Should supportive measures and relational variables be considered a part of psychoanalytic technique? Some empirical considerations

References

• Abend SM (2000). The problem of therapeutic alliance. In: Levy ST, editor. The therapeutic alliance, 1–16. Madison, CT: International UP. [Monograph 9: Workshop Series of the American Psychoanalytic Association.]
   Google Scholar
• American Psychoanalytic Association (2008). Principles of Standards for Education in Psychoanalysis. New York, NY: American Psychoanalytic Association.
   Google Scholar
• Barber JP, Connolly MB, Crits‐christoph P, Gladis L, Siquiland L (2000). Alliance predicts patients’ outcome beyond in‐treatment changes in symptoms. J Consult Clin Psychol 68:1027–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenner C (1976). Psychoanalytic technique and psychic conflict. New York, NY: International UP.
   Google Scholar
• Brenner C (1979). Working alliance, therapeutic alliance, and transference. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 27:137–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtis R, Field C, Knaan‐kostman I, Mannix K (2004). What 75 psychoanalysts found helpful and hurtful in their own analyses. Psychoanal Psychol 21:183–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewald PA (1964). Psychotherapy: A dynamic approach. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Fenichel O (1941). Problems of psychoanalytic technique. New York, NY: Psychoanalytic Quarterly.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman N, Hoffenberg JD, Vorus N, Frosch A (1999). The effectiveness of psychoanalytic psychotherapy: The role of treatment duration, frequency of sessions and the therapeutic relationship. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 47:741–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman L (1969). The therapeutic alliance. Int J Psychoanal 50:139–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galatzer‐levy RM, Bachrach H, Skolnikoff A, Waldron S Jr. (2000). Does psychoanalysis work? New Haven, CT: Yale UP.
   Google Scholar
• Gill MM (1951). Ego psychology and psychotherapy. Psychoanal Q 20:62–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gill MM (1954). Psychoanalysis and exploratory psychotherapy. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 2:771–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glover E (1931). The therapeutic effect of inexact interpretation: A contribution to the theory of suggestion. Int J Psychoanal 12:397–411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glover E (1954). Therapeutic criteria of psychoanalysis. Int J Psychoanal 35:95–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausner RS (2000). Therapeutic and working alliances. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 48:155–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffer A (2000). Neutrality and the therapeutic alliance: What does the analyst want? In: Levy ST, editor. The therapeutic alliance, 35–54. Madison, CT: International UP. ( Monograph 9: Workshop Series of the American Psychoanalytic Association .)
   Google Scholar
• Horwitz L (1974). Clinical prediction in psychotherapy. New York, NY: Aronson.
   Google Scholar
• Hovarth AO, Bedi RP (2002). The alliance. In: Norcross J, editor. Psychotherapy relationships that work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients, 37–70. New York, NY: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Hovarth AO, Luborsky L (1993). The role of the therapeutic alliance in psychotherapy. J Consult Clin Psychol 61:561–73.
   Google Scholar
• Hovarth AO, Symonds BD (1991). Relation between working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: A meta‐analysis. J Couns Psychol 38:139–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kantrowitz JL (1986). The role of patient–analyst match in the outcome of psychoanalysis. Annu Psychoanal 14:273–97.
   Google Scholar
• Kantrowitz JL (1993). Outcome research in psychoanalysis: Review and reconsiderations. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 41(Suppl.):313–28.
   Google Scholar
• Kantrowitz JL (2002). The external observer and the lens of the patient–analyst match. Int J Psychoanal 83:339–50.
   Google Scholar
• Kernberg OF (1999). Psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic psychotherapy and supportive psychotherapy: Contemporary controversies. Int J Psychoanal 80:1075–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight RP (1952). An evaluation of psychotherapeutic techniques. Bull Menninger Clin 16:113–24.
   Google Scholar
• Leuzinger‐bohleber MA (2002). A follow‐up study: Critical inspiration for our clinical practice? In: Leuzinger‐bohleber M, Target M, editors. Outcomes of psychoanalytic treatment: Perspectives for therapists and researchers, 143–76. New York, NY: Brunner Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Leuzinger‐bohleber M, Target M, editors (2002). Outcomes of psychoanalytic treatment: Perspectives for therapists and researchers. New York, NY: Brunner Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Luborsky L (1984). Principles of psychoanalytic psychotherapy. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Luborsky L (1994). Therapeutic alliances as predictors of psychotherapy outcomes: Factors explaining the predictive success. In: Hovarth A, Greenberg L, editors. The working alliance: Therapy, research and practice, 38–50. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Luborsky L, Crits‐christoph P, Mintz J, Auerbach A (1988). Who will benefit from psychotherapy? Predicting therapeutic outcomes. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Luborsky L, Luborsky E (2006). Research and psychotherapy: The vital link. Lanham, MD: Aronson.
   Google Scholar
• Meissner WW (1991). What is effective in psychoanalytic therapy: The move from interpretation to relation. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
   Google Scholar
• Meissner WW (1996). The therapeutic alliance. New Haven, CT: Yale UP.
   Google Scholar
• Norcross JC, editor (2002). Psychotherapy relationships that work. New York, NY: Oxford UP.
   Google Scholar
• Nuetzel EJ, Larsen RJ, Prizmic Z (2007). The dynamics of empirically derived factors in the therapeutic relationship. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 55:1321–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunberg H (1948). Practice and theory of psychoanalysis: Vol. 1. New York, NY: International UP.
   Google Scholar
• Rangell L (1954). Similarities and differences between psychoanalysis and dynamic psychotherapy. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 2:734–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renik O (2000). The deep divide in psychoanalysis. Presentation given at a conference honoring Robert Wallerstein, University of California Medical Center, 16 June.
   Google Scholar
• Robbins LL, Wallerstein RS (1956). Orientation. Bull Menninger Clin 20:223–5.
   Google Scholar
• Rockland LH (1989). Supportive therapy: A psychodynamic approach. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Sandler J, Dreher AU (1996). What do psychoanalysts want? The problem of aims in psychoanalytic therapy. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schacter J, Kächele H (2007). The analyst’s role in healing: Psychoanalysis‐plus. Psychoanal Psychol 24:429–44.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro D (1976). The analyst’s own analysis. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 24:5–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone L (1951). Psychoanalysis and brief psychotherapy. Psychoanal Q 20:215–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tessman LH (2003). The analyst’s analyst within. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Torsti‐hagman M (2008). On supportive interventions and non‐symbolic mental functioning. Int J Psychoanal 89:657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaughan SC, Roose SP (2000). Patient–therapist match. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 48:885–900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallerstein RS (1986). Forty‐two lives in treatment: A study of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Wallerstein RS (1989). Psychoanalysis and psychotherapy: An historical perspective. Int J Psychoanal 70:563–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallerstein RS (2009). What kind of research in psychoanalytic science? Int J Psychoanal 90:109–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallerstein RS, Robbins LL (1956). Concepts. Bull Menninger Clin 20:239–62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar