Advertisement

The consensus problem in psychoanalytic research

  • Philip F. D. Seitz
Part of the The Century Psychology Series book series (TCPS)

Abstract

The consensus problem in psychoanalytic (and psychotherapeutic) research refers to the difficulty that clinicians have in agreeing upon the interpretation of the same set of (interview) data. This problem exists in every field of science, although some sciences necessarily depend more upon interpretation than others. Archeology and paleontology are examples of sciences that must utilize considerable interpretation in attempting to synthesize and reconstruct total pictures from fragmentary observational data. Psychodynamic research, which includes research in psychotherapy, is another such example. Psychoanalysis has shown how extensively the phenomena of personality and behavior tend to occur without direct, straightforward, objectively observable manifestations. The investigator of psychological dynamics must develop methods for “reading between the lines” and “piecing things together”—i.e., for interpreting certain aspects of the total situation that are not immediately apparent, may only be alluded to indirectly, or may even be conspicuous by their absence from the manifest behavior.

Keywords

Case Material Consensus Problem Reactive Motive Present Writer Present Interpretation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bellak, L. An experimental exploration of the psychoanalytic process. (Presented at the midwinter meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association, New York City, Dec. 2, 1955.) Psa. Quart., 25: 385, 1956.Google Scholar
  2. Dollard, J., and Auld, F., Jr. Scoring human motives: A Manual. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959.Google Scholar
  3. Dollard, J., and Mowrer, O. H. A method of measuring tension in written documents. J. of abnorm. and soc. Psychol., 42:3, 1947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. French, T. M. The problem of consensus. (Presented at the mid-winter meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association, New York City, Dec. 2, 1954).Google Scholar
  5. French, T. M. The integration of behavior: Volumes I, II, and III. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952, 1954, 1958.Google Scholar
  6. Gottschalk, L. A., Gleser, G. C., and Springer, K. J. Three hostility scales applicable to verbal samples. A.M.A. Arch. gen. Psychiat., 9: 254–279, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaufman, P. E., and Raimy, V. C. Two methods of assessing therapeutic progress. J. abnorm. and soc. Psychol., 44: 379, 1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kohut, H. Introspection, empathy, and psychoanalysis—an examination of the relationship between mode of observation and theory. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Ass., 7: 459–483 (see esp. pp. 471–472), 1959.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kohut, H., and Seitz, P. F. D. Concepts and theories of psychoanalysis. In J. M. Wepman and R. W. Heine (Eds.), Concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine, 1963. Pp. 113–141 (see pp. 120–123).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rogers, C. R. A coordinated research in psychotherapy. J. consult. Psychol., 13: 149, 1949.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Seitz, P. F. D. Research in psychotherapy—A progress report to the Rockefeller Foundation, 1956.Google Scholar
  12. Seitz, P. F: D. Notes on research utilizing the psychoanalytic process; some theoretic and methodologic considerations. Presented to the Seminar on Current Research, Doctor of Medical Science Program, Department of Psychiatry, Downstate Medical Center, State University of New York, Brooklyn, March 30, 1962. (Revised April, 1964; unpublished manuscript.)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Meredith Publishing Company 1966

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip F. D. Seitz

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations