Prosody and empathic communication in psychotherapy interaction

References

• Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehviläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 26–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bachelor, A. (1988). How client's perceive therapist empathy: A content analysis of “received” empathy. Psychotherapy, 2, 227–240. doi:10.1037/h0085337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barckham, M., & Shapiro, D. (1986). Counselor verbal response modes and expressed empathy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 3–10. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.33.1.3
   Google Scholar
• Barret- Lennard, G. (1981). The empathy cycle: Refinement of a nuclear concept. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 91–100. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.28.2.91
   Google Scholar
• Barth-Weingarten, D., Reber, E., & Selting, M. (Eds.) (2010). Prosody in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, A., Rush, J., Shaw, B., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beach, W. A., & Dixson, C. N. (2001). Revealing moments: Formulating understanding of adverse experiences in a health appraisal interview. Social Science and Medicine, 52, 25–44. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00118-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beebe, B., Rustin, J., Sorter, D., & Knoblauch, S. (2003). An expanded view of intersubjectivity in infancy and its application to psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 13, 805–841.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2013). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.23, retrieved 26 February 2013 from http://www.praat.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Bohart, A., & Greenberg, L. (1997). Empathy and psychotherapy: An introductory overview. In A. Bohart & L. Greenberg (Eds), Empathy reconsidered (pp. 3–32). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1986). An introduction to English prosody. London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2004). Prosody and sequence organization in English conversations. The case of new beginnings. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction (pp. 335–376). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. In A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotions in interaction (pp. 113–146). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ford, C. E. (Eds.). (2004). Sound patterns in interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (Eds.). (1996). Prosody in conversation. Interactional studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Doodley, G. (1978). Preliminary validation of a non-verbal description from for help-intended interactions. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 15, 140–144. doi:10.1037/h0085853
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, R., Bohart, A. C., Watson, J. C., & Greenberg, L. S. (2011). Empathy. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 43–49. doi:10.1037/a0022187
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, R., Filipovich, H., Harrigan, L., Graynor, J., Reimschuessel, C., & Zapadka, J. K. (1982). Measuring response empathy: The development of a multicomponent rating scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24, 379–387. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.29.4.379
   Google Scholar
• Fiedler, F. E. (1950). A comparison of therapeutic relationship in psychoanalytic, non-directive and Adlerian therapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 15, 436–445. doi:10.1037/h0054624
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, P., & Leudar, I. (2010). On active listening in person-centred, solution-focused psychotherapy. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3188–3198. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fretz, B. R. (1966). Postural movements in a counseling dyad. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 13, 335–343. doi:10.1037/h0023716
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48, 1–17. doi:10.2307/2095141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goudbeek, M., & Scherer, K. (2009). Vocal expression of emotion. In D. Sander & K. Scherer (Eds.), The Oxford companion to emotion and the affective sciences (pp. 404–406). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg, L., & Safran, J. (1987). Emotions in psychotherapy: Affect, cognition, and the process of change. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greenson, R. R. (1960). Empathy and its vicissitudes. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 41, 418–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haase, R. F., & Tepper, D. T. (1972). Non-verbal components of empathic communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19, 417–424. doi:10.1037/h0033188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Bolden, C. B. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57–76). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2007). Crying receipts: Time, empathy and institutional practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 251–290. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In T. Stivers, M. Lorenza, & J. Steesing (Eds.), The morality of knowing in conversation. Studies in interactional sociolinquistics 29 (pp. 159–183). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Watson, R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language. Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). New York: Irvington.
   Google Scholar
• Horvath, A. O. (2001). The Alliance. Psychotherapy, 4, 365–372. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.38.4.365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.) Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 14–31). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Knoblauch, S. (2000). The musical edge of therapeutic dialogue. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lambert, M. J., & Barley, D. E. (2001). Research summary on the therapeutic relationship and psychotherapy outcome. Psychotherapy, 4, 357–361. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.38.4.357
   Google Scholar
• Lomas, P. (1987). The limits of interpretation. London: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Marziali, E., Marmar, C., & Krupnic, J. (1981). Therapeutic alliance scales: Development and relationship to psychotherapy outcome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 138, 361–364. doi:10.1192/bjp.138.5.361
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. W., & Peräkylä, A. (2003). Language and social interaction. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233–257). New York: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Ogden, R. (2006). Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1752–1775. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peräkylä, A. (2011a). After interpretation. Third position utterances in psychoanalysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(3), 288–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peräkylä, A. (2011b). Validity in research on naturally occurring social interaction. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research (3rd ed.) (pp. 264–382). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Peräkylä, A. (2013). Conversation analysis in psychotherapy. In T. Stivers & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 551–574). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Peräkylä, A., Antaki, C., Vehviläinen, S., & Leudar, I. (Eds.). (2008). Conversation analysis and psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peräkylä, A., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (Eds.). (2012). Emotion in interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomeranz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures in social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomeranz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229. doi:10.1007/BF00148128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pudlinski, C. (2005). Doing empathy and sympathy: Caring responses to troubles telling on a peer support line. Discourse Studies, 7, 267–288. doi:10.1177/1461445605052177
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raevaara, L. (1989). No-vuoronalkuinen partikkeli [No–turn beginning particle]. In A. Hakulinen (Ed.), Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I (pp. 147–161). Kieli 4. Helsingin yliopiston suomenkielen laitos.
   Google Scholar
• Rice, L. N., & Kerr, G. P. (1986). Measures of client and therapist vocal quality. In L. S. Greenberg & W. M. Pinsof (Eds.), The psychotherapeutic process: A research handbook (pp. 73–105). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rice, L. N., & Wagstaff, A. K. (1967). Client voice quality and expressive style as indexes of productive psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 557–563. doi:10.1037/h0025164
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ribeiro, E., Ribeiro, A. P., Gonçalves, M. M., Horvath, A. O., & Stiles, W. B. (2012). How collaboration in therapy becomes therapeutic: The therapeutic collaboration coding system. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 86, 294–314. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8341.2012.02066.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 2, 95–103. doi:10.1037/h0045357
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, C. R. (1975). Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The Counseling Psychologist, 5(2), 2–10. doi:10.1177/001100007500500202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. doi:10.2307/412243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Reflections in studying prosody in talk-in-interaction. Language and Speech, 41, 235–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer, K. (2003). Vocal communication of emotion: A review of research paradigms. Speech Communication, 40, 227–256. doi:10.1016/S0167-6393(02)00084-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selting, M. (1994). Empathic speech style – with special focus on the prosodic signaling of heightened emotive involvement in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 375–408. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(94)90116-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, J. (1968). Relationship between visual and auditory cues of therapeutic effectiveness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 236–239. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(196804)24:2%3C236::AID-JCLP2270240235%3E3.0.CO;2-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77–99). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, D. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysis and developmental psychology. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., & Kahri, M. (2011). Puheen musiikilliset piirteet ja sosiaalinen toiminta: Kohti prosodian sosiologiaa [Social action and the musical aspects of speech: Towards a sociology of prosody]. Sosiologia, 4, 285–308.
   Google Scholar
• Szczepek Reed, B. (2011). Analyzing conversation. An introduction to prosody. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Szczepek Reed, B. (2006). Prosodic orientation in English conversation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Tepper, D. T., & Haase, R. F. (1978). Verbal and non-verbal communication of facilitative conditions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 35–44. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.25.1.35
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voutilainen, L. (2012). Responding to emotion in cognitive psychotherapy. In A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 235–255). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Voutilainen, L., Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2010a). Recognition and interpretation: Responding to emotional experience in psychotherapy. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43, 85–107. doi:10.1080/08351810903474799
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voutilainen, L., Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2010b). Professional non-neutrality: criticising the third party in psychotherapy. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(5), 798–816. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01245.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, B. (2010).Tonal repetition and tonal contrast in English caretaker-child interaction. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in interaction (pp. 243–262). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar