How Does Internal Family Systems Therapy Lead To Transformational Change ?

Despite a growing interest in psychotherapy effectiveness, it is unclear how positive change occurs in therapy. Ecker et al. (2012, p. 30) posit that psychotherapists can achieve transformational change by deliberately applying a “therapeutic reconsolidation process” (TRP) to induce memory reconsolidation, the brain’s mechanism for permanently updating emotional learning. Leading Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapists also believe that IFS induces memory reconsolidation but do not provide detailed examples of how this happens. Further elaborations and examples are needed for psychotherapists to improve their practice. This paper will apply Ecker et al.’s (2012) TRP to the IFS protocol, drawing on a case example to illustrate how memory reconsolidation occurs in IFS.

There is evidence that psychotherapy can lead to positive transformational change, but how this occurs remains largely unclear (Cuijpers et al., 2019). In the last decade, psychotherapists have become interested in the neurobiological process of memory reconsolidation (MR), the brain’s mechanism of permanently updating emotional learning (Ecker et al., 2012). Psychotherapist Ecker and colleagues have extensively researched how this brain process can be applied to psychotherapy (Ecker, 2018; Ecker & Bridges, 2020; Ecker et al., 2022; Ecker & Vaz, 2022; Vaz & Ecker, 2020). They posit that MR has significant implications for clinical practice due to its potential to bring transformational change, understood as an internal shift in subjective experience giving permanent relief from challenging symptoms (Ecker & Bridges, 2020). MR is seen as a unifying framework for effective psychotherapy irrespective of modality and symptoms (Ecker & Vaz, 2022).

Ecker et al. (2012, p. 5) list IFS as one of the “focused, experiential, in-depth psychotherapies that are congenial to fulfilling” MR among other therapies such as Coherence Therapy and Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR). Leading IFS therapists agree that IFS induces MR (Anderson, 2021; Anderson et al., 2017; Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020). They briefly correlate the steps of MR to IFS protocol but do not provide clinical examples. Similarly, Ecker et al. (2012) do not provide IFS-specific examples.

Yet to become effective, therapists must engage in deliberate practice with clearly defined learning goals and repeatable steps (Caspar, 2017). To facilitate this, therapists must understand the theory of “comprehensive and highly detailed models of therapeutic change” (Caspar, 2017, p. 208). Moreover, learning from case examples is deemed important for therapists to develop their theoretical and practical capabilities (Neidhart & Löffler-Stastka, 2020). Weaving together theory and practice, this paper seeks to contribute to psychotherapists’ professional development by applying Ecker et al.’s (2012) TRP to an IFS session. First, key concepts of MR in the psychotherapy context and of IFS as a psychotherapeutic modality will be outlined.

Discovered between 1997 and 2000, MR is the brain’s only known method for fully revising previously learned information encoded in long-term memory, leading to a permanent change in a person’s subjective experience (Ecker et al., 2012). Memory in this context is understood not simply as the remembering of facts and events (Ecker & Vaz, 2022). Specifically in relation to psychotherapy, memory is defined as “semantic, schematic knowledge that formed implicitly and nonverbally on the basis of emotionally significant life experiences” (Ecker & Vaz, 2022, p. 8). In other words, memory is a learned construct based on how a person has made sense of and feels about an experience.

It is this type of “knowing”, “emotional learning” or “schema” gained in the past that drives behaviours, thoughts and emotions that generate a wide range of symptoms in the present; hence, such emotional learnings are usually the target for therapeutic change (Ecker et al., 2012, p. 15).

As explained by Ecker and Vaz (2022), neurobiological research has established three conditions required for MR to occur. The first condition is the reactivation of the target memory. Second, the target memory must be disconfirmed by inducing a concurrent juxtaposition, or mismatch, experience, leading to the destabilisation of the target memory. Third, repetitions of the juxtaposition of these two experiences are required to prompt the full unlearning and rewriting of the destabilised target memory. In this process, memories of facts or events remain unaffected, but the associated emotional charge and meaning are transformed. These three conditions must be met within a five-hour window while the learning is destabilised.

Ecker and colleagues have termed this three-step process the “empirically confirmed process of erasure” (ECPE) (Ecker, 2018, p. 24), recently renamed as the “empirically confirmed process of annulment” (ECPA) (Ecker & Vaz, 2022, pp. 4–5). Essentially, MR is unique because it annuls, or voids, a learning rather than creating a new, competing learning, which would lead to counteractive, as opposed to transformational change (Ecker & Vaz, 2022). With this process at its core, Ecker et al. (2012, p. 30) have developed the TRP as a seven-step protocol (ABC-123-V) (see Table 1).

The TRP is divided into three phases. The accessing sequence (I) consists of steps A, B and C and, while not essential for neuroscientists, is important in the therapeutic context to elicit vital client information (Ecker et al., 2012). This includes identifying the symptom of concern (A), bringing into conscious awareness the emotional learnings underlying the symptom (B) and identifying disconfirming knowledge (C) (Ecker et al., 2012). Once initial client information has been accessed, the transformation sequence (II) follows, consisting of the previously outlined three-step neurobiological MR process (steps 1, 2, and 3) (Ecker et al., 2012). Last, the verification phase (III) includes step V, which enables therapists to determine whether the desired symptom relief has been achieved (Ecker et al., 2012). In laboratory experiments, neuroscientists verified that MR had occurred via behavioural tests. For psychotherapy, Ecker et al. (2012) have defined three markers of change to fulfil step V; namely that the client is no longer emotionally triggered, that their symptom has ceased and that this state remains as a continuous and effortless transformation.

IFS is an evidence-based psychotherapy modality developed by family therapist Schwartz in the 1980s (Hughes et al., 2022). Based on systems theory, IFS holds that the mind in its natural and healthy state is a multiple entity composed of many parts, or subpersonalities, that operate as an inner family system (Catanzaro et al., 2019). These subpersonalities possess a full range of emotions, thoughts, sensations and beliefs and under ideal circumstances grow into complementary roles as the individual develops (Catanzaro et al., 2019). Like many spiritual traditions, IFS also posits that everyone has a central core, the Self, which is not a part. This centre is “the innate, healthy, wise and compassionate presence in all human beings” (Spiegel, 2017, p. 14). The Self remains undamaged in any circumstances and its inner healing powers are always accessible (Spiegel, 2017).

Human internal family systems are “delicate ecologies” (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020, p. 41). Under adverse or traumatic conditions, parts take on extreme positions within the system to secure survival (Spiegel, 2017). Such protective strategies can lead to unwanted outcomes, which IFS conceptualises as well-meaning attempts at restoring internal balance rather than pathology (Spiegel, 2017). This non-pathologising approach is especially well-suited for trauma therapy because it welcomes extreme, complex symptoms common to clients affected by trauma (Hodgdon et al., 2021).

Parts are categorised as exiles and protectors (Anderson et al., 2017). Exiles are young parts that have experienced trauma and hurt and carry overwhelming feelings, thoughts, beliefs and sensations called burdens (Spiegel, 2017). Protectors banish these young parts out of awareness to protect the system from unbearable emotional pain (Spiegel, 2017). Protectors embody the role of either managers or firefighters (Anderson et al., 2017). Managers are proactive and help the client to function in daily life through roles such as working hard, pleasing people, perfectionism and inner criticism (Anderson et al., 2017). Firefighters are reactive and focus on immediately suppressing any emotional pain of exiles through extreme strategies such as addictions, rage, self-harm or suicide (Anderson et al., 2017).

The goal of IFS therapy is to heal and integrate protective and exiled parts to enable Self-leadership of the internal system (Anderson et al., 2017). Rather than eliminating parts, IFS seeks to relieve them of their extreme roles so that their original talents and strengths can unfold in the system (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020). While the therapeutic relationship is highly valued, IFS seeks to build the relationship between the client’s Self and their parts as the primary healing agent (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020).

As elaborated in Table 2, IFS therapy begins with eliciting the client’s symptoms and learning about the parts involved (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020). Using the 6Fs, the therapist invites the client to find and focus on a target part and flesh out more details. Befriending occurs through compassionate dialogue with parts. Asking the client how they feel toward parts helps the client to unblend, or differentiate, from their parts and gain a compassionate stance, or Self-energy, while learning about their fears about letting go of protective strategies (Spiegel, 2017). Once a part feels understood and trusts the client’s Self, therapists seek permission to work with the exile, or the core wound that gave rise to the protector’s strategy (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020). Gradually, the client’s Self builds a connection with the exile, and engages in witnessing the past burdening experiences, before the do-over, where the Self offers the exile a corrective experience (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020). Next, a retrieval of the exile to the present occurs, followed by an invitation to release its burdens, and replace them with desired qualities. The final protector check-in explores whether protectors are ready to pivot their roles (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020).

The next section applies the TRP to IFS as it unfolds in a single therapy session, inspired by case examples of various psychotherapeutic modalities offered by Ecker et al. (2012). In this session, IFS founder and therapist Schwartz works with a male client, Ethan, in the presence of his female partner Sarah, exploring Ethan’s social activist part (Schwartz, 2021). The full transcript is accessible in Schwartz’s No bad parts (Schwartz, 2021, pp. 109–125). As the transcript is already published, and the original publication refers to the clients by their real names, this paper assumes their consent. The transcript was chosen because it shows the basic steps of IFS and includes a postscript to verify longer-term results (Schwartz, 2021).

The accessing sequence (I) contains steps A, B and C (Ecker et al., 2012). In step A, the therapist elicits client information regarding what and when symptoms occur; this may include pinpointing situations, thoughts, feelings, behaviours or sensations (Ecker & Bridges, 2020). In step B, the therapist helps the client to become aware of implicit emotional learnings underlying the symptoms, enabling them to be felt, sensed and articulated verbally in a way that makes sense to the client (Ecker & Bridges, 2020). In step C, the therapist looks for disconfirming knowledge that may serve to contradict the target emotional learnings being uncovered in step B because contradictory material can later be drawn on to create juxtaposition experiences (Ecker & Bridges, 2020).

From an IFS perspective, Anderson (2021, p. 182) describes the accessing sequence as
“protective parts granting the Self permission to be with buried or suppressed memories held within the exiled or hidden parts of our client”. According to Anderson et al. (2017), this occurs when the therapist asks the client to find, focus and flesh out the target part to gain a deeper understanding of the part’s concerns. This encourages unblending, enabling the client’s Self to build a relationship with the part (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020).

The accessing phase in the session begins with Ethan finding and focusing on the “the destroyer of injustice” (destroyer); a protector who sometimes attacks others
in its warrior-like quest for social justice and has been shunned by Ethan for causing friction in his relationship with Sarah (Schwartz, 2021, p. 111) (A). As Ethan fleshes out more detail, he sobs in sadness, revealing that he wants to prevent it from hurting others, yet desires to honour its mission “to protect the world” from injustices such as white supremacy, classism and environmental decline (Schwartz, 2021, p. 111) (B). Thus, through finding the target part, focusing on it and beginning to flesh it out, the TRP’s steps A and B are fulfilled as we learn that the main symptom is attack and the underlying emotional learning is the need to protect life.

Initial disconfirming knowledge (C) also emerges in several ways in this non-pathologising opening dialogue (Schwartz, 2021, p. 111). First, the positive intention
of the protector is recognised, contradicting Ethan’s concern that it needs to be entirely banished. Second, as Ethan apologises to Sarah, he is met with encouragement from Sarah and Schwartz to explore this part, rather than blame. Third, Ethan begins to unblend from the part, learning that he can be with the part compassionately, rather than being either consumed by its fierce energy or having to suppress it.

With steps A, B and C fulfilled, the process can now advance to the transformation sequence’s steps 1, 2 and 3; the empirically confirmed steps drawn from MR research (Vaz & Ecker, 2020). However, as will be seen, new symptoms (A) and new emotional learnings underlying the symptoms (B) are retrieved gradually throughout the remaining session. This is likely because, as IFS therapists say, parts will continue to share new information previously kept out of awareness as parts begin to trust the client’s Self and the therapist (Catanzaro et al., 2019).

The transformation sequence (II) begins with step 1, in which the target emotional learning causing the symptom (B) is reactivated by eliciting associated cues (Ecker
et al., 2012). But the unlearning process does not commence until step 2, where the client must concurrently experience both the original emotional learning causing the symptom as well as contradictory new learning (C) as “two contrasting emotional truths” (Vaz & Ecker, 2020, p. 10). This juxtaposition “must feel decisively real to the person based on his or her own living experience”, rather than being limited to intellectual understanding (Ecker et al., 2012, p. 27). Finally, step 3 leads to annulment of the original emotional learning via several repetitions that couple the original (B) and new learnings (C) (Ecker et al., 2012). As emotional learnings are usually complex constructs, often multiple components have the potential to serve as material for mismatch and annulment (Ecker et al., 2012). Step 3 repetitions of new learnings can thus be the same or additional to those experienced in step 2 (Ecker et al., 2012).

Anderson (2021, p. 165) correlates this transformation process to IFS’s “steps of healing”, namely witnessing, do-over, followed by retrieval, unburdening, invitation and protector check-in. In the witnessing and do-over steps, the “Self can be with, listen to, validate, and give the part what it needed, wanted, and never got”, creating a novel corrective experience (Anderson, 2021, p. 182). In the succeeding steps, protectors and exiles acquire further mismatch experiences through retrieval to a new place, replacing their burdens with desired qualities and taking on new roles (Anderson, 2021). Moreover, the unblending process is also vital in reactivating and destabilising the target emotional learning because the client is concurrently in Self and with parts rather than being flooded as if they are the part (Anderson et al., 2017).

In the session, step 1 of the transformation sequence, where the target emotional learning (B) (namely the part’s need to fiercely protect life) is being reactivated, begins with finding, focusing on and fleshing out the part once more. This happens via Schwartz asking Ethan where in or around his body he can find the target part (destroyer) (Schwartz, 2021, p. 112). Engaging somatically is vital because implicit emotional memory is stored in the body and hence requires clients to focus their attention on their internal felt sense (Lepak & Carson, 2021). For this purpose, IFS uses the technique of in-sight, whereby clients are encouraged to draw their attention inwards to communicate with their parts, often through the form of imagery, feeling or sensing (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020, p. 113). Noting the brain’s lack of differentiation between real or imagined experiences, Ecker et al. (2012) encourage such experiential methods.

Step 2 of the transformation sequence begins as Ethan starts to feel the destroyer in his chest and Schwartz enquires how he feels towards it, enabling Ethan to unblend from the destroyer (Schwartz, 2021, p. 112). Unblending forms a juxtaposition (2) because the client is at once aware of the target part, can be with, and feel compassion towards it, while the part becomes aware of the existence of Self as a benevolent leader of the internal system (Anderson et al., 2017). Importantly, this juxtaposition repeats throughout the session in parallel to the ongoing unblending process as a key feature in IFS therapy, thus already contributing to step 3 of the transformation sequence.

Next, the session appears to flow into an interplay between steps B, 1, C and 2. This confirms Ecker et al.’s (2012) statement that while the TRP is presented as a sequence, the process is not always linear and can differ across therapeutic modalities. When met with compassion and enough unblending occurs, the part begins to trust Ethan’s Self enough to gradually reveal more nuanced emotional knowledge (B), namely that Ethan must stay “committed to real justice for all life” and protect life on the planet for his daughters. The part also allows him to feel this in sobs of sadness (1) (Schwartz, 2021, pp. 112–113). This occurs as Ethan is guided by Schwartz to further flesh out and befriend this part, gently enquiring about its role and positive intention (Schwartz, 2021, pp. 112–113). In this segment, Schwartz also repeatedly applies a strategy he calls hope merchant, whereby he gives hope that the destroyer could be more effective in his role if it allowed a different way of collaborating with Ethan (Schwartz, 2021, p. 113). As this disconfirming perspective (C) becomes available, a mismatch (2) occurs as the previously shunned destroyer now feels “excited that he could come out” and sees “ripples of potential” for operating differently (Schwartz, 2021, p. 113).

Subsequently, it appears that the session returns to steps A, B and C of the accessing sequence (I), as the destroyer now begins to trust enough to reveal more symptoms (A) and retrieve further information (B), and eventually relaxes enough to allow the exile, or core wound, to be accessed (Schwartz, 2021, pp. 113–114). This occurs when the destroyer is asked if he is protecting other parts, and gradually reveals a sad, retreated, crying and frozen exiled 13-year-old boy (A) who lost his dad to a fatal accident caused by a drunk driver (Schwartz, 2021, pp. 113–116). Exiling this young part had been necessary because “there is no room for me crying when everything is dying”
(Schwartz, 2021, pp. 113–116) (B). Based on the above, it may be deduced that the TRP can return to steps A and B when a new part enters the scene. However, step 1 happens simultaneously because the newly retrieved emotional learning (B) is experienced in the moment it is being revealed. Step 2 follows as the Self is a compassionate companion to the part while concurrently feeling the part’s pain. As mentioned previously, Self’s presence also contributes to step 3 as a repetition of old and new learnings.

The transformation sequence (II) continues when Ethan begins to contact the exiled boy by finding and focusing on his sadness (A), while also extending compassion and understanding to him (Schwartz, 2021, pp. 114–115) (C and 2). In a tender dialogue between Ethan and the boy facilitated by Schwartz, they learn that the boy felt isolated and alone, believing that he “can’t go on without his dad” (Schwartz, 2021, p. 114) (B and 1). This somatically felt belief is mismatched when Schwartz suggests that Ethan’s present-day Self could offer to be his dad and take care of him (C and 2). Ethan’s caring Self and the boy gradually become closer as Ethan sobs and feels the boy’s sadness and the boy tightly embraces Ethan (Schwartz, 2021, p. 115) (2).

Now that there is a closeness and tenderness between Ethan and the boy, the IFS witnessing process begins as Schwartz asks Ethan to have the boy share what he needs Ethan to know (Schwartz, 2021, p. 115). Ethan learns that the boy felt misunderstood by his mother, brother, teachers and students, and could not understand drunk drivers, reflecting unresolved confusion around his father’s death and its aftermath (B and 1). His sense of confusion is mismatched with warmth and validation from Ethan’s Self that this should not have happened (Schwartz, 2021, pp. 115–116) (C and 2). Ethan also witnesses that the boy felt partly responsible for the accident (Schwartz, 2021, p. 116) (B and 1). A further mismatch occurs as the boy is relieved that contrary to his assumption, he is not to blame for the event (Schwartz, 2021, p. 117) (C and 2). Schwartz continues to build the relationship between Self and the exiled boy by encouraging Ethan to validate the boy’s experiences until the witnessing process feels complete (Schwartz, 2021, p. 117). Based on the above, it appears that the more disconfirmations (C) are offered, and mismatching experiences (2) occur, the more parts trust the Self to reveal additional emotional learnings (B) and feel them (1). This reactivation is constantly mismatched as Self unblends from, befriends, supports and compassionately witnesses the part, contributing to steps C, 2 and 3.

Step 2 of the transformation sequence ensues with the do-over process in IFS. In a do-
over, disconfirming knowledge is generated as the Self offers the exile to enter the witnessed time in the past and give the part whatever was needed (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020). It is important that the exile determines what was required, which promotes choice as an intrinsic corrective experience in the absence of agency in the past (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020). In the do-over, Ethan’s exiled boy experiences several mismatches as Ethan’s Self reciprocates his need to be held, to be reassured that he is not to blame, to receive an explanation of why he was left alone with the experience, and to receive validation that he should have had somebody to support him and now has Ethan’s Self (Schwartz, 2021, pp. 118–119). These are new internally experienced realities that contradict the boy’s experience of feeling alone, misunderstood, unsupported and confused.

So far in the transformation sequence, numerous juxtapositions between old emotional learnings and new corrective experiences have occurred, and unblending has already contributed to step 3. But step 3 fully begins with the retrieval and unburdening phases in IFS because step 3 is associated with the full annulment of the target emotional learnings via several repetitions of B and C experiences (Ecker et al., 2012). It could be said that these final phases of the IFS protocol gather up all the revealed emotional learnings (B), disconfirming information (C) and associated mismatches (2) into a completely new reality emerging in an internally unfolding ritual (3). This can be demonstrated in the remainder of the session.

In a retrieval, the Self invites the exile to come to an either real or imagined safe, new place in the present (Schwartz & Sweezy, 2020). Ethan’s boy chooses to swim in the ocean, which he desires to be full of marine life (Schwartz, 2021, p. 119), thus creating a juxtaposition to being stuck in the past while also addressing the grievances of the protector (destroyer) about declining ocean life (Schwartz, 2021, p. 113) (3). This is a powerful temporal and spatial mismatch because “it is through the juxtaposition of the new and old that the old is dissolved, and the more explicit the juxtaposition, the better” (Ecker et al., 2012, p. 135). In the unburdening phase of IFS, the Self invites the exile to let go of any feelings, beliefs, thoughts or sensations acquired in their traumatic past (Schwartz, 2021). The exile is asked to identify where in or around their body these burdens are held, once again seeking to foster the release of implicit emotional learnings through the body. Ethan’s boy identifies the previously elicited burdens (B) in the back of his head, his heart and stomach, which he elects to release to the ocean and into a canoe that he pushes out to sea (Schwartz, 2021, pp. 119–120) (3).

An additional powerful juxtaposition happens as the spirit of the boy’s dad is called in to help him let go of his sadness about his dad’s death (Schwartz, 2021, p. 120). While typically the unburdening is followed by an invitation for the now unburdened exile to replace the burdens with desired qualities, in this case, the boy enjoys being held by his dad and getting his dad’s confirmation of their ongoing bond (Schwartz, 2021, p. 120). This creates a mismatch from feeling alone to feeling reconnected with his dad, viscerally felt by Ethan who is sobbing while also seeing the boy smile (Schwartz, 2021, p. 121) (3).

Once Ethan confirms that the unburdening feels complete, step 3 continues as the destroyer is called back, in the protector check-in step of IFS, to observe how the boy is doing and gauge whether the protector would be happy to change his role (Schwartz, 2021, p. 121). While Ethan experiences the destroyer as visibly happier, it transpires that the part also wishes to let go of a burden, namely the heavy responsibility “that protecting life is up to him” (Schwartz, 2021, p. 121). This burden, symbolised in Ethan’s internal imagery as a sword, is released to a figure Ethan calls a “mountain woman” (Schwartz, 2021, p. 121). Once the part feels lighter, the symbolic relinquishing of the protector’s role via the sword is then replaced with holding a glowing ball of light, symbolising a new purpose (Schwartz, 2021, p. 122) (3). The process is complete with Ethan contently exiting his internal world and reconnecting with his partner Sarah (Schwartz, 2021, p. 122). This creates a final mismatch experience (3) from concern about tension in their relationship to tender closeness.

While this is not evident from Schwartz’s (2021) transcript, it is common for IFS therapists to ask clients to check in with their parts daily for several weeks to further facilitate their integration into the system. IFS therapists have developed daily post-unburdening practices to support this integration as “an anchor to the unburdening process, thus making it easier to recall this deep healing” (Glass, 2017, p. 37). This further reinforces step 3.

The last phase of the TRP is the verification step (III) (V), which requires the presence of three markers of transformational change; namely, “non-reactivation” of emotional triggers, “non-expression” of symptoms, and “effortless permanence” of those changes (Ecker, 2018, p. 11). From an IFS perspective, post-unburdening clients often report feeling lighter, calmer, more confident and more “Self-led” (Anderson et al, 2017, p. 125). Such salient markers of transformational change can even occur throughout a session as the mismatches begin to dissolve the client’s original emotional learnings (Ecker et al., 2012). This is evident in Ethan’s session when first the protector relaxes enough to allow access to the exile (Schwartz, 2021, p. 114), and the exile calms down as a trusting relationship between Ethan’s Self and the exiled boy develops (Schwartz, 2021, p. 116). Further verification occurs when the exile is “smiling for the first time” following the do-over, and upon retrieval is “happy to see so much life” in the ocean (Schwartz, 2021, p. 119). Finally, the protector is brought back in and smiles, with other parts dancing, and feels a lot lighter with a new purpose (Schwartz, 2021, pp. 121–122).

However, Ecker (2018) stresses that step V needs to be confirmed in follow-up sessions to ensure that symptoms do not recur in situations where they were previously triggered. Step V is evident in Ethan’s post-session reflections (Schwartz, 2021, p. 123). Here, Ethan says that while his “fire for justice and the end of suffering still burned fiercely” it is now shared with others with gentle curiosity and openness rather than creating alienation or conflict (Schwartz, 2021, p. 123). Ethan attributes a sense of “greater spaciousness in my being when issues of justice presented themselves” and a shift in his “energetic field around my body” to the unburdening experienced in the session with Schwartz. He concludes that “my energy around justice work is now more grounded and clean” (Schwartz, 2021, p. 123). Thus, it appears that step V as defined by Ecker has taken place, resulting in permanent change.

Several points about how the TRP unfolds in IFS can be deduced from this case example. First, a unique aspect of IFS is the unblending process, in which the client experiences juxtapositions of concurrently being with and feeling the part’s reality and being in Self (2). Their repetitive nature contributes to step 3 early on
in a session. Second, the more disconfirming knowledge (C) is gained, and mismatches (2) occur, the more parts trust the Self to reveal (B) and experience (1) additional emotional learnings. These reactivations of old experience are then swiftly mismatched as the Self unblends from, befriends, supports and compassionately witnesses the part (2), leading to an organic dance between TRP steps. Third, when new parts emerge, new symptoms (A) and new emotional learnings
(B) may also emerge. Fourth, the final retrieval and unburdening steps of IFS are particularly conducive to offering salient step 3 experiences because they can be conceptualised as summarising all gathered emotional learnings
(B), disconfirming knowledge (C) and mismatches (2) and into a completely new reality unfolding in an internally created ritual (3). Transformative change may already be detectable (V) throughout a session and can be verified in follow-ups. Thus, it appears that in IFS the TRP sequence ABC-123-V leading to MR is abundantly evident with an organic interplay between steps determined by the unfolding relationship and dialogue between the client’s parts and Self.

Drawing on a single session case example, this paper has explored how the TRP leading to transformational change via MR unfolds in IFS therapy. The goal of this paper was to contribute an IFS-specific example to Ecker et al.’s (2012) instructive efforts to show how the TRP can be applied to various psychotherapy models and thus support peer psychotherapists in weaving together theory and deliberate, effective practice. Having demonstrated how the TRP is detectable in the IFS process, the paper strengthens the argument for IFS being a transformative psychotherapeutic modality and shows how this transformation may occur through MR. As such, it also strengthens Ecker et al.’s (2012) thesis that MR is the chief mechanism of transformative change in psychotherapy and may in future become a standard of effective practice. ■

Anderson, F. G. (2021). Transcending trauma: Healing complex PTSD with Internal Family Systems therapy. PESI Publishing.

Anderson, F. G., Sweezy, M., & Schwartz, R. C. (2017). Internal Family Systems skills training manual: Trauma-informed treatment for anxiety, depression, PTSD and substance abuse. PESI Publishing & Media.

Caspar, F. (2017). Professional expertise in psychotherapy. In L. G. Castonguay & C. E. Hill (Eds.), How and why are some therapists better than others? Understanding therapist effects. American Psychological Association.

Catanzaro, J., Doyne, E., & Thompson, K. (2019). IFS (Internal Family Systems) and eating disorders: The healing power of Self-energy. In A. Seubert & P. Virdi (Eds.), Trauma-informed approaches to eating disorders. Springer Publishing Company.

Cuijpers, P., Reijnders, M., & Huibers, M. J. H. (2019). The role of common factors in psychotherapy outcomes. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15(1), 207–231. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424

Ecker, B. (2018). Clinical translation of memory reconsolidation research: Therapeutic methodology for transformational change by erasing implicit emotional learnings driving symptom production. International Journal of Neuropsychotherapy, 6(1), 1–92. doi.org/10.12744/ijnpt.2018.0001-0092

Ecker, B., & Bridges, S. K. (2020). How the science of memory reconsolidation advances the effectiveness and unification of psychotherapy. Clinical Social Work Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10615-020-00754-z

Ecker, B., Ticic, R., & Hulley, L. (2012). Unlocking the emotional brain: Eliminating symptoms at their roots using memory reconsolidation. Routledge. Ecker, B., Ticic, R.,

& Hulley, L. (2022). Unlocking the emotional brain: Eliminating symptoms at their roots using memory reconsolidation (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi-org.ezproxy.une.edu.au/10.4324/9781003221395

Ecker, B., & Vaz, A. (2022). Memory reconsolidation and the crisis of mechanism in psychotherapy. New Ideas in Psychology, 66(100945), 1–11.

Glass, M. (2017). Daily parts meditation practice: A journey of embodied integration for clients and
therapists (2nd ed.). The Listen3r.

Hodgdon, H. B., Anderson, F. G., Southwell, E., Hrubec, W., & Schwartz, R. (2021). Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among survivors of multiple childhood trauma: A pilot effectiveness study. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma,
1–22. doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2021.2013375

Hughes, C. L., Horton, E., & Hammer, T. R. (2022). We’re still standing: Internal Family Systems and Rocketman. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 17(1), 114–122. doi.org/10.1080/15401383.20
20.1842275

Lepak, M. M., & Carson, G. D. (2021). Presence psychotherapy: A novel integrative trauma treatment model for thorough memory reconsolidation. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration. https://doi.org/10.1037/int0000273

Neidhart, E., & Löffler- Stastka, H. (2020, July 6). Case studies in psychotherapy training using Austria as an example. World Journal of Clinical Cases, 8(13), 2787–2801. doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v8.i13.2787

Schwartz, R. C. (2021). No bad parts: Healing trauma and restoring wholeness with the Internal Family Systems model. Sounds True.

Schwartz, R. C., & Sweezy, M. (2020). Internal Family Systems therapy (2nd ed.). Guildford Press.

Spiegel, L. (2017). Internal Family Systems therapy with children. Routledge.

Vaz, A., & Ecker, B. (2020). Memory reconsolidation in psychotherapy for severe perfectionism within borderline personality. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76(11), 2067–2078. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/$8995 jclp.23058

HOW DOES INTERNAL FAMILY SYSTEMS THERAPY LEAD TO TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE THROUGH MEMORY RECONSOLIDATION?