Richard Schwartz and Internal Family Systems: A Clinical Guide to IFS Parts Work for Driven Women
Richard Schwartz, PhD, developed Internal Family Systems, a model for understanding the mind as a system of parts organized around protection and pain. This guide explains the IFS model, what the evidence actually supports and doesn’t yet support, and how I use an IFS-informed lens in my LMFT practice with driven women who can name their patterns but can’t seem to stop them.
- Something Ancient Closes Around Her Throat
- What Is Richard Schwartz’s Internal Family Systems Model?
- Parts, Not Diagnoses: What IFS Is and Isn’t Claiming
- The Neurobiology of Parts: How Trauma Fragments the Self
- How IFS Parts Emerge in Driven Women
- Working With the Self: Curiosity, Compassion, and the 8 Cs
- Both/And: Highly Managed and Still Suffering
- The Systemic Lens: Parts That Formed to Survive Impossible Systems
- What the Research Does and Doesn’t Yet Show
- How IFS Fits Into Healing: From Parts to Self-Leadership
- Frequently Asked Questions
Something Ancient Closes Around Her Throat
She’s reading the performance review and something ancient closes around her throat. Not anxiety exactly. She doesn’t call it that. It’s more like a contraction, a narrowing, the same feeling she gets in an elevator that stops between floors. The words on the screen are mostly positive. There’s one line, a minor developmental note from her manager, and something in her goes very still and very small in a way that has nothing to do with this job, this year, this office.
If you're ready for the full healing arc, not a single piece of it, my signature program Fixing the Foundations is the structured path your relational trauma recovery has been missing.
She’s been in therapy. She knows this pattern. She’s traced it back to her father’s particular brand of conditional approval, the way praise in her childhood arrived rarely and always attached to performance. She can articulate it precisely, in full sentences, with the correct vocabulary. And she still can’t explain why a mildly worded performance note sends a piece of her back forty years.
That piece. Internal Family Systems has a specific clinical word for it, and it gives the word its full weight: a part.
I’ve sat across from a lot of driven women who have this exact experience. They understand their history. They can narrate it, even teach it to a junior colleague over coffee. And the understanding, by itself, doesn’t stop the throat from closing. What I’ve come to appreciate about Richard Schwartz’s model is that it doesn’t ask a client to understand her way out of the reaction. It asks her to get curious about who, inside her, is having it.
What Is Richard Schwartz’s Internal Family Systems Model?
Richard C. Schwartz, PhD, is a family therapist and academic who developed Internal Family Systems in the 1980s while working with clients who described experiencing multiple, sometimes contradictory internal voices, states, or what they called parts. Rather than treating this multiplicity as pathology, Schwartz recognized it as a normal feature of human psychological life, and built a therapeutic model around working directly with a person’s inner system of parts.
Schwartz founded the IFS Institute and is a Teaching Associate in Psychiatry at Cambridge Health Alliance, a Harvard Medical School teaching affiliate, according to his own bio published on the Tim Ferriss Show transcript archive. He is the author of No Bad Parts: Healing Trauma and Restoring Wholeness with the Internal Family Systems Model (Sounds True, 2021), Introduction to Internal Family Systems, 2nd ed. (Sounds True, 2023), and, with Martha Sweezy, Internal Family Systems Therapy, 2nd ed. (Guilford Press, 2019).
Internal Family Systems is a therapeutic model that conceptualizes the mind as a system of sub-personalities, called parts, that coexist within a person. In the IFS model, each part is understood as having its own perspective, feelings, memories, and motivations, and parts are theorized to develop in response to a person’s early relational experiences, taking on protective or pain-carrying roles. The model’s stated goal is not to eliminate any part but to help a person’s Self, described in the model as an undamaged, compassionate core present in every person, lead the inner system.
In plain terms: IFS treats the different, sometimes contradictory sides of you (the perfectionist, the procrastinator, the inner critic, the part that wants to quit everything at 11 p.m. on a Tuesday) not as flaws to eliminate, but as a working theory of an inner team, each member trying to help in the only way it learned how.
I recently went back and reread sections of No Bad Parts for this piece, and the line that stayed with me wasn’t a dramatic one. Schwartz writes plainly that the Self “cannot be damaged,” that it “doesn’t have to develop,” and that it “possesses its own wisdom about how to heal internal as well as external relationships,” a claim he reports drawing from decades of clinical observation rather than from a single study or metric (archive.org, full text of No Bad Parts). What I want to be honest about here, before we go further: this is Schwartz’s theoretical framework and clinical claim, built from his own case experience. It is not an empirically established fact about the mind, and I’ll come back to what the actual controlled research does and doesn’t yet show later in this guide.
Parts, Not Diagnoses: What IFS Is and Isn’t Claiming
Before we go any further, I want to name something clearly, because I think it matters more than almost anything else in this piece. IFS’s language of parts, managers, firefighters, exiles, is a clinical metaphor and a working model. It’s a way of organizing and talking about internal experience so that a person can relate to their own reactions with more curiosity and less shame. It is not a literal claim that separate little people live inside your head. It is not a diagnosis. And reading this guide, or even doing IFS-informed work, is not something that identifies or labels a mental health condition in you.
Schwartz himself is explicit that IFS is a model for understanding normal psychological structure, not a system for diagnosing pathology. It differs from Dissociative Identity Disorder both in degree and in clinical meaning. Ordinary parts language describes the universal, non-pathological experience of having different internal states in different contexts; it isn’t describing amnestic, dissociated alters operating outside conscious awareness. If you read this guide and see yourself in it, that recognition doesn’t mean anything is wrong with you. It means you have an inner life with some complexity to it, which is true of essentially every person who has ever lived.
I also want to be direct about something else: IFS is one modality among several credible options, not a universal fit. Some clients find the parts language intuitive and immediately clarifying. Others find it abstract or find the internal-dialogue technique difficult to access, especially early in treatment or in the middle of an acute crisis. Neither reaction is a failure. A good therapist adjusts the frame to the client, not the other way around.
The Neurobiology of Parts: How Trauma Fragments the Self
IFS’s language of parts has some conceptual overlap with what trauma researchers describe as structural dissociation, the idea that the psyche can develop multiple, relatively distinct ways of processing experience in response to overwhelming events. To be clear, this is not the dissociation of Dissociative Identity Disorder, which IFS explicitly differentiates itself from. It’s closer to the ordinary, universal experience of behaving and feeling differently in different contexts: the version of you at your mother’s holiday table is not identical to the version of you leading a board meeting, and IFS would say both are parts, not pretense.
Here’s how I’ve come to explain it to clients in plain language. Think of the nervous system like a household with several people living in it, each one assigned a job after a family emergency years ago. One person took over managing the finances so no one would ever be blindsided again. Another took over keeping the peace so conflict wouldn’t escalate. A third person’s whole job became noticing danger before it arrived. Years later, the emergency is long over, but nobody has told the household to stand down, so everyone is still doing their assigned job, often at a volume the current situation doesn’t call for.
In the IFS model, exiles are parts theorized to carry the emotional weight of earlier wounding, including pain, shame, loneliness, or fear, and are described as being pushed out of conscious awareness by protective parts. Managers are described as proactive protectors, showing up as the inner critic, the planner, the perfectionist, or the people-pleaser, working to prevent situations that might activate an exile. Firefighters are described as reactive protectors that activate once an exile’s distress breaks through, using fast-acting strategies such as overworking, overeating, drinking, or dissociating to extinguish the feeling.
In plain terms: Which means in practice, the part of you that rewrites an email nine times before sending it and the part of you that opens a second bottle of wine on a Tuesday night might, in this framework, be seen as two different responses to the same underlying vulnerability, one preventing the fire, one putting it out.
The neuroscience here is worth stating carefully, because this is exactly the kind of section where clinical writing tends to overreach. Some researchers and clinicians have proposed that what Schwartz calls “going to Self,” the process of accessing a calm, observing internal state, correlates with patterns associated with increased prefrontal regulation and reduced amygdala reactivity, a pattern also associated with mindfulness and compassion-based practices. This is a plausible, actively discussed hypothesis in the trauma field, not a settled neuroscientific finding specific to IFS. IFS as a named intervention has not been the subject of large-scale neuroimaging trials that isolate its mechanism from other regulation-based approaches, and I don’t want to imply otherwise.
How IFS Parts Emerge in Driven Women
Client Vignette: Kavitha (composite, details changed for confidentiality)
It’s 6:50 on a Wednesday morning and Kavitha is standing in her kitchen in Austin, still in her running clothes, staring at an inbox tab on her phone that she has no memory of opening. She’s 41, a chief operating officer at a logistics company, the person three departments call when something is on fire. Her sneakers are still on. The coffee she poured four minutes ago has gone lukewarm on the counter.
“I have never once missed a deadline,” she tells me in our second session. “Not once, in nineteen years. I know that should feel like something to be proud of. It mostly feels like a hostage situation I set up myself. My husband asked me last week what I actually want, not what I think I should want, and I could not answer him. I sat there. I had nothing. I have a five-year plan for the company and I could not tell my own husband what I want for dinner.”
Sitting with Kavitha that morning, I felt something I’ve felt with dozens of driven, capable women across my caseload. Not pity. Something closer to recognition. The relentless competence in front of me wasn’t the whole story. It was doing a job.
What I’ve come to think of, in IFS terms, as her lead manager, the COO part, never clocks out. It scans for risk before risk arrives. Underneath it, by her own account in later sessions, was a much younger part that had learned, early and hard, that being extraordinarily useful was the price of being kept. The manager wasn’t the problem. The manager was working overtime to protect something that had never been allowed to just be a kid.
Kavitha’s inner system isn’t unusual in my caseload. The driven woman whose achievement is partly built on manager parts, perfectionism, hypervigilance to other people’s moods, relentless output, is one of the most common presentations I see. These manager parts aren’t the problem to be solved. They’re solving a problem. The IFS question is: what are they protecting, and what happens if we get curious about that instead of trying to override it?
This is often the turning point in this kind of work: the recognition that the pattern a client hates most in herself, the compulsive working, the inability to sit still, the relentless self-criticism, is functioning as a protective structure. It’s a manager doing the only job it was ever taught. And in this model, the manager doesn’t loosen its grip until whatever it’s protecting has been tended to.
Working With the Self: Curiosity, Compassion, and the 8 Cs
“Furthermore, the Self cannot be damaged, the Self doesn’t have to develop, and the Self possesses its own wisdom about how to heal internal as well as external relationships.”
Richard C. Schwartz, PhD, No Bad Parts, 2021
The concept of the Self is what distinguishes IFS from other parts-based or ego-state models. Schwartz describes the Self as an innate, undamaged center every person carries, not a skill to be built from scratch but something already present, capable of leading the internal system once parts are willing to step back. I want to flag again that this is Schwartz’s theoretical and clinical claim rather than an independently verified biological fact, though it functions, in my clinical experience, as a surprisingly useful working assumption for clients who feel like there’s nothing solid underneath their symptoms.
Schwartz describes the Self as characterized by what he calls the 8 Cs: calm, clarity, curiosity, compassion, courage, creativity, connectedness, and confidence. When a person is accessing what IFS calls Self-energy, meaning the parts have stepped back enough for the Self to take the lead, these qualities tend to become noticeable in the room. There’s a settled quality even around difficult material. There’s curiosity about the inner terrain instead of judgment or dread.
The technique sometimes called “the U-turn,” shifting attention from an external event to the internal experience it stirred up, is central to how IFS sessions actually work. Instead of asking a client to think about what happened, the therapist asks her to turn attention inward, find whichever part is activated, approach it with curiosity, and ask what it wants her to know. Clients who engage this way, whether through direct internal dialogue, imagery, or attention to body sensation, often report the encounter as specific and informationally rich, not vague. The exile that’s been quiet for thirty years, in this model, often has very particular things to say once someone finally asks.
Both/And: Highly Managed and Still Suffering
One of the most common things driven women say when they first sit down across from me is some version of, “I have a good life. I shouldn’t feel this way.” The Both/And of IFS work is this: you can have extraordinary manager parts, the ones that built the career, the polished life, the reputation for competence and warmth, and you can simultaneously be carrying pain at the level of an exile that has never once been acknowledged, grieved, or given what it needed.
Client Vignette: Adia (composite, details changed for confidentiality)
Adia has been in therapy every week for three years. She’s done the reading. She can describe her attachment style, her family-of-origin dynamics, and her own defense mechanisms with more precision than most graduate students. She arrives at sessions prepared, articulate, and reflective about her own process.
She also cannot access the exile her previous therapist kept gently pointing toward. Every time she gets close to the feeling underneath the understanding, a manager appears with something more urgent to discuss: a client crisis, a family situation, an article about trauma she read at midnight and needs to process out loud. The manager is brilliant, endlessly resourceful, and, as Adia put it once, “annoyingly good at its job.”
“I know what I’m doing,” she told me in one session, not quite looking at me. “I know I’m doing it right now. I can see the redirect happening and I still can’t stop it. It’s like watching someone else drive my car.”
We spent the first several months of our work together not on the exile at all, but on the manager that kept redirecting, getting to know what it was afraid would happen if Adia actually let herself feel what was underneath. The manager had one very specific fear: if Adia let herself feel how unseen that younger part of her had been, she would stop being able to function, and the whole structure, the career, the friendships, the reputation, would come apart. Welcoming the manager as a protector, rather than arguing with it, was what eventually created the first real opening.
This particular Both/And, the sophisticated, self-aware person who still can’t reach her own pain, is something IFS addresses more directly than most other frameworks I use. Treating protective parts as intelligent, with legitimate reasons for what they do, tends to build a non-adversarial relationship with the whole client, including the parts of her that are harder to like.
The Systemic Lens: Parts That Formed to Survive Impossible Systems
IFS has always had a systems orientation, which makes sense given that Schwartz trained originally as a family systems therapist. Increasingly, IFS clinicians have been exploring how external systems, family structures, cultural expectations, and institutional pressures, shape which parts a person develops and what jobs those parts end up doing.
A woman who grew up as the designated caretaker in her family system may develop an unusually vigilant manager that tracks everyone else’s emotional temperature before her own. A Black woman working inside a culture that has historically demanded she perform composure while absorbing other people’s discomfort with her presence may carry a manager built for exactly that job, at real internal cost. A first-generation professional who learned early that visible emotion would be read as unprofessional may carry a manager that suppresses vulnerability with the efficiency of a circuit breaker.
These parts didn’t develop in a vacuum. They developed because the systems around them required it, and those systems, gender expectations, racial dynamics, class pressure, family roles, are real and often still operating today. IFS doesn’t ask a client to simply “change the part” without first acknowledging what it was responding to. The work includes understanding the part’s original, legitimate function, and only then, from a place of Self-leadership, asking together whether the old strategy still serves her now.
Judith Herman’s work on captivity and relational trauma, which we explore at length in our Betrayal Trauma guide, maps onto this in a useful way: parts that developed to survive an impossible early system aren’t pathological. They’re adaptive responses to real conditions. The clinical question is whether the strategy can be updated now that the surrounding system has changed, or, in some cases, hasn’t changed nearly enough.
What the Research Does and Doesn’t Yet Show
I want to slow down here, because this is the section where a lot of writing about IFS overstates its case, and I don’t want to do that to you. IFS is a promising, actively researched model, and it is also, honestly, an earlier-stage evidence base than more established approaches like cognitive behavioral therapy or prolonged exposure. Here’s what the actual studies say, as specifically as I can put it.
A 2013 randomized controlled trial published in the Journal of Rheumatology, led by Nancy A. Shadick and including Richard C. Schwartz as a co-author, tested an IFS-based intervention alongside usual medical care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The trial found the IFS-based intervention was feasible and acceptable to patients, with improvements in pain and physical function that reached statistical significance at follow-up, along with sustained gains in self-compassion and depressive symptoms a year later; anxiety, self-efficacy, and disease activity did not show sustained improvement (PMID 23950186). The authors themselves describe it as a proof-of-concept study and call for larger efficacy trials, language I think is worth taking seriously rather than skipping past.
A 2017 pilot study in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, led by Shelley A. Haddock, randomly assigned 37 college women with depression to IFS or to treatment as usual, which in this case meant cognitive behavioral therapy or interpersonal therapy. Both conditions showed a decline in depressive symptoms, with no significant difference in the size or speed of improvement between them (PMID 27500908). The honest reading of this study is that it offers preliminary evidence that IFS performed comparably to already-established treatments in a small sample, not that it outperformed them.
A 2026 systematic review in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, led by Brandi Francis, examined dialectical behavior therapy, mentalization-based treatment, and Internal Family Systems as approaches to borderline personality disorder with co-occurring depression or anxiety. I want to be precise about this one: the review did not find evidence of IFS effectiveness for this population, because none of the studies it located had actually evaluated IFS outcomes for BPD with comorbid depression or anxiety at all (PMID 41519105). That’s a gap in the literature, not a mark in IFS’s favor, and I’d be doing you a disservice if I let the citation imply otherwise.
Martha Sweezy, Schwartz’s frequent co-author, has published case-study work on IFS and shame regulation, including a 2011 article in the American Journal of Psychotherapy describing clinical technique through a single case example (PMID 21847894). Case studies like this one are useful for illustrating how a model is applied in the room, but they are not controlled trials and shouldn’t be cited as if they carry the same evidentiary weight.
IFS is listed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration as an evidence-based practice, and the number of controlled studies is growing year over year. But compared to modalities with decades of large-sample randomized trials behind them, IFS’s evidence base is still developing. I think that’s fine to say plainly. A model doesn’t have to be the most-studied approach in the field to be clinically useful for a particular client in a particular room, and it also shouldn’t be marketed as more proven than it currently is.
How IFS Fits Into Healing: From Parts to Self-Leadership
IFS therapy tends to follow a recognizable arc, though the actual path varies a good deal from client to client and system to system. In broad strokes, the movement looks like this.
Getting to know parts without blending into them. “Blending,” in IFS language, describes what happens when a part takes over a client’s experience so completely that she becomes indistinguishable from it in the moment. She isn’t observing the anger; she is the anger. Learning to stay present as Self while a part is activated, to be with the part instead of being it, is a foundational skill that takes real time to build.
Working with managers before exiles. The IFS principle is to approach protectors first. Trying to rush past the managers to get to the pain faster tends to overwhelm the system and damage trust in the process. Schwartz is explicit about this in his training materials: you ask the managers for permission, you explain what you’re doing, and you get their buy-in before approaching whatever they’re guarding.
Approaching exiles with Self-energy, once protectors agree. When protective parts have granted access, the exile can be witnessed and acknowledged for what it went through, and, in the model’s language, relieved of beliefs it’s been carrying about its own worthlessness or fault. This process, sometimes called unburdening, is framed as the central healing mechanism in IFS. The idea isn’t that the exile needs a better argument. It’s that it needs to be seen, by a steady adult presence, as the child who went through something real and was never to blame for it.
Consolidating what’s changed. After this kind of work, parts are theorized to be able to take on new, less exhausting roles. Managers can loosen their grip, firefighters can find less costly ways to offer relief, and the exile, in this framework, can hold the memory of what happened without being fused to the shame it once carried alongside it.
In my own LMFT practice, I’m not a certified IFS therapist. I’m an IFS-informed clinician who has integrated aspects of the model, the curiosity about parts, the respect for protectors, the working assumption of an undamaged core, into a broader trauma-informed and relational approach. For clients who find the parts language clarifying, it can substantially change the quality of the inner relationship: the moment a person realizes the part she’s been fighting for thirty years may have been trying to protect her the whole time. That recognition doesn’t make the work easy, and IFS isn’t the right fit for every client or every presentation. But for the ones it does fit, it changes something in how the inner argument gets conducted.
Frequently Asked Questions: IFS, Parts Work & Internal Family Systems Therapy
Q: Is IFS the same as having multiple personalities or Dissociative Identity Disorder?
A: No. IFS describes a normal, universal experience of psychological multiplicity, not a disorder. Everyone has parts in this model’s sense of the word. The distinction from Dissociative Identity Disorder is one of degree and clinical significance: in DID, parts are separated to a degree that involves amnestic episodes and significant disruption to functioning. In IFS, parts describe the ordinary sub-personalities present in a typical psyche. Schwartz has stated clearly that IFS isn’t a diagnostic model; it’s a framework for understanding normal psychological structure.
Q: What does an IFS session actually look like?
A: An IFS session tends to be less focused on narrative or discussion than clients often expect. The therapist typically invites the client to turn attention inward, notice what’s happening in the body, locate a part that’s present, and approach it with curiosity. Much of the session unfolds as a kind of internal dialogue, the client relating to the part from a place of Self, asking what it wants her to know, what it’s afraid of, what it needs. It often feels quieter and more interior than talk therapy. Some clients find it immediately engaging. Others need time before this way of working feels natural.
Q: Is there research evidence for IFS?
A: There’s a small but growing body of research, and it’s worth being specific about what it shows. A 2013 randomized controlled trial in the Journal of Rheumatology found an IFS-based intervention improved pain and physical function in rheumatoid arthritis patients. A 2017 pilot study in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy found IFS performed comparably to established treatments for depression in a small sample of college women. A 2026 systematic review in the Journal of Psychiatric Research looked at treatments for borderline personality disorder and found no existing studies had evaluated IFS specifically for that population, a gap rather than a finding of effectiveness. IFS is listed by SAMHSA as an evidence-based practice, and the evidence base is still developing compared to longer-established modalities like CBT.
Q: What’s the difference between an IFS manager and a firefighter?
A: Both are described as protective parts working to keep an exile’s pain from overwhelming the system, and the difference is mainly timing. Managers act proactively, trying to prevent an exile from ever getting activated in the first place. Firefighters act reactively, stepping in after an exile has already broken through, using fast-acting strategies to put the fire out. In plain terms: the manager is the inner critic that kept you working until midnight to avoid the emptiness; the firefighter is the part that poured a drink at midnight once the emptiness arrived anyway.
Q: Can I do IFS work on my own, or do I need a therapist?
A: Self-guided IFS resources, books, apps, or guided recordings, can be a useful way to build familiarity with your own managers and general curiosity about your inner system. Working directly with exiles, the parts carrying the original pain, is generally not recommended without professional support, because approaching that material without preparation can overwhelm the system rather than heal it. If you’re using self-directed resources, staying focused on getting to know your managers, rather than trying to reach exiles solo, is the safer starting point. This isn’t medical or diagnostic advice; if you’re managing significant trauma symptoms, please work with a licensed clinician.
Q: How is IFS different from CBT or other talk therapies?
A: CBT works primarily at the level of thoughts and beliefs, identifying and restructuring patterns that drive difficult emotions. IFS works with the surrounding system: the thought, the part carrying it, the protectors guarding it, and whatever is underneath. CBT tends toward a first-person, narrative frame: “I notice the thought.” IFS tends toward an internal relational frame: “I’m curious about the part that thinks that. What does it need me to know?” Many clients find that IFS reaches layers CBT doesn’t touch as directly, not because CBT is flawed, but because some patterns don’t respond well to reasoning alone.
Q: Will IFS diagnose me or tell me what’s wrong with me?
A: No, and this is worth being direct about. IFS is a therapeutic framework, not a diagnostic tool, and nothing in this guide is meant to diagnose you with anything. If you recognize yourself in the manager, firefighter, or exile descriptions here, that reflects the ordinary complexity of having an inner life, not evidence of a disorder. A licensed clinician can help you figure out, together, whether an IFS-informed approach is a good fit for what you’re actually working with.
If you’ve read this whole guide looking for the part of you that keeps performing long after the applause has stopped mattering, I hope you found it, and I hope you were a little gentler with it than you expected to be.
Warmly, Annie
Read Annie’s weekly essays on rebuilding after relational trauma.
Weekly Substack essays from Annie Wright, LMFT on relational trauma, recovery, and the House of Life framework. For driven women who want a structured path back to themselves.
WAYS TO WORK WITH ANNIE
Individual Therapy
Trauma-informed therapy for driven women healing relational trauma. Licensed in 15 U.S. jurisdictions, including Colorado (telehealth only).
Executive Coaching
Trauma-informed coaching for driven women working through leadership and burnout.
Fixing the Foundations
Annie’s signature course for relational trauma recovery. Work at your own pace.
Strong & Stable
The Sunday conversation you wished you’d had years earlier. 27,281 readers.
Annie Wright, LMFT
LMFT · Relational Trauma Specialist · W.W. Norton Author
Helping driven women finally feel as good as their résumé looks.
Annie Wright is a licensed psychotherapist (LMFT #95719) and trauma-informed executive coach with over 15,000 clinical hours. She works with driven women, including Silicon Valley leaders, physicians, and entrepreneurs, in repairing the psychological foundations beneath their impressive lives. Annie is the founder and former CEO of Evergreen Counseling, a multimillion-dollar trauma-informed therapy center she built, scaled, and successfully exited. A regular contributor to Psychology Today, her expert commentary has appeared in Forbes, Business Insider, Inc., NBC, and The Information. She is currently writing her first book with W.W. Norton.
