The present work aims at developing a scale for the assessment of a construct that we called “physical–digital integration”, which refers to the tendency of some individuals not to perceive a clear differentiation between feelings and perceptions that pertain to the physical or digital environment. The construct is articulated in four facets: identity, social relationships, time–space perception, and sensory perception. Data from a sample of 369 participants were collected to evaluate factor structure (unidimensional model, bifactor model, correlated four-factor model), internal (...) consistency (Cronbach’s _α_, McDonald’s _ω_), and correlations of the physical–digital integration scale with other measures. Results showed that the scale is valid and internally consistent, and that both the total score and the scores at its four subscales are worthy of consideration. The physical–digital integration scores were found to be differently associated with digital and non-digital behaviors, individuals’ ability to read emotions in the facial expressions of others, and indicators of psychosocial functioning (anxiety, depression, and satisfaction with social relationships). The paper proposes a new measure whose scores are associated with several variables that may have relevant consequences at both individual and social levels. (shrink)

The main aim of this study is to explore the breadth of the inference field and the type of etiopathogenetic contents of symptom explanations provided by the client and therapist in the first two psychotherapy sessions conducted using a systemic approach. Does the therapist use triadic explanations of psychopathology as suggested by her approach? And do clients resort almost exclusively to monadic and dyadic explanations as did the university students in our previous study? What kind of explanations do they propose? (...) The coding system “1 to 3: from the monad to the triad” was applied to the transcripts of 25 individual systemic therapies conducted by the same therapist. This manual allows to code the inference field of symptom explanations according to three categories: monadic, dyadic and triadic. These three broad categories are also used to analyse the etiopathogenetic content of each explanation: traumatic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. Our findings showed that clients and their therapist actually used different inference fields: clients resorted almost exclusively to monadic and dyadic explanations, whereas their therapist included the triadic explanatory level. Moreover, the therapist provided more interpersonal explanations than her clients. Hence, the dissonance between client and therapist about the inference fields¬–a crucial premise of one of the most accepted ideas of therapeutic change according to systemic therapies–is proved, at least among our participants. Thanks to this dissonance, clients and therapists can create a new story, potentially able to change clients’ feelings, without disconfirming their emotions. (shrink)