Explaining How Psychotherapy Affects the Brain Can Increase the Perceived Effectiveness of Psychotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Behavior Therapy Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.beth.2023.10.003
Annalise Perricone, Alma Bitran, Woo-kyoung Ahn
{"title":"Explaining How Psychotherapy Affects the Brain Can Increase the Perceived Effectiveness of Psychotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial","authors":"Annalise Perricone,&nbsp;Alma Bitran,&nbsp;Woo-kyoung Ahn","doi":"10.1016/j.beth.2023.10.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Past studies repeatedly found that biological explanations of mental disorders cause laypeople and clinicians to doubt the effectiveness of psychotherapy. This could be clinically detrimental, as combined pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy is often optimal. The distrust of psychotherapy is theorized to stem from dualistic reasoning that psychotherapy, perceived as occurring in the mind, does not necessarily affect the brain. The current study aims to mitigate this belief in a randomized controlled trial. Participants (individuals with symptoms of depression (<em>n</em> = 262), the general public (<em>n</em> = 374), and mental health clinicians (<em>n</em> = 607)) rated the efficacy of psychotherapy for a depression case before and after learning that the case was biologically caused. Participants also received either an intervention passage describing how psychotherapy results in brain-level changes, an active control passage emphasizing the effectiveness of psychotherapy without explaining the underlying biological mechanisms, or no intervention. Unlike the active control and no-intervention control conditions, the intervention caused participants to judge psychotherapy as significantly <em>more</em> effective than at baseline even though they learned that depression was biologically caused. An intervention counteracting dualism can mitigate the belief that psychotherapy is less effective for biologically caused depression. Future research should examine the durability of this intervention in clinical settings.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48359,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789423001259","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Past studies repeatedly found that biological explanations of mental disorders cause laypeople and clinicians to doubt the effectiveness of psychotherapy. This could be clinically detrimental, as combined pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy is often optimal. The distrust of psychotherapy is theorized to stem from dualistic reasoning that psychotherapy, perceived as occurring in the mind, does not necessarily affect the brain. The current study aims to mitigate this belief in a randomized controlled trial. Participants (individuals with symptoms of depression (n = 262), the general public (n = 374), and mental health clinicians (n = 607)) rated the efficacy of psychotherapy for a depression case before and after learning that the case was biologically caused. Participants also received either an intervention passage describing how psychotherapy results in brain-level changes, an active control passage emphasizing the effectiveness of psychotherapy without explaining the underlying biological mechanisms, or no intervention. Unlike the active control and no-intervention control conditions, the intervention caused participants to judge psychotherapy as significantly more effective than at baseline even though they learned that depression was biologically caused. An intervention counteracting dualism can mitigate the belief that psychotherapy is less effective for biologically caused depression. Future research should examine the durability of this intervention in clinical settings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解释心理疗法如何影响大脑可提高心理疗法的认知效果:随机对照试验
过去的研究一再发现,对精神障碍的生物学解释会让非专业人士和临床医生对心理治疗的效果产生怀疑。这在临床上可能是有害的,因为联合药物治疗和心理治疗通常是最佳的。据推测,对心理疗法的不信任源于二元论推理,即心理疗法被认为发生在头脑中,并不一定会影响大脑。目前的研究旨在通过随机对照试验来减轻这种看法。参与者(有抑郁症状的个人(n = 262)、普通大众(n = 374)和心理健康临床医生(n = 607))在得知抑郁症是由生物因素引起之前和之后,对心理治疗的疗效进行评分。此外,参与者还收到了描述心理治疗如何导致大脑层面变化的干预段落、强调心理治疗有效性但未解释潜在生物机制的主动对照段落,或者未收到干预段落。与主动对照组和无干预对照组不同的是,即使参与者了解到抑郁症是由生物因素造成的,干预也会使他们判断心理治疗的效果明显优于基线时的效果。抵消二元论的干预措施可以减轻心理治疗对生物性抑郁症效果较差的看法。未来的研究应考察这种干预在临床环境中的持久性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Behavior Therapy
Behavior Therapy Multiple-
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
2.70%
发文量
113
审稿时长
121 days
期刊介绍: Behavior Therapy is a quarterly international journal devoted to the application of the behavioral and cognitive sciences to the conceptualization, assessment, and treatment of psychopathology and related clinical problems. It is intended for mental health professionals and students from all related disciplines who wish to remain current in these areas and provides a vehicle for scientist-practitioners and clinical scientists to report the results of their original empirical research. Although the major emphasis is placed upon empirical research, methodological and theoretical papers as well as evaluative reviews of the literature will also be published. Controlled single-case designs and clinical replication series are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Underlying Working Mechanisms of Virtual Reality Exposure: Exploring the Role of Fearful Expectancies and Habituation State of the Science in Behavior Therapy: Taking Stock and Looking Forward Editorial Board Explaining How Psychotherapy Affects the Brain Can Increase the Perceived Effectiveness of Psychotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1