In psychotherapy, ambivalence may be conceptualized as a conflict between two distinct motivations: one that is favorable to change (pro-change) and another that favors the maintenance of a problematic pattern (pro status quo). Previous studies identified two processes by which clients resolve this conflict: imposing the innovative part and silencing the problematic one (dominance), and establishing negotiations between the innovative and the pro status quo parts (negotiation). The present exploratory study examined ambivalence resolution in a sample of clients diagnosed with complicated grief. Results revealed that, in recovered cases, negotiation increases and dominance decreases from the beginning until the middle sessions of therapy and the opposite tendency is observed from the middle to the final sessions. Unchanged cases reveal an overall high proportion of dominance and an overall low proportion of negotiation. These results are partially divergent from those reported in previous studies with samples of clients diagnosed with major depression.
AlvesD.Fernández-NavarroP.BaptistaJ.RibeiroE.SousaI.GonçalvesM. M. (2014). Innovative moments in grief therapy: the meaning reconstruction approach and the processes of self-narrative transformation. Psychotherapy Research, 24(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.814927
2.
AlvesD.Fernández-NavarroP.RibeiroA. P.RibeiroE.SousaI.GonçalvesM. M. (2016). Ambivalence in grief therapy: the interplay between change and self-stability. Death Studies, 40(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2015.1102177
3.
ArkowitzH.EngleD. E. (2007). Understanding and working with resistant ambivalence in psychotherapy: An integrative approach. In HoffmanS. G.WeinbergerJ. (Eds), The art of and science of psychotherapy. Routledge (pp. 171–188).
4.
ArmitageC. J.ConnerM. (2004). The effects of attitudinal ambivalence on attitude-intention-behavior relations. In HaddockG.MaioG. R. (Eds), Contemporary Perspectives on the Psychology of Attitudes. Psychology Press (pp. 121–143).
BeutlerL. E.MoleiroC.TalebiH. (2002). Resistance in psychotherapy: What conclusions are supported by research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(2), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1144
7.
BragaC.OliveiraJ. T.RibeiroA. P.GonçalvesM. M. (2016). Ambivalence resolution in emotion-focused therapy: the successful case of sarah. In. Psychotherapy Research, 28, 423-432. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2016.1169331
8.
BragaC.RibeiroA. P.GonçalvesM. M.OliveiraJ. T.BotelhoA.FerreiraH.SousaI. (2018). Ambivalence resolution in brief psychotherapy for depression. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 25(3), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2169
9.
BragaC.RibeiroA. P.SousaI.GonçalvesM. M. (2019). Ambivalence predicts symptomatology in cognitive-behavioral and narrative therapies: An exploratory study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1244. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01244
10.
ButtonM. L.WestraH. A.HaraK. M.AviramA. (2015). Disentangling the impact of resistance and ambivalence on therapy outcomes in cognitive behavioural therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 44(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2014.959038
11.
ColemanR. A.NeimeyerR. A. (2010). Measuring meaning: Searching for and making sense of spousal loss in late-life. Death Studies, 34(9), 804–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481181003761625
CurrierJ. M.HollandJ. M.NeimeyerR. A. (2006). Sense-making, grief, and the experience of violent loss: Toward a mediational model. Death Studies, 30(5), 403–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180600614351
14.
EckerB.HulleyL. (1996). How to be brief when you were trained to be deep and vice-versa. Jossey-Bass.
FradeB.RochaJ.SousaH.PachecoD. (2009). Validation of Portuguese version for inventory of complicated grief. European Congress of Traumatic Stress.
17.
GonçalvesM. M.MendesI.RibeiroA. P.AngusL. E.GreenbergL. S. (2010). Innovative moments and change in emotion-focused therapy: The case of lisa. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 23(4), 267–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2010.489758
18.
GonçalvesM. M.RibeiroA. P.MendesI.AlvesD.SilvaJ.RosaC.BragaC.BatistaJ.Fernández-NavarroP.OliveiraJ. T. (2017). Three narrative-based coding systems: Innovative moments, ambivalence and ambivalence resolution. Psychotherapy Research, 27(3), 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2016.1247216
19.
GonçalvesMMRibeiroAPMendesIMatosMSantosA (2011). Tracking novelties in psychotherapy process research: the innovative moments coding system. Psychotherapy Research : Journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, 21(5)), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2011.560207
20.
GonçalvesM. M.RibeiroA. P.SantosA.GonçalvesJ.CondeT. (2009). Return to the problem coding system – version 2. Unpublished manuscript. University of Minho.
21.
GonçalvesM. M.RibeiroA. P.StilesW. B.CondeT.MatosM.MartinsC.SantosA. (2011). The role of mutual in-feeding in maintaining problematic self-narratives: Exploring one path to therapeutic failure. Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2010.507789
22.
GreenbergL. S. (2002). Emotion-focused therapy: Coaching clients to work through their feelings. American Psychological Association.
HershfieldH. E.ScheibeS.SimsT. L.CarstensenL. L. (2013). When feeling bad can be good. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612444616
25.
HollandJ. M.NeimeyerR. A. (2010). An examination of stage theory of grief among individuals bereaved by natural and violent causes: A meaning-oriented contribution. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 61(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.2190/OM.61.2.b
26.
KaplanK. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: a suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77(5), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032590
27.
KeeleL. (2008). Semiparametric regression for the social sciences. Wiley and Sons.
28.
KeeseeN. J.CurrierJ. M.NeimeyerR. A. (2008). Predictors of grief following the death of one's child: The contribution of finding meaning. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64, 1145–1163. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20502
29.
KristensenP.WeisæthL.HeirT. (2012). Bereavement and mental health after sudden and violent losses: a review. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 75(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1521/psyc.2012.75.1.76
30.
LarsenJ. T.HemenoverS. H.NorrisC. J.CacioppoJ. T. (2003). Turning adversity to advantage: on the virtues of the coactivation of positive and negative emotions. In AspinwallL. G.StaudingerU. M. (Eds), A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology. American Psychological Association (pp. 211–225).
31.
LundorffM.HolmgrenH.ZachariaeR.Farver-VestergaardI.O’ConnorM. (2017). Prevalence of prolonged grief disorder in adult bereavement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 212, 138-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.030
32.
MahoneyM. J. (2003). Constructive psychotherapy: Practices, processes, and personal revolutions. NY, NY: Guilford.
33.
McEvoyP. M.NathanP. (2007). Perceived costs and benefits of behavioral change: Reconsidering the value of ambivalence for psychotherapy outcomes. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63(12), 1217–1229. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20424
34.
MesserS. B. (2002). A psychodynamic perspective on resistance in psychotherapy:Vive la résistance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(2), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1139
NeimeyerR. A. (1995). Constructivist psychotherapies: Features, foundations, and future directions. In NeimeyerR. A.MahoneyM. J. (Eds), Constructivism in psychotherapy. American Psychological Association (pp. 11–38).
37.
NeimeyerR. A. (2001). Meaning reconstruction and the experience of loss. American Psychological Association.
38.
NeimeyerR. A. (2006). Lessons of loss: A guide to coping. Memphis, TN: Center for the Study of Loss and Transition.
39.
NeimeyerR. A. (2012). Techniques of grief therapy: Creative practices for counseling the bereaved. NY, NY: Routledge.
40.
NeimeyerR. A.BurkeL. A.MackayM. M.van Dyke StringerJ. G. (2010). Grief therapy and the reconstruction of meaning: From principles to practice. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 40(2), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-009-9135-3
41.
NordgrenL. F.van HarreveldF.van der PligtJ. (2006). Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.004
42.
PrigersonH. G.MaciejewskiP. K.ReynoldsC. F.BierhalsA. J.NewsomJ. T.FasiczkaA.FrankE.DomanJ.MillerM., (1995). Inventory of complicated grief: A scale to measure maladaptive symptoms of loss. Psychiatry Research, 59, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(95)0275
43.
RandoT. A. (2012). Is it okay for you to be okay? In NeimeyerR. A. (Ed), Series in death, dying, and bereavement. techniques of grief therapy: Creative practices for counseling the bereaved (pp. 149–151). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
44.
RibeiroA. P.GonçalvesM. M.SilvaJ. R.BrásA.SousaI. (2015). Ambivalence in narrative therapy: A comparison between recovered and unchanged cases. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 23(2), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1945
45.
RibeiroA. P.MendesI.StilesW. B.AngusL.SousaI.GonçalvesM. M. (2014). Ambivalence in emotion-focused therapy for depression: the maintenance of problematically dominant self-narratives. Psychotherapy Research, 24(6), 702–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.879620
46.
ShearK.BoelenP.NeimeyerR. A. (2011). Treating complicated grief: Converging approaches. In NeimeyerR. A.HarrisD.WinokuerH.ThorntonG. (Eds), Grief and bereavement in contemporary society: Bridging research and practice (pp. 139–162). Routledge.
47.
SousaV.RochaJ.C. (2011). Validação de metodologias de diferenciação clínica entre luto saudável e luto complicado. Unpublished masters thesis. Instituto Superior de Ciências da Saúde do Norte.
48.
StilesW. B. (2002). Assimilation of problematic experiences. In NorcrossJ. C. (Ed), Psychotherapy relationships that work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients. Oxford University Press (pp. 357–365).
49.
UrmancheA. A.OliveiraJ. T.GonçalvesM. M.EubanksC. F.MuranJ. C. (2019). Ambivalence, resistance, and alliance ruptures in psychotherapy: It’s complicated. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 36(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/pap0000237
50.
Van HarreveldF.van der PligtJ.de LiverY. N. (2009). The agony of ambivalence and ways to resolve it: Introducing the MAID model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308324518
51.
VelicerW. F.DiClementeC. C.ProchaskaJ. O.BrandenburgN. (1985). Decisional balance measure for assessing and predicting smoking status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(5), 1279–1289. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1279
52.
World Health Organization (2020). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (11th ed.). https://icd.who.int/
