Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Distinguished Professional
Contributions to Independent
or Institutional Practice in
the Private Sector
This award recognizes outstanding service delivery by a
licensed psychologist who is primarily engaged in the practice
2006
of psychology in a private sector setting. The award is intended
to recognize outstanding practitioners in psychology.
Nominations are considered for psychologists working in any
area of clinical specialization, health services provision, or
consulting, and services provided to any patient population or
professional clientele in an independent or institutional practice
AWARD
setting are considered. Contributions can be judged
distinguished by virtue of peer recognition, advancement of the
public’s recognition of psychology as a profession, relevant
professional association honors, or other meritorious
Magnavita, J. J. (1994). Premature termination of short- Magnavita, J. J. (2005c). Using the MCMI-III for treatment
term dynamic psychotherapy. International Journal of planning and to enhance clinical efficacy. In R. J. Craig (Ed.),
Short-Term Psychotherapy, 9(4), 213–228. New directions in interpreting the Millon Clinical Multiaxial
Inventory–III (MCM-III) (pp. 165–184). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (1997). Restructuring personality disorders: A
short-term dynamic approach. New York: Guilford Press. Magnavita, J. J. (2006). The centrality of emotion in unify-
ing and accelerating psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical
Magnavita, J. J. (1998). Challenges in the treatment of per- Psychology, 62, 585–596.
sonality disorders: When the disorder demands comprehen- Magnavita, J. J. (in press-a). A systemic family perspective
sive integration. In Session: Psychotherapy in Practice, to child and adolescent personality disorders. In A. Free-
4(4), 5–17. man & M. Reinecke (Eds.), Personality disorders in chil-
dren and adolescents. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (2000a). Integrative relational therapy of
complex clinical syndromes: Ending the multigenerational Magnavita, J. J. (in press-b). Towards unification of clini-
transmission process. Journal of Clinical Psychology/In cal science: The next wave in the evolution of psychother-
Session: Psychotherapy in Practice, 56, 1051–1064. apy? Journal of Psychotherapy Integration.
Magnavita, J. J. (2000b). Relational therapy for personality Magnavita, J. J., & Carlson, J. (Producers). (2006). Person-
disorders. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ality disorders [Video series]. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Magnavita, J. J. (2002a). Psychodynamic approaches to
psychotherapy: A century of innovation. In F. Kaslow (Se- Magnavita, J. J., & MacFarlane, M. M. (2004). Family
ries Ed.) & J. Magnavita (Vol. Ed.), Comprehensive hand- treatment of personality disorders: Historical overview and
book of psychotherapy: Vol. 1. Psychodynamic/object rela- current perspectives. In M. M. MacFarlane (Ed.), Family
tions (pp. 1–12). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. treatment of personality disorders: Interpersonal ap-
proaches to relationship change (pp. 3–39). Binghamton,
Magnavita, J. J. (2002b). Theories of personality: Contem- NY: Haworth Press.
porary approaches to the science of personality. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (2004c). Toward a unified model of treat- The search for the principles of unified psychotherapy is
ment for personality dysfunction. In J. J. Magnavita (Ed.), an important stage in the advancement of the field.
Relational–triadic matrix: Domains and processes that Complexity and Chaos Are Characteristics of the
operate in three-way relationships. The relational–triadic Biopsychosocial System
matrix depicts what transpires in unstable dyads (Bowen, Margaret Mead (1978) wrote, “Stated at its simplest, any
1978), and “it is the instability of dyads that produces rela- whole system—a single organism, an island ecosystem, our
tionship triangles” (Guerin, Fogarty, Fay, & Kautto, 1996, planet, the solar system—is subject to imbalances within
p. 8). Again, the processes can be depicted with a triangu- itself” (p. 150). Ecological and human systems are complex
lar configuration. At the bottom of the triangle is a third and subject to chaotic states. Gribbin (2004) described a
(triangulated) person, and the top two corners represent complex system as one “that is made up of several simpler
two people in a dyad. An unstable dyad is one in which components interacting with one another” (p. 144). Human
each member is relatively undifferentiated, which refers to systems also self-organize in a persistent drive for survival,
both emotional differentiation, or what has been termed adaptation, and replication. Chaos theory has offered a new
emotional intelligence, as well as self– other differentiation, conceptual tool for understanding complexity in systems
which refers to appropriate boundaries. Since this type of (Gleick, 1987). Chaos theory views the functioning of
dyad does not effectively maintain intimacy and closeness complex systems as basically unpredictable and prone to
in a regulated way—they tend to try to fuse or are overly random fluctuations inherent in the system that can cause
distant, or they fluctuate wildly between the two poles— destabilization and reordering. According to chaos theory,
they tend to spill their emotions into third parties in an small perturbations in the components of a system may
attempt to stabilize the dyad. “When individuals are caught lead to cascading effects with enormous consequence.
in triangles, their freedom of movement is severely circum- Within complex systems there appear to be patterns that
scribed” (Guerin et al., 1996, p. 24), and “a person emo- replicate the order of each level. This is comparable to
tionally trapped in a triangle is likely, by virtue of being what many clinicians call parallel process where, for exam-
trapped, to suffer some loss of function” (p. 31). In three- ple, staff issues on an inpatient treatment unit are mirrored
somes, as opposed to triangles, there is a lack of emotional in patient conflict. Psychotherapists often describe seeing
reactivity. Triangles are in effect defenses, which can allow someone’s core issues played out in various, often chaotic-
a relationship to continue without change. appearing relational patterns.
Sociocultural–familial matrix: Processes and domains
that operate among larger social systems. The sociocul- Relationships Are the Central Process of Human
tural–family matrix is the macrosystem in which the indi- Adaptation, Function, and Dysfunction
vidual, couples, families and groups, and culture operate The relational matrix is the ultimate unifying principle of
and have mutual influence. “The defining features of the human development and of psychotherapy. It plays a cen-
human species—such as using language and passing on tral role in shaping and influencing human function and
inventions and adaptations to subsequent generations—are dysfunction. Human beings are essentially relational, con-
our cultural heritage” (Rogoff, 2003, p. 64). Cultural values ceived and raised in a richly complex relational matrix,
and memes, which are social units transmitted like genes which is shaped by evolutionary processes to ensure sur-
only socially (Dawkins, 1976), have a powerful impact on vival and transmission of the gene pool. Family units re-
the components and processes identified as occurring at main the main units of socialization within society and
other levels of the personality system. Prager (1995) wrote, transmit values and mores through memes (Dawkins, 1976)
“Cultural values with respect to intimacy likely affect the just as genes transmit biological data. Humans are defined
importance individual dyad members place on intimacy in by relationships and the attachment drive is necessary for
their families” (p. 237). The value placed on intimacy var- survival and the development of civilization.
ies from culture to culture. “Especially apparent is the in- The primacy of relationships. It has been well docu-
terplay between partners’ personality characteristics, such mented in primate studies (Harlow & Harlow, 1962) and
as private self-consciousness, need strengths, relationship naturalistic observation of infant deprivation (Spitz, 1947),
beliefs, and intimate relationships” (Prager, 1995, p. 238). that a lack of sufficient attachment can lead to a cata-
Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of personal- Davidson, R. J. (2000). Affective style, psychopathology,
ity. New York: Commonwealth Fund. and resilience: Brain mechanisms and plasticity. American
Psychologist, 55, 1196 –1214.
Barlow, D. H. (2000). Unraveling the mysteries of anxiety
and its disorders from the perspective of emotion theory. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford
American Psychologist, 55, 1247–1263. University Press.
Berenbaum, H., Raghavan, C., Le, H.-N., Vernon, L. L., & Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950). Personality and psy-
Gomez, J. J. (2003). A taxonomy of emotional distur- chotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental Magnavita, J. J. (2006). Emotion in short-term psychother-
investigations. New York: Academic Press. apy: An introduction. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In
Session, 62, 517–522.
Gribbin, J. (2004). Deep simplicity: Bringing order to
chaos and complexity. New York: Random House. Magnavita, J. J. (in press). Toward unification of clinical
science: The next wave in the evolution of psychotherapy?
Guerin, P. J., Fogarty, T. F., Fay, L. F., & Kautto, J. G. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration.
(1996). Working with relational triangles: The one-two-
three of psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press. Malan, D. H. (1979). Individual psychotherapy and the
science of psychodynamics. London: Butterworth.
Harlow, H. F., & Harlow, M. K. (1962). Social deprivation
in monkeys. Scientific American, 203, 136 –146. Mayer, J. D. (2005). A tale of two visions: Can a new
view of personality help integrate psychology? American
Hassin, R. R., Uleman, J. S., & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.). (2005). Psychologist, 60, 294 –307.
The new unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mead, M. (1978). Culture and commitment: New relation-
King, J. A., Ferris, C. F., & Lederhendler, I. L. (Eds.). ships between generations in the 1970⬘s. New York: Co-
(2003). Roots of mental illness in children. New York: lumbia University Press.
New York Academy of Science.
Menninger, K. (1958). Theory of psychoanalytic technique.
L’Abate, L. (1986). Systemic family therapy. New York: New York: Basic Books.
Brunner/Mazel.
Millon, T., Grossman, S., Meagher, S., Millon, C., & Ev-
Magnavita, J. J. (1997). Restructuring personality disor- erly, G. (1999). Personality-guided therapy. Hoboken, NJ:
ders: A short-term dynamic approach. New York: Guilford Wiley.
Press.
Norcross, J. C. (Ed.). (2002). Psychotherapy relationships
Magnavita, J. J. (2000). Relational therapy for personality that work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to
disorders. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. patients. New York: Oxford University Press.
Magnavita, J. J. (2002a). Psychodynamic approaches to Prager, K. J. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New
psychotherapy: A century of innovations. In F. W. Kaslow York: Guilford Press.
(Series Ed.) & J. J. Magnavita (Vol. Ed.), Comprehensive
handbook of personality disorders: Psychodynamic/object Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human develop-
relations (Vol. 1, pp. 1–12). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schore, A. N. (2003). Affect regulation and the repair of Synder, D. K. (1999). Affective reconstruction in the con-
the self. New York: Norton. text of a pluralistic approach to couple therapy. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 348 –365.
Schwartz, J. M., & Begley, S. (2002). The mind and the
brain: Neuroplasticity and the power of mental force. New
York: HarperCollins. Talbot, M. (1991). The holographic universe. New York:
Harper Perennial.
Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind: Toward a neu-
robiology of interpersonal experience. New York: Guilford Teicher, M. H. (2002). Scars that won’t heal: The neurobi-
Press. ology of child abuse. Scientific American, 286, 68 –75.
Spitz, R. (Producer). (1947). Grief: A peril in infancy von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foun-
[Silent film]. (Available from the Archives of the His- dations, development, applications. New York: Braziller.
tory of Psychology, Penn State University, http://www
.mediasales.psu.edu) Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional
reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1– 4.
Staats, A. W. (1983). Psychology’s crisis of disunity: Phi-
losophy and method for a unified science. New York: Prae-
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge.
ger.
New York: Knopf.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Unified psy-
chology. American Psychologist, 56, 1069 –1079. Winnicott, D. W. (1964). The child, the family and the out-
side world. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin.
Stolovizky, G., & Califano, A. (2006, March/April). Sys-
tems biology: Making sense of oceans of biological data.
Update: New York Academy of Sciences, 20 –33.