Situating Coordination and Cooperation Between Ecological and Social Psychology

The major thrust of this analysis is to demonstrate the value of making ecological psychology more social while recognizing that for this to occur, social psychology must become more ecological in the sense that its key concepts must be treated in an embodied manner. I elaborate these propositions by focusing on establishing differences between coordination and cooperation. I then explore a range of relationships between them from a social psychological perspective. To accomplish this integration, which uses the commitment to reciprocity as a joint organizing principle, I use three complementary models—dynamical systems, effectivities-affordances, and a role-rule model of social commitment. Key aspects of the analysis involve (1) elaborating the meaning of Turvey's (1990) Turvey, M. T. 1990. Coordination. American Psychologist, 45: 938–954. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] proper-relations view of coordination and (2) demonstrating the particular relevance of roles and trust as unifying concepts. From this perspective, coordinations occur between roles, rather than individuals, at the level of team play. Team play, in turn, is shown to depend on trust. And trust, in turn, is related to perceptions of dependability, thereby illustrating a critical intersection of ecological and social psychology.     

Opening What Has Been Closed,Relaxing What Has Been Clenched: Dissociation and Enactment Over Time in Committed Relationships

I use dissociation and the concept of the multiple self to link Mitchell's profound insight with Goldner's critique. In the process, I use the idea of dissociation to think about the nature of different kinds of long-term relationships.     

“One Never Knows,Do One?”: Commentary on Paper by the Boston Change Process Study Group

I discuss the work of the Boston Change Process Study Group, focusing on the paper in this issue of Psychoanalytic Dialogues, but also addressing broader issues across the range of their work. After describing the considerable similarities between their views and mine, I focus on three areas about which I have questions: the concept and clinical use of mutual enactment, BCPSG's use of nonlinear dynamic systems theory, and certain problems revolving around science and social construction.     

The Fusion of Horizons: Dissociation,Enactment, and Understanding

All understanding is context dependent, and one of the most significant contexts for clinical purposes is the self-state. How we understand the other, and ourselves, depends on the state(s) we occupy. Dissociations between an analyst's self-states can, therefore, limit or impede understanding of the analysand by depriving the analyst of a fitting context within which to grasp what the analysand says and does. Clinical understanding may require the breach of such dissociations. I lay out some of the implications of thinking about transference and countertransference along these lines, with detailed examples illustrating the consequences of the analyst's dissociations and their eventual resolutions. Among the advantages of this way of thinking is that it amounts to a psychoanalytic account of the hermeneutic circle.     

The Interpersonal Field: Its Place in American Psychoanalysis

Today the concept of the interpersonal field, while seldom credited to those who created it, is widely used in psychoanalysis. After reviewing how the concept of the field defines interpersonal and relational psychoanalysis, I take up the rejection of the idea in American mainstream psychoanalysis in the decades just after it was proposed by Sullivan and Fromm, why that rejection took place, and how the entire discipline of psychoanalysis in North America might have fared if the idea had been widely recognized earlier than it was.     

Field Theory in Psychoanalysis,Part I: Harry Stack Sullivan and Madeleine and Willy Baranger

This is the first of two articles comparing conceptions of the field in interpersonal/relational psychoanalysis (IRP) and Bionian field theory (BFT). This article compares the thinking of the originators of IRP and BFT, Harry Stack Sullivan and Madeleine and Willy Baranger.     

Breathing Together: Reply to Harris and Shaw

These two very different but complementary discussions address two different “registers” of my thinking in my paper on patients who “live in airless intrapsychic worlds.” Harris is most interested in the meta-theoretical and historical contexts and frames of my theory and clinical approach, viewing my contribution as an example of various broad trends in contemporary relational psychoanalytic thought. Shaw, by contrast, engages with my particular insights and clinical/theoretical framework for understanding and working with patients whose struggles very much resemble and overlap with the struggles of the adult children of “traumatically narcissistic” parents, which his seminal work has focused on. In my Replies I voice my appreciation of each of their unique perspectives on my ideas, and engage with each of them regarding certain differences in our theoretical and clinical sensibilities.     

The Hard-to-Engage Patient: A Treatment Failure

I discuss the relatedness with certain hard-to-engage patients as a kind of dissociative enactment, and I present a case illustration of a man whom I liked but could not help.     

A Scoring Scheme for the TAT and other Verbal Projective Techniques

Summaiy: Three groups of subjects rated each item in Rotter's I-E Scale for its social desirability value. Social desirability scale values (SDSV) of paired items were compared with one another. Results indicated that paired items are not sufficiently similar in their SDSVs, thus enabling subjects to respond on the basis of social desirability. All three groups rated internal items as being significantly more socially desirable than external items. The correlations between the SDSV ratings of the three groups were highly significant. The results indicate that the scale, as it is currently used, is seriously deficient.     

Transference Focused Psychotherapy for Patients with Comorbid Narcissistic and Borderline Personality Disorder

Clinical experience involving the treatment of patients with comorbid borderline and narcissistic personality disorders suggests that this patient population is among the more difficult to treat within the personality disorder spectrum. In this article, we present refinements of Transference Focused Psychotherapy (TFP) based on our clinical experience with and research data on patients with comorbid narcissistic personality disorder/borderline personality disorder (NPD/BPD). We briefly review object relations formulations of severe narcissistic pathology, as well as recent research in attachment and the allied concept of mentalization, which have provided a new lens through which to view narcissistic disorders. The research findings from two randomized clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy and effectiveness of TFP are presented. The data from the two Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT) allowed for the study of the characteristics of the subgroup of borderline personality disorder patients who have comorbid NPD/BPD. Findings on comorbidity, attachment status, capacity for mentalization, and level of personality organization of borderline patients with comorbid NPD/BPD, compared with borderline patients without comorbid narcissistic pathology (BPD), are presented. Clinical implications of the observed group differences are discussed, with a focus on refinements in the technique of TFP. Clinical case material is presented to illustrate the specific challenges posed by narcissistic patients to carrying out TFP in each phase of treatment.