ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Psychotherapists' self-protective attachment strategies.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Attachment describes how people use relationships to cope with exposure to danger. That function is central to psychotherapy. This study used the Adult Attachment Interview (DMM-AAI) to compare psychotherapists' attachment strategies to those of patients in psychotherapy and adults drawn from the normative non-patient population. The central variables were attachment strategies (treated as dismissing of relationships Type A1-8, secure/balanced in relationships B1-5, and preoccupied with relationships Type C1-8, plus A/C combinations), psychological trauma and unresolved loss, extremes of arousal, and reorganization toward psychological balance and integration (i.e., conscious change toward B strategies). Differences based on professional training (psychodynamic, cognitive, and family systems) were explored for psychotherapists. The results indicated that non-patients demonstrated the lowest risk attachment strategies (i.e., A1-2, B1-5, and C1-2), whereas patients exhibited the highest risk and most extreme attachment strategies (i.e., A5-8, C5-8, and A5-8/C5-8), and the most psychological trauma, unresolved loss, and extreme arousal. Psychotherapists were not a homogeneous group: approximately 40% showed extreme attachment strategies, whereas the remainder demonstrated low-risk strategies. A higher proportion of psychotherapists (24.6%) showed reorganization toward B strategies than patients (6.8%); this replicates earlier work on British psychotherapy students and patients. Trauma and loss were significantly more frequent in both patients and psychotherapists than in non-patients. No differences were identified based on psychotherapists' theory training. These findings suggest that more than half of Italian psychotherapists have the potential to establish intersubjectivity with their patients whereas almost half might face problems reaching beyond their personal perspective. Suggestions for improving training and supervision of psychotherapists are offered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.