Innere Arbeitsmodelle von Bindung und aversive Kindheitserfahrungen bei Psychotherapeuten in Ausbildung

Taubner, Svenja; Ulrich-Manns, Stefanie; Klasen, Jennifer M; Curth, Christian; Möller, Heidi; Wolter, Silke

doi:10.1007/s00729-014-0005-4

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The n = 88 insecurely attached psychotherapists of the present sample also comprise only 20% of the total N = 430. This is similar to the rate of the German study by Taubner et al (2014b) and that of the North American study by Fleischman and Shorey (2016), (Kuhl and Kazén, 2009 All differences between the securely and insecurely psychotherapists are significant (p < 0.000) except the as "ns" designated ones. G The bold dots designate the respective personality styles of the insecurely attached persons of the study of Sherry et al (2007).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Schauenburg et al (2006) reported 45.2%, Schauenburg et al (2010) 61.3%, andDinger et al (2009) about 50%, Talia et al (2018) 64% of securely attached psychodynamic psychotherapists, as rated using the AAI. However, some studies imply that the proportion of securely attached therapists may be higher: In a sample of 50 German trainees, for example, 78% were rated to be securely attached (Taubner et al, 2014b) and 72% of 290 licensed North American psychologists (Fleischman and Shorey, 2016).…”

Section: Attachment In Therapistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Significant Differences in Personality Styles of Securely and Insecurely Attached Psychotherapists: Data, Reflections and Implications

Peter

Böbel

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a contribution to the research on the therapist variable aiming to improve effectiveness of psychotherapy. It is shown that attachment styles shape personality styles of psychotherapists in a favorable or unfavorable manner. Data on personality (PSDI) and attachment (RSQ) styles was collected from 430 psychological psychotherapists of the DACH countries using an online survey. The 88 insecurely attached psychotherapists differed significantly from their 342 securely attached colleagues in 9 of 14 personality styles: They were -even though well within normal range -more paranoid, borderline, schizoid, dependent, negativistic, selfsacrificing, avoidant, and depressive, as well as less optimistic. This corresponds to results of other researchers. Data regarding their effectiveness was not available. It is argued that a secure attachment style predispose to be a good psychotherapist. Yet, insecurely attached psychotherapists possibly compensate their adverse traits through self-therapy, continuous education, and supervision.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Attachment In Therapistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Significant Differences in Personality Styles of Securely and Insecurely Attached Psychotherapists: Data, Reflections and Implications

Peter

Böbel

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As mentioned in the description of the samples above, half of the total MEG sample used here (212 out of 490) were included in the preceding attachment study of Peter and Böbel (2020b), which served as the reference study. It is, therefore, not surprising that the percentage of 21% insecurely attached in the current MEG sample is close to the 20% in the preceding of Peter and Böbel (2020b) attachment study, both of which are similar to the percentages in a German (Taubner et al, 2014) and a North American (Fleischman and Shorey, 2016) studies. Among DGZH dentists, the percentage of insecurely attached is 10% higher, at 31%, and that of the dentists of the NONHYP DENT sample is another 10% higher, at 40%.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Replication Studies on Significant Differences in Personality Profiles of Securely and Insecurely Attached Psychotherapists and Dentists

Peter

Wolf

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study contributes to the therapist variable in general and the personality profile of securely and insecurely attached psychotherapists and other healthcare professionals in particular. In a preceding study, it has been found that insecurely attached psychotherapists differ in nine personality styles from securely attached ones. The aim of the present study was to replicate these findings and to investigate whether they also apply to other health professions such as dentists. About 891 subjects from two German professional societies for hypnosis were surveyed online with a personality questionnaire [Personality Styles and Disorder Inventory (PSDI)] and an attachment questionnaire [Relationship Scale Questionnaire (RSQ)]. Since these subjects were interested in hypnosis and used it in their practice (HYP), 150 dentists without a hypnosis context (NONHYP) were studied as a control group with the same survey. The results of the preceding attachment study could be replicated: Insecurely attached healthcare professionals differed significantly from securely attached ones in the same nine (plus one, i.e., 10) personality styles if they use psychological methods including hypnosis. If they do not use psychological methods (like the NONHYP dentists), they differ in half of the personality styles. No within-sample and no between-sample differences have been found in the assertive/antisocial (AS) personality style. No within-sample differences have also been found in the conscientious/compulsive (ZW) and the intuitive/schizotypal (ST) personality styles. However, large between-sample differences were obvious in ZW and the ST. Both of the samples of the dentist were much more compulsive than the two psychotherapeutic samples. In addition, both of the HYP samples were much more schizotypal than the NONHYP samples. The latter is the general signature of those individuals who are interested in hypnosis and were metaphorically termed homo hypnoticus. It seems that AS, ZW, and ST are independent of attachment.

show abstract

“…In this context, attachment measurements of our sample could be interesting, and are currently planned for a further study in a larger sample. Nevertheless, it has been shown already that attachment styles in psychotherapists are distributed quite similar or equally to the normal population, and that effects of training therapy and training of self-awareness have to be taken into account for further investigations [64].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between Mentalizing and Working Conditions in Health Care

Steinmair

Richter

Löffler‐Stastka

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mentalizing describes the human ability to comprehend one’s own and others’ mental states and is seen as one of the core competencies of psychotherapists. Current research has emphasized the importance of both early dyadic attachment as well as broader sociocultural environmental input on the development of mentalizing. This study investigates whether mentalizing skills, operationalized via reflective functioning (RF), might be influenced by training and working conditions. This study was a matched case-control comparison, cross-sectional study. RF was assessed in a total of 10 psychotherapy trainees working in private practice at the beginning (group A; n = 5) and end (group B; n = 5) of their psychotherapy training (training association: Gestalt Therapy, Institute of Integrative Gestalttherapy Vienna) and in a total of 40 health professionals (institution: General Hospital Vienna—Social Medical Center South, Vienna, Department of Psychiatry, acute psychiatric ward) at the beginning of (group C; n = 20) and without (group D; n = 20) mentalization based therapy training. The participants differed from each other regarding their training, but participants of the same institution were matched. RF scores were significantly higher in group A and B than in group C and D (A,C: p = 0.0065, Odds Ratio (OR): 0.0294; A,D: p = 0.0019, OR: 0.0132; B,C: p = 0.0065, OR: 0.0294, B,D: p = 0.0019, OR: 0.0132). RF scores were not significantly different among groups A and group B (A,B: p > 0.9999) or between groups C and D (C,D: p = 0.6050). The current study suggests that mentalizing skills might be rather slow to improve by training, but that they might be influenced by the context.

show abstract

Innere Arbeitsmodelle von Bindung und aversive Kindheitserfahrungen bei Psychotherapeuten in Ausbildung

Cited by 10 publications

References 35 publications

Significant Differences in Personality Styles of Securely and Insecurely Attached Psychotherapists: Data, Reflections and Implications

Significant Differences in Personality Styles of Securely and Insecurely Attached Psychotherapists: Data, Reflections and Implications

Replication Studies on Significant Differences in Personality Profiles of Securely and Insecurely Attached Psychotherapists and Dentists

Relationship between Mentalizing and Working Conditions in Health Care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About