MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2583782970 · doi:10.1017/9781107298613.025

Working with the Core Interpersonal Conflict

2017· book-chapter· en· W2583782970 on OpenAlexaff
W. John Livesley

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmPsychologyConflict managementInterpersonal communicationCore (optical fiber)PsychotherapistSocial psychologyConflict resolution researchPsychosocialConflict resolutionPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter discusses the management of the core conflict between need for care, love, attention, and proximity with attachment figures and significant others and fear of rejection both throughout therapy and during this phase of treatment. The conflict arises when psychosocial adversity creates an approach-avoidance conflict in which the natural tendency to seek out attachment figures when threatened also activates fear of approaching these individuals because of the harm that they previously caused. To simplify this discussion, the management of each pole of the conflict will be discussed separately followed by some general comments on treating the overall conflict. Neediness and Dependency The intense dependency associated with borderline personality disorder (BPD) usually arises from deprivation and abuse. However, dependency can also result from overprotective caregiving. Although the two forms of dependency have some common features, they have different treatment implications. Patterns of Dependency Overprotectiveness fosters dependency by hindering the development of independence, self-efficacy, and confidence in one's ability to interact effectively with the world, leading to a constant need for guidance and reassurance. This kind of dependency is usually less severe and presents fewer management problems than dependency arising from deprivation, because with overprotective caregiving the child's early needs for care are usually met. Hence the therapeutic task is to foster independence and self-efficacy. Although this pattern can occur with BPD (Allison, a patient who will be discussed in later chapters, showed some of these features), it is less common than dependency arising from deprivation. The latter combines a need for support and reassurance with intense neediness. This presents more management problems because gratification of these needs tends to stimulate them rather than satisfy them, leading to increased demands for care and decreased coping. This outcome is seen in patients with severe BPD who deteriorate as a result of contact with the mental health system. It is as if the care they received, especially if in-patient care is involved, increases these needs, leading to further regression. This eventuality is reduced by adopting a therapeutic stance that provides support while also promoting change and self-efficacy. Nevertheless, some clinicians become overly concerned about patients becoming dependent and regressing in therapy, leading them to fail to provide the support needed to build the alliance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207