Open AccessInterpersonal Wishes and Fears with Regard to Internalized Attachment Figures: Differing Focus of Two Case Formulation Methods that use SASB
Author(s) -
Kenneth L. Critchfield,
Julia Dobner-Pereira,
Eliza Stucker
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
pragmatic case studies in psychotherapy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 1553-0124
DOI - 10.14713/pcsp.v17i1.2089
Subject(s) - interpersonal communication , psychology , focus (optics) , scope (computer science) , epistemology , divergence (linguistics) , field (mathematics) , prioritization , sociology , social psychology , management science , computer science , philosophy , programming language , linguistics , physics , mathematics , pure mathematics , optics , economics
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.