefulness
years individual related to helpfulness, is related to therapist
practice understanding, and the immediate impression of
quality of the treatment alliance (r=.46, P<.001);
relationship
23
24
Table 2 (continued)
therapist expectancy of
comfort is related to

therapist reflective rating
of alliance (r=.42, P<.001).
Patient and therapists
completed a modified
version of the SEQ (the
typical therapy session
will be. . .) prior to the
start of therapy and the
SEQ after each session
(total of 20 sessions)
Kolden (1996) self-referred 86 psychodynamic dynamic therapy TSR: Cronbach’s Therapeutic Bond was
outpatients therapists at a center guided by a generic alpha=.62 – .80 found to not be prescriptive
seeking individual for clinical training model (traditional drive (r= .038, n.s.), exploratory
psychotherapy in psychiatry theory, ego analytic, or with a past focus
(psychology object relations) (r=.002, n.s.), or exploratory
practicum students, experiential (r=.255, n.s.).
psychology interns,
and psychiatric
residents)
TPI-R
Independent judge’s
ratings of Session 3
Luborsky et al. 20 outpatients 18 experienced SE psychoanalytic HAcs Early HArm ratings are related
(1983) (10 most psychiatrists psychotherapy to early TFB ratings (r=.85,
improved and P<.001), early HArm ratings
10 least are related to late TFB ratings
improved) (r=.76, P<.001), and late HAcs
ratings are related to late TFB
ratings (r=.80, P<.001).
Helping Alliance rating
method (HArm)
Therapist Facilitating
Behaviors (TFB)
Independent judges of
Sessions 3, 5, and the
session at which 90%
of the treatment was

competed
Mohl et al. 80 outpatients four senior faculty initial screening HAq and OSD after the Higher alliance ratings are
(1991) seeking psychiatrists interview initial screening related to therapist being
psychotherapy interview active (t=2.32, P<.03) and
potent (t= 2.93, P<.005).
Ogrodniczuk 144 outpatient eight therapists short-term, to measure alliance Adherence to interpretive
and Piper sessions time-limited patients and therapists technique is related to alliance
(1999) psychotherapy rated therapeutic in interpretive cases (r=.23,
emphasizing relationship on six P<.05), amount of interpretive
interpretive, questions related technique is related to alliance
or supportive to helpfulness, in interpretive cases (r=.36,
interventions understanding, and the P<.01), and amount of
quality of the supportive technique is related
treatment relationship to alliance across all cases
(r=.18, P<.05).
ISTS
TIRS
PTS
Independent judge’s
ratings on ISTS, TIRS,
and PTS
Saunders et al. 113 psychotherapy 80 therapists in some individual TSR GB subscale is related to WA
(1989) outpatients stage of training psychodynamic subscale (r=.70, P<.001), ER
(psychology practicum psychotherapy subscale (r=.65, P<.001), and
students, psychology (median sessions MA subscale (r=.88, P<.001).
interns, psychiatric attended=26) WA subscale is related to MA
residents) with subscale (r=.51, P<.001).
previous clinical
experience
25
26
Table 2 (continued)
WA: Cronbach’s
alpha=.72
ER: Cronbach’s
alpha=.77
MA: Cronbach’s
alpha=.87
Patient ratings from
Sessions 3 or 4
Sexton et al. 32 outpatients 10 therapists time-limited WAI rated by patient Therapist listening in the
(1996) referred by their (5 psychiatrists, unstructured therapy after each session beginning phase of treatment
primary physician 2 clinical (10 sessions) from (total of 10 sessions): indicates an increase in
for psychotherapy psychologists, 2 various orientations Cronbach’s alpha=.96 alliance (odds ratio*=1.34).
psychiatric social Therapist interpretation and
workers, and 1 reflection during middle
master’s-level phase of treatment indicates
psychiatric nurse); an increase in alliance
all therapist had (odds ratio*=1.83 and 2.36,
psychodynamic respectively). Therapist
training, 8 identified informing – advising during
themselves as eclectic, the end phase of treatment
and 2 were primarily indicates an increase in
cognitively oriented alliance (odds ratio*=2.40).
sessions therapy content
(emotional and verbal)
and therapy form
(activities and topics)
rated by independent
judges

Svensson and 26 inpatients who experienced CT in the context of Therapist ratings of the Therapist alliance ratings are
Hanson had been discharged psychiatric nurses milieu and group alliance on the correlated with SEQ Depth
(1999) to supervised with a degree in CT therapy Psychotherapy Status (r=.57, P<.01) and
apartments Report Smoothness (r=.46, P<.01).
Patient alliance ratings are
correlated with SEQ Depth
(r=.69, P<.001) and
Smoothness (r=.59, P<.01).
patient ratings of the
alliance on questions
focused on the
collaboration with
the therapist
patient ratings of the
session process using
the SEQ
Odds ratios > 1.0 indicate an increase in the sessions.
27
3. Conclusions
The studies included in this review suggest that the therapist’s personal attributes and the
use of therapeutic technique from a range of psychotherapy orientations have been found to
positively influence the development and maintenance of the therapeutic alliance. Table 3
summarizes the therapist’s personal attributes and techniques that were reported to be
important in the development and maintenance of a strong alliance. They include trustwor-
thiness (Horvath & Greenberg, 1989), experience (Mallinckrodt & Nelson, 1991), confidence
(Saunders, 1999), lucid communication (Price & Jones, 1998), and accurate interpretation
(Crits-Christoph et al., 1993; Ogrodniczuk & Piper, 1999). The therapist’s investment in the
treatment relationship was found to be manifested through enthusiasm (Luborsky et al.,
1983), interest (Saunders, 1999), exploration (Allen et al., 1996; Bachelor, 1991; Gaston &
Ring, 1992; Joyce & Piper, 1998; Mohl et al., 1991), involvement (Sexton et al., 1996), and
activity (Dolinsky et al., 1998; Mohl et al., 1991). The key elements of empathy found in this
comprehensive review include affirming (Najavits & Strupp, 1994), helping (Coady &
Marziali, 1994), warmth/friendliness (Bachelor, 1991; Saunders et al., 1989), and under-
standing (Bachelor, 1995; Crits-Christoph et al., 1998; Diamond et al., 1999; Najavits &
Strupp, 1994; Price & Jones, 1998; Saunders et al., 1989).
We found very little variation between the different theoretical orientations regarding the
therapist’s positive impact on the alliance. A possible explanation for the consistency is that
many of the therapist’s techniques identified emphasize focusing on the therapeutic
interactions occurring between the patient and therapist within the context of the treatment
session. Another possible explanation comes from the work of Frank (1974) who proposed
that if a variety of treatments generate similar findings, there must be therapeutic elements
that are common to all treatment approaches. A potential core of these elements is a
connection (therapeutic alliance) between two people that provides the opportunity for relief
from suffering. The evidence found in this review supports the belief that the alliance is a
pan-theoretical construct impacting psychotherapy process on multiple levels. While some
theoretical orientations may prove to be more efficacious with certain patient populations, the
Table 3
Summary of therapist’s attributes and techniques found to contribute positively to the alliance
Personal attributes Technique
Flexible Exploration
Experienced Depth
Honest Reflection
Respectful Supportive
Trustworthy Notes past therapy success
Confident Accurate interpretation
Interested Facilitates expression of affect
Alert Active
Friendly Affirming
Warm Understanding
Open Attends to patient’s experience
findings from the present review suggest that many therapeutic pursuits can benefit from a
focus on the factors contributing to a positive alliance.
It is interesting to note that the research identifying the therapist’s significant contributions
to the development and maintenance of the alliance are similar to the features identified as
useful in the identification and repair of ruptures in the alliance. The research focused on
ruptures in the alliance support the notion that ruptures are an expected part of the treatment
process and argue for the use of ruptures as fertile ground for patient change and an
opportunity for deepening the alliance (Safran & Muran, 2000). The resolution of ruptures in
the alliance begins with the therapist acknowledging and disclosing his/her contribution to the
rupture experience. To successfully manage the resolution of ruptures in the alliance, Safran
and Muran (1996, 2000) recommend that the therapist convey an affirming, understanding,
and nurturing stance as well as validate the patient through exploration of the patient’s
experience in order to gain a greater sense of understanding. These recommendations support
previous findings that therapist behaviors such as exploration, depth, interest, affirming, and
understanding (Ackerman et al., 2000; Bachelor, 1991, 1995; Joyce & Piper, 1998; Najavits
& Strupp, 1994; Saunders, 1999; Svenson & Hansson, 1999) may contribute to the devel-
opment of a stronger alliance.
Although the present review focuses on the therapist’s contributions to alliance, it is
critical that we not lose sight of the equally important role patients play in the development
of the therapeutic relationship. Moreover, it is likely that the most promising strategy for
future research may be to examine the interpersonal exchanges between the patient and
therapist that impact alliance development. Investigating these in-session interactions may
deepen our understanding of the nature of alliance development and the specific variables
impacting it. Future researchers should work toward integrating quantitative and qualitative
analyses of the interactions between patients and therapists to present a clinically meaningful
picture of the data.
A potential limitation of the present review is the limited critical evaluation of methodo-
logical issues of the studies reviewed. Many of the studies reviewed utilize correlational
analyses that can be influenced by confounds, rater biases, and at times difficult to interpret
accurately. More specifically, direction of causality errors are important in that feeling positive
about the alliance may influence therapist’s judgments about patients as well as patient’s
judgments about the therapist. Those studies that utilize independent judges to rate the alliance
may avoid this potential issue. However, the limitation inherent in using independent judges
to rate the alliance is that they may be less attuned to the nuances that often occur between the
patient and therapist within the interior of the treatment room. Therefore, it is possible that
they may not be as accurate in their appraisal of the patient–therapist interaction or each of
these individuals beliefs concerning the relationship (positive or negative).
Halo effects are also potential confounds when measures of therapist characteristics and
alliance are assessed by the same person. In addition, many of the studies in this review
assessed the relationship between alliance and therapist activity at a single point in the
treatment (typically early or late). This may limit the external validity of these findings and
our understanding of this complex relationship. Moreover, as others have pointed out a single
assessments of the perception of the treatment relationships may not be representative of
perception throughout the course of treatment (Bachelor & Salame, 2000). It would be
important for future studies to more categorically assess these and other methodological
issues that are beyond the clinically applied scope of the present review.
In summary, the present review has identified that therapist’s personal qualities and use of
technique are positively related to development and maintenance of the alliance during the
general course of therapy. In addition, this review links therapist’s personal attributes and
techniques with the identification and resolution of ruptures in the alliance. Since the alliance
has already been established as one of the essential variables in a positive treatment outcome
(Horvath & Symonds, 1991; Martin et al., 2000), knowing the key components that help to
build a healthy alliance may lead to even more positive outcomes and increased opportunities
for patient change.
A greater understanding of the therapist’s contributions to alliance that include personal
qualities and therapeutic techniques may better equip clinicians to design and implement
specific methods to cultivate better alliances with their patients. While the findings of this
review do not provide the clinician with a prescriptive manual to develop a strong alliance,
they do provide a synthesized understanding of the relationship between the therapist and the
alliance. Having a greater understanding of this relationship may lead to better-trained
therapists and possibly greater therapeutic successes. Future research may take this under-
standing even further and explore how to integrate these findings into existing training
principles. In conclusion, we feel that the present review provides researchers and clinicians
alike with information that brings them closer to answering the question ‘‘What impact does
the therapist have on the alliance?’’
References
Ackerman, S. J., Hilsenroth, M. J., Baity, M. R., & Blagys, M. D. (2000). Interaction of therapeutic process and
alliance during psychological assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75(1), 82 – 109.
Al-Darmaki, F., & Kivlighan, D. M. (1993). Congruence in client – counselor expectations for relationship and the
working alliance. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40(4), 379 – 384.
Allen, J. G., Coyne, L., Colson, D. B., Horowitz, L., Gabbard, G. O., Frieswick, S. H., & Newson, G. (1996).
Pattern of therapist interventions associated with patient collaboration. Psychotherapy, 33(2), 254 – 261.
Bachelor, A. (1991). Comparison and relationship to outcome of diverse dimensions of the helping alliance as
seen by client and therapist. Psychotherapy, 28(4), 534 – 549.
Bachelor, A. (1995). Clients’ perception of the therapeutic alliance: a qualitative analysis. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 42(3), 323 – 337.
Bachelor, A., & Salame, R. (2000). Participants perceptions of dimensions of the therapeutic alliance over the
course of therapy. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 9(1), 39 – 53.
Barber, J. P., Luborsky, L., Crits-Christoph, P., Thase, M. E., Weiss, R., Frank, A., Onken, L., & Gallop, R. (1999).
Therapeutic alliance as a predictor of outcome in treatment of cocaine dependence. Psychotherapy Research,
9(1), 54 – 73.
Barrett-Lenard, G. T. (1962). Dimensions of therapist response as causal factors in therapeutic change. Psycho-
logical Monographs, 76(42) (Whole No. 562).
Benjamin, L. S. (1984). Structural analysis of social behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 392 – 425.
Bergin, A. E., & Garfield, S. L. (1994). Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Berzins, J. I. (1971). Revisions of Psychotherapy Expectancy Inventory. Unpublished manuscript, University of

Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Blatt, S. J., Sanislow, C. A., Zuroff, D. C., & Pilkonis, P. A. (1996). Characteristics of effective therapists: Further
analysis of data from the National Institute of Mental Health treatment of depression collaborative research
program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(6), 1276 – 1284.
Book, H. (1998). How to practice brief psychodynamic psychotherapy: the Core Conflictual Relationship Theme
method. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(3), 252 – 260.
Butller, S. F., Lane, R. W., & Strupp, H. H. (1988, June). Patterns of therapeutic skill acquisition as a result of
training in time-limited dynamic psychotherapy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for
Psychotherapy Research, Santa Fe, NM.
Coady, N. F., & Marziali, E. (1994). The association between global and specific measures of the therapeutic
relationship. Psychotherapy, 31(1), 17 – 27.
Crits-Christoph, P., Barber, J. P., & Kurcias, J. S. (1993). The accuracy of therapists’ interpretations and the
development of the therapeutic alliance. Psychotherapy Research, 3(1), 25 – 35.
Crits-Christoph, P., & Connolly, M. B. (1999). Alliance and technique in short-term dynamic therapy. Clinical
Psychology Review, 19(6), 687 – 704.
Crits-Christoph, P., Siqueland, J., Chittams, J., Barber, P., Beck, A. T., Liese, B., Onken, L. S., Thase, M. E.,
Frank, A., Luborsky, L., Mark, D., Mercer, D., Najavits, L. M., & Woody, G. (1998). Training in cognitive,
supportive – expressive, and drug counseling therapies for cocaine dependence. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 66(3), 484 – 492.
Diamond, G. M., Hogue, A., Liddle, H. A., & Dakof, G. A. (1999). Alliance-building interventions with ado-
lescents in family therapy: A process study. Psychotherapy, 36(4), 355 – 368.
Dolinsky, A., Vaughan, S. C., Luber, B., Mellman, L., & Roose, S. (1998). A match made in heaven? A pilot study
if patient – therapist match. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 7, 119 – 125.
Frank, J. D. (1974). Therapeutic components of psychotheraphy. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 159,
325 – 343.
Freud, S. (1913). On beginning the treatment. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete
psychological works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 12 (pp. 112 – 144). London: Hogarth Press (original work pub-
lished 1913).
Frieswyk, S. H., Allen, J. G., Colson, D. B., Coyne, L., Gabbard, G. O., Horwitz, L., & Newsom, G. (1986).
Therapeutic alliance: its place as a process and outcome variable in dynamic psychotherapy research. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(1), 32 – 38.
Gaston, L. (1991). Reliability and criterion-related validity of the California Psychotherapy Alliance Scales—
Patient version. Psychological Assessment, 3, 68 – 74.
Gaston, L., & Ring, J. M. (1992). Preliminary results on the Inventory of Therapeutic Strategies. Journal of
Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 1, 135 – 146.
Gaston, L., Thompson, L., Gallagher, D., Cournoyer, L., & Gagnon, R. (1998). Alliance, technique, and their
interactions in predicting outcome of behavioral, cognitive, and brief dynamic therapy. Psychotherapy Re-
search, 8(2), 190 – 209.
Gomes-Schwartz, B. (1978). Effective ingredients in psychotherapy: prediction of outcome from process varia-
bles. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1023 – 1035.
Hersoug, A. G., Hoglend, P., Monsen, J. T., & Havik, O. E. (2001). Quality of working alliance in psychotherapy:
therapist variables and patient/therapist similarity as predictors. Journal of Psychotherapy Research, 10(4),
205 – 216.
Hillard, R. B., Henry, W. P., & Strupp, H. H. (2000). An interpersonal model of psychotherapy: linking patient and
therapist developmental history, therapeutic process, and types of outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 68(1), 125 – 133.
Horowitz, L., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B., Rosenbaum, R., & Wilner, N. (1988). The Inventory of Interpersonal
Problems: psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
56, 885 – 892.
Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. S. (1989). Development and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(2), 223 – 233.
Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. S. (1994). Introduction. In A. O. Horvath, & L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), The working
alliance: theory, research, and practice ( pp. 1 – 9). New York: Wiley.
Horvath, A. O., & Luborsky, L. (1993). The role of the therapeutic alliance in psychotherapy. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(4), 561 – 573.
Horvath, A. O., & Symonds, B. D. (1991). Relation between working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: a
meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(2), 139 – 149.
Joyce, A. S., & Piper, W. E. (1998). Expectancy, the therapeutic alliance, and treatment outcome in short-term
individual psychotherapy. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 7, 236 – 248.
Kivlighan, D. M., Clements, L., Blake, C., Arnez, A., & Brady, L. (1993). Counselor sex role orientation,
flexibility, and working alliance formation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 95 – 100.
Kolden, G. G. (1996). Change in early sessions of dynamic therapy: universal processes and the generic model of
psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(3), 489 – 496.
Luborsky, L. (1984). Principles of psychoanalytic psychotherapy: a manual for supportive/expressive treatment.
New York: Basic Books.
Luborsky, L., Barber, J. P., Siqueland, L., Johnson, S., Najavits, L. M., Frank, A., & Daley, D. (1996). The revised
Helping Alliance Questionnaire (HAQ-II): psychometric properties. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and
Research, 6, 260 – 271.
Luborsky, L., & Crits-Christoph, P. (1997). Understanding transference: the core conflictual relational theme
method (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Luborsky, L., Crits-Christoph, P., Alexander, L., Margolis, M., & Cohen, M. (1983). Two helping alliance
methods for predicting outcomes of psychotherapy, a counting signs vs. a global rating method. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disorder, 171(8), 480 – 491.
Luborsky, L., Mintz, J., Auerbach, A., Crits-Christoph, P., Bachrach, H., Todd, T., Johnson, M., & O’Brian, C.
(1980). Predicting the outcome of psychotherapy: findings of the Penn Psychotherapy Project. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 37, 471 – 481.
Mallinckrodt, B., & Nelson, M. L. (1991). Counselor training level and the formation of the psychotherapeutic
working alliance. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(2), 133 – 138.
Marmar, C. R., Horowitz, M. J., Weiss, D. S., & Marziali, E. (1986). The development of the Therapeutic Alliance
Rating System. In L. S. Greenberg, & W. Pinsof (Eds.), The psychotherapeutic process: a research handbook.
New York: Guilford.
Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other
variables: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(3), 438 – 450.
Marziali, E. A. (1984). Three viewpoints on the therapeutic alliance: similarities, differences, and associations
with psychotherapy outcome. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 172, 417 – 423.
Mohl, P. C., Martinez, D., Ticknor, C., Huang, M., & Cordell, L. (1991). Early dropouts from psychotherapy.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 179(8), 478 – 481.
Morgan, R., Luborsky, L., Crits-Christoph, P., Curtis, H., & Solomon, J. (1982). Predicting the outcomes of
psychotherapy by the Penn Helping Alliance Rating Method. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39, 397 – 402.
Najavits, L. M., & Strupp, H. H. (1994). Differences in the effectiveness of psychodynamic therapists: a process –
outcome study. Psychotherapy, 31(1), 114 – 123.
Ogrodniczuk, J. S., & Piper, W. E. (1999). Measuring therapist technique in psychodynamic psychotherapies,
development and use of a new scale. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 8(2), 142 – 154.
Orlinsky, D. E., Grawe, K., & Parks, B. K. (1994). Process and outcome in psychotherapy—Noch einmal. In
A. E. Bergen, & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change ( pp. 270 – 376). New
York: Wiley.
Orlinsky, D. E., & Howard, K. I. (1986). The psychological interior of psychotherapy: explorations with the
Therapy Session Reports. In L. S. Greenberg, & W. M. Pinsof (Eds.), The psychotherapeutic process: a
research handbook. New York: Guilford.
Orlinsky, D. E., Lundy, M., Howard, K. I., Davidson, C. V., & O’Mahoney, M. T. (1987). Therapeutic Procedures
Inventory—Revised. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G., & Tannenbarum, P. (1975). The measurement of meaning. Chicago: University of
Illinois Press.
Parker, G., Tuplin, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A Parental Bonding Instrument. British Journal of Medical
Psychology, 52, 1 – 10.
Piper, W. E., Debane, E. G., deCarufel, F. L., et al. (1987). A system for differentiating therapist interpretations
and other interventions. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 51, 532 – 550.
Piper, W. E., Joyce, A. S., McCallum, M., et al. (1993). Unpublished manuscript.
Price, P. B., & Jones, E. E. (1998). Examining the alliance using the Psychotherapy Process Q-Set. Psychotherapy,
25(3), 392 – 404.
Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (1996). The resolution of ruptures in the therapeutic alliance. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 64(3), 447 – 458.
Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (2000). Resolving therapeutic alliance ruptures: diversity and integration. In Session:
Psychotherapy in Practice, 56(2), 233 – 243.
Saketopoulou, A. (1999). The therapeutic alliance in psychodynamic psychotherapy: theoretical conceptualiza-
tions and research findings. Psychotherapy, 36(4), 329 – 342.
Saunders, S. M. (1999). Client’s assessment of the affective environment of the psychotherapy session: relation-
ship to session quality and treatment effectiveness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(5), 597 – 605.
Saunders, S. M., Howard, K. I., & Orlinsky, D. E. (1989). The therapeutic bond scales: psychometric char-
acteristics and relationship to treatment effectiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1(4),
323 – 330.
Sexton, H. C., Hembre, K., & Kvarme, G. (1996). The interaction of the alliance and therapy microprocess: a
sequential analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(3), 471 – 480.
Stiles, W. B. (1980). Measurement of the impact of psychotherapy sessions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 48, 176 – 185.
Stiles, W. B., Agnew-Davies, R., Hardy, G. E., Barkham, M., & Shapiro, D. A. (1998). Relations of the alliance
with psychotherapy outcome: findings in the second Sheffield Psychotherapy Project. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 66(5), 791 – 802.
Suh, C. S., Strupp, H. H., & O’Malley, S. S. (1986). The Vanderbilt process measure: the psychotherapy process
scale (VPPS) and the negative indicators scale (VNIS). Process analysis systems ( pp. 285 – 323). Tennessee:
Vanderbilt University.
Svenson, B., & Hansson, L. (1999). Relationships among patient and therapist ratings of therapeutic alliance and
patient assessments of therapeutic process. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 187, 579 – 585.
Whisman, M. A. (1993). Mediators and moderators of change in cognitive therapy for depression. Psychological
Bulletin, 114(2), 248 – 265.

Ackerman - 2003 - A Review of Therapist Characteristics and Techniques Positively Impacting The Therapeutic Alliance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ackerman - 2003 - A Review of Therapist Characteristics and Techniques Positively Impacting The Therapeutic Alliance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ackerman - 2003 - A Review of Therapist Characteristics and Techniques Positively Impacting The Therapeutic Alliance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1 – 33

A review of therapist characteristics and techniques

Keywords: Therapist characteristics; Therapist technique; Alliance

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-413-298-5511; fax: +1-413-298-4020.

2. Therapist variables that contribute positively to the alliance

2.1. Personal attributes

therapist’s affiliative behaviors (‘‘Therapist adopts supportive stance’’ and ‘‘Therapist is

S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33

S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33

S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33

S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33

S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33

2.2. Therapist application of technique

S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33

S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33

S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33

S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33

S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33

S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33

S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33

S.J. Ackerman, M.J. Hilsenroth / Clinical Psychology Review 23 (2003) 1–33

Berzins, J. I. (1971). Revisions of Psychotherapy Expectancy Inventory. Unpublished manuscript, University of

You might also like