Operationalizing the gift of love (GOL) in interpersonal reconstructive therapy (IRT): An examination of the role of meaning reconstruction in therapeutic change.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpersonal Reconstructive Therapy (IRT) (Benjamin, 2003/2006) is an integrative, principles-based treatment approach and theory of psychopathology that conceptualizes the motivating factor that underlies personality psychopathology as the gift of love (GOL). That is, copy processes are learned and maintained to achieve psychic proximity to the important people and their internalized representations (IPIRs) that were the original teachers. Relinquishing this gift of love allows a person to re-orient their life towards uncovering and living by their own individually held meanings that will then define how they relate to themselves and their world. Spirituality and religion have historically helped individuals make meaning of and endure some of life’s most trying events (Canada et al., 2016; Hawthorne et al., 2015; Lichtenthal et al., 2010; Johnson & Zitzmann, 2020). Furthermore, Park and Folkman (1997) and others have studied how spirituality can play a large role in a person’s meaning-making processes. The ability to make meaning out of a stressful situation has been shown to promote adaptation and well-being. This study asserts that the process of understanding and learning to let go of the gift of love is inherently a spiritual task. Studies involving IRT have not yet considered explicitly spiritual coping and its connections to the gift of love. This study created a coding system based on existing theory that reliably detects the gift of love as well as spiritual coping in an archived IRT dataset. Results indicated that the presence of spiritual coping, particularly positive spiritual coping, was significantly associated with higher levels of adherence to IRT. In addition, this study revealed that GOL is associated with personal and social spiritual coping and is positively associated with therapeutic change, as measured by GOL stages of change. Keywords: Interpersonal Reconstructive Therapy, interpersonal theory, personality disorders, religious coping, spiritual coping, therapeutic change
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".