Is systemic thinking really extraneous to common sense?

Abstract

Systemic therapists assume, but have not yet proved that ordinary people: (i) normally do not use triadic thinking and (ii) are able, thanks to therapists' interviewing techniques, to construct triadic explanations. To test these assumptions this study analyses the explanations provided by 400 undergraduates of an unexpected piece of behaviour framed in four stimulus situations where the breadth of the observation field was manipulated. The results show that triadic explanations are unusual and increase with the widening of the field of observation from the monad to the triad. It is the 'enigmatic' triadic situation -adding a puzzling discrepancy between the actors' forms of behaviour -that elicits more triadic explanations. This suggests that therapists should explore with clients the contradictions disclosed by the widening of the field of observation and support reframings actively co-constructed with them instead of 'pre-packaged' ones.

Narcissism and Defending Self-Esteem. An Exploratory Study based on Self-characterizations

“…With regard to triadic/polyadic interactions, our results confirm that triadic contexts do not feature in people"s "common sense" schemas [34]: subjects tend to think of interactions predominantly in dyadic terms. However it is interesting to note that the highest frequency of triadic/polyadic interactions occurs in relation to threats to self-esteem.…”

The Power Semantics in Self and Other Repertory Grid Representations: A Comparison between Obese and Normal-Weight Adult Women

“…Following this perspective, Ugazio’s (1998), Ugazio and Castiglioni (1998), Ugazio et al (2007, 2009, 2012) theory states that the obesity (as well as all the other eating disorders) would be closely linked to the problem of meaning and to the position that everyone occupies within their context of interaction, particularly within the family. People construct their identities in interacting with others, occupying a position within the conversation.…”

Blame, responsibility and systemic neutrality: a discourse analysis methodology to the study of family therapy problem talk

“…A possible interpretation may be linked to the discussed and theorized division between systemic thinking and a linear type of epistemology (Bateson, ; Furman and Ahola, ; Stanton and Welsh, ). There is empirical evidence (Ugazio et al ., ) that attribution theorists and systemic therapists rightly point to the absence of triadic thinking and systemic explanations in common sense. Thus, the therapists' attempt to introduce what Stanton and Welsh (, p. 16) refer to as ‘a complex set of causation,’ may constitute a case of too great a difference from common‐sense explanations to make sense (Andersen, ).…”

“…For example, Ugazio et al . 's () innovation of adding a systemic variable, that is, extending the inferential context of the vignettes presented to participants could prove fruitful in the study of attributions. On the other hand, we recommend the further pursuit of studies of attributions in naturally occurring therapeutic dialogue with more extensive sampling that incorporate a systemic perspective in DA methodology (Tseliou and Eisler, ).…”