641 ENGLISH SUMMARY power that justified the theoretical assumptions of Movement-as-anchor. Complex systems theory is based on the assumption that all components of a (any) system exert mutual influence on one another. In the case of Movement-as-anchor these influences become visible in three possible means of basic communication: a) a person is able to initiate contact with another; b) a person is able to initiate disengagement from contact with another; c) a person is able to follow another, we can state that all clients had problems with one or more of these possibilities. The process of eliciting initiative and follow behaviour occurred in all cases through the therapist. Generally, the therapist first aligned with the movements of the client, then made a distinctive movement to “take” the client in a different direction. When togetherness posed a threat, the initial focus was on being different from the client to make sure that the client gained control over the amount of togetherness and connection. This structural similarity in all cases point to a general regularity in approaching problems with reciprocity and the development of following and takinginitiative behaviour and reveals the nomothetic element of the approach as a complex system. At the same time, all cases were also unique, revealing the idiographic element of the method. Specific instructions provided to the therapist were based on the unique characteristics of the dyad. The choice of a particular movement characteristic is determined by both the movements present in the client and the therapist’s preference which movement feature they can work with best and most comfortably. The therapist’s experience is also taken into consideration in the decision-making process. The specific developmental goal of the client is also taken into consideration, such as developing following behaviour or taking initiative. In addition, the choice of activity also plays a role. It should be age-appropriate and aligned with the client’s interests, as well as adapted to the interaction pattern of a younger child, as we have observed. The idiographic element of Movement-as-anchor makes it clear that a protocolled treatment is not feasible. Even if we were to (hypothetically) say that a choice regarding the movement feature speed should always be made, the implementation would still be unique. Speed may refer to the same speed of movement or speech, but it can also refer to the duration of movement or speech, or the rhythm of turn-taking. The unique nature of the dyad unequivocally necessitates the idiographic application of the general goal, namely, to develop mutual following behaviour and initiative to promote reciprocity. All cases demonstrated that this unique application is not an obstacle to achieving these goals, but rather a prerequisite. This also implies that the same client, in relation to a different therapist, can work towards the same developmental goal, such as developing following behaviour, but the actual intervention will be unique and idiographic. A
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw