Article

Mathematical model of the dynamics of psychotherapy.

Cognitive Neurodynamics (Impact Factor: 1.77). 09/2011; 5(3):265-75. DOI: 10.1007/s11571-011-9157-x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The success of psychotherapy depends on the nature of the therapeutic relationship between a therapist and a client. We use dynamical systems theory to model the dynamics of the emotional interaction between a therapist and client. We determine how the therapeutic endpoint and the dynamics of getting there depend on the parameters of the model. Previously Gottman et al. used a very similar approach (physical-sciences paradigm) for modeling and making predictions about husband-wife relationships. Given that this novel approach shed light on the dyadic interaction between couples, we have applied it to the study of the relationship between therapist and client. The results of our computations provide a new perspective on the therapeutic relationship and a number of useful insights. Our goal is to create a model that is capable of making solid predictions about the dynamics of psychotherapy with the ultimate intention of using it to better train therapists.

1 Follower
 · 
118 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our commentary focuses on juxtaposing the proposed science of intentional change with facts and concepts pertaining to the level of large populations or changes on a worldwide scale. Although we find a unified evolutionary theory promising, we think that long-term and large-scale, scientifically guided - that is, intentional - social change is not only impossible, but also undesirable.
    Behavioral and Brain Sciences 08/2014; 37(4):419-420. DOI:10.1017/S0140525X13003129 · 14.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We thank the commentators for an extraordinarily diverse and constructive set of comments. Nearly all applaud our goal of sketching a unified science of change, even while raising substantive points that we look forward to addressing in our reply, which we group into the following categories: (1) What counts as evolutionary; (2) Ethical considerations; (3) Complexity; (4) Symbotypes, culture, and the future; (5) What intentional cultural change might look like; (6) An evolving science of cultural change; and (7) Who decides? We thank the commentators for an extraordinarily diverse and constructive set of comments. Nearly all applaud our goal of sketching a unified science of change, even while raising substantive points that we look forward to addressing in our reply.
    Behavioral and Brain Sciences 08/2014; 37(04):438-460. DOI:10.1017/S0140525X14000016 · 14.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Humans possess great capacity for behavioral and cultural change, but our ability to manage change is still limited. This article has two major objectives: first, to sketch a basic science of intentional change centered on evolution; second, to provide examples of intentional behavioral and cultural change from the applied behavioral sciences, which are largely unknown to the basic sciences community. All species have evolved mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity that enable them to respond adaptively to their environments. Some mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity count as evolutionary processes in their own right. The human capacity for symbolic thought provides an inheritance system having the same kind of combinatorial diversity as does genetic recombination and antibody formation. Taking these propositions seriously allows an integration of major traditions within the basic behavioral sciences, such as behaviorism, social constructivism, social psychology, cognitive psychology, and evolutionary psychology, which are often isolated and even conceptualized as opposed to one another. The applied behavioral sciences include well-validated examples of successfully managing behavioral and cultural change at scales ranging from individuals to small groups to large populations. However, these examples are largely unknown beyond their disciplinary boundaries, for lack of a unifying theoretical framework. Viewed from an evolutionary perspective, they are examples of managing evolved mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity, including open-ended processes of variation and selection. Once the many branches of the basic and applied behavioral sciences become conceptually unified, we are closer to a science of intentional change than one might think.
    Behavioral and Brain Sciences 08/2014; 37(5):395. DOI:10.1017/S0140525X13001593 · 14.96 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
18 Downloads
Available from
May 20, 2014