Changes in the Level and Quality of Object Relations in Psychoanalysis: Followup of A Longitudinal,Prospective Study

Abstract

As part of a prospective, longitudinal study of suitability for and outcome of psychoanalysis, 22 patients were evaluated for changes in the level and quality of their object relations. These patients had been accepted for supervised analysis with candidates in training by senior analysis who had diagnosed them as neurotic. The majority of these patients reported difficulties in relationships as at least one of their reasons for originally seeking psychoanalytic treatment. Prior to beginning analysis, each patient was given a battery of psychological tests. One year after the termination of analysis, the test battery was readministered and a followup interview was conducted separately with each patient and analyst. Ratings of change based on patient and analyst interviews and comparisons of psychological tests before and after treatment all showed statistically significant improvement in the level and quality of object relations for this patient group. The results of this study support what is often observed in clinical practice, that psychoanalysis has a positive effect on the level and quality of a patient's object relations.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Appelbaum, S. A. (1977). The Anatomy of Change: A Menninger Foundation Report on Testing the Effects of Psychotherapy. New York: Plenum.

Bachrach, H. M. & Leaf, L. A. (1978). Analyzability: a systematic review of the clinical and quantitative literature. J Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 26:881–920.

Diatkine, R. (1968). Indications and contraindications for psychoanalytic treatment. Int. J. Psychoanal., 49:266–270.

Erle, J. & Goldberg, D. A. (1979). Problems in assessment of analyzability. Psychoanal. Q., 48:48–94.

Erle, J. & Goldberg, D. A. (1984). Observations on assessment of analyzability by experienced analysts: report on 160 cases. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 32:715–737.

Huxster, H. , Lower, R. & Escoll, P. (1975). Some pitfalls in the assessment of analyzability in a psychoanalytic clinic. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 23:90–106.

Kantrowitz, J. L. (1986). A prospective study of suitability for psychoanalysis: a followup study of 22 cases. Yearbook Psychoanal. & Psychother., in press.

Kantrowitz, J. L. Paolitto, F. ; Sashin, J. ; Solomon, L. & Ratz, A. L. (1986). Affect availability, tolerance, complexity, and modulation in psychoanalysis: followup of a longitudinal, prospective study. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 34:525–555.

Kernberg, O. F. ; Burstein, E. ; Coyne, L. ; Appelbaum, S. ; Horwtiz., L. & Voth, H. (1972). Psychotherapy and psychoanalysis: final report of the Menninger Foundation psychotherapy research project. Bull. Menninger Clin., 36:3–275.

10.

Knapp P. ; Levin, S. ; McCarter, R. ; Wermer, H. & Zelzel., E. (1960). Suitability for psychoanalysis: a review of one hundred supervised cases. Psychoanal. Q., 29:459–477.

11.

Lower, R. , Escoll, P. & Huxster, H. (1972). Bases for judgments of analyzability. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 20:610–621.

12.

Namnum, A. (1968). The problem of analyzability and the autonomous ego. Int. J. Psychoanal., 49:271–275.

13.

Sashin, J. , Eldred, S. & Van Amerongen, S. (1975). A search for predictive factors in institute supervised cases: a retrospective study of 183 cases from 1959-1966 at the Boston Psychoanalytic Institute. Int. J. Psychoanal., 56:343–359.

14.

Tyson, R. & Sandler, J. (1971). Problems in the assessments of patients for psychoanalysis: comments on the applications of the concepts of “indications,” “suitability,” and “analyzability.” Brit. J. Med. Psychol., 44:211–228.

15.

Waldhorn, H. (1960). Assessment of analyzability: technical and theoretical observations. Psychoanal. Q., 29:478–506.

16.

Zetzel. E. (1968). The so-called good hysteric. In The Capacity for Emotional Growth. New York: Int. Univ. Press, 1970, pp. 229–245.