Interpersonal Wishes and Fears with Regard to Internalized Attachment Figures: Differing Focus of Two Case Formulation Methods that use SASB

K. Critchfield, Julia Dobner-Pereira, Eliza Stucker
{"title":"Interpersonal Wishes and Fears with Regard to Internalized Attachment Figures: Differing Focus of Two Case Formulation Methods that use SASB","authors":"K. Critchfield, Julia Dobner-Pereira, Eliza Stucker","doi":"10.14713/PCSP.V17I1.2089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This commentary is organized in parallel with Westerman’s (2021b) comparison to include focus on (1) the formulation methods used by IRT and Interpersonal Defense Theory, and then (2) their treatment implications. In each major section, comments center first on comparison of the approaches in general, and then turn to a focus on the details of Sharon’s case. In sum, we wish to underscore the need for continued empirical work in both IRT and Interpersonal Defense Theory traditions as ways to advance our field. We see each method as offering a different scope and focal areas of concern. With a mind toward the advancement of research and application along both lines of thought, our commentary provides an overview of how we see areas of alignment, divergence, and their potential meaning for theory and practice. The two methods share a great deal in terms of assumptive worldviews, prioritization of relational material, and even specific measurement methodology (SASB). Where the methods diverge, we believe it is primarily because they seek answers to different kinds of questions.","PeriodicalId":53239,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy","volume":"17 1","pages":"85-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14713/PCSP.V17I1.2089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This commentary is organized in parallel with Westerman’s (2021b) comparison to include focus on (1) the formulation methods used by IRT and Interpersonal Defense Theory, and then (2) their treatment implications. In each major section, comments center first on comparison of the approaches in general, and then turn to a focus on the details of Sharon’s case. In sum, we wish to underscore the need for continued empirical work in both IRT and Interpersonal Defense Theory traditions as ways to advance our field. We see each method as offering a different scope and focal areas of concern. With a mind toward the advancement of research and application along both lines of thought, our commentary provides an overview of how we see areas of alignment, divergence, and their potential meaning for theory and practice. The two methods share a great deal in terms of assumptive worldviews, prioritization of relational material, and even specific measurement methodology (SASB). Where the methods diverge, we believe it is primarily because they seek answers to different kinds of questions.
关于内化依恋图形的人际愿望与恐惧——两种使用SASB的案例表述方法的不同焦点
这篇评论与Westerman(2021b)的比较同时进行,重点关注(1)IRT和人际防御理论使用的表述方法,然后(2)它们的治疗含义。在每一个主要部分中,评论首先集中在总体方法的比较上,然后转向关注沙龙案件的细节。总之,我们希望强调在IRT和人际防御理论传统中继续进行实证工作的必要性,以此作为推进我们领域的方法。我们认为,每种方法都提供了不同的关注范围和重点领域。着眼于沿着这两条思路推进研究和应用,我们的评论概述了我们如何看待一致、分歧的领域,以及它们对理论和实践的潜在意义。这两种方法在假设的世界观、关系材料的优先顺序,甚至具体的测量方法(SASB)方面有很大的共同点。在方法出现分歧的地方,我们认为主要是因为它们寻求不同类型问题的答案。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信