Skip to main content

The Therapeutic Frame: On the Need for Flexibility

Abstract

A fundamental function of the therapeutic frame is protection of the therapeutic process from the intrusion of elements antithetical to the best interest of the client and detrimental to treatment outcome. It is argued that dogmatic interpretation of the frame promotes conformity rather than growth in the client, blinds the therapist to legitimate issues of client diversity, and constricts the therapist's ability to be appropriately responsive to the client. It is suggested that while the frame is essential to maintain the focus of treatment on the welfare of the client, inflexible adherence undermines this purpose.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  1. American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597–1628.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Casement, P. J. (1991). Learning from the patient. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cherry, E. F. & Gold, S. N. (1989). The therapeutic frame revisited: A contemporary perspective. Psychotherapy, 26, 162–168.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chessick, R. D. (1982). Psychoanalytic listening: With special reference to the views of Langs. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 18, 613–633.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eissler, K. R. (1953). The effect of the structure of the ego on psychoanalytic technique. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1, 104–143.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Firestone, R. W. (1990). Prescription for psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 27, 627–635.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Freud, S. (1959a). Recommendations for physicians on the psycho-analytic method of treatment In J. Riviere (Ed. and Trans.), Collected papers, Vol. 2 (pp. 323–333). New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1912)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Freud, S. (1959b). Further recommendations in the techniques of psycho-analysis. On beginning treatment. The question of the first communication. The dynamics of cure. In J. Riviere (Ed. and Trans), Collected papers, Vol. 2 (pp. 342–365). New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1913)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Freud, S. (1959c). Further recommendations in the technique of psycho-analysis. Observations on transference love. In J. Riviere (Ed. and Trans.), Collected papers, Vol. 2 (pp. 377–391). New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1915).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Freud, S. (1959d). Turnings in the ways of psycho-analytic therapy. In J. Riviere (Ed. and Trans.), Collected papers, Vol. 2 (pp. 392–402). New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1919)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fromm-Reichman, F. (1950). Principles of intensive psychotherapy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kohut, H. (1984). How does psychoanalysis cure? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Langs, R. (1973). The technique of psychoanalytic psychotherapy, Vol. 1. New York: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Langs R. (1975a). Therapeutic misalliances. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 4, 77–105.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Langs, R. (1975b). The therapeutic relationship and deviations in technique. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 4, 106–141.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Langs, R. (1976). The bi-personal field. New York: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Langs, R. (1977). The therapeutic interaction: A synthesis. New York: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Langs, R. (1980). Interactions: The realm of transference and countertransference. New York: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Langs, R. (1982). Psychotherapy: A basic text. New York: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Langs, R. (1984). Freud's Irma dream and the origins of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Review, 71, 591–617.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Langs, R. (1984–85a). Making interpretations and securing the frame: Sources of danger for psychotherapists. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 10, 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Langs, R. (1984–85b). The framework of training analyses. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 10, 259–287.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Langs, R. & Stone, L. (1980). The therapeutic experience and its setting. New York: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Miller, A. (1984). Thou shalt not be aware: Society's betrayal of the child. (H. Hannum & H. Hannum, Trans.). New York: Meridian. (Original work published 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Robertiello, R. C. (1979). Critique of Kernberg and Langs. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 10, 151–157.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stolorow, R., Brandchaft, B. & Atwood, G. (1983). Intersubjectivity in psychoanalytic treatment. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 47, 117–128.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Winnicott, D. W. (1956). On transference International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 37, 386–388.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven N. Gold.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gold, S.N., Cherry, E.F. The Therapeutic Frame: On the Need for Flexibility. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy 27, 147–155 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025664228870

Download citation

Keywords

  • Public Health
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Social Psychology
  • Good Interest
  • Therapeutic Process