'Being with' and 'making psychological contact'- fostering the development of the person’s sense of self?

Writing last week about the term 'Being with', which was used by Ben Smith in the new book Integrating Intensive Interaction (2017, Routledge),  well it made me think about the conclusions that were drawn (mainly by Dr Ruth Berry) in our 2014 paper: ‘Clinical Psychologists’ Views of Intensive Interaction as an Intervention in Learning Disability Services’, Berry, R., Firth, G., Leeming, C. & Sharma, V. (2014) Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 21 (5), 403-410.

In our research we interviewed some Intensive Interaction minded clinical psychologists to gain insight into their views on and use of the approach. One of our findings was that:

'... the participants were using Intensive Interaction to establish psychological contact with people who are difficult to reach ... as one participant emphasised: ‘you can’t overstate the importance of communication: without it you can’t interact and without interactions you can’t have a relationship’.'

Also: '[The] participants talked about using Intensive Interaction with people who are difficult to reach and their comments about its benefits can be understood in Person Centred Therapy terms; they described it as a means for establishing psychological contact.'

Now apparently (and please remember, I am not a psychologist) Person Centred Therapy (also known as Rogerian therapy as it originated from the work of the American psychologist Carl Rogers) is an established form of therapy that is designed to  promote improved psychological well-being by helping a person develop their self-knowledge and self-awareness. The therapeutic process aims to both nurture psychological growth, and also through the therapeutic process reduce a person's emotional distress.

So just 'being with' someone, and doing so with 'unconditional positive regard' (as Rogers would say), could justifiably be seen as a humanistic psychological intervention to help those people who, for a number of reasons, are difficult to socially engage. Extrapolating that thought, surely Intensive Interaction could therefore also be seen as a therapeutic tool that, by developing unconditional inter-subjective communication, directly fosters psychological contact and thus has the clear potential to promote emotional well-being.

So perhaps there needs to be more work (in 2018?) directly linking Intensive Interaction conceptualisations to established psychological theory? As we (well Dr Ruth really) say in our paper, we need to do this:

'....[to] create the prospect of an evidence-based therapy for people who are unable to access traditional psychotherapies but may be in great need of experiencing psychological contact and connectedness'.

Rogers C. (1957) ‘The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Therapeutic Personality Change’ Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 21, 95–103.