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

Authors

  • Kenneth L. Critchfield
  • Julia Dobner-Pereira
  • Eliza Stucker

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14713/pcsp.v17i1.2089

Keywords:

wishes, fears, reliability, internalized figures, Interpersonal Reconstructive Therapy (IRT), Interpersonal defense Theory, case study, clinical case study

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.

Author Biographies

Kenneth L. Critchfield

Kenneth L. Critchfield

Julia Dobner-Pereira

Julia Dobner-Pereira

Eliza Stucker

Eliza Stucker

Downloads

Published

2021-04-19

Issue

Section

Comparisons of the Two Theoretical Analyses from Each Perspective