How to differentiate "angry" modes (from Wendy Behary)

The board want to initiate a discussion about ongoing issues in ST. Wendy startet with some thoughts about diffentiating expressions of anger among the patients.

It has been the experience of many of the therapists that I train, colleagues that I share ideas with, along with many of you who have shared your wonderful work with me, that it can sometimes be a challenge differentiating "angry" modes - the angry child mode vs. the overcompensation (bully) mode vs. a defiant detached protector mode. Of course, effective treatment implications are informed by a keen conceptualization of patients in both schema and mode terms. So, it becomes obviously important that we have a clear understanding of which mode is being presented when a patient exhibits anger. Although these modes are well-defined in our literature and recent mode research, there still seems to remain some confusion, at times, about how to distinguish them one from the other.

In treatment terms: angry child mode is typically met with a patient attunement, collaborative limit-setting, and gentle reassurance as we try to reach in to connect with the "hurting" vulnerable child who is usually close by. Overcompensation or "bullying" mode is typically met with empathic confrontation and/or limit setting strategies, more often on an adult-to-adult platform, as we try to release the vulnerable child who is tucked in a bit deeper within the implicit memory system. Defiant detached protector mode may be met with a more curious type of confrontation as we ask questions that measure the costs and gains of shutting down and examine the seeming defiant anger attached to their shutting down; followed by experiential strategies to try and lower the "wall" they have constructed around them, make links to the origins of the mode, and help them to safely experience the very tucked-in child who is often more deeply imbedded.

The possibility for the use of schema-therapy needs-meeting strategies, like adaptive re-parenting and therapy relationship work, imagery and mode dialogues is evident when working with any of these modes, but the most effective selection is often related to emphasis, timing, and tone. It's asking the question - "How is this linked to early experience and life patterns, and how does this presentation bring about self-defeating consequences for my client in their current life experiences?" This sets the navigator for determining the appropriate strategies for change.

The clue to identification often lies in our paying close attention to the client's narrative, our case conceptualization, the mode-triggering event, and the style of the patient's presentation. Sometimes it's the resonant sensation within us (when we are not personally triggered) that allows for knowing which mode we are encountering.

I am happy to share more of my own thoughts, but for now - just wondering what your thoughts are about this issue and what helps you to make clear distinctions when labeling these sometimes similarly expressed modes?

Looking forward to a lively exchange with all of you...

Warm Regards,
Wendy