Lifestyle assessment and early recollections

1. Introduction

Version followed: the Chicago (Dreikurs–Mosak–Shulman) format of life style assessment as set out in Shulman and Mosak, Manual for Life Style Assessment (1988), which contains the Life Style Inventory (LSI; Mosak and Shulman); placed in the four-phase therapy of Mosak and Maniacci, A Primer of Adlerian Psychology (1999), and Tactics in Counseling and Psychotherapy (1998); early-recollection (ER) interpretation supplemented from Mosak and Di Pietro, Early Recollections: Interpretive Method and Application (2006), and Clark, Early Recollections: Theory and Practice in Counseling and Psychotherapy (2002). Not followed: Powers and Griffith's "psycho-clarity" format (1987), Kern's quantitative BASIS-A, Eckstein's workbook adaptations. [source: Routledge catalogue pages for Shulman and Mosak 1988 and Mosak and Di Pietro 2006; structure drawn from the books as cited — uncertain where noted]

Life style assessment is not a stand-alone therapy. It is the structured assessment and interpretation phase of Adlerian psychotherapy. The therapist reconstructs the client's "life style" — the private set of convictions about self, others, life and how one must act to belong and feel significant — from two data streams: the family constellation (how the child found a place among siblings and parents) and early recollections (single remembered childhood incidents, treated as projective because people remember what fits their present convictions). The therapist writes a summary of the client's convictions, "basic mistakes" and assets and shares it with the client. Change is understood to come from insight into one's own goals and mistaken private logic, followed by reorientation: the client recognises the pattern in daily life, catches it, and chooses more socially useful movement, supported by encouragement. Insight alone is not treated as sufficient. [source: Shulman & Mosak 1988 ch. 1; Mosak & Maniacci 1999; Slavik 1991]

2. Framework

The Adlerian phases in the Mosak and Maniacci version (adapted from Dreikurs) are below. Phases overlap; life style assessment is phase 2, and its results drive phases 3–4. [source: Mosak & Maniacci 1999, therapy chapters; Dreikurs' four-phase model — uncertain on exact chapter wording]

Phase 1 — Relationship. Goal: a collaborative, egalitarian relationship with aligned goals (therapist and client agree what they are working toward). Format: initial interview, usually 1–2 sessions. Includes presenting problem, the "subjective situation" (how the client experiences it) and "objective situation" (functioning in the life tasks of work, friendship/community, love/intimacy; Mosak and Dreikurs add self and spiritual tasks), and "The Question" (see 4). Move on when: goals are agreed, the client accepts that looking at childhood and memories is relevant, and there is no acute risk needing first priority.

Phase 2 — Investigation / life style assessment. Goal: gather family constellation and ER data, interpret it, write the summary. Format in the Chicago tradition: family constellation interview in one session (often 50–90 minutes), ERs in the next session, summary prepared between sessions and presented in a third session; so roughly 2–4 sessions. The LSI is used as an interview guide, not a self-report test. In the Dreikurs/Mosak "multiple psychotherapy" format a second therapist may collect or present the material. Move on when: at least the core ERs are collected, sibling ratings and family atmosphere are complete, and a draft summary of convictions, mistakes and assets exists. [source: Shulman & Mosak 1988, "How data are collected"; session counts are typical practice, uncertain — no fixed count]

Phase 3 — Interpretation / insight. Goal: the client recognises the summary as "me" and starts seeing the same convictions at work in current problems, symptoms, the therapy relationship and dreams. Format: summary-sharing session, then ongoing interpretation across sessions. Move on when: the client can name their own pattern and its purpose (what it protects or gets them) and spontaneously reports catching it.

Phase 4 — Reorientation. Goal: action — new behaviour, changed convictions, more social interest, courage. Uses encouragement and the action techniques in 4 (task setting, catching oneself, acting "as if", push-button, etc.). Ending: the client functions better in the life tasks, owns the alternatives, and (optional) re-collected ERs show changed content. [source: Mosak & Maniacci 1999; Mosak & Di Pietro 2006, ch. "Pre- and postintervention ERs"]

Overall length: Adlerian therapy using a full life style is typically brief-to-medium term (often 10–40 sessions) but not fixed. [uncertain]

3. Guiding principles

[source: Mosak & Maniacci 1999; Shulman & Mosak 1988; Slavik 1991; Eckstein, "Innovative interpretative guidelines" — synthesis of principles stated across these]

Holism. The person is a unified whole; every symptom, memory and trait expresses the same life style. Practical meaning: look for the one pattern that makes sense of all data, not separate problems.
Teleology (goal-directedness). Behaviour serves goals, usually a fictional final goal of significance or security. Practical meaning: ask "for what purpose?" and "what does this get or avoid?", not "why/what caused it?"
Phenomenology and biased apperception. People act on how they perceive, not on objective facts. Practical meaning: the client's view of the family matters, not the "true" history; never argue with a memory.
Soft determinism and creativity. Heredity and environment influence but do not determine; the child made choices. Practical meaning: frame the life style as decisions the client made (and can remake), not damage done to them.
Social embeddedness and social interest. Problems are social; health is measured by contribution and belonging. Practical meaning: evaluate convictions by whether they move the client toward or away from others and the life tasks.
Private logic vs. common sense. Mistaken convictions are private, overgeneralised and once useful. Practical meaning: present basic mistakes as understandable childhood conclusions, not pathology.
Consistency and pattern over content. All ERs and sibling data should cohere when correctly interpreted. Practical meaning: if a hypothesis fits only one memory, it is wrong or incomplete.
Tentativeness. Interpretations are hypotheses offered for the client to accept, revise or reject. Practical meaning: use "Could it be…?" and invite correction; client disagreement is data.
Collaboration and equality. Therapist and client are equals working on agreed goals. Practical meaning: share the summary, give the client a copy or let them edit it, and treat goal misalignment as the first thing to fix.
Encouragement. Discouragement underlies most disturbance. Practical meaning: always pair basic mistakes with assets; emphasise effort and strengths.
Use of psychology, not possession. It matters how the client uses what they have, not what they have. Practical meaning: ask how a trait or symptom is used in relationships.
Insight serves action. Understanding is a means to reorientation. Practical meaning: every insight session should end with something to notice or try.

4. Intervention inventory

Organised in the order used: A. initial interview, B. family constellation (the first half of the LSI), C. early recollections, D. summary and sharing, E. using the life style in insight and reorientation. The LSI is described at training level only; its items and layout are not reproduced. [source: Shulman & Mosak 1988; Mosak & Maniacci 1999; Mosak & Di Pietro 2006; Clark 2002 — item-level detail from training knowledge is marked uncertain]

A1. Initial interview: subjective and objective situation, life tasks

Purpose / when: First 1–2 sessions; sets aligned goals and locates where life-task functioning breaks down, giving hypotheses to test against the life style.
Steps: (1) Hear the presenting problem in the client's words; record key phrases verbatim. (2) Subjective situation: how they feel and what they think is wrong. (3) Objective situation: go through work/school, friendship/community, love/sex/family, relationship with self, spiritual/meaning; rate how each is going. (4) Ask when the problem started and what was happening in their life then (onset often coincides with a life-task demand). (5) Agree goals in behavioural terms. (6) Explain that the next sessions will look at childhood family and early memories to understand "the way you approach life".
Example language (illustrative): "When this started, what was being asked of you at the time?" · "In which part of your life is this problem not a problem?"
Watch for: Life tasks the client avoids or omits (often the focus); goals that diverge from yours (e.g., client wants relief from blame, not change). Working: there is a shared written goal and a hypothesis about which task is avoided.

A2. "The Question"

Purpose / when: Initial interview, with somatic or symptom presentations. Dreikurs' question to find what the symptom helps the client avoid; also used to separate likely organic from functional complaints. [source: Dreikurs, as used in Mosak & Maniacci 1999]
Steps: (1) Ask what would be different in their life if the symptom were gone. (2) Note the answer: if they name a task they would take on ("I'd go back to work", "I'd date"), that is the task the symptom may be guarding against. (3) If they answer "nothing would change except the pain is gone", consider a medical origin and refer appropriately. (4) Hold the answer as a hypothesis, do not interpret it yet.
Example language (illustrative): "Suppose you woke up tomorrow and this was gone. What would you be doing that you aren't doing now?"
Watch for: Do not use it to dismiss physical complaints; always keep medical review in place. [synthesis]

B1. Sibling array (constellation description)

Purpose / when: Opens the family constellation interview (phase 2, session 1). Establishes ordinal and psychological position.
Steps: (1) List all siblings from oldest to youngest with age differences relative to the client (+/− years), including the client, deceased siblings, miscarriages/stillbirths the family spoke of, step/half siblings and others raised in the home. (2) For each, ask for a brief description as a child (the client's adjectives, recorded verbatim). (3) Ask who was most different from the client and how, and who was most like the client and how. (4) Ask what kind of child the client was. (5) Ask about sibling relationships: who fought, who played together, who protected or looked after whom, alliances, rivalries. (6) Note gaps: large gaps (Shulman and Mosak use roughly six years or more) may start a new subgroup so a "younger" child may function as an oldest or only. [source: Shulman & Mosak 1988; Shulman & Mosak 1977, "Birth order and ordinal position: two Adlerian views" — gap figure uncertain]
Example language (illustrative): "Starting with the oldest, tell me each child, how much older or younger than you, and in a few words what they were like as kids." · "Who was most different from you? In what way?"
Watch for: Psychological position may differ from ordinal position: a sickly or disabled sibling, the only boy among girls, a dead older sibling, a favourite, or a cousin raised in the home can reshape positions. The "most different" sibling usually marks the main competitor; the client often defines self by contrast. Working: you can state in one sentence how the client found a place among siblings.

B2. Sibling ratings (attribute rankings)

Purpose / when: Same session, after the array. Shows where the client competed, excelled, gave up, and which values the family rewarded.
Steps: (1) Read a list of attributes one at a time. In the LSI these cover areas such as intelligence and school achievement, industriousness and helpfulness, conformity vs. rebellion, pleasing and consideration, getting one's own way, temper and sensitivity, standards and idealism, humour, athletic ability, looks, masculinity/femininity, being spoiled and being punished. [uncertain: exact item list not reproduced] (2) For each, ask which child was "most" and which "least" of that attribute, then where the client was. (3) For only children, rate against "children in general" or peers. (4) Record extremes and the direction of the client's lean. (5) Afterward, scan for patterns: where the client is at an extreme, where siblings split an attribute (sign of competition), clusters (e.g., good/conforming/pleasing vs. rebellious/temper/punished).
Example language (illustrative): "Of all the kids, who was the most intelligent? The least? Where were you?" · "When you say your sister was the 'good one', where did that leave you?"
Watch for: Ratings are perceptions, not facts; do not correct them. Clients who resist ranking ("we were all the same") may be showing a need to avoid comparison; note it and gently ask for a guess. Eckstein's guideline links rating clusters to Mosak's life style "types" (e.g., hardest worker + highest standards toward "driver"); use only as a starting hypothesis. [source: Eckstein, Innovative interpretative guidelines] Working: two or three clear areas of excelling/abandoning emerge.

B3. Physical, school, social and sexual development

Purpose / when: Same session. Fills in organ inferiorities, early successes and failures, peer belonging, and gender development.
Steps: (1) Health and physical development: illnesses, hospitalisations, size, looks, disabilities and how the family responded. (2) School: subjects liked/disliked, performance, relationship with teachers, whether the client was a leader, follower or loner. (3) Social: friends, being picked/left out, role in groups. (4) Sexual development: how information was obtained, puberty experiences, early sexual experiences (ask only to the level the client is comfortable with). (5) Meaningful others outside the family (grandparents, teachers, neighbours).
Example language (illustrative): "Were you sick much as a child? What happened in the family when you were?" · "In a group of kids, where were you usually — leading, going along, or on the edge?"
Watch for: Childhood illness that brought special treatment (possible later use of illness); trauma or abuse disclosures (switch to safety, pacing and standard trauma-informed practice). [synthesis]

B4. Parental models and parent–child relationships

Purpose / when: Same session. Parents model ways to be a man/woman and to handle life; their behaviour toward each child shapes that child's role.
Steps: For each parent or parent figure: (1) age and occupation; (2) what kind of person they were (client's adjectives); (3) what kind of relationship they had with each child; (4) who was the favourite of each parent and why; (5) what ambitions they had for the children; (6) which child was most like this parent and in what way; (7) how they disciplined and rewarded. Then the parents' relationship: who was dominant, how they handled disagreement, affection between them.
Example language (illustrative): "What was your father like as a person when you were growing up?" · "What did your mother want you kids to become?" · "Which of you was most like her?"
Watch for: Gender guiding lines — the client's learned picture of what men and women are and do, usually drawn from the same-sex and opposite-sex parent. Family values — values both parents held in common: Shulman and Mosak note every child must take a position on them (accept, reject, or find a side path), so look for them in each sibling's role. [source: Shulman & Mosak 1988, ch. 2]

B5. Family atmosphere

Purpose / when: Close of the family constellation interview. Captures the emotional climate in which convictions about "life" formed.
Steps: (1) Ask the client to describe the atmosphere at home in a few words. (2) Ask about money, religion, neighbourhood, culture and ethnicity, moves, and major family events (deaths, divorce, illness, war, migration). (3) Characterise the atmosphere, using the client's words first. Adlerian writers describe common types such as authoritarian, rejecting, overprotective, pitying, hopeless, inconsistent, competitive, disparaging, materialistic, high-standards, martyrdom or harmonious. [source: Dreikurs and Shulman & Mosak lineage; exact typology list uncertain]
Example language (illustrative): "If you walked into your house as a kid, what did it feel like?" · "What was the family proud of? What wasn't talked about?"
Watch for: Siblings may experience different atmospheres at different family stages; ask how it changed. Working: you can describe the "world" the child was preparing to meet.

B6. Family constellation summary (written)

Purpose / when: Between sessions, after B1–B5.
Steps: (1) Re-read the data alone. (2) Imagine growing up in this family as this child (a step Eckstein recommends for testing the hypothesis). (3) Write a short narrative paragraph: position, main competitor, areas claimed and abandoned, parental models and family values and the client's stance on them, atmosphere, and the child's resulting "decision" about how to find a place. (4) Phrase it as the child's choices and conclusions. (5) Check it against the presenting problem.
Example language (illustrative, written summary): "The younger of two girls, she found the 'smart one' place already taken and staked out being the easy, pleasing child; she learned that being agreeable kept her included, and that conflict meant losing her place."
Watch for: Avoid blaming parents; keep it about the client's interpretations. A summary that could fit anyone is too generic.

C1. Eliciting early recollections

Purpose / when: Second assessment session (or the second half of the LSI). ERs are treated as a projective record of present convictions. [source: Mosak & Di Pietro 2006, ch. "Test administration"; Slavik 1991; Clark 2002]
Steps: (1) Explain briefly that you want specific early memories, and the difference between a recollection (one incident you can picture) and a report (something that happened regularly, e.g., "we used to go to the lake"). (2) Ask for the earliest memory, "as far back as you can go". The Chicago format takes memories from roughly before age 8; some writers allow up to about 10. [uncertain: cut-off varies by author] (3) Write the memory verbatim, in the client's words and order, including hesitations and corrections. (4) Ask for the most vivid moment. (5) Ask what they felt at that moment, and why they felt that. (6) Repeat for further memories. Collect at least three; Slavik notes up to about ten; more memories raise confidence in themes. [uncertain: minimum differs across sources] (7) If the client gives a report, accept it, note it as a report, and ask whether one particular time stands out. (8) If memories run dry, wait; ask for "another one, any memory at all"; do not prompt content.
Example language (illustrative): "Think back as far as you can, to when you were small. What is the first single moment you can remember? Tell it as if it is happening now." · "What stands out most, like a freeze-frame?" · "What were you feeling right then?" · "What made you feel that?"
Watch for: Never supply the vivid moment or the feeling; Slavik stresses that a missing feeling is itself significant. Whether the memory "really happened" is irrelevant; family stories and photos that have become "memories" are still usable but note them. Working: memories are single, visualised, with a vivid point and a feeling.

C2. Interpreting ERs: details and structure

Purpose / when: Between sessions, before writing the summary. [source: Mosak & Di Pietro 2006, ch. "Details in ERs", "Common response themes", "Common thematic topics" — chapter titles verified, content from the book]
Steps: For each ER note: (1) who is present and absent (a parent missing from all memories is notable); (2) the client's role — active or passive, participant or observer, giver or getter; (3) the setting (home, outside, alone, in public); (4) the action and the outcome — does the client succeed, get hurt, get rescued, get punished, get away with something? (5) the feeling at the vivid point and whether it matches the event; (6) striking details (colours, objects, sounds, body sensations, words spoken), which Mosak and Di Pietro treat as meaningful; (7) mention of illness, injury, death, birth of a sibling, school, gender.
Example language: Not used in session; internal analysis.
Watch for: Over-reading a single detail; interpret in light of the whole set.

C3. Headline method

Purpose / when: Fast first pass at each ER's core message. [source: Mosak & Di Pietro 2006, ch. "The headline method" — method name verified, procedure from training knowledge]
Steps: (1) Read the ER and write a newspaper-style headline capturing its action and outcome. (2) Make the headline about the child's movement and result. (3) Line up the headlines for all ERs and look for a repeating storyline.
Example (illustrative): ER of reaching for a cookie jar and the jar falling → "Girl Reaches Out, Disaster Follows." Several headlines like this suggest a conviction that initiative is dangerous.
Watch for: Headlines that only describe the scene ("Boy at Beach"); rewrite them to include what happens and what it means.

C4. Life style convictions approach ("I am / Others are / Life is / Therefore")

Purpose / when: Main interpretive frame for the summary. [source: Mosak & Di Pietro 2006, ch. "The life style convictions approach"; Slavik 1991 lists the four categories]
Steps: For each ER, and then across all of them, write: (1) self-concept — "I am…"; (2) self-ideal — "I should be… to have a place"; (3) Weltbild (world picture) — "Others / men / women / life is…"; (4) ethical convictions — "It is right/wrong to…"; then (5) the movement or strategy — "Therefore I…". Not every ER yields all categories.
Example (illustrative): "I am small and easily overlooked. Others are busy with more important things. Life is a place where you get noticed only when something goes wrong. Therefore I make myself useful and keep my own needs quiet."
Watch for: Statements that contradict across ERs — resolve them at a higher level (e.g., "I am competent only when someone is watching"). Working: the same "therefore" fits the presenting problem.

C5. Typological approach

Purpose / when: Supplementary; checks whether the ERs match one of Mosak's recurring life style "types". [source: Mosak & Di Pietro 2006, ch. "The typological approach"; type list from Mosak via Eckstein]
Steps: (1) Compare the convictions with Mosak's types: getter, driver, controller, needs to be right, needs to be superior, needs to be liked, needs to be good, opposer, victim, martyr, baby, inadequate person, avoider of feelings, excitement seeker. (2) Note one primary and possibly a secondary type. (3) Use the type to predict how the client will relate to you and to the therapy tasks.
Example (illustrative internal note): "Ratings and ERs both suggest 'needs to be good': expect compliance and hidden resentment around homework."
Watch for: Types are shorthand, not diagnoses; Eckstein stresses each statement must be individualised. Never label the client to their face with a type.

C6. Sequential analysis

Purpose / when: Reads the order of the memories and the sequence within each as a story of movement. [source: Mosak & Di Pietro 2006, ch. "Sequential analysis" — chapter verified, detail from training knowledge, uncertain]
Steps: (1) Within each ER, chart situation → client's move → outcome → feeling. (2) Across ERs in the order given, ask whether they tell a progressive story (problem in ER1, attempted solution in ER2, consequence in ER3). (3) Note the earliest memory as possibly the most condensed statement.
Example (illustrative): ER1 left behind; ER2 performing to get attention; ER3 punished for showing off → "I am left out unless I perform, and performing gets me in trouble."
Watch for: Forcing a narrative where the order is arbitrary.

C7. ERs to predict the therapy relationship

Purpose / when: Before and during phase 3, to anticipate how the client will treat the therapist. [source: Mosak & Di Pietro 2006, ch. "Client–therapist relationship" — chapter verified, details uncertain]
Steps: (1) Ask: if I am the authority figure in these memories, what will the client expect of me and how will they move? (2) Write one prediction (e.g., "will test whether I will rescue"). (3) Watch for it; when it appears, consider naming it tentatively.
Example language (illustrative): "In your memories, grown-ups step in just when it's too late. I'm wondering if you're waiting to see whether I'll be one of those too."
Watch for: Use only after alliance is solid; premature transference-style interpretation can feel accusatory.

D1. Identifying basic mistakes

Purpose / when: Summary writing. Basic mistakes are the self-defeating parts of the life style. [source: Mosak, as given in Mosak & Maniacci 1999 and Mosak's chapter in Current Psychotherapies]
Steps: Sort the convictions from C4 into Mosak's five categories, writing each in the client's own idiom: (1) overgeneralisations (all/never/everyone statements about people or life); (2) false or impossible goals of security ("I'm safe only if…" conditions that can never be met); (3) misperceptions of life and life's demands (life seen as unfair, too hard, owing them); (4) minimisation or denial of one's worth; (5) faulty values (e.g., winning at any cost, being right over being close). Keep to the three to six mistakes that best explain the presenting problem.
Example (illustrative): "If I make one mistake, people will see I'm a fraud" (impossible security goal + minimisation of worth).
Watch for: Listing everything negative; a basic mistake must be a conviction with a purpose, visible in both family and ER data.

D2. Identifying assets

Purpose / when: Always alongside D1; assets are the base for encouragement and reorientation. [source: Shulman & Mosak 1988; Eckstein]
Steps: (1) From sibling ratings, ERs and current life, list strengths, skills, values and moments of courage or social interest. (2) Reframe the useful side of the life style (a "controller" is often reliable and organised). (3) Write three to six assets in plain language.
Example (illustrative): "You notice what others need before they say it. You keep going when things get hard. You have a sharp sense of humour."
Watch for: Generic praise; each asset should be traceable to the data.

D3. Writing the life style summary

Purpose / when: Before the sharing session. [source: Shulman & Mosak 1988; Eckstein's summary structure]
Steps: Write one to two pages in plain language: (a) family constellation summary (B6); (b) ER summary — the core convictions in "I am / others are / life is / therefore" form, in narrative; (c) basic mistakes (D1); (d) assets (D2). Optionally add a brief link to the presenting problem.
Example: see illustrative wording under B6 and C4.
Watch for: Jargon, diagnosis, blame. Read it aloud to yourself: would the client recognise their own voice?

D4. Sharing the summary with the client

Purpose / when: Third assessment session, opening phase 3. [source: Shulman & Mosak 1988; Mosak & Maniacci 1999; Slavik 1991 on tentative presentation; recognition reflex from Dreikurs]
Steps: (1) Tell the client this is a draft of how you understand their outlook, and that they are the expert who will correct it. (2) Read it aloud, section by section, pausing after each. (3) Watch for the "recognition reflex" (Dreikurs): a spontaneous smile, laugh or "that's me" signalling an accurate hit. (4) Invite edits: wording, emphasis, what's missing. Revise in front of them or for next time. (5) Give the client a copy, if consistent with your record-keeping practice. (6) Ask them to notice during the week where the pattern shows up. (7) In multiple-therapist formats, a second therapist can present or discuss the summary with the client and first therapist. [uncertain on how standard this still is]
Example language (illustrative): "Let me read you what I see so far. Tell me where it fits and where it's off." · "Could it be that being useful is how you make sure you won't be left out?"
Watch for: Polite agreement without recognition (probe gently); strong rejection (revisit; it may be wrong, or it may hit a guarded area). Working: the client adds their own examples.

D5. Re-collecting ERs at follow-up

Purpose / when: Late phase 4 or at termination, to see change. [source: Mosak & Di Pietro 2006, ch. "Pre- and postintervention ERs"]
Steps: (1) Ask for early memories again without referring to earlier ones. (2) Compare: new memories, or the same memory told with different feeling, outcome or emphasis. (3) Discuss the shift with the client as evidence of change.
Example language (illustrative): "Before we finish, let's try something we did at the start. What early memories come to mind today?"
Watch for: Unchanged ERs do not prove failure; use with other outcome measures. [synthesis]

E1. Tentative interpretation ("Could it be…?") and purpose disclosure

Purpose / when: Phase 3 onward, linking current events to the life style. [source: Dreikurs' disclosure method, Mosak & Maniacci 1999; Slavik 1991]
Steps: (1) Take a current incident the client brings. (2) Ask what they did, felt and what happened. (3) Offer a hypothesis tying it to a conviction and its purpose, phrased as a question. (4) Watch for recognition; if absent, drop it or reframe.
Example language (illustrative): "Could it be that you got sick right before the presentation so no one could judge how well you'd do?"
Watch for: Interpretations offered as fact; shame. Working: the client starts making the links themselves.

E2. Catching oneself

Purpose / when: Early reorientation, after the client recognises the pattern. [source: Mosak & Maniacci 1999; Mosak, Current Psychotherapies]
Steps: (1) Agree a specific pattern to watch for. (2) Ask the client to catch it, first after the fact, then during, then before acting. (3) No requirement to change yet; catching is the task. (4) Review catches each session.
Example language (illustrative): "This week, just notice when the 'I have to be perfect' voice shows up. Write down when, even if you only spot it afterward."
Watch for: Self-criticism when they catch it ("I did it again"); treat catching as success.

E3. Push-button technique

Purpose / when: For clients who feel their moods happen to them (depression, anxiety). Mosak's technique showing that feelings follow what one chooses to think about. [source: Mosak, described in Mosak & Maniacci 1999]
Steps: (1) Ask the client to close their eyes and recall a pleasant memory in detail, noticing the feeling. (2) Then an unpleasant memory, noticing the feeling. (3) Then the pleasant one again. (4) Debrief: they changed their feeling by choosing what to think. (5) Homework: when the unwanted feeling comes, "push the button" for the pleasant image; also notice what the unwanted feeling might be for.
Example language (illustrative): "You just switched your feeling three times by choosing a picture. Who was pushing the button?"
Watch for: Not for acute crisis or when feelings are a valid response to current danger or loss.

E4. Acting "as if"

Purpose / when: When the client says "if only I were confident, I would…". [source: Mosak & Maniacci 1999; Adler/Vaihinger]
Steps: (1) Identify the behaviour they would do if they had the quality. (2) Assign them to act as if they had it for a set, small situation, "like an actor playing a role". (3) Debrief: what happened, how others responded.
Example language (illustrative): "You don't have to feel confident. Just act like someone who is, for one coffee break."
Watch for: Client objects that it's "fake"; frame as trying on a costume, not changing who they are.

E5. Task setting

Purpose / when: Reorientation; concrete steps against basic mistakes. [source: Adler; Mosak & Maniacci 1999]
Steps: (1) Pick a task tied to an avoided life task or mistaken conviction. (2) Make it small, specific and likely to succeed. (3) Agree when and how. (4) Review without judgment; adjust size.
Example language (illustrative): "What's one small thing this week that someone who believed they belonged would do?"
Watch for: Tasks too big (set up failure for discouraged clients).

E6. Spitting in the client's soup

Purpose / when: When the purpose of a behaviour is clear and the client has seen it. Exposes the payoff so the behaviour "tastes" worse to continue. [source: Adler, Mosak & Maniacci 1999]
Steps: (1) Identify the hidden payoff. (2) Name it plainly but kindly. (3) Leave the choice with the client.
Example language (illustrative): "You can keep apologising to everyone. It does make sure no one gets angry at you. It also makes sure no one finds out what you think."
Watch for: Sarcasm or a punitive tone; needs a solid relationship.

E7. Avoiding the tar baby

Purpose / when: When the client, guided by their life style, tries to pull the therapist into a familiar role (rescuer, critic, opponent). [source: Mosak & Maniacci 1999; Mosak's term]
Steps: (1) Use C7 predictions to spot the invitation. (2) Do not act the expected role. (3) Respond in a way that disconfirms the conviction, and, when useful, name the pattern.
Example language (illustrative): "I notice I'm being invited to tell you what to do. I'd rather hear what you think."
Watch for: Your own pull to rescue or argue; supervision helps.

E8. Paradoxical intention / antisuggestion

Purpose / when: Symptoms maintained by fighting them (e.g., insomnia, obsessions, performance anxiety). [source: Adler and Dreikurs ("antisuggestion"); Mosak & Maniacci 1999]
Steps: (1) Explain the symptom's purpose hypothesis. (2) Prescribe the symptom, deliberately and on schedule. (3) Debrief.
Example language (illustrative): "This week, set aside ten minutes a day to worry as hard as you can about that."
Watch for: Never prescribe self-harm, risky or dangerous behaviour; not for suicidal or psychotic presentations.

E9. Creating images

Purpose / when: A memorable phrase or picture that condenses the life style, so the client recalls it in the moment. [source: Mosak & Maniacci 1999 — uncertain on whether it is listed by that name]
Steps: (1) Find an image from the client's own ERs or speech. (2) Offer it. (3) Use it as a cue in later sessions.
Example language (illustrative): "Sounds like the little girl reaching for the cookie jar again."
Watch for: Images that mock.

E10. Encouragement

Purpose / when: Throughout, and especially in reorientation. [source: Dreikurs; Mosak & Maniacci 1999]
Steps: (1) Notice effort and improvement, not just results. (2) Point to assets from D2. (3) Separate deed from doer when things go wrong.
Example language (illustrative): "You tried it even though you were scared. That took nerve."
Watch for: Praise that sets a new standard to live up to.

E11. Specialised ER applications (couples, career)

Purpose / when: Mosak and Di Pietro describe ERs in marital therapy and in vocational work. [source: Mosak & Di Pietro 2006, chapter titles; detail uncertain]
Steps (synthesis from the chapter topics): Couples: collect ERs from each partner, compare convictions about men, women and closeness, and show how each partner's life style fits or provokes the other's. Career: look for ERs showing activity, mastery, interests (e.g., making, helping, observing) and link to work choices.
Example language (illustrative): "In both your memories someone leaves. I wonder if you're each watching for that."
Watch for: Sharing one partner's life style in front of the other without consent. [synthesis]

5. Handling problems

The sources give little direct problem-handling guidance beyond tentativeness, goal alignment and the tactics above. Where an item is not tied to a source, it is marked [synthesis]. Tactics in Counseling and Psychotherapy (Mosak & Maniacci 1998) addresses difficult therapy situations, but its contents could not be checked online. [uncertain]

Client sees no point in talking about childhood. Re-align goals first (Adlerian view: resistance is usually goal misalignment). Link it to the present: "The way you learned to find your place as a kid is probably still running in the background; it's the quickest way I know to see it." Offer to start with ERs, which are shorter, and come back to the family constellation later. [source: Mosak & Maniacci 1999 on goal alignment; specific wording synthesis]
"I have no early memories." Normalise. Ask for any memory at all, even from later childhood, or for a memory linked to a place, a house, a pet, a holiday, the first day of school. Accept later memories and family stories as data, labelled as such. Do not push hard; the absence of memories, or of feelings in them, is itself a finding (Slavik). [source: Slavik 1991 for absent feeling; rest synthesis]
Only reports, no specific incidents. Accept the report, then ask: "Is there one time that stands out?" If they still can't, use the report but treat it as weaker evidence. [synthesis]
Traumatic or abusive content surfaces. Slow down; prioritise safety and stabilisation over completing the inventory; ask permission before going further; do not interpret trauma memories as "chosen" in a way that implies blame. Life style assessment can be paused for trauma-focused work. [synthesis]
Overwhelm or flooding during ERs or family history. Stop collecting; ground in the present; reduce detail; split the interview over more sessions. [synthesis]
Rejects the summary. Thank them; ask what fits least and rewrite it together. Consider that you were wrong (check against all data). If they reject only the basic mistakes but recognise the convictions, the mistakes may be too harsh in tone: rephrase in their idiom and lead with assets. [source: tentativeness principle, Shulman & Mosak 1988; Slavik 1991; handling synthesis]
Over-agrees with everything ("Yes, that's exactly me"). Possible "needs to be good/liked" pattern. Ask for one thing that does not fit, or for an example from this week. Treat compliance as data for C7. [synthesis]
Uses insight as an excuse ("That's just my life style"). Repeat the soft-determinism frame: the child decided, the adult can decide again. Move to catching oneself and task setting. [source: Mosak & Maniacci 1999 for soft determinism; application synthesis]
Non-adherence to tasks. Look at the task through the life style: an opposer resists assignments, a "needs to be good" client hides failure. Shrink the task, let the client set it, or use paradox. Avoid the tar baby of nagging. [source: Mosak typology; application synthesis]
Ruptures (feels judged, misread or exposed). Own your part; return to tentativeness; check whether a C7 prediction is playing out; repair the relationship before going on. [synthesis]
Stuck in reorientation. Revisit whether the presenting problem actually serves the goal in the summary; look for an undiscovered payoff; use "The Question" again; check life tasks being avoided. [synthesis]
Therapist over-interprets. Most frequent error in training: a single dramatic ER detail drives the whole summary. Rule: a conviction must appear in at least two ERs or in both ERs and family data. [synthesis]
Cultural mismatch. Birth order, gender roles, "family atmosphere" and individual striving carry different meaning across cultures and family structures (extended, blended, single-parent, same-sex parents). Ask what the roles meant in this family and culture rather than applying norms. [synthesis]
Risk. If suicidal thinking or self-harm emerges, stop life style work and follow a standard suicide risk assessment and safety-planning process; ERs and summaries are not risk tools. [synthesis]

Sources

Sources:

Further reading (not drawn on; content from them is marked uncertain where it could not be checked):

Shulman, B. H., & Mosak, H. H. (1988). Manual for Life Style Assessment. Accelerated Development (reissued by Routledge).
Shulman, B. H., & Mosak, H. H. (1977). Birth order and ordinal position: Two Adlerian views. Journal of Individual Psychology.
Mosak, H. H., & Maniacci, M. P. (1999). A Primer of Adlerian Psychology: The Analytic-Behavioral-Cognitive Psychology of Alfred Adler. Brunner/Mazel.
Mosak, H. H., & Maniacci, M. P. (1998). Tactics in Counseling and Psychotherapy. F. E. Peacock.
Mosak, H. H., & Di Pietro, R. (2006). Early Recollections: Interpretive Method and Application. Routledge.
Clark, A. J. (2002). Early Recollections: Theory and Practice in Counseling and Psychotherapy. Brunner-Routledge.
Mosak, H. H. Adlerian psychotherapy. In R. J. Corsini & D. Wedding (Eds.), Current Psychotherapies (various editions; later editions with Maniacci).
Powers, R. L., & Griffith, J. (1987). Understanding Life-Style: The Psycho-Clarity Process. Americas Institute of Adlerian Studies. (Alternative version, not followed.)

← Previous · I-100Classical Adlerian psychotherapy Next · I-102 →Organ dialect and "the Question"