Interpersonal Wishes and Fears with Regard to Internalized Attachment Figures: Differing Focus of Two Case Formulation Methods that use SASB
Keywords:wishes, fears, reliability, internalized figures, Interpersonal Reconstructive Therapy (IRT), Interpersonal defense Theory, case study, clinical case study
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.
How to Cite
Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings. The author has agreed to the journal's author's agreement.
All articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.