Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To limit search results by article type…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Looking for an Abstract? Article? Review? Commentary? You can choose the type of document to be displayed in your search results by using the Type feature of the Search Section.

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

Schachter, J. (2004). Response To Joseph Masling's Critique Of Stephen A. Mitchell. Psychoanal. Psychol., 21(3):473-479.

(2004). Psychoanalytic Psychology, 21(3):473-479

Response To Joseph Masling's (2003) Critique Of Stephen A. Mitchell

Joseph Schachter, M.D., Ph.D.

Joseph Masling (2003) criticized Stephen A. Mitchell (1997, 2000) for (a) recommending that the analyst be more active and involved, thereby increasing the risk of sexual involvement with the patient, and (b) Mitchell's belief that empirical data have little to contribute to psychoanalysis. There are no data supporting the hypothesis that the analyst's activity increases the risk of sexual violation. The author hypothesizes that the risk of such sexual acting out is a function primarily of the unique, unresolved psychopathology of the individual analyst, rather than either the model of treatment used or the opportunity for such a violation. The author does agree that Mitchell's belief that empirical data have little to contribute to psychoanalysis is ill advised.

[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 © 2020, 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.