Abstract
Although the reflecting team has been widely used for 30 years, little research has compared clients’ and clinicians’ team experiences and whether or not there are differences in which types of reflections they find most helpful. Data were collected from 12 heterosexual couples’ consultations at an established teaching hospital reflecting team in northeast United States. Highly distressed couples were offered both spoken and written reflections, and their responses were assessed right after the consultation as well as in interviews 2 weeks later. The referring therapist and team members’ responses to the spoken and written reflections were also assessed. Data were analyzed using self-report questionnaires as well as a grounded theory methodology with 3 independent coders. Both clients and clinicians found the interview, spoken reflections, and letter very helpful. Several types of reflections were found to be equally helpful by both clinicians and couples, including “offering a different perspective” and “defining a problem as dyadic.” Clinicians found reflections such as metaphor and “casting difficulties in a positive light” more helpful than did the couples, whereas couples found the validation of their difficult personal experiences more helpful. With both spoken and written reflections, clinicians paid attention to what was both novel and validating, whereas couples focused more on what was confirmatory. Clinicians found the reflecting team intervention even more helpful than did couples, a finding discussed regarding the reflecting team as a powerful tool for therapists who seek hope when feeling stuck and overwhelmed in their work with highly distressed client systems. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) © 2020 American Psychological Association