Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To save articles in ePub format for your eBook reader…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

To save an article in ePub format, look for the ePub reader icon above all articles for logged in users, and click it to quickly save the article, which is automatically downloaded to your computer or device.  (There may be times when due to font sizes and other original formatting, the page may overflow onto a second page.).

You can also easily save to PDF format, a journal like printed format.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Spence, D.P. (1996). In Search Of Signs Of Healing—the Quest For Clinical Evidence. Contemp. Psychoanal., 32:287.

(1996). Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 32:287

In Search Of Signs Of Healing—the Quest For Clinical Evidence

Donald P. Spence, Ph.D.

HOW EXACTLY does the talking cure help the patient? We can establish a baseline of sorts by looking at a rival procedure developed by Pennebaker and his colleagues. They asked their subjects to write a few sentences, at regular intervals, about emotionally upsetting topics. Subjects who carried out this procedure report fewer visits to doctors, show improved serum immune function, better grades in school, greater happiness, and less long-term distress (Pennebaker, 1993). If we reframe this procedure as a kind of solitary free association or self-analysis, we are naturally led to wonder to what extent the beneficial effects of traditional psychoanalysis stem from the fact that regular meetings with the analyst give patients the opportunity to talk continuously about their troubles. No one knows if this opportunity constitutes the essential part of psychoanalytic treatment, but if it does, it could be argued that the added presence of the analyst is necessary largely to keep the patient talking. If this is true, we might wonder whether any attempt to move beyond this role (e.g., to make interpretations) is in fact necessary, or whether it might even interfere with the main purpose of therapy (to keep the patient talking).

To argue in this manner is to point to the fact that we simply do not know what underlies effective psychoanalytic treatment and that, for too long a time, this question has not been systematically addressed. Could it be that the analyst's main job is to (a) remain silent so that the patient can talk, and (b) remain sensitive to the added burden that his silent, invisible (and thus wholly unnatural) presence places on the patient? In many ways, the treatment might proceed more smoothly if it followed a straight Pennebaker (self-analysis) model, but then reimbursement would be hard to justify (who should get paid?), missed appointments would be hard to define, and third-party payments would be irrelevant because the second party had disappeared.

—————————————

0010-7530/96 $2.00 + .05

Copyright © 1996 W. A. W. Institute

20 W. 74th Street, New York, NY 10023

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Contemporary Psychoanalysis, Vol. 32, No. 2 (1996)

- 287 -

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2017, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.