BürginD. (2016). Analysis on demand. British Journal of Psychotherapy32:347–358.
2.
DowneyT.W. (2018). Winnicott’s Antigone. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association66:1155–1166.
3.
FerroA. (2003). The Bi-Personal Field: Experiences in Child Analysis. New York: Routledge.
4.
FrankelR. (2002). Fantasy and imagination in Winnicott’s work. British Journal of Psychotherapy19:3–19.
5.
LenormandM. (2018). “Psychoanalysis partagé”: Winnicott, The Piggle, and the set-up of child analysis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis99:1107–1128.
6.
LuepnitzD.A. (2017). The name of the Piggle: Reconsidering Winnicott’s classic case in light of some conversations with the adult ‘Gabrielle’. International Journal of Psychoanalysis98:343–370.
7.
MarguliesA. (2020). Falling out of the world—and the longing for home. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association68:1127–1136.
8.
OgdenT.H. (2016). Destruction reconceived: on Winnicott’s ‘The use of an object and relating through identifications’. International Journal of Psychoanalysis97:1243–1262.
9.
OgdenT.H. (2019). Ontological psychoanalysis or “What do you want to be when you grow up?”Psychoanalytic Quarterly88:661–684.
10.
PhillipsA. (2007). Winnicott. London: Penguin.
11.
ReevesC. (2015a). Reappraising Winnicott’s The Piggle: A critical commentary: Part I: Introduction and the treatment. British Journal of Psychotherapy31:156–190.
12.
ReevesC. (2015b). Reappraising Winnicott’s The Piggle: A critical commentary: Part II: Discussion and critique. British Journal of Psychotherapy31:285–297.
13.
RodmanF.R. (2003). Winnicott: Life and Work:New York: Perseus Publishing.
14.
SzajnbergN.M. (2017). The Piggle: Decoding an enigma. British Journal of Psychotherapy33:470–491.
15.
WinnicottD.W. (1969). The use of an object. International Journal of Psychoanalysis50:711–716.
16.
WinnicottD.W. (1971). Playing and reality. In Playing and Reality:London: Tavistock Publications, pp. 1–156.
