L'articolo anticipa i risultati di una ricerca condotta dalle autrici, entro il framework della t... more L'articolo anticipa i risultati di una ricerca condotta dalle autrici, entro il framework della teoria delle polarità semantiche di Ugazio (2018), su 30 tossicodipendenti impegnati in un percorso riabilitativo in una struttura residenziale (Pensa e Ugazio, in preparazione). I risultati dimostrano che la semantica dominante in ciascun soggetto - cioè il modo particolare di organizzare il significato nella costruzione del proprio mondo, alimentato da specifiche emozioni- dava un significato del tutto particolare alle droghe di cui avevano fatto uso.
Do clients with phobic, obsessive–compulsive, eating, and depressive disorders interact with thei... more Do clients with phobic, obsessive–compulsive, eating, and depressive disorders interact with their therapist using ways of relating whose respective meanings are characteristic of the semantics of freedom, goodness, power, or belonging? And does the therapist take a position in tune with clients’ dominant semantic? This study aims to answer these questions to verify the hypothesis, derived from Ugazio’s family semantic polarities theory: that there is no single way of building the therapeutic relationship, rather, there are as many ways as there are semantics and related disorders. We applied the Semantic Grid of Therapeutic Relationship to 120 video-recorded sessions, the first two sessions of 60 clients with phobic (12), obsessive–compulsive (12), eating (12), depressive or bipolar disorders (12) and problems with daily life (12). The SG-DTR allows the detection and classification of the interactive semantic polarities (ISPs), in which client and therapist, mainly nonverbally, move away from their ascribed roles. The results confirm that the lived story between therapist and client in the here and now of the session is constructed in different ways according to the patients’ disorder. This study opens a new research perspective on the therapeutic relationship and shows the application of a method which can also be used by clinicians, especially when they are facing an impasse during the therapy.
The main aim of this study is to explore the breadth of the inference field and the type of etiop... more The main aim of this study is to explore the breadth of the inference field and the type of etiopathogenetic contents of symptom explanations provided by the client and therapist in the first two psychotherapy sessions conducted using a systemic approach. Does the therapist use triadic explanations of psychopathology as suggested by her approach? And do clients resort almost exclusively to monadic and dyadic explanations as did the university students in our previous study? What kind of explanations do they propose? The coding system "1 to 3: from the monad to the triad" was applied to the transcripts of 25 individual systemic therapies conducted by the same therapist. This manual allows coding of the inference field of symptom explanations according to three categories: monadic, dyadic, and triadic. These three broad categories are also used to analyze the etiopathogenetic content of each explanation: traumatic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. Our findings showed that clients and their therapist actually used different inference fields: clients resorted almost exclusively to monadic and dyadic explanations, whereas their therapist included the triadic explanatory level. Moreover, the therapist provided more interpersonal explanations than her clients. Hence, the dissonance between client and therapist about the inference fields-a crucial premise of one of the most accepted ideas of therapeutic change according to systemic therapies-is proven, at least among our participants. Thanks to this dissonance, clients and therapists can create a new story, potentially able to change clients' feelings, without disconfirming their emotions.
Inspired by Ugazio's (1998, 2013) family semantic polarities model, the FSG III allows a semantic... more Inspired by Ugazio's (1998, 2013) family semantic polarities model, the FSG III allows a semantic analysis of therapeutic sessions and other video-recorded conversations, such as films. It focuses on the lived story enacted by couples or other family members interacting with each other and with the therapist. This coding system identifies the interactive semantic polarities (ISPs)-that is, the semantic oppositions inferred by how the family members position themselves in the here and now-and classifies them according to the grids of the semantics of freedom, goodness, power, and belonging. The grids show the ISPs which mainly characterize the four semantics, and provide an operational definition , along with cues and nonverbal indicators, for each of these ISPs. The FSG III is a reliable research instrument which can be used by both clinical researchers and psychotherapists.
AbstractThe article presents a semantic analysis inspired by the theory of family semantic polari... more AbstractThe article presents a semantic analysis inspired by the theory of family semantic polarities developed by Ugazio (1998, 2013) applying two versions of a coding system, the Family Semantic Grid (FSG), to a couple session with Tom Andersen as a consultant. One version (FSG II) detects the narrated semantic polarities (NSPs) emerging during the session from the transcript, whereas the other (FSG III) identifies the interactive semantic polarities (ISPs) from the video recording. Both the NSPs and the ISPs are classified according to four sets of meaning called the semantic of freedom, goodness, power, and belonging. The analysis puts forward some hypothesis about the pattern that entangles the couple and highlights Andersen's contributions to overcome the problem troubling the couple.
The article introduces the Family Semantics Grid II, a coding system for the semantic analysis of... more The article introduces the Family Semantics Grid II, a coding system for the semantic analysis of therapeutic conversations with couples. Inspired by the theory of family semantic polarities developed by Ugazio (1998, 2013), it identifies the couple's narrated semantic polarities and classifies them according to the grids of the semantics of freedom, goodness, power, and belonging. The four grids show the semantic polarities that characterize all the phases of the couple relationship, from coming together to construction, maintenance, and possible breaking of the bond — within each semantic. The FSG II is a reliable research and a clinical qualitative coding system that also allows quantification. Developed to analyze the couple's narrated story in therapy, it can also be applied to other texts, including literary ones, in which the topic is the couple relationship. The Family Semantics Grid II (FSG II), that we present here, allows to detect, quantify, and classify the meanings that emerge in therapeutic conversations with couples. Like the Dialog-ical to couples by Laitila, Aaltonen, Wahlström, and Angus (2001), it is essentially a qualitative method that allows quantification. The semantic exchange is essential in the life of a couple and, in turn, the pair is the rela-tional context, able more than any other else in adulthood, to transform the meanings of individuals , because emotions between partners are usually very intense. Before meeting our partner, each of us, in connection with our family of origin and other relational contexts, has developed special ways of feeling and of building interpersonal relationships which are at the base of our identity. Falling in love and forming a partnership challenge these established semantic patterns. As their story progresses, partners should indeed negotiate and restructure their meanings, matured through other belongings, often through destabilizing moments for the couple. Therefore, the analysis provided by the FSG II allows to analyze one of the most important components of the couple's dynamic, the semantics, which gives rise to many conflicts and misunderstandings between partners. The FSG II is applied to transcripts, unlike Procter's (1985)
Even though our mutual friend, Guillem Feixas, had told us that we were moving in a similar direc... more Even though our mutual friend, Guillem Feixas, had told us that we were moving in a similar direction, when we first met twenty years ago, we were still surprised to find that our independently developed perspectives were so profoundly convergent. Each of us was so identified with their own core model – the psychology of personal constructs (HP) and the systemic psychotherapies (VU) – that it was difficult to believe that someone else was working on a similar perspective…. Twenty years on from our first meeting, we have tried to take stock of the differences and similarities between our independently developed perspectives. As we have highlighted here, there are many points of convergence about essential aspects of our models and very few differences. The main difference arises from the clinical and research traditions from which our perspectives derive. Kelly's constructivism surely had a greater influence on the psychology of family constructs than on the model of semantic polarities, born and developed within the systemic psychotherapies and the Milan approach, of which Ugazio has always been part. It is possible to detect our different backgrounds also in our latest works. Nevertheless, the arrival point is a shared constructionist model grounded on meaning making processes. We also think that the deep similarities we found are not circumscribed to our models but are present in many constructivist and constructionist conceptual frameworks. The dialogue between constructionism and constructivism has been so intense over the last three decades that it raises the question: Does it make sense still to maintain different worlds of discussion and dialogue between the psychology of personal constructs and the systemic therapies?
L'articolo anticipa i risultati di una ricerca condotta dalle autrici, entro il framework della t... more L'articolo anticipa i risultati di una ricerca condotta dalle autrici, entro il framework della teoria delle polarità semantiche di Ugazio (2018), su 30 tossicodipendenti impegnati in un percorso riabilitativo in una struttura residenziale (Pensa e Ugazio, in preparazione). I risultati dimostrano che la semantica dominante in ciascun soggetto - cioè il modo particolare di organizzare il significato nella costruzione del proprio mondo, alimentato da specifiche emozioni- dava un significato del tutto particolare alle droghe di cui avevano fatto uso.
Do clients with phobic, obsessive–compulsive, eating, and depressive disorders interact with thei... more Do clients with phobic, obsessive–compulsive, eating, and depressive disorders interact with their therapist using ways of relating whose respective meanings are characteristic of the semantics of freedom, goodness, power, or belonging? And does the therapist take a position in tune with clients’ dominant semantic? This study aims to answer these questions to verify the hypothesis, derived from Ugazio’s family semantic polarities theory: that there is no single way of building the therapeutic relationship, rather, there are as many ways as there are semantics and related disorders. We applied the Semantic Grid of Therapeutic Relationship to 120 video-recorded sessions, the first two sessions of 60 clients with phobic (12), obsessive–compulsive (12), eating (12), depressive or bipolar disorders (12) and problems with daily life (12). The SG-DTR allows the detection and classification of the interactive semantic polarities (ISPs), in which client and therapist, mainly nonverbally, move away from their ascribed roles. The results confirm that the lived story between therapist and client in the here and now of the session is constructed in different ways according to the patients’ disorder. This study opens a new research perspective on the therapeutic relationship and shows the application of a method which can also be used by clinicians, especially when they are facing an impasse during the therapy.
The main aim of this study is to explore the breadth of the inference field and the type of etiop... more The main aim of this study is to explore the breadth of the inference field and the type of etiopathogenetic contents of symptom explanations provided by the client and therapist in the first two psychotherapy sessions conducted using a systemic approach. Does the therapist use triadic explanations of psychopathology as suggested by her approach? And do clients resort almost exclusively to monadic and dyadic explanations as did the university students in our previous study? What kind of explanations do they propose? The coding system "1 to 3: from the monad to the triad" was applied to the transcripts of 25 individual systemic therapies conducted by the same therapist. This manual allows coding of the inference field of symptom explanations according to three categories: monadic, dyadic, and triadic. These three broad categories are also used to analyze the etiopathogenetic content of each explanation: traumatic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. Our findings showed that clients and their therapist actually used different inference fields: clients resorted almost exclusively to monadic and dyadic explanations, whereas their therapist included the triadic explanatory level. Moreover, the therapist provided more interpersonal explanations than her clients. Hence, the dissonance between client and therapist about the inference fields-a crucial premise of one of the most accepted ideas of therapeutic change according to systemic therapies-is proven, at least among our participants. Thanks to this dissonance, clients and therapists can create a new story, potentially able to change clients' feelings, without disconfirming their emotions.
Inspired by Ugazio's (1998, 2013) family semantic polarities model, the FSG III allows a semantic... more Inspired by Ugazio's (1998, 2013) family semantic polarities model, the FSG III allows a semantic analysis of therapeutic sessions and other video-recorded conversations, such as films. It focuses on the lived story enacted by couples or other family members interacting with each other and with the therapist. This coding system identifies the interactive semantic polarities (ISPs)-that is, the semantic oppositions inferred by how the family members position themselves in the here and now-and classifies them according to the grids of the semantics of freedom, goodness, power, and belonging. The grids show the ISPs which mainly characterize the four semantics, and provide an operational definition , along with cues and nonverbal indicators, for each of these ISPs. The FSG III is a reliable research instrument which can be used by both clinical researchers and psychotherapists.
AbstractThe article presents a semantic analysis inspired by the theory of family semantic polari... more AbstractThe article presents a semantic analysis inspired by the theory of family semantic polarities developed by Ugazio (1998, 2013) applying two versions of a coding system, the Family Semantic Grid (FSG), to a couple session with Tom Andersen as a consultant. One version (FSG II) detects the narrated semantic polarities (NSPs) emerging during the session from the transcript, whereas the other (FSG III) identifies the interactive semantic polarities (ISPs) from the video recording. Both the NSPs and the ISPs are classified according to four sets of meaning called the semantic of freedom, goodness, power, and belonging. The analysis puts forward some hypothesis about the pattern that entangles the couple and highlights Andersen's contributions to overcome the problem troubling the couple.
The article introduces the Family Semantics Grid II, a coding system for the semantic analysis of... more The article introduces the Family Semantics Grid II, a coding system for the semantic analysis of therapeutic conversations with couples. Inspired by the theory of family semantic polarities developed by Ugazio (1998, 2013), it identifies the couple's narrated semantic polarities and classifies them according to the grids of the semantics of freedom, goodness, power, and belonging. The four grids show the semantic polarities that characterize all the phases of the couple relationship, from coming together to construction, maintenance, and possible breaking of the bond — within each semantic. The FSG II is a reliable research and a clinical qualitative coding system that also allows quantification. Developed to analyze the couple's narrated story in therapy, it can also be applied to other texts, including literary ones, in which the topic is the couple relationship. The Family Semantics Grid II (FSG II), that we present here, allows to detect, quantify, and classify the meanings that emerge in therapeutic conversations with couples. Like the Dialog-ical to couples by Laitila, Aaltonen, Wahlström, and Angus (2001), it is essentially a qualitative method that allows quantification. The semantic exchange is essential in the life of a couple and, in turn, the pair is the rela-tional context, able more than any other else in adulthood, to transform the meanings of individuals , because emotions between partners are usually very intense. Before meeting our partner, each of us, in connection with our family of origin and other relational contexts, has developed special ways of feeling and of building interpersonal relationships which are at the base of our identity. Falling in love and forming a partnership challenge these established semantic patterns. As their story progresses, partners should indeed negotiate and restructure their meanings, matured through other belongings, often through destabilizing moments for the couple. Therefore, the analysis provided by the FSG II allows to analyze one of the most important components of the couple's dynamic, the semantics, which gives rise to many conflicts and misunderstandings between partners. The FSG II is applied to transcripts, unlike Procter's (1985)
Even though our mutual friend, Guillem Feixas, had told us that we were moving in a similar direc... more Even though our mutual friend, Guillem Feixas, had told us that we were moving in a similar direction, when we first met twenty years ago, we were still surprised to find that our independently developed perspectives were so profoundly convergent. Each of us was so identified with their own core model – the psychology of personal constructs (HP) and the systemic psychotherapies (VU) – that it was difficult to believe that someone else was working on a similar perspective…. Twenty years on from our first meeting, we have tried to take stock of the differences and similarities between our independently developed perspectives. As we have highlighted here, there are many points of convergence about essential aspects of our models and very few differences. The main difference arises from the clinical and research traditions from which our perspectives derive. Kelly's constructivism surely had a greater influence on the psychology of family constructs than on the model of semantic polarities, born and developed within the systemic psychotherapies and the Milan approach, of which Ugazio has always been part. It is possible to detect our different backgrounds also in our latest works. Nevertheless, the arrival point is a shared constructionist model grounded on meaning making processes. We also think that the deep similarities we found are not circumscribed to our models but are present in many constructivist and constructionist conceptual frameworks. The dialogue between constructionism and constructivism has been so intense over the last three decades that it raises the question: Does it make sense still to maintain different worlds of discussion and dialogue between the psychology of personal constructs and the systemic therapies?
Uploads