Advertisement

GOLEM — Two Adaptive Systems Communicate

  • Hansjörg Znoj
Part of the Springer Series in Synergetics book series (SSSYN, volume 58)

Abstract

The main topic of this contribution is the interaction of theoretical concepts of psychotherapy change processes, basic properties of the GOLEM — the name stands for goal-oriented learning model — and their empirical investigation. Starting with psychotherapeutic schema theory a connectionist model is proposed to meet the most important requirements for a successful psychotherapeutic process. It is able to represent environment, to act and to communicate. The second part of this article deals mainly with the empirical analysis of the concepts obtained from the model and with the verification of conclusions drawn from the model. In this model a systematic variation of input signals suffices to activate those signal representations trapped in local minima (clustered-out areas). This corresponds to the assumption in real therapy that variations in how themes as global representations of interactional situations are addressed suffice to bring about change.

Keywords

Negative Emotional State Emotional Involvement Input Signal Output Signal Therapy Process Psychotherapy Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bischof, N. (1985). Das Rätsel Ödipus. München: Piper.Google Scholar
  3. Bischof, S., & Lovey, M. (1990) Erfassung der Veränderungen bei der Bearbeitung von Themen in der Psychotherapie. Vordiplomarbeit, Universität Bern.Google Scholar
  4. Caspar, F. M., & Grawe, K. (1981). Widerstand in der Verhaltenstherapie. In H. Petzold (Eds.), Widerstand — ein strittiges Konzept in der Psychotherapie (pp. 349–384). Paderborn: Junfermann.Google Scholar
  5. Caspar, F. M. (1989). Beziehungen und Probleme verstehen. Eine Einführung in die psychotherapeutische Plananalyse. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  6. Elliott, R. (1984). A discovery-oriented approach to significant change events in psychotherapy: Interpersonal recall and comprehensive process analysis. In L. N. Rice & L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), Patterns of change. Intensive analysis of psychotherapy process. (pp. 249–286). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fiedler, P., & Rogge, K.-E. (1989). Zur Prozessuntersuchung psychotherapeutischer Episoden. Ausgewählte Beispiele und Perspektiven. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie, 18(1), 45–54.Google Scholar
  8. Grawe, K, & Caspar, F. (1984). Die Plananalyse als Konzept und Instrument für die Psychotherapieforschung. In U. Baumann (Eds.), Psychotherapie: Makro- und Mikroperspektiven. (pp. 177–197). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  9. Grawe, K. (1986). Schema-Theorie und interaktioneile Psychotherapie (No. 1986/1). Universität Bern.Google Scholar
  10. Grawe, K., Amstutz, B., Balmer, R., Braun, U., Doblies, G., Heiniger, B., Thierstein, C., & Znoj, H. (1991). The Bernese standardized case history approach: the schemaanalytic therapy of Ms. E. Paper presented at the Society for Psychotherapy Research 22nd Annual Meeting, July 1991, Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  11. Greenberg, L. S. (1984). Task analysis. The general approach. In L. N. Rice & L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), Patterns of change. Intensive analysis of psychotherapy process. (pp. 124–148). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  12. Hebb, D. (1949). The organisation of behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Karplus, M., & McCammon, A. J. (1986). Das dynamische Verhalten von Proteinen. In P. Sitte (Ed.), Die Moleküle des Lebens (pp. 74–84). Heidelberg: Spektrum der Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  14. Marko, H. (1966). Die Theorie der bidirektionalen Kommunikation und ihre Anwendung auf die Nachrichtenübermittlung zwischen Menschen (subjektive Information). Kybernetik, 3(3), 128–136.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  16. Palm, G. (1988). Modellvorstellungen auf der Basis neuronaler Netzwerke. In H. Mandl & H. Spada (Eds.), Wissenspsychologie. München: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  17. Prigogine, I. (1977). Self organisation in nonequilibrium systems: from dissipative structures to order through fluctuations. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Rotter, J. B. (1966). General expectancies for internal vs. external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80.Google Scholar
  19. Sachse, R. (1988). Finbe-System: Manual für formale, inhaltliche und Bearbeitungs-Analyse von Klienten- und Therapeuten-Äusserungen (Berichte aus der Arbeitseinheit Klinische Psychologie No. 65). Ruhr-Universität Bochum.Google Scholar
  20. Segal, L. (1986). Das 18. Kamel oder die Welt als Erfindung. Zum Konstruktivismus Heinz von Foersters. München: Piper.Google Scholar
  21. Toukmanian, S. G. (1986). A measure of client perceptual processing. In L. S. Greenberg & W. M. Pinsof (Eds.), The psychotherapeutic process: a research handbook (pp. 107–130). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  22. Tschuschke, V., & Czogalik, D. (1990). Psychotherapie — Welche Effekte verändern? Zur Frage der Wirkmechanismen therapeutischer Prozesse. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Waddington, C. H. (1942). Canalization of development and the inheritance of aquired characters. Nature, 150(3811), 563–565.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Winograd, T. (1983). Language as a cognitive process. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hansjörg Znoj

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations