IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpsyxx/v11y2019i4p287-297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying psychological resistances to using logic in cognitive-behavioral therapy for psychosis (CBTp) that limit successful outcomes for patients

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Garrett
  • Anthony O. Ahmed
  • Christina Athineos
  • Lisa Cruz
  • Kelly Harris
  • Jill Del Pozzo
  • Victoria Forster
  • Juan Gallego

Abstract

The small to modest effect sizes of cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis (CBTp) invite the question, do some treatments not succeed because patients mobilize psychological resistances to treatment that limit outcomes? This paper identifies 10 psychological resistances to CBTp, 7 that undermine the use of logic when examining delusional beliefs, and 3 best considered from a psychodynamic viewpoint. Resistances to progress in CBTp defined in the paper include logic evasion, logic monopolizing, logic blinding, logic partitioning, equivocation, reactive reassertion, feeling-percept fusion, mind-guarding, peripheral preoccupation, and external expectancy. When therapists recognize the operation of these defenses, they may aim to diminish their impact on the treatment. Ways the therapist might address these resistances in psychotherapy are suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Garrett & Anthony O. Ahmed & Christina Athineos & Lisa Cruz & Kelly Harris & Jill Del Pozzo & Victoria Forster & Juan Gallego, 2019. "Identifying psychological resistances to using logic in cognitive-behavioral therapy for psychosis (CBTp) that limit successful outcomes for patients," Psychosis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 287-297, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpsyxx:v:11:y:2019:i:4:p:287-297
    DOI: 10.1080/17522439.2019.1632377
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/17522439.2019.1632377
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/17522439.2019.1632377?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpsyxx:v:11:y:2019:i:4:p:287-297. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPSY20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.