| Literature DB >> 35992464 |
Augusto Mellado1, Claudio Martínez2, Alemka Tomicic2, Mariane Krause3.
Abstract
Personal positions and voices of a patient diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD) and the therapist during long-term psychotherapy were studied aiming to find differences in the patterns formed in these aspects of subjectivity according to the level of elaboration of the change episodes achieved by the patient. This case study considered a stage of qualitative analysis where change episodes of the patient were traced through the Change Episodes Model. Later, through the Model of Analysis of Discursive Positioning in Psychotherapy (MAPP), the voices and personal positions of the patient and her therapist were identified in each of the change episodes. In the stage of quantitative analysis, dynamic patterns in the voices and personal positions were established, accounting for hypothetical attractors using the Space State Grid (SSG) technique in each of the three different levels of subjective elaboration that constitute the change episodes. The results established differentiated dynamic patterns in the change episodes, coherent with the patient's change process, and formation of propositive/reflective specific patterns as the patient evolved in the three different levels of subjective elaboration. The above suggests that a subjective transformation process is displayed, and this is manifested in the different voices and personal positions that emerged as the change episodes evolve. The identified dynamic patterns can be considered nonlinear and emergent subjective exchanges between the patient and the therapist throughout the psychotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: change episodes; dynamic patterns; process and outcomes; subjective change; voices and personal positions
Year: 2022 PMID: 35992464 PMCID: PMC9384848 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.716012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Generic change indicators (taken from Krause et al., 2015).
| Change level | Generic change indicators |
| I. Initial consolidation of the structure of the therapeutic relationship | 1. Acceptance of the existence of a problem |
| II. Increase in permeability toward new understandings | 8. Discovery of new aspects of self |
| III. Construction and consolidation of a new understanding | 14. Creation of subjective constructs of self through the interconnection of personal aspects and aspects of the surroundings, including problems and symptoms |
Personal positions according to Model of Analysis of Discursive Positioning in Psychotherapy (MAPP) taxonomy (taken from Martínez and Tomicic, 2019).
| Personal positions of the patients | Description |
| The reflective | The reflective general category accounts for a subjective state in which the patient can have a distant – but not disconnected – perspective of emotional situations, listening to and critically looking at other aspects of the self while encouraging dialogue between them. |
| The dependent | The dependent general category is characterized by the self-positioning of patients as needy, weak, damaged, and/or vulnerable. |
| The independent | The independent general category is characterized by the positioning of the patient as someone strong and self-sufficient and/or as someone who does not need help from others. |
|
|
|
| The proposer | The proposer, in which the therapist positions him/herself as someone who shows the patient what he observes and offers him a new perspective, thus trying to generate a space for dialogue between the patient’s positions. |
| The professor | The professor is more dominant and monological, establishing the therapist as someone in possession of truth or knowledge that can be presented, taught, or sometimes imposed on the patient as the only alternative. |
FIGURE 1Change episodes of the patient in the psychotherapy (44 sessions).
Patient’s and her therapist’s voices, personal positions, and MAPP taxonomy.
| Therapy | Patient’s personal positions and voices | Therapist’s personal positions and voices | MAPP taxonomy |
| Female patient and her therapist | Patient | ||
| Therapist | |||
Excerpt of change episode number 55 (level 3) from session 44 of the patient and their codification according to MAPP (T, therapist; P, patient).
| Speak turns of therapist and patient | Codification according to MAPP |
| 313. T: And that’s changed with your children? | Inquirer voice (proposer personal position) |
| 314. P: Yes…now I’m more of an adult, now I’m already, now I’m talking to her…before it was like I gave her food…“ehh mom” she told me something about school and things like that, I…“ahh ok, yes, yes” I didn’t pay attention to her… | Grounded voice (integrative personal position) |
| 315. T: mmm…(nodding) | |
| 316. P: It was like…she was there, I had her because I had to have her…and now I don’t… | Self-dialogue voice (integrative personal position) |
| 317. T: mmm…(nodding) | |
| 318. P: Now we talk, now I say to her…she talks to me and I pay attention to her because before she talked to me and I did something else “ahh ok, good,” “bye, later I’ll come back” or so… | Grounded voice (Integrative personal position) |
FIGURE 2Dynamic pattern in personal positions of the patient and her therapist (level 1, change episodes).
Derivation of attractors with heterogeneity score in a seven-used-cell (3 × 5) grid in level 1 change episodes.
| Step | Visits (mean visits) | ||||||||||
| Missing | Mixed | Professor/Dependent | Proposer/Independent | Proposer/Dependent | Professor/Reflective | Proposer/Reflective | Total (V) | #Cells (C) | Expected (V/C) | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 25 | 7 | 3.6 | |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 24 | 6 | 4 | ||
| 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 23 | 5 | 4.6 | |||
| 4 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 22 | 4 | 5.5 | ||||
| 5 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 20 | 3 | 6.7 | |||||
| 6 | 6 | 10 | 16 | 2 | 8 | ||||||
| 7 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 10 | |||||||
|
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| 1 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 1.7 | 11.6 | 20 | 7 | 2.79 | 100% |
| 2 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 1 | 0.0 | 1 | 9.0 | 16 | 6 | 2.58 | 93% | |
| 3 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 6.3 | 11 | 5 | 2.23 | 80% | ||
| 4 | 2.2 | 0.4 | 0 | 3.7 | 6 | 4 | 1.59 | 57% | |||
| 5 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 1.7 | 3 | 3 | 0.93 | 33% | ||||
| 6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 0.50 | 18% | |||||
| 7 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0.00 | 0% | ||||||
Cells “professor/reflective,” “proposer/reflective,” and “proposer/dependent” are identified as a hypothetical attractor.
FIGURE 3Dynamic pattern in personal positions of the patient and her therapist (level 2, change episodes).
Derivation of attractors with heterogeneity score in a ten-used-cell (3 × 5) grid in level 2 change episodes.
| Step | Visits (mean visits) | |||||||||||||
| Mixed | Mixed | Missing | Missing | Professor/Independent | Professor/Dependent | Proposer/Independent | Proposer/Dependent | Professor/Reflective | Proposer/Reflective | Total (V) | #Cells (C) | Expected (V/C) | ||
| 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 20 | 24 | 32 | 73 | 192 | 10 | 19 | |
| 2 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 20 | 24 | 32 | 73 | 190 | 9 | 21 | ||
| 3 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 20 | 24 | 32 | 73 | 186 | 8 | 23 | |||
| 4 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 20 | 24 | 32 | 73 | 180 | 7 | 26 | ||||
| 5 | 10 | 12 | 20 | 24 | 32 | 73 | 171 | 6 | 28 | |||||
| 6 | 12 | 20 | 24 | 32 | 73 | 161 | 5 | 32 | ||||||
| 7 | 20 | 24 | 32 | 73 | 149 | 4 | 37 | |||||||
| 8 | 24 | 32 | 73 | 129 | 3 | 43 | ||||||||
| 9 | 32 | 73 | 105 | 2 | 53 | |||||||||
| 10 | 73 | 73 | 1 | 73 | ||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 15.4 | 12 | 9.1 | 5.4 | 4.4 | 2.7 | 0 | 1.2 | 8.5 | 150.8 | 209.5 | 10 | 20.95 | 100% |
| 2 | 13.9 | 10.8 | 7 | 5.8 | 3.9 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 5.6 | 127.6 | 175 | 9 | 19.45 | 93% | |
| 3 | 12.8 | 8.7 | 7.6 | 5.4 | 0.5 | 0 | 3.3 | 106.5 | 145 | 8 | 18.09 | 86% | ||
| 4 | 11 | 9.6 | 7.3 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 1.5 | 87 | 118 | 7 | 16.81 | 80% | |||
| 5 | 12.0 | 9.5 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 69.5 | 95 | 6 | 15.79 | 75% | ||||
| 6 | 12.7 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 0 | 51.7 | 71 | 5 | 14.22 | 68% | |||||
| 7 | 8.0 | 4.7 | 0.7 | 34.3 | 48 | 4 | 11.94 | 57% | ||||||
| 8 | 8.4 | 2.8 | 20.9 | 32 | 3 | 10.72 | 51% | |||||||
| 9 | 8.0 | 8 | 16 | 2 | 8.00 | 38% | ||||||||
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.00 | 0% | |||||||||
Cells “professor/reflective” and “proposer/reflective,” are identified as a hypothetical attractor.
FIGURE 4Dynamic pattern in personal positions of the patient and her therapist (level 3, change episodes).
Derivation of attractors with heterogeneity score in an eight-used-cell (3 × 5) grid in level 3 change episodes.
| Step | Visits (mean visits) | |||||||||||
| Proposer/Independent | Missing | Professor/Independent | Professor/Dependent | Missing | Proposer/Dependent | Professor/Reflective | Proposer/Reflective | Total (V) | #Cells (C) | Expected (V/C) | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 18 | 37 | 8 | 4.6 | |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 18 | 36 | 7 | 5.1 | ||
| 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 18 | 35 | 6 | 5.8 | |||
| 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 18 | 34 | 5 | 6.8 | ||||
| 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 18 | 32 | 4 | 8 | |||||
| 6 | 5 | 5 | 18 | 28 | 3 | 9.3 | ||||||
| 7 | 5 | 18 | 23 | 2 | 11.5 | |||||||
| 8 | 18 | 18 | 1 | 18 | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| 1 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 | 38.7 | 48.9 | 8 | 6.11 | 100% |
| 2 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 32.1 | 41 | 7 | 5.86 | 96% | |
| 3 | 4 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 25.4 | 33 | 6 | 5.45 | 89% | ||
| 4 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 18.4 | 24 | 5 | 4.79 | 78% | |||
| 5 | 2 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 12.5 | 17 | 4 | 4.19 | 69% | ||||
| 6 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 12 | 3 | 4.02 | 66% | |||||
| 7 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 7 | 2 | 3.67 | 60% | ||||||
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0% | |||||||
Cell “proposer/reflective” is identified as a hypothetical attractor.
FIGURE 5Dynamic pattern in voices of the patient and her therapist (level 3, change episodes).