The idea that humour can be used in psychotherapy for healing experiences has gained wider acknowledgement in the psychotherapeutic literature over recent decades. Norcross and Lambert (2018), in particular, have identified therapeutic humour as a promising interpersonal construct for psychotherapy. Martin and Ford (2018) reported on the different approaches that have been taken to use humour in psychotherapy and broadly identified three areas: humour as therapy, specific therapeutic approaches and humour as a communication skill. Firstly, two therapies rely on both exaggeration and sarcasm to challenge patients. Rational-emotive therapy (Ellis & Grieger, 1986) aims to replace false beliefs, and the goal of provocative therapy (Farrelly & Lynch, 1987) is to provoke emotional responses that lead to changes in perceptions and actions.Secondly, with regard to specific therapeutic approaches, humour has been used successfully to replace progressive muscle relaxation in systematic desensitisation (Smith, 1973;Ventis, 1973).Although humour has been used as a basis to paradoxically and playfully exaggerate symptoms (Frankl, 1960;Witztum et al., 1999), one author reported that this effect is dependent on clients having low humour scores (Newton & Dowd, 1990).

Introduction The use of humor in psychotherapy is widely considered to improve therapy outcomes and typically depends on context, patient sensitivity, and the therapist's humor style. Different types of humor may impact treatment type, therapeutic alliance, and therapy outcome; however, evidence from psychotherapy sessions on the role of banter has been sparse to date. Therefore, the study aims to examine banter in a secondary analysis of psychotherapy sessions. Method The sample consisted of 68 depressed outpatients treated with one of three treatment types: psychoanalytic therapy (PA), psychodynamic therapy (PD), and cognitive‐behavioral therapy (CBT). Banter and therapeutic alliance were rated for therapy sessions taken from the middle phase of treatment, outcome was assessed at the end of treatment. Results The main findings were (1) clinical examples of banter in psychotherapy were found in 62 from 68 sessions, (2) significantly more bantering in the main bantering category of facilitation for CBT sessions as compared to other treatment types, (3) facilitative banter as a significant predictor for the positive introject, (4) a significant correlation between bantering and bond between therapist and client. Furthermore, based on these results, psychometric properties of the Klagenfurt Bantering Instrument (KBI) are reported. Conclusion From a bantering perspective, this study emphasizes the need to consider session context, client response, and sarcastic markers when categorizing negative banter using the KBI.