Using the method of Plan Analysis (Caspar 2018), so-called plans are derived from a person’s behavior. Plans are both conscious and unconscious programs of action. They consist of a goal component and the means to achieve this goal. The outcome of Plan Analysis is a hierarchical plan structure, which illustrates the totality of inferred plans or means-goal relationships: At the lowest level, conspicuous behaviors of a person are formulated in the indicative (e. g. “laughs when he talks about bad childhood experiences”). From these, plans formulated in the imperative are inferred (“distance yourself from negative emotions”), which in turn serve higher-level plans (e.g. “show that you are over it”), which ultimately aim to fulfill the most important needs (e.g. “maintain self-control”) at the end of the top-level plans (e.g. “avoid being a victim”). Figure 1 shows an example of a reduced section of a plan structure.

Plan-analytical studies based on video recordings of counseling sessions at IGPP (Tölle 2003; Spitz 2005; Belz and Berger 2008) showed that clients often use their ExE to fulfill important needs such as control, recognition, meaning in life or bonding and that the plans. However, the plans associated with ExE often hinder clients from addressing significant problems and engaging with conflicts. Recent research findings (see research project Bonding styles in advice seekers with ExE ) suggest that frequently recurring and stressful ExE are associated with insecure bonding styles that limit the fulfillment of basic human needs for autonomy and bonding (Fach 2022). Attachment research has shown that negative bonding experiences in early childhood often develop into insecure bonding styles in adulthood. In such cases, bonding is associated with threatening heteronomy, or autonomy with threatening separation.

In a plan-analytical study, Fach (2024) examined relationships between bonding styles and ExE in twelve counseling cases, two of which represented one of six typical ExE-patterns (see below). The source material were video recordings of counseling sessions, biographical information and questionnaire data. Fach defined four types of problematic plans in relation to autonomy and bonding: (1) separation-avoidance plans (e.g. “avoid conflict”) restrict autonomy; (2) heteronomy-avoidance plans (e.g. “avoid compromise”) restrict bonding; (3) separation plans (e.g. “keep everyone at a distance”) prevent bonding, and (4) heteronomy plans (“fulfill all expectations”) prevent autonomy. The plan categories were linked to basic psychodynamic conflict processing modes (Arbeitskreis OPD 2014). Accordingly, active conflict processing can be seen in heteronomy-avoidance plans, which are aimed at control/autarky, and in separation-plans, which are aimed at individuation. Passive conflict processing can be seen in separation-avoidance plans aimed at submission/care and in heteronomy plans aimed at dependency.

With regard to the ExE-patterns of the clients, it was found that the plan structures (1) for extrasensory perceptions were dominated by heteronomy-avoidance plans, (2) for meaningful coincidences by separation-avoidance plans, for (3) internal presence and influences by separation plans and for (4) poltergeist and apparitions were dominated by heteronomy plans. In the case of the dissociative patterns, acute conflicts in (5) mediumship and automatisms between heteronomy avoidance and heteronomy plans and (6) nightmares and sleep paralysis between separation-avoidance and separation plans. In addition, the exceptional phenomena (ExP) reported as part of ExE can be interpreted as representations of blocked autonomy or bonding. In their effect on clients, ExP suggest system-centered plans that fulfill a compensatory function for the psychophysical system as a whole. Figure 2 shows an example of how poltergeist phenomena in a family system can either support or attack the subject-centered plans of individual family members.