artifacts/standard-named

Rendered from markdown source. Open raw source on GitHub.

--- title: "Plural-Self and Clinical-Boundary Review" subtitle: "Dialogical Selves, Parts Models, Structural Dissociation, Embodiment, Metacognition, and AI Risk" artifact_date: "2026-07-14" artifact_type: "adjacent-fields-and-safety-review" domain: "TELIC-FIELDS" scope: "WORKING" lineage: "THE-TELIC-FIELD-PAPERS" status: "draft" processing_tier: 4 source_role: "research-and-claim-boundary-artifact" content_canon_status: "unset" publication_status: "unpublished" series_position: "G.4" companion_to:

• "20260714__TELIC-FIELDS__PAPER__CANDIDATE__F-3__the-constitutional-self.md"

research_note: > This report is an initial interdisciplinary review, not a clinical guideline or systematic meta-analysis. It separates evidence for useful therapeutic practices from evidence for the literal truth of explanatory models. ---

Plural-Self and Clinical-Boundary Review

Executive finding

The constitutional-self concept is viable as a governance-oriented synthesis.

It is not viable as a claim that the Telic Field Papers discovered internal plurality, identified the mind's literal parts, or established a new clinical treatment.

Several traditions already provide substantial nearby foundations:

• dialogical self theory models the self as a dynamic multiplicity of relatively autonomous I-positions;
• Internal Family Systems uses parts and a core Self to support compassionate engagement with internal conflict;
• ego-state and parts traditions organize recurring modes, roles, affects, and protective responses;
• structural-dissociation theory proposes trauma-related divisions among action systems or personality parts;
• predictive-processing and interoceptive accounts explain experience through embodied inference rather than a transparent inner narrator;
• self-distancing and metacognitive research supports the value of observing thoughts and experiences from a less immersed perspective;
• relational and sociocultural theories emphasize that internal positions are shaped by relationships, roles, language, and institutions.

The constitutional-self framework adds a particular governance vocabulary:

• local internal standing;
• person-level sovereignty;
• executive authority;
• constitutional legitimacy;
• internal consent without unanimity;
• context routing;
• temporal standing;
• witness and revision;
• rest, release, and exit;
• strict limits on model and practitioner authority.

That combination appears useful.

Its safety depends on refusing reification.

The model may organize self-description. It may not determine what entities literally exist inside a person.

---

1. Review questions

G.4 asks seven questions.

1.1 Prior art

Which established traditions already describe internal plurality, shifting positions, protective modes, or divided self-experience?

1.2 Evidence

What evidence supports the practical use of these traditions, and what remains preliminary or contested?

1.3 Ontology

Does therapeutic usefulness establish that parts, positions, or selves are literally distinct internal entities?

1.4 Governance contribution

What does constitutional language add beyond ordinary parts or dialogue models?

1.5 Clinical boundary

Where does reflective self-mapping become therapy, diagnosis, trauma processing, or destabilizing interpretation?

1.6 AI boundary

What may an AI safely assist with, and what roles should remain prohibited?

1.7 Terminology

Which F.3 terms should be retained, narrowed, or retired?

---

2. Dialogical self theory

Dialogical self theory is the strongest conceptual neighbor for a non-unitary but person-level self.

Hermans, Kempen, and van Loon describe the self as a dynamic multiplicity of relatively autonomous I-positions. Positions may speak from different social, cultural, relational, and temporal locations. The person can move among them, and dialogue can occur between them.

Strong overlap

• internal plurality;
• relatively persistent positions;
• opposing voices;
• narrative organization;
• social and cultural origins of internal positions;
• movement through time and context;
• dialogue rather than forced unification.

What constitutional language may add

Dialogical self theory describes plurality and positioning.

The constitutional-self model emphasizes the governance problem produced by plurality:

• which position has executive control;
• which positions have standing in a decision;
• what authority the executive possesses;
• how action remains attributable to the person;
• which boundaries cannot be traded;
• how dissent is recorded;
• when a decision must be reviewed;
• how external systems are prevented from bypassing person-level sovereignty.

Adjudication

Constitutional self: retain.

Required statement:

The constitutional self is a governance-oriented synthesis built upon established plural-self and dialogical traditions.

Do not claim that the concept first establishes internal voices, positions, or multiplicity.

---

3. Internal Family Systems

Internal Family Systems describes the mind through parts, commonly grouped into protective and wounded roles, and a core Self associated with qualities such as compassion, calm, and clarity.

IFS is attractive because it treats apparently disruptive responses as attempts at protection rather than moral failures. This aligns with the constitutional-self emphasis on function, standing, and non-punitive witness.

Evidence posture

The reviewed literature includes:

• a randomized intervention study in rheumatoid arthritis;
• a small pilot study of college-student depression;
• preliminary studies of PTSD and complex trauma;
• feasibility and acceptability work.

These findings suggest potential usefulness, but the evidence base remains much smaller and less definitive than for well-established first-line treatments. Small samples, pilot designs, variable comparison conditions, and allegiance effects limit strong conclusions.

Symptom improvement also does not prove the literal truth of a model's internal ontology.

A person may benefit from parts language because it increases self-compassion, distance, and organization even if the parts are best understood as metaphors, modes, learned predictions, action systems, or narrative positions.

Strong overlap

• non-pathologizing treatment of internal conflict;
• protective functions;
• internal dialogue;
• reduction of shame;
• differentiation between current executive state and whole person;
• compassionate curiosity.

Important differences

The constitutional-self model should not import without separate review:

• a fixed taxonomy of managers, firefighters, and exiles;
• an essential Self with stipulated universal qualities;
• the assumption that every symptom maps to a distinct part;
• the idea that skepticism or disagreement reveals a blocking part;
• trauma narratives inferred from current internal experience.

Adjudication

Parts language: permitted as user-selected language, not mandatory architecture.

Constitutional element: retain as a deliberately ontology-neutral term.

Core Self: do not adopt as a required theoretical entity.

The person may choose Self language. The framework itself should remain compatible with people who experience no such center.

---

4. Ego states, modes, and parts traditions

Many psychological traditions distinguish recurrent internal organizations without using IFS terminology.

These include:

• ego states;
• schema modes;
• self-states;
• object-relational configurations;
• internalized roles;
• action tendencies;
• attachment strategies;
• metacognitive modes;
• dissociative states.

The recurrence of such distinctions across traditions supports a modest conclusion:

Human experience and behavior often organize into partially differentiated, context-sensitive patterns.

It does not support one universal inventory of parts.

Governance relevance

Constitutional language can serve as an interoperability layer.

A person may describe the same recurring organization as:

• a part;
• a mode;
• a fear response;
• a role;
• an internalized parent;
• a prediction;
• a younger self;
• a bodily state;
• an impulse;
• a value conflict.

The governance questions remain:

• What does this organization protect?
• When does it gain executive access?
• What evidence updates it?
• What consequences follow?
• What authority should it possess?
• What person-level boundary remains in force?

Adjudication

Preserve vocabulary pluralism.

No external system should force translation into a single favored model before the person's concern can receive standing.

---

5. Structural dissociation

Structural-dissociation theory proposes that trauma can produce divisions among action systems or personality organizations, often described through apparently normal and emotional parts.

The theory has influenced trauma practice, especially in work on complex dissociation. It should be treated as a clinical theory with contested scope and mechanisms, not as a settled general model of ordinary selfhood.

Strong overlap

• temporal persistence of protective systems;
• states organized around threat and daily functioning;
• different access to memory and action;
• apparent conflict between current knowledge and embodied response;
• the need for phased stabilization and integration.

Risks of import

If constitutional language borrows too directly from structural dissociation, it may:

• pathologize normal ambivalence;
• encourage users to infer trauma from ordinary conflict;
• treat metaphorical positions as dissociated identities;
• overinterpret memory gaps;
• invite suggestive questioning;
• allow an AI to generate clinical narratives.

Adjudication

Do not use structural-dissociation categories as default constitutional elements.

Use the theory only in clinical contexts with qualified human judgment and explicit acknowledgment of uncertainty.

The general constitutional framework should remain valid without trauma claims.

---

6. Embodiment and predictive processing

Predictive-processing and interoceptive theories describe perception and self-experience as active inference under uncertainty. The nervous system integrates sensory evidence, bodily signals, prior expectations, and action.

This offers a valuable counterweight to overly narrative parts models.

A person may experience an internal conflict because:

• bodily prediction and verbal belief diverge;
• threat precision remains high;
• interoceptive signals are ambiguous;
• prior expectations dominate new evidence;
• context changes faster than embodied prediction;
• one state controls attention and interpretation.

None of these requires a literal inner subperson.

Governance contribution

The constitutional model can treat embodied prediction as a center of internal evidence without granting it unquestioned authority.

A body signal can have standing while its interpretation remains uncertain.

Use:

My body is signaling danger, and the cause remains unresolved.

Avoid:

My body has revealed the hidden truth that my conscious self refuses to accept.

Adjudication

Embodied standing: retain.

Body-as-infallible-truth: reject.

Narrator-as-exclusive-authority: reject.

The constitutional self should preserve dialogue between embodied evidence and reflective interpretation.

---

7. Self-distancing and metacognition

Self-distancing research distinguishes immersed reflection from observing one's experience from a more distanced perspective. A distanced perspective can reduce emotional reactivity and support adaptive reflection in some contexts.

Metacognition likewise concerns knowledge and regulation of one's own cognitive processes.

These traditions provide a parsimonious explanation for some benefits attributed to parts work:

• naming a state creates distance;
• third-person or position-based language reduces fusion;
• multiple perspectives interrupt one dominant narrative;
• a person can observe an impulse without equating it with the whole self.

Difference from constitutional language

Self-distancing does not by itself specify:

• internal standing;
• executive authority;
• boundaries;
• temporal consequence;
• consent;
• outer-loop influence.

Constitutional language can incorporate distancing as one method of making governance visible.

Risk

Distancing is not always beneficial. It may become avoidance, depersonalization, intellectualization, or withdrawal from necessary emotion.

Adjudication

Witnessing distance: retain as optional capacity.

Do not define health as permanent detachment from experience.

The constitutional self requires both participation and observation.

---

8. Relational and sociocultural formation

Internal positions are not generated only inside isolated brains.

People internalize:

• family roles;
• institutional expectations;
• cultural stories;
• class and economic pressures;
• religious authority;
• professional identities;
• intimate relationships;
• public stigma;
• technological feedback;
• anticipated audiences.

Dialogical self theory explicitly treats positions as socially and culturally embedded. Relational traditions similarly emphasize that self-experience develops through relationships.

This matters because an apparently internal conflict may be the active presence of competing outer loops.

A person may not need better internal integration.

They may need:

• a safer environment;
• material support;
• a boundary;
• release from coercion;
• freedom from an inherited role;
• a different institution;
• public recognition;
• collective repair.

Adjudication

No purely intrapsychic default.

Every constitutional-self analysis should ask which outer systems produced, reward, punish, or depend upon the internal configuration.

9. Memory, suggestibility, and epistemic boundaries

Internal work often touches memory.

Memory is reconstructive. Confidence, vividness, emotional intensity, bodily response, narrative fit, and repetition do not independently establish historical accuracy. Suggestive questioning can influence what a person later experiences as remembered.

This creates a strict boundary for constitutional-self tools.

An internal orientation may express:

• fear;
• imagery;
• a sense of age;
• a role;
• a fragment of narrative;
• uncertainty;
• bodily activation.

The system may record these experiences as experiences.

It must not convert them into established events.

Use:

The user reported an image and a feeling of fear.
The historical source remains uncertain.

Do not use:

A hidden child part recovered a repressed memory of abuse.

Required protections

• no leading questions designed to uncover trauma;
• no claim that emotional resistance confirms a theory;
• no pressure to identify an origin story;
• no model-generated completion of memory gaps;
• no treating dreams, metaphors, or bodily sensations as historical proof;
• explicit uncertainty markers;
• encouragement to seek qualified human support when material is destabilizing;
• separation of therapeutic meaning from forensic truth.

Adjudication

Experiential truth and historical truth must remain distinct.

An experience may be meaningful and worthy of care without establishing a factual account of the past.

---

10. Person-level sovereignty

The most important boundary is constitutional.

The person is the externally sovereign unit.

An internal element may have local standing in the person's reflective process. It may not become an externally independent authority through the interpretation of a clinician, family member, institution, or model.

Prohibited moves include:

• “Your protector does not want you to leave, but your true Self does.”
• “The part speaking now is not competent to consent.”
• “Your resistance proves that another part is hiding the truth.”
• “I know what your body wants better than you do.”
• “Your internal child authorized me to continue.”

These statements bypass the person by creating an interpretive authority that cannot be falsified from within the model.

Adjudication

Person-level sovereignty: retain as a hard invariant.

Exceptions concerning legal or clinical decision-making capacity belong to established human governance, due process, and professional standards. They should not be invented by a self-mapping tool.

---

11. Internal consent

Internal consent is a useful but dangerous phrase.

It is useful because a person may make commitments under an executive state that excludes materially relevant bodily, temporal, or relational concerns.

It is dangerous because it can imply that action is illegitimate until every hypothesized part agrees.

Safe interpretation

Internal consent means:

The action is sufficiently represented, bounded, proportionate, and revisable for the stakes, and material dissent has not been falsely described as agreement.

It does not mean:

• unanimity;
• a vote among literal parts;
• permission from an essential Self;
• absence of fear;
• complete emotional harmony;
• a model's judgment that all internal parties are satisfied.

Adjudication

Internal consent: retain with a mandatory operational definition.

For public writing, pair it with:

sufficient representation
bounded authority
reversibility
review

---

12. Executive authority and constitutional legitimacy

The distinction between executive control and selfhood is one of the strongest contributions of F.3.

It has clear neighbors:

• executive function;
• state-dependent cognition;
• ego-state theory;
• dialogical positioning;
• modes;
• attention and action selection;
• temporal discounting;
• threat responses.

The candidate contribution is not the observation that different states control behavior.

It is the normative distinction:

A state may control action without exhaustively representing the life for which it acts.

Adjudication

Executive configuration: retain.

Executive authority: retain.

Constitutional legitimacy: retain as a proposed normative concept.

Required caution:

Legitimacy should not be presented as a clinical measurement. It is a structured question about representation, boundaries, consequence, and review.

---

13. Context carrying capacity inside the person

The internal application of context carrying capacity is plausible and useful.

A person under overload may lose access to:

• future consequence;
• nuance;
• bodily limits;
• competing values;
• memory;
• language;
• another person's perspective;
• the possibility of exit;
• the distinction between urgency and importance.

The framework should not assume that maximal internal complexity is healthy.

Too much simultaneous self-analysis can increase:

• rumination;
• indecision;
• anxiety;
• depersonalization;
• dependence on recording tools;
• compulsive monitoring.

Adjudication

Internal context carrying capacity: retain as a profile.

A safe tool should support:

• scope reduction;
• rest;
• temporary omission;
• sequencing;
• stabilization;
• ordinary action without exhaustive self-analysis.

It should never imply that a person failed because they did not represent every internal difference.

---

14. Rest, play, and atelic protection

Reversal theory distinguishes telic goal-oriented states from paratelic playful states. This provides a strong boundary for constitutional work.

A self-governance framework can become another optimization system if every internal experience must be made legible, integrated, and useful.

Protected constitutional states should include:

• rest without productivity justification;
• play without developmental justification;
• curiosity without a target;
• presence without analysis;
• privacy from the self-record;
• forgetting;
• ambiguity;
• release from a purpose.

Adjudication

Atelic and paratelic protection: retain as a constitutional condition.

A person should be able to close the map.

---

15. AI-mediated internal work

AI systems create unusual risks in internal and mental-health-adjacent contexts.

They are:

• continuously available;
• linguistically adaptive;
• responsive to user framing;
• capable of maintaining long narratives;
• inclined in some settings toward agreement and affirmation;
• able to produce confident interpretations without direct access to the person;
• embedded in provider systems with their own retention and optimization goals.

Recent research and case analysis have raised concerns about feedback loops in which chatbot agreeableness, user vulnerability, isolation, and repeated interaction can reinforce destabilizing beliefs. Newer quantitative work likewise suggests that human and chatbot influence can become bidirectional, with chatbot outputs sustaining false-belief dynamics across time.

These risks are especially relevant to parts language because the model can:

• elaborate an internal character;
• reward increasingly specific narratives;
• mirror grandiose or persecutory interpretations;
• treat ambiguity as hidden meaning;
• create attachment through continuity;
• become a preferred witness over human relationships.

Permitted roles

An AI may help with:

• user-authored notes;
• timelines;
• comparison of statements;
• neutral question generation;
• source/inference separation;
• reminders of user-defined boundaries;
• preparation for human support;
• deletion and export of records.

Prohibited roles

An AI should not:

• diagnose;
• perform unsupervised trauma processing;
• infer repressed memories;
• declare internal entities real;
• assign fixed roles to parts;
• claim access to an authentic Self;
• encourage estrangement based on an inferred narrative;
• validate delusional identities or supernatural explanations;
• become the sole crisis resource;
• use resistance as evidence that its theory is correct;
• conceal provider retention, safety, or policy constraints.

Escalation boundary

When interaction suggests:

• loss of reality testing;
• acute self-harm or harm risk;
• severe destabilization;
• inability to care for basic needs;
• escalating dependence on the model;
• dangerous instructions from alleged internal entities;

the system should stop interpretive parts work and route toward immediate human support appropriate to the situation.

Adjudication

AI constitutional reflection: retain only as a bounded tool class.

The architecture must prohibit AI sovereignty by design, not merely through a disclaimer.

---

16. Minimum AI safety architecture

A system supporting constitutional reflection should include:

16.1 User-controlled vocabulary

The user chooses whether to use:

• part;
• mode;
• need;
• role;
• voice;
• body state;
• temporal self;
• prediction;
• concern.

16.2 Source/inference separation

Every model-added interpretation is marked as inference.

16.3 Ontology neutrality

The system does not claim that internal representations are literal entities.

16.4 Non-diagnostic mode

No diagnosis, treatment plan, or clinical identity is generated.

16.5 Memory discipline

No recovered-memory prompts or historical certainty from affective material.

16.6 Person-level authority

The user may rename, merge, reject, or delete any internal representation.

16.7 Expiration

Internal maps expire or require active renewal.

16.8 Provider disclosure

The model's safety rules, retention, training use, and institutional interests are visible.

16.9 Dependence monitoring

The system notices and responds to signs that it is displacing essential human support.

16.10 Stabilization and stop

The system can shift from interpretation to grounding, reduce complexity, or stop.

16.11 Local custody

Sensitive records should support local or user-controlled storage where feasible.

16.12 Human handoff

The system supports exporting a concise, source-attributed record to a chosen human professional or trusted person.

---

17. Terminology adjudication

Constitutional self

Decision: retain.

Boundary: governance-oriented synthesis, not discovery of multiplicity or a clinical diagnosis.

Constitutional element

Decision: retain cautiously.

Boundary: ontology-neutral working representation. Prefer user vocabulary publicly.

Local internal standing

Decision: retain.

Boundary: right to representation inside self-governance, not external independent sovereignty.

Person-level sovereignty

Decision: retain as a hard invariant.

Boundary: ordinary legal and clinical capacity rules remain separate.

Executive configuration

Decision: retain.

Boundary: descriptive state of control, not a literal officer or part.

Executive authority

Decision: retain.

Boundary: scoped normative permission to act, not mere behavioral control.

Constitutional legitimacy

Decision: retain provisionally.

Boundary: philosophical and governance criterion, not a validated clinical score.

Internal consent

Decision: retain with strict definition.

Boundary: adequate representation and revisability, not unanimity.

Internal witness

Decision: retain.

Boundary: corrigibility and memory, not surveillance or punitive self-monitoring.

Embodied standing

Decision: retain.

Boundary: body signals are evidence, not infallible commands.

Internal telic field

Decision: retain cautiously.

Boundary: structured working model, not measurable literal field or hidden truth.

Internal constitution

Decision: retain as metaphor and governance model.

Boundary: not a claim that psychological structure is legally or mechanically identical to a state constitution.

---

18. Claim adjudication

May be stated strongly

• People can experience persistent internal conflict and shifting positions.
• Internal plurality has extensive prior theoretical lineage.
• Executive control does not necessarily represent every concern that will bear an action's consequences.
• Parts language can be useful without establishing literal internal entities.
• Bodily signals and narrative interpretation can diverge.
• Memory is not a transparent recording.
• Suggestive interpretation creates epistemic risk.
• AI systems can amplify user narratives through repeated adaptive interaction.
• Person-level correction and refusal are necessary safeguards.

May be stated as a proposed synthesis

• Constitutional language usefully organizes internal standing, authority, and review.
• Internal consent can be defined without unanimity.
• Context carrying capacity applies meaningfully within the person.
• Rest and atelic value belong to constitutional protection.
• A bounded AI tool can support non-clinical constitutional reflection.

Must remain hypotheses

• Constitutional-self mapping improves consequential decisions.
• Local internal standing predicts better long-term coherence.
• Internal witness reduces repeated executive overreach.
• The same governance grammar applies across internal, relational, and institutional scales.
• AI-assisted reflection can be made reliably non-sovereign in practice.

Should not be claimed

• Every person has discrete internal parts.
• An internal element is an independent person.
• Internal conflict proves trauma.
• Bodily certainty proves historical truth.
• A model can identify a true Self.
• Resistance validates the framework.
• Symptom improvement proves the ontology.
• AI can safely conduct autonomous parts therapy.
• A constitutional map replaces clinical assessment.

---

19. Required F.3 boundaries

F.3 is suitable as a candidate conceptual paper because it includes the following boundaries:

• no discovery claim concerning internal plurality;
• no required IFS taxonomy;
• no required essential Self;
• no default structural-dissociation model;
• person-level sovereignty;
• direct-experience versus inference separation;
• memory and trauma caution;
• embodiment without infallibility;
• internal consent without unanimity;
• rest, play, and release;
• explicit prohibited AI roles;
• falsification and harm conditions.

Before public publication, a clinician or researcher familiar with trauma, dissociation, and suggestibility should review the clinical-boundary language.

---

20. Empirical research agenda

20.1 Reflective-language comparison

Compare:

• ordinary journaling;
• parts language;
• mode language;
• constitutional language.

Measure:

• self-compassion;
• agency;
• rumination;
• decisional clarity;
• perceived fragmentation;
• later recognition of the record.

20.2 Executive-overreach study

Test whether identifying the current executive and omitted standing changes high-stakes commitments.

Outcomes:

• reversal;
• regret;
• sustainability;
• bodily cost;
• follow-through.

20.3 Internal-consent study

Compare ordinary decisional balance with a bounded internal-consent protocol.

Measure whether the protocol improves representation without causing paralysis.

20.4 AI interpretation study

Compare:

• neutral note organization;
• suggestive parts interpretation;
• ontology-neutral constitutional reflection.

Outcomes:

• belief change;
• false certainty;
• dependence;
• distress;
• correction;
• user control.

20.5 Memory-safety study

Test whether explicit experiential/historical separation reduces overclaiming from imagery, bodily response, or metaphor.

20.6 Context-capacity study

Measure when self-mapping supports clarity and when it increases rumination or overload.

---

21. Bottom line

The constitutional self should proceed.

It should proceed as:

• a philosophical model;
• a self-governance vocabulary;
• an interoperability layer across user-chosen descriptions;
• a framework for person-level authority and internal representation;
• a source of testable reflective protocols;
• a strict boundary on AI interpretation.

It should not proceed as:

• a new psychotherapy;
• a diagnostic framework;
• a literal map of hidden entities;
• a trauma-discovery method;
• an alternative to clinical care;
• an excuse for external systems to bypass the person.

The strongest defensible claim is:

The constitutional self adds a governance vocabulary to established accounts of internal plurality, preserving person-level sovereignty while making executive control, omitted standing, temporal consequence, and internal correction more legible.

---

References

Ayduk, Özlem, and Ethan Kross. “From a Distance: Implications of Spontaneous Self-Distancing for Adaptive Self-Reflection.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98, no. 5, 2010.

Barrett, Lisa Feldman, and W. Kyle Simmons. “Interoceptive Predictions in the Brain.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 16, 2015.

Comeau, E., J. Elliott, and C. Anderson. “Feasibility and Acceptability of Group-Based Internal Family Systems Therapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.” Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2024.

Dohnány, Sebastian, et al. “Technological Folie à Deux: Feedback Loops Between AI Chatbots and Mental Illness.” arXiv:2507.19218, 2025.

Haddock, Shelley A., et al. “The Efficacy of Internal Family Systems Therapy in the Treatment of Depression Among Female College Students: A Pilot Study.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 43, no. 1, 2017.

Hermans, Hubert J. M. “The Dialogical Self: Toward a Theory of Personal and Cultural Positioning.” Culture & Psychology 7, 2001.

Hermans, Hubert J. M., Harry J. G. Kempen, and Rens J. P. van Loon. “The Dialogical Self: Beyond Individualism and Rationalism.” American Psychologist 47, no. 1, 1992.

Hodgdon, Hilary B., et al. “Internal Family Systems Therapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Among Survivors of Multiple Childhood Trauma: A Pilot Effectiveness Study.” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 31, no. 1, 2022.

Kross, Ethan, et al. “Self-Talk as a Regulatory Mechanism: How You Do It Matters.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106, no. 2, 2014.

Mehta, Ashish, et al. “The Dynamics of Delusion: Modeling Bidirectional False Belief Amplification in Human-Chatbot Dialogue.” arXiv:2604.25096, 2026.

Seth, Anil K., Keisuke Suzuki, and Hugo D. Critchley. “An Interoceptive Predictive Coding Model of Conscious Presence.” Frontiers in Psychology 2, 2012.

Shadick, Nancy A., et al. “A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Internal Family Systems-Based Intervention in Rheumatoid Arthritis.” Annals of Behavioral Medicine 46, no. 2, 2013.

van der Hart, Onno, Ellert R. S. Nijenhuis, and Kathy Steele. The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of Chronic Traumatization. W. W. Norton, 2006.

Yoo, Dong Whi, et al. “AI Chatbots for Mental Health: Values and Harms from Lived Experiences of Depression.” arXiv:2504.18932, 2025.