Dissociation and interpersonal autonomic physiology in psychotherapy research: an integrative view encompassing psychodynamic and neuroscience theoretical frameworks

Interpersonal autonomic physiology is an interdisciplinary research field, assessing the relational interdependence of two (or more) interacting individual both at the behavioral and psychophysiological levels. Despite its quite long tradition, only eight studies since 1955 have focused on the interaction of psychotherapy dyads, and none of them have focused on the shared processual level, assessing dynamic phenomena such as dissociation. We longitudinally observed two brief psychodynamic psychotherapies, entirely audio and video-recorded (16 sessions, weekly frequency, 45 min.). Autonomic nervous system measures were continuously collected during each session. Personality, empathy, dissociative features and clinical progress measures were collected prior and post therapy, and after each clinical session. Two-independent judges, trained psychotherapist, codified the interactions\u2019 micro-processes. Time-series based analyses were performed to assess interpersonal synchronization and de-synchronization in patient\u2019s and therapist\u2019s physiological activity. Psychophysiological synchrony revealed a clear association with empathic attunement, while desynchronization phases (range of length 30-150 sec.) showed a linkage with dissociative processes, usually associated to the patient\u2019s narrative core relational trauma. Our findings are discussed under the perspective of psychodynamic models of Stern (\u201cpresent moment\u201d), Sander, Beebe and Lachmann (dyad system model of interaction), Lanius (Trauma model), and the neuroscientific frameworks proposed by Thayer (neurovisceral integration model), and Porges (polyvagal theory). The collected data allows to attempt an integration of these theoretical approaches under the light of Complex Dynamic Systems. The rich theoretical work and the encouraging clinical results might represents a new fascinating frontier of research in psychotherapy

Editorial: The pre-history of Chaos—An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science

Published versio

Doing Good and Looking Good in Global Humanitarian Reporting: Is Philanthrojournalism good news?

This chapter investigates if and how a private donor’s apparent motivation to ‘look good’ – or to generate symbolic capital – interacts with a news organization’s ability to ‘do good’ by producing public service content. We address this issue by reporting on the findings of a year-long study of the online humanitarian news organisation – IRIN – as it became primarily funded by a new donor. We argue that whilst it is possible that the Foundation’s pursuit of symbolic capital may have had some effect on how IRIN sought to ‘do good’, it did not appear to affect the extent to which IRIN was either willing or able to ‘do good’. Indeed, our analysis makes clear that the influence of the Foundation only had an effect on IRIN when it combined with other factors, especially journalists’ own values and organizational strategies. Ultimately, this case highlights the limits of generalized claims about the likely influence of a donor’s desire to ‘look good’ on a news organization

Spartan Daily March 22, 2012

Volume 138, Issue 30https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/1029/thumbnail.jp

Editor\u27s Note

It is once again that time of year when I have the distinct honor and pleasure of sharing a few comments related to the publication of the most recent volume of the Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences. The current issue, Volume 18 (2015), represents the fifth and final year of my first term as senior editor in chief. I have been fortunate during this time period to have been able to work with a talented and dedicated staff of coeditors, referee-reviewers and, of course, authors. I am extremely pleased to report that the current volume presents another outstanding collection of high-quality cutting-edge research articles that reflect the rich diversity of social science disciplines, topics, and methods. Our current issue represents a balance between research dealing with national and local issues, and includes papers on international topics as well

Foreword: Reflections on our Founding

Law Journals have been under heavy criticism for as long as we can remember. The criticisms come from all quarters, including judges, law professors, and even commentators at large. In an address at the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference almost a decade ago, for example, Chief Justice Roberts complained about the “disconnect between the academy and the profession.” More pointedly, he continued, “[p]ick up a copy of any law review that you see, and the first article is likely to be, you know, the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th Century Bulgaria, or something, which I’m sure was of great interest to the academic that wrote it, but isn’t of much help to the bar.” Similarly, law professors have developed what Lawrence Friedman calls “a literature of invective” against law reviews. Adam Liptak summarized one line of criticism with a question: “[W]hy are law reviews, the primary repositories of legal scholarship, edited by law students?

Spartan Daily March 22, 2012

Volume 138, Issue 30https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/1029/thumbnail.jp