In a study of personality related responses to the psychoanalytic process, 7 analysands and their analysts were repeatedly interviewed at the beginning, during and after the analysis about the analysands’ problems and helpful/hindering factors in the analytic process. The analysands were categorized as initially anaclitic or introjective according to Blatt’s personality model. The introjective group expected improved emotional control and ability to regulate interpersonal distance in addition to better understanding the roots of their problems. The anaclitic group believed that the analyst’s strength and empathy would help them handle their need of support and love. The introjective group saw their own problems as the main hindrance in analysis but also directed critique to the analyst as a person. Their analysts’ experienced that the analysands wanted to do the work by themselves and were difficult to engage in the analytic process. The analysands in the anaclitic group were more occupied by hindrances in the psychoanalytic frame and attitude. Their analysts, on the other hand, sometimes found the work difficult and frustrating. These findings underline the importance of being aware of personality differences in analysands’ response to specific dimensions of the analytic process (Levander & Werbart, 2012). Changes in the anaclitic-introjective personality configuration were investigated in relation to outcomes in 14 cases of publicly financed psychoanalysis. The method of prototype matching was adapted for personality assessment and multiple outcome measures were applied. We found a moderate increase in the other polarity while still maintaining the basic character structure with which the patients started treatment. Both groups developed more mature and integrated expressions of relatedness and self-definition. For the anaclitic cases symptom reduction was accompanied by more mature integration of anaclitic and introjective personality dimensions, while the introjective cases could show symptom reduction without such improvement. This could indicate that sustainable change in latent mental structures is more difficult to achieve in introjective than in anaclitic patients. Both groups described their experienced changes in terms of complementary personality orientation, but the introjective group described more benefits from psychoanalysis. Several patients expressed their ambivalence to these changes and a feeling of loss of their previous personality orientation. The patients’ view of their analysts and the analytic method were congruent with the patients’ primary focus on relationship or self-definition. In order to reactivate developmental processes in psychoanalysis, the psychoanalytic technique has to be adjusted to the anaclitic and introjective patients’ different needs and defenses. A number of current studies further examine the relationship between patient characteristics (gender, personality configurations), psychotherapy process, changes in dynamic mental structures, and the participants’ subjective experiences of change processes. G$#.1/.\! Andrzej Werbart, Professor, Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: andrzej.werbart@psychology.su.se Website: http://www.psychology.su.se/staff/anwe !
4'20&&;443&&32D.2E&&F&&19.3;&&2;.1.40&&GHIJ&&F& PKD
Made with FlippingBook HTML5