ppd 4 Flashcards
Interpersonal model of personality dynamics
This model does NOT primarily view personality as directly reflecting stable individual traits. Rather, it
assumes that those who meet criteria for PDs are characterized by pervasive and persistent recurring
intra-personal and inter-personal themes and dynamics
Interpersonal field
A schematic depiction of the interactive field of two self regulation individuals (e.g. client and therapist).
- Self system – affect system
- Self and other – interact
Intentionality
Introduced into psychology by Brentano as the term for ‘aboutness’ as the mark of mental phenomena. That is: mental phenomena are about something, i.e. intended at something.
Intentional stance
A term from the philosopher Daniel Dennett. The assumption that intentionality is present in something (e.g. yourself, another human, an animal, the sun, etc.)
Mentalization
The movement from a dualistic to a triadic perspective, i.e. from a cause-effect to the introduction of the assumption that others and oneself have a mental life with intentions that give reasons for actions . __(stimulus - intention meaning - reaction)__ This movement is complex and hence mentalization is an umbrella term
- mentalizing or reflective functioning is the human capacity to understand oneself and others through intentional mental states like feelings, desires, attitudes and goals
Attachment
safe attachment, well-regulated attunement and repairs provide the basis for learning to mentalize
1. In mammals and avians offspring strongly attach to caregivers.
2. Human babies are particularly sensitive and attuned to the forms of vitality they can share with others
3. In secure attachment parents use ‘parental reflective functioning’ (i.e. mentalizing capacity) to interact with their child giving rise to joint intentionality.
4. Via this process the child learns to distinguish the (joint) intention from the particular acts of the participants. And from the distinction between self and other (marking) it learns about difference in intentions between self and other
attachment → attunement → Joint intentionality → Mentalizing capacities = Epistemic trust and vigilance
Natural pedagogy
Humans possess a species-specific capacity for the fast intergenerational transmission of cultural knowledge. Instead of having to work out cultural knowledge oneself, one can rely on the authority and perceived trustworthiness of the person communicating that information.
Importantly: this also goes for information about the self and the ‘me’, which we don’t invent ourselves but receive from others. Not passively, but by actively identifying with some others.
Epistemic trust
It is simply ‘trust’, but then in particular the trust we need to learn from others and to give them a certain authority. We are not inclined to just trust anyone to provide us with valid information. A situation of epistemic trust enables a particular kind of species-specific learning. Thus the absence of epistemic trust makes learning (about the world, the self, etc.) really problematic.
- the ability to trust others as a source of knowledge, it is facilitated and facilitates mentalisation
Epistemic hypervigilance
As such an important default trait in many contexts: do not trust anyone. This is the situation where we
have repeatedly experienced the untrustworthiness of trusted authorities – e.g. parents. In this situation we tend to dismiss information about the world and ourselves from these sources. If this becomes a central trait it impedes development
how does mentalization develop
attachment relationships play a foundational role in the development of mentalizing capacities. High levels of parental reflective functioning(PRF) foster secure attachment and enhance children’s ability to regulate emotions and navigate social interactions effectively. Conversely, insecure attachment can hinder the development of mentalizing, especially in stressful and emotionally intense contexts.
higher levels of parental mentalizing are associated with better mentalizing capacities in children
what is the neurobiology of mentalization
- (a) a specific set of highly specialized, species-specific neural circuits is involved in mentalizing
- (b) mentalizing is a multidimensional capacity, can be organized around 4 dimensions and each dimension has a different neural circuit
- o 1 automatic versus controlled mentalizing,
- o 2 mentalizing about the self and others, (SR and MSA)
- o 3 Mentalizing based on external or internal features of the self and
- others,
- o 4 cognitive versus affective mentalizing
- (c) mentalizing is an umbrella concept that overlaps with a range of constructs and capacities, such as (ToM), mindfulness, perspective taking, and empathy
what are the limitations of the mentalizing approach
- Cross-generational Associations:
o The link between parental mentalizing and intergenerational transmission of mentalizing is weaker than previously assumed. Other contextual factors, like socioeconomic status and family size, also play significant roles. - Complexity of Developmental Processes:
o Developmental research highlights the multifactorial nature of human development, challenging traditional attachment theories that assume stable attachment styles over time. - Challenges to Attachment Theory:
o Attachment stability across development is moderate, influenced by risk factors and environmental stability. Historical, sociocultural, and environmental factors shape attachment behaviours, challenging traditional notions of attachment as innate and universal. - Role of Parental Sensitivity and Genetic Factors:
o Parental sensitivity which is considered to play a key role in intergenerational transmission of attachment explained only a small portion of the variance in the association between parent and infant attachment.
o Parental sensitivity and mentalizing explain only a small proportion of variance in attachment transmission. Genetic factors also play a role in attachment development, challenging traditional attachment perspectives. - genetic factors
o there is increasing evidence for genetic factors in determining the
course of attachment, suggesting that genes may play an important role in resetting developmental trajectories associated with attachment. Again, such findings are difficult to accommodate within traditional attachment perspectives.
what are the 3 communication systems and how they relate to attachment, mentalisation and epistemic trust
- Communication System 1:
o Lowering of epistemic vigilance: Mutual mentalizing plays a key role in this process because the therapist needs to tailor his/her intervention to the specific patient, demonstrating his/her ability to see the
patient’s problems from his/her perspective, and the patient needs to be able to recognize that the therapist is able to consider the patient’s perspective (i.e., joint intentionality) - Communication System 2:
o Enabling mechanisms of social learning: Fostering mentalizing and increasing epistemic trust, enabling the acquisition of new skills and self-knowledge. - Communication System 3:
o Reengaging with the social world: Facilitating social recalibration and adaptation outside therapy, enabling further social learning and adaptation outside therapy settings.
what are the connections between mentalizing and personality disorders
what 3 modes of mentalizing are the result of ineffective mentalizing
3 prementalizing modes
1. psychic equivalence mode - thoughts and feelings are reality
2. theological mode - only observable behavior is recognized
3. pretend mode - thoughts and feelings are disconected from reality, the individual becomes entangled in endless cognitive or affectively overwhelming narratives that have no connection to reality
