Meltem Yılmaz,1 Kutlu Kağan Türkarslan,2 Ludovica Zanini,1 Dilara Hasdemir,3 Grazia Fernanda Spitoni,1Vittorio Lingiardi11Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, and Health Studies, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy; 2Department of Psychology, Atılım University, Ankara, Turkey; 3Steve Hicks School of Social Work, University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA
Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome 2024; volume 27:744; doi:10.4081/ripppo.2024.744
2024 Apr 18
ABSTRACT
Despite its well-established importance in psychoanalytic theory, there is a scarcity of empirical evidence on the relation-ship between a therapist’s transference interpretation (TI) and therapeutic outcome. The current scientific literature shows no consensus on the existence and nature of such an association. Therefore, the present study aimed to systematically review the literature on the link between TI and outcomes in psychody-namic psychotherapies. The American Psychological Associa-tion PsycInfo, MEDLINE, and the Web of Science Core Collection were selected as the primary databases for the litera-ture search. Studies were included if they measured the fre-quency/concentration of TIin psychodynamic psychotherapy [e.g., transference focused psychotherapy (TFP), supportive-ex-pressive therapy] orcompared a treatment group (e.g., high in TI and TFP) with a control group (e.g., low in TI supportive ther-apy) in an adult population with psychiatric symptoms. Out of 825 retrieved abstracts, 25 articles (21 studies) were included in the final synthesis. 13 out of 21 (62%) studies showed a signif-icant improvement in at least one therapy outcome measure fol-lowing the use of TI. The present systematic review also revealed high heterogeneity across studies in terms of TI meas-urement, outcome assessment (e.g., psychiatric symptoms, dy-namic change, interpersonal functioning, therapeutic alliance), study design (e.g., experimental, quasi-experimental, naturalis-tic), patient population (e.g., anxiety disorders, personality dis-orders), and types of treatment (e.g., TFP, supportive-expressive therapy), preventing researchers from asserting solid conclu-sions. The results strongly highlight the urgent need for high-quality research to understand which types of patients, how, and when TIs could be effective throughout the therapy process.
Key words: transference, interpretation, psychodynamic psy-chotherapy, outcome.
Introduction
As one of the most frequently applied and empirically sup-ported psychotherapies, psychodynamic psychotherapy has been shown to be an effective treatment for various psychopatholo-gies and personality disorders (Leichsenring & Rabung, 2011; Shedler, 2010; Steinert et al., 2017). Psychodynamic psy-chotherapy comprises several essential techniques, including transference interpretation (TI), which has been regarded as a fundamental mechanism that brings about a change in patients’ psychological functioning (Cooper, 1987; Freud, 1912; Gab-bard, 2004; Hobson & Kapur, 2005; Leichsenring et al., 2006).
Freud was the first clinician who described transference as “new editions or facsimiles of the impulses and phantasies which are aroused and made conscious during the progress of the analysis; but they have this peculiarity, which is character-istic for their species, that they replace some earlier person by the person of the physician. To put it another way: a whole series of psychological experiences are revived, not as belonging to the past, but as applying to the person of the physician at the present moment” (Freud, 1905, p. 116). Despite the lack of con-sensus on the current definition of transference within the psy-choanalytic and psychodynamic fields, transference, in its most general form, refers to the unconscious repetition and projection of patterns of impulses, feelings, thoughts, and behaviors toward the therapist that were continuously experienced during the in-teraction with significant early others (Hobson & Kapur, 2005; Levy & Scala, 2012).
Based on the assumption that pervasive enactment of past relational dynamics within the therapeutic relationship could provide access to the unconscious, Freud and the psychoanalysts who followed him stressed the importance of the analysis and working through of transference for the success of a psychoan-alytic treatment (Freud, 1912; Klein, 1952; Langs, 1973; Zetzel, 1956). Freud (1917), following his acceptance of transference as a key element of analysis rather than an obstacle, argued that transference should not be interpreted before it becomes a re-sistance in the treatment process. According to Strachey (1934), “mutative interpretation” should make patients aware that the fantasy object (e.g., projected and distorted perception of the therapist based on prior representations) and the real analyst (e.g., the therapist with their actual behavior and attitude) differ from each other.
In later years, Winnicott (1949) highlighted the necessity of the therapists’ recognition of their countertransference, including negative feelings such as hate, as it is of utmost importance to capture and interpret both positive and negative transference rather than defending themselves against their negative feelings by denial or reaction formation (e.g., flexing the analytic frame). On the other hand, Klein (1952) pointed out that transference could be observed in all therapeutic material (“total situations”) brought by patients, including everyday life narratives, con-scious associations, or unconscious projections, from which therapists can extract information on how patients act out in transference. Klein also favored the use of early TIs by targeting primitive unconscious fantasies and the split part-objects inter-nalized in early years, which are then projected onto the analyst, as she purported that transference starts to be formed from the very first moment of the encounter with the therapist. On the contrary, Kohut (1971) was opposed to early TIs as they could hamper the full development of self-object transferences. Kohut (1984) further argued that TI must be a two-step process com-prising an empathic understanding of inner dynamics and their genetic interpretations.
Contemporary psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic therapies continue to hold the centrality of transference and TI (Banon et al., 2013; Gabbard, 2004; Kernberg et al., 2008). For example, Kernberg et al. (2008) developed transference focused psy-chotherapy (TFP), which aims to help patients identify and ad-dress the emotional and interpersonal dynamics that contribute to borderline personality structure (i.e., identity diffusion, im-mature defensive functioning, distorted perception of reality) and develop more integrated and adaptive ways of thinking, feel-ing, and behaving. TFP argues that patients with borderline per-sonality disorder (BPD) have polarized (good versus bad) views of both themselves and others, which eventually lead to mal-adaptive behaviors (e.g., impulsivity, demandingness, amend-ments to negate painful mental states). During therapy, patients are expected to enact their problematic dyadic perceptions in their interactions with the therapist, who interprets these inter-actions progressively so that patients can integrate their conflict-ing views of themselves and others.
Empirical literature on transference interpretation
Since the 1970s, psychodynamic psychotherapy process and outcome research have investigated the effects of TI via natura-listic, quasi-experimental, and experimental studies (Høglend, 2014; Levy & Scala, 2012). TI is proposed to be an active agent in facilitating therapeutic alliance, managing patients’ feelings and thoughts, and working on their psychic organization and identity integration (Crits-Christoph & Gibbons, 2021; Gabbard & Horowitz, 2009; Giovacchini, 1979; Joseph, 1985; Tyndale, 1999). Experimental studies, such as the First Experimental Study of Transference Interpretations (FEST) (Høglend et al., 2006), opened up new horizons in psychotherapy research re-garding their rigorous study design and thought-provoking re-sults. FEST investigated the effects of TIs on outcome variables by comparing patients who received frequent TIs to patients whose therapists were requested to refrain from interpreting transference during one-year psychodynamic psychotherapy (Høglend et al., 1993, 2008; Ulberg et al., 2021). On the other hand, observational studies assessed the frequency or proportion of TIs given during different phases of therapy sessions prima-rily by using standardized rating scales (e.g., therapist interven-tion rating system, transference work scale) (Ogrodniczuk et al., 1999; Piper et al., 1986).
Existing studies exploring TI and its effects have mainly as-sessed psychodynamic functioning, psychiatric symptoms, thera-peutic alliance, interpersonal functioning, and the number of dropouts as outcome measures. The specific characteristics of pa-tients (e.g., the quality of object relations), quantity and quality of TIs, immediate patient responses, and therapist-patient relationship have been found to be important factors impacting the potential of TIs to create change (Banon et al., 2001; Piper et al., 1991).
Another highlight of TI-outcome research is that TI is a “high-risk, high-gain phenomenon”, meaning its interpretation is likely to follow two paths: an increase in patient defensiveness along with ruptures in the therapeutic alliance or an increase in insight and relational functioning (Gabbard et al., 1994; Hersoug et al., 2014; McCullough et al., 1991). For example, frequent interpretation of transference is shown to bring a less favorable outcome as well as a weakened therapeutic alliance across dif-ferent forms of analytic therapies, including ones with high-level personality organization patients (Crits-Christoph & Gibbons, 2021; Luyten et al., 2012; Piper et al., 1991). In contrast, the main results of the FEST revealed both treatments to have sim-ilar effects on the outcome at termination and 3-year follow-up. Moderator analyses showed that patients with low-quality of ob-ject relations and/or personality disorders benefited from unique positive effects of TI compared to patients with high-level per-sonality structure (Hersoug et al., 2014; Høglend et al., 2006; Høglend et al., 2008).
Lastly, the disaccord observed in research findings might result from the wide variety of factors that might influence the link between TI and outcome, such as its frequency, intensity, accu-racy, timing, valence, and content (Ulberg et al., 2014). For instance, it is known that therapists tend to increase the frequency of their TI when patients are more defensive and when a rupture is experienced within the relationship, which does not resolve the strains in the alliance (Høglend, 2004). Another reason would be the difficulty of making an empirically succinct defi-nition of TI. Hobson and Kapur (2005, p. 281) suggested three distinguishing characteristics among TIs employed in the re-search studies: “(a) how the interpretations are anchored, (b) to which features of patient-therapist interaction they are directed; and (c) the kind of patient-therapist engagement they appear to foster”. It is therefore suggested to remain cautious when mak-ing generalizations on the therapeutic effectiveness of TIs; what is considered a TI may vary in different empirical studies.
Aim of the systematic review
Studies carried out so far have provided conflicting evidence concerning the relationship between TI and outcome variables, leading to confusion for empirically informed clinicians. To date, there have been prior efforts to review the literature on the relationship between interpretations of any kind and outcome (Antichi et al., 2022; Crits-Christoph & Gibbons, 2021; Zilcha-Mano, Fisher, et al., 2023; Zilcha-Mano, Keefe, et al., 2023), andTI and therapy outcome (Brumberg & Gumz, 2012; Hø-glend, 2004, 2014; Levy & Scala, 2012). However, to the best of our knowledge, the current study constitutes the only and the most up-to-date (Brumberg & Gumz, 2012) review of the liter-ature employing a rigorous systematic approach with a specific focus on objectively measured TI (Crits-Christoph & Gibbons, 2001; Høglend, 2004, 2014; Levy & Scala, 2012). As a response to the pressing need to comprehensively and systematically sum-marize and describe the current literature on the relationship be-tween TI and outcome variables, the present systematic review aims to contribute to efforts to close this gap in the literature.
Methods
Information sources and search procedure
The systematic search of the current review was conducted on February 28, 2022. Due to the time gap between the conclu-sion of our systematic search and the submission of the study, the articles published after this date were hand-searched and as-sessed for eligibility (Diamond et al., 2023). The American Psy-chological Association PsycInfo, MEDLINE, and the Web of Science Core Collection were selected as the primary databases for the literature search. The following words were entered as search terms: ((transference OR patient-therapist relation* OR therapist-patient relation*) AND interpretation AND (psycho-dynamic OR psychoanalytic* OR dynamic* OR analytic* OR supportive-expressive) AND (psychotherapy OR treatment OR therapy) OR transference-focus*). During the identification phase, the ‘abstract’ option was selected in search engines.
Prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses on TI were also checked through PROSPERO and the Campbell Collaboration to access the latest compiles of relevant information. Through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, further clin-ical trials were checked. Lilliengren’s list (2017), a regularly up-dated compendium of psychodynamic clinical trials, was also consulted specifically for controlled trials investigating psycho-dynamic psychotherapies. The database for unpublished study searches (e.g., doctoral dissertations, conference papers, and preprints) was selected as Proquest. Four review articles were especially helpful in tracking the previous theoretical and em-pirical work on TI (Brumberg & Gumz, 2012; Høglend, 2004, 2014; Levy & Scala, 2012). Prominent researchers in the field of transference and its interpretation were contacted to identify additional applicable studies. A bibliographic review of the in-cluded studies was performed to avoid missing any relevant studies.
Eligibility criteria
During the full-text reading, the articles were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria for the current systematic review were as follows: publication date from 1970 onward, written in English, inclusion of patients older than 18, inclusion of more than ten subjects in the study, and in-vestigation of a psychodynamic therapy of psychopathology other than psychosis with its relation to therapy outcome. Naturalistic and experimental designs (e.g., quasi-experimental), but not case studies and qualitative designs, were included. Studies with unsuitable publication types (e.g., theoretical papers, man-uals, review articles) were extracted. When there were multiple publications based on the same research study, only one study that included a detailed description of the study design was in-cluded and presented in the review (e.g., eleven articles from the FEST Study between 2006 and 2020).
Screening, selection process, and data extraction
The screening and selection of the articles were performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Page et al., 2021). The systematic review process is summarized in detail in Figure 1. Following the acquisition of the complete list of articles identified with the search terms, duplicates were removed both manually and viaZotero. The identification of relevant studies was performed by one reviewer (DH) to winnow down the large pool of studies.
Abstracts were then screened, which was followed by the retrieval and selection of articles based on the eligibility criteria. Abstract screening and selection of eligible articles were inde-pendently undertaken by two authors (DH, KKT, and MY, KKT, respectively), who reached substantial inter-rater agreements with Cohen’s κ=.78 and κ=.77. In cases of disagreement regard-ing the inclusion of a publication, reviewing authors discussed their decisions until they reached a consensus. If not possible, a third reviewer was involved to reach a final decision.
Two reviewers (MY and KKT) extracted the following data reported in the eligible studies on an electronic sheet: authors, publication year, search strategy (i.e., via a search engine, hand search), title, study design (experimental control), sample size, gender proportion, mean age (or age range, depending on the data availability), quality index, patient population, number of therapists, intervention type, treatment frequency, treatment du-ration, the measure of transference, operationalization of trans-ference, outcome measure, and results.
Assessment of the quality of included studies
The assessment of study quality was performed by one of the authors (LZ) using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, through which a quality index ranging from 0 to 7 was obtained. Details on the ap-plied criteria and the quality indices derived for each study can be found in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Results
The first search strategy identified 1593 potentially eligible articles; following the removal of duplicates, 825 studies re-mained. Through the application of inclusion and exclusion cri-teria, a full-text assessment was carried out on 49 articles. Of these, 19 articles met all inclusion/exclusion criteria; 6 further publications were identified through a hand search. To avoid redundancies, articles that presented previously published data were considered one study. The present systematic review is therefore based on the data derived from 21 studies (25 articles in total); Table 1 provides an overview of their characteristics (Clarkin et al., 2001; Clarkin et al., 2007; Connolly et al., 1999; Doering et al., 2010; Fischer-Kern et al., 2015; Hoglend et al., 1993; Hoglend et al., 2006; Klein et al., 2003; Levy et al., 2006; Malan, 1976; Marmar et al., 1989; Marziali, 1984; Milbrath et al., 1999; Ogrodniczuk et al., 1999; Perez et al., 2016; Piper et al., 1986; Piper et al., 1991; Piper et al., 1999; Ryum et al., 2010; Sahin et al., 2018; Schut et al., 2005). In the following sections, all included articles have been described according to the general charac-teristics of the studies, characteristics of the interventions, measurement of transference, measurement of outcome, and type of experimental control.
General characteristics of the studies
A total of 21studies examining the relationship between TI and therapy outcomes were retrieved; of these, three included data also presented in other articles (Doering et al., 2010; Fis-cher-Kern et al., 2015; Høglend et al., 2006).
Contributions: MY, KKT, DH, were involved in the data extraction process and the writing of the manuscript; MY, KKT, LZ, prepared the figures and tables, and interpreted the results; LZ, summarised and wrote the results.
All co-authors were involved in the concep-tualization and the revision of the article for content and language, and agreed on the final version.
Conflict of interest: the authors declare no potential conflict of in-terest. Ethics approval and consent to participate: not applicable.
Funding: this research did not receive any grant from funding agen-cies in the public, commercial, or non-profit sectors. Availability of data and materials: the available data is the list of the studies pertaining separately to each PRISMA step. Since the current study is a systematic review, no original data from any study is included. Received: 17 December 2023.
Accepted: 18 April 2024. Citation: Yılmaz, M., Türkarslan, K.K., Zanini, L., Hasdemir, D., Spitoni, G.F., & Lingiardi, V., (2024). Transference interpretation and psychotherapy outcome: a systematic review of a no-consensus relationship. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 27(1), 744. doi: 10.4081/ripppo.2024.744
Antichi, L., Giannini, M., & Loscalzo, Y. (2022). Interpretation in psychodynamic psychotherapy: a systematic review. Psy-chodynamic Practice, 28(3), 254-274. doi: 10.1080/ 14753634.2022.2046140.
Banon, E., Evan-Grenier, M., & Bond, M. (2001). Early transfer-ence interventions with male patients in psychotherapy. Jour-nal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 10(2), 79-92.
Banon, E., Perry, J. C., Semeniuk, T., Bond, M., de Roten, Y., Her-soug, A. G., & Despland, J.-N. (2013). Therapist interventions using the psychodynamic interventions rating scale (PIRS) in dynamic therapy, psychoanalysis and CBT. Psychotherapy Research, 23(2), 121-136. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2012. 745955.
Brumberg, J., & Gumz, A. (2012). [Transference interpretations and how they work: a systematic review]. Zeitschrift fur Psy-chosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie, 58(3), 219-235. doi: 10.13109/zptm.2012.58.3.219. [Article in German].
Caligor, E., Kernberg, O. F., & Clarkin, J. F. (2007). Handbook of dynamic psychotherapy for higher level personality pathol-ogy. American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.
Clarkin, J. F., Foelsch, P. A., Levy, K. N., Hull, J. W., Delaney, J. C., & Kernberg, O. F. (2001). The development of a psycho-dynamic treatment for patients with borderline personality disorder: a preliminary study of behavioral change. Journal of Personality Disorders, 15(6), 487-495. doi: 10.1521/pedi. 15.6.487.19190.
Clarkin, J. F., Levy, K. N., Lenzenweger, M. F., & Kernberg, O. F. (2007). Evaluating three treatments for borderline person-ality disorder: a multiwave study. American Journal of Psy-chiatry, 164, 922-928. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.164.6.922.
Connolly, M., Crits-Christoph, P., Shappell, S., Barber, J., Luborsky, L., & Shaffer, C. (1999). Relation of transference interpretations to outcome in the early sessions of brief sup-portive-expressive psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 9(4), 485-495. doi: 10.1080/10503309912331332881.
Conversano, C., Di Giuseppe, M., & Lingiardi V. (2023) Case re-port: changes in defense mechanisms, personality functioning, and body mass index during psychotherapy with patients with anorexia nervosa. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1081467. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1081467.
Cooper, A. M. (1987). Changes in psychoanalytic ideas: transfer-ence interpretation. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 35(1), 77-98. doi: 10.1177/00030651870350 0104.
Crits-Christoph, P., & Gibbons, M. B. C. (2021). Psychotherapy process-outcome research: advances in understanding causal connections. In Bergin and Garfield’s Handbook of Psy-chotherapy and Behavior Change (pp 263-296).
Crits-Christoph, P., & Gibbons, M. B. C. (2001). Relational in-terpretations. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 38(4), 423-428. doi: 10.1037/0033-3204.38.4.423.
Cutler, J. L., Goldyne, A., Markowitz, J. C., Devlin, M. J., & Glick, R. A. (2004). Comparing cognitive behavior therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, and psychodynamic psychother-apy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161(9), 1567-1573. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.9.1567.
Diamond, D., Keefe, J. R., Hörz-Sagstetter, S., Fischer-Kern, M., Doering, S., & Buchheim, A. (2023). Changes in attachment representation and personality organization in transference-focused psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 76(1), 31-38. doi: 10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20220018.
Doering, S., Hörz, S., Rentrop, M., Fischer-Kern, M., Schuster, P., Benecke, C., Buchheim, A., Martius, P., & Buchheim, P. (2010). Transference-focused psychotherapy v. treatment by community psychotherapists for borderline personality disor-der: randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 196(5), 389-395. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.109.070177.
Fischer-Kern, M., Doering, S., Taubner, S., Hörz, S., Zimmer-mann, J., Rentrop, M., Schuster, P., Buchheim, P., & Buch-heim, A. (2015). Transference-focused psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder: change in reflective function. British Journal of Psychiatry, 207(2), 173-174. doi: 10.1192/ bjp.bp.113.143842.
Freud, S. (1905). Fragment of an analysis of a case of hysteria (1905 [1901]). The Standard Edition of the Complete Psycho-logical Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume VII (1901-1905): A Case of Hysteria, Three Essays on Sexuality and Other Works. Available from: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/ pdf-library/Freud_SE_Dora_complete.pdf.
Freud, S. (1912). The dynamics of transference. In Classics in Psychoanalytic Techniques, 12, 97-108. Freud, S. (1917). Introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, 16,241-463.
Gabbard, G. O. (2004). Long-term psychodynamic psychother-apy: a basic text. American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. Gabbard, G. O., & Horowitz, M. J. (2009). Insight, transference interpretation, and therapeutic change in the dynamic psy-chotherapy of borderline personality disorder. American Jour-nal of Psychiatry, 166(5), 517-521. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp. 2008.08050631.
Gabbard, G. O., Horwitz, L., Allen, J. G., Frieswyk, S., Newsom, G., Colson, D. B., & Coyne, L. (1994). Transference interpre-tation in the psychotherapy of borderline patients: a high-risk, high-gain phenomenon. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 2(2), 59-69. doi: 10.3109/10673229409017119.
Giovacchini, P. L. (1979). Treatment of primitive mental states. Jason Aranson. Godwin, M., Ruhland, L., Casson, I., MacDonald, S., Delva, D., Birtwhistle, R., Lam, M., & Seguin, R. (2003). Pragmatic con-trolled clinical trials in primary care: the struggle between ex-ternal and internal validity. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 3(1), 28. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-28.
Goodman, G. (2011). An attachment-based pathways model de-picting the psychology of therapeutic relationships. In A. M. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research. (pp. 105-125). Nova Science Publishers. Henriksen, A. K., Ulberg, R., Tallberg, B. P. U., Løvgren, A., & Johnsen Dahl, H. S. (2021). Conflicted anger as a central dy-namic in depression in adolescents—a double case study. In-ternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6466. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18126466.
Hersoug, A. G., Ulberg, R., & Høglend, P. (2014). When is trans-ference work useful in psychodynamic psychotherapy? Main results of the first experimental study of transference work (FEST). Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 50(1-2), 156-174. doi: 10.1080/00107530.2014.880314. Hobson, R. P., & Kapur, R. (2005). Working in the transference: clinical and research perspectives. Psychology and Psy-chotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 78(3), 275-295. doi: 10.1348/147608305X25801.
Høglend, P. (2004). Analysis of transference in psychodynamic psychotherapy: a review of empirical research. Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis/Revue Canadienne de Psych-analyse, 12, 280-300. Høglend, P. (2014). Exploration of the patient-therapist relation-ship in psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(10), 1056-1066. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.14010121.
Høglend, P., Amlo, S., Marble, A., Bøgwald, K.-P., Sørbye, Ø., Sjaastad, M. C., & Heyerdahl, O. (2006). Analysis of the pa-tient-therapist relationship in dynamic psychotherapy: an ex-perimental study of transference interpretations. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(10), 1739-1746. doi: 10.1176/ajp. 2006.163.10.1739.
Høglend, P., Bøgwald, K.-P., Amlo, S., Marble, A., Ulberg, R., Sjaastad, M. C., Sørbye, Ø., Heyerdahl, O., & Johansson, P. (2008). Transference interpretations in dynamic psychother-apy: do they really yield sustained effects? American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(6), 763-771. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2008. 07061028.
Høglend, P., Sørlie, T., Heyerdahl, O., Sørbye, Ø., & Amlo, S. (1993). Brief dynamic psychotherapy. Journal of Psychother-apy Practice and Research, 2(3), 230-241. Joseph, B. (1985). Transference: the total situation. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 66, 447-454. Kazdin, A. E. (2007). Mediators and mechanisms of change in psychotherapy research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychol-ogy, 3(1), 1-27. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806. 091432.
Kernberg, O. F., Yeomans, F. E., Clarkin, J. F., & Levy, K. N. (2008). Transference focused psychotherapy: overview and update. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 89(3), 601-620. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-8315.2008.00046.x. Klein, C., Milrod, B. L., Busch, F. N., Levy, K. N., & Shapiro, T. (2003). A preliminary study of clinical process in relation to outcome in psychodynamic psychotherapy for panic disorder. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 23(2), 308-331. doi: 10.1080/ 07351692309349035.
Klein, M. (1952). The origins of transference. International Jour-nal of Psychoanalysis, 33, 433-438. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. University of Chicago Press.
Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure?. University of Chicago Press. Langs, R. J. (1973). The patient’s view of the therapist: reality or fantasy? International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychother-apy, 2(4), 411-431.
Leichsenring, F., Abbass, A., Hilsenroth, M. J., Leweke, F., Luyten, P., Keefe, J. R., Midgley, N., Rabung, S., Salzer, S., & Steinert, C. (2017). Biases in research: risk factors for non-replicability in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research. Psychological Medicine, 47(6), 1000-1011. doi: 10.1017/ S003329171600324X.
Leichsenring, F., Hiller, W., Weissberg, M., & Leibing, E. (2006). Cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychodynamic psy-chotherapy: techniques, efficacy, and indications. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 60, 233-259. doi: 10.1176/appi. psychotherapy.2006.60.3.233.
Leichsenring, F., & Rabung, S. (2011). Long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy in complex mental disorders: Update of a meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 199(1), 15-22. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.082776.
Levy, K. N., Clarkin, J. F., Yeomans, F. E., Scott, L. N., Wasser-man, R. H., & Kernberg, O. F. (2006). The mechanisms of change in the treatment of borderline personality disorder with transference focused psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psy-chology, 62(4), 481-501. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20239.
Levy, K. N., & Scala, J. W. (2012). Transference, transference in-terpretations, and transference-focused psychotherapies. Psy-chotherapy, 49(3), 391-403. doi: 10.1037/a0029371.
Lilliengren, P. (2017). Comprehensive compilation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving psychodynamic treatments and interventions. Luborsky, L., & Crits-Christoph, P. (1990). Understanding trans-ference: the core conflictual relationship theme method. Basic Books.
Luborsky, L., Crits-Christoph, P., Mintz, J., & Auerbach, A. (1988). Who will benefit from psychotherapy? Predicting therapeutic outcomes. Basic Books. Luyten, P., Fonagy, P., Lowyck, B., & Vermote, R. (2012). As-sessment of mentalization. In Handbook of mentalizing in mental health practice (pp. 43-65). American Psychiatric Pub-lishing, Inc.
Malan, D. H. (1976). Toward the validation of dynamic psy-chotherapy. A replication. Springer New York. Marmar, C. R., Weiss, D. S., & Gaston, L. (1989). Toward the val-idation of the California therapeutic alliance rating system. Psychological Assessment: a Journal of Consulting and Clin-ical Psychology, 1(1), 46-52. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.1.1.46.
Marziali, E. A. (1984). Prediction of outcome of brief psychother-apy from therapist interpretive interventions. Archives of Gen-eral Psychiatry, 41(3), 301-304. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc. 1984.01790140091011. McCullough, L., Winston, A., Farber, B. A., Porter, F., Pollack, J., Vingiano, W., Laikin, M., & Trujillo, M. (1991). The rela-tionship of patient-therapist interaction to outcome in brief psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 28(4), 525-533. doi: 10.1037/0033-3204.28.4.525.
Milbrath, C., Bond, M., Cooper, S., Znoj, H., Horowitz, M., & Perry, J. (1999). Sequential consequences of therapists’ inter-ventions. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 8, 40-54. Ogrodniczuk, J. S., Piper, W. E., Joyce, A. S., & McCallum, M. (1999). Transference interpretations in short-term dy-namic psychotherapy. Journal of Nervous and Mental Dis-ease, 187(9), 571-578. doi: 10.1097/00005053-199909000-00007.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoff-mann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw J.M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L.A., Stewart, L. A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A. C., Welch, V. A., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guide-line for reporting systematic reviews. International Journalof Surgery, 88, 105906.Perez, D. L., Vago, D. R., Pan, H., Root, J., Tuescher, O., Fuchs, B. H., Leung, L., Epstein, J., Cain, N. M., Clarkin, J. F.,Lenzenweger, M. F., Kernberg, O. F., Levy, K. N., Silber-sweig, D. A., & Stern, E. (2016). Frontolimbic neural circuitchanges in emotional processing and inhibitory control asso-ciated with clinical improvement following transference-fo-cused psychotherapy in borderline personality disorder.Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 70(1), 51-61. doi:10.1111/pcn.12357.
Piper, W. E., Azim, H. F. A., Joyce, A. S., & McCallum, M. (1991). Transference interpretations, therapeutic alliance, and outcome in short-term individual psychotherapy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48(10), 946-953. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc. 1991.01810340078010.
Piper, W. E., Debbane, E. G., Bienvenu, J.-P., de Carufel, F., & Garant, J. (1986). Relationships between the object focus of therapist interpretations and outcome in short-term individual psychotherapy. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 59(1), 1-11. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.1986.tb02659.x.
Piper, W. E., Ogrodniczuk, J. S., Joyce, A. S., McCallum, M., Rosie, J. S., O’Kelly, J. G., & Steinberg, P. I. (1999). Predic-tion of dropping out in time-limited, interpretive individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 36, 114-122. doi: 10.1037/h0087787.
Ryum, T., Stiles, T. C., Svartberg, M., & McCullough, L. (2010). The role of transference work, the therapeutic alliance, and their interaction in reducing interpersonal problems among psychotherapy patients with Cluster C personality disorders. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47, 442-453. doi: 10.1037/a0021183.
Sahin, Z., Vinnars, B., Gorman, B. S., Wilczek, A., Åsberg, M., & Barber, J. P. (2018). Clinical severity as a moderator of out-come in psychodynamic and dialectical behavior therapies for borderline personality disorder. Personality Disorders: The-ory, Research, and Treatment, 9(5), 437-446. doi: 10.1037/ per0000276.
Schut, A. J., Castonguay, L. G., Flanagan, K. M., Yamasaki, A. S., Barber, J. P., Bedics, J. D., & Smith, T. L. (2005). Therapist interpretation, patient-therapist interpersonal process, and out-come in psychodynamic psychotherapy for avoidant person-ality disorder. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 42(4), 494-511. doi: 10.1037/0033-3204.42.4.494.
Shedler, J. (2010). The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 65(2), 98-109. doi: 10.1037/ a0018378. Silberschatz, G., Fretter, P. B., & Curtis, J. T. (1986). How do in-terpretations influence the process of psychotherapy?. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(5), 646-652. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.54.5.646.
Steinert, C., Munder, T., Rabung, S., Hoyer, J., & Leichsenring, F. (2017). Psychodynamic therapy: as efficacious as other em-pirically supported treatments? A meta-analysis testing equiv-alence of outcomes. American Journal of Psychiatry, 174(10), 943-953. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.17010057.Strachey, J. (1934).
The nature of the therapeutic action of psy-cho-analysis. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 15, 127-159.Tyndale, A. (1999). How far is transference interpretation essentialto psychic change? In Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy in the Independent Tradition. Routledge. Ulberg, R., Amlo, S., & Høglend, P. (2014). Manual for transfer-ence work scale; a micro-analytical tool for therapy process analyses. BMC Psychiatry, 14(1), 291. doi: 10.1186/s12888-014-0291-y.
Ulberg, R., Hummelen, B., Hersoug, A. G., Midgley, N., Høglend, P. A., & Dahl, H.-S. J. (2021). The first experimental study of transference work–in teenagers (FEST–IT): a multicentre, ob-server- and patient-blind, randomised controlled componentstudy. BMC Psychiatry, 21(1), 106. doi: 10.1186/s12888-021-03055-y.Winnicott, D. W. (1949). Hate in the countertransference. Inter-national journal of psychoanalysis, 30(2), 69-74. Zetzel, E. R. (1956). Current concepts of transference. Interna-tional Journal of Psychoanalysis, 37, 369-375.
Zilcha-Mano, S., Fisher, H., Dolev-Amit, T., Keefe, J. R., & Bar-ber, J. P. (2023). A systematic review of the association be-tween interpretations and immediate, intermediate, and distal outcomes. Psychotherapy, 60(3), 266-282. doi: 10.1037/ pst0000479.
Zilcha-Mano, S., Keefe, J. R., Fisher, H., Dolev-Amit, T., Veler-Poleg, N., & Barber, J. P. (2023). Is the use of interpretations associated with treatment outcome? A systematic review and meta-analytic answer. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 31(1). doi:10.1037/cps0000158.
www.wappc.org | mail@wappc.org
© World Association for the Development of Psychotherapy and Psychological Counseling