Dear Colleagues,
RESEARCH IN PROGRESS SEMINAR:
INTRODUCTION TO FIRST MEETING
February 26, 2008
8:30 PM
At The New York Psychoanalytic Institute
247 East 82nd Street
NY NY 10028
In this, our inaugural meeting of the Research in Progress Seminar, which is a collaborative venture between the New York Psychoanalytic
Society and Institute and the Derner Institute of Adelphi University, we are pleased that Wilma Bucci and Bernard Maskit will present their most
recent work.
A shorter version of this work was presented at the Research Associates of the American Psychoanalytic Association (RAAPA) on January 19, 2008.
For background material, an early draft of Bucci’s and Maskit’s most recent paper published in the recent JAPA can be found on the Referential Process website:http://www.referentialprocess.org/
Log on “papers” and click on
Bucci, W. & Maskit, B. Beneath the Surface of the Therapeutic Interaction
Bucci, W. & Maskit, B. Beneath the Surface … – Figures
If you have any difficulties please e-mail Leon Hoffman at
73542.334@compuserve.com
Wilma Bucci, Ph.D. is Professor at the Derner Institute of Adelphi University; and Chair of the Research Associates of the American Psychoanalytic Association (RAAPA). She is an Honorary Member of the American Psychoanalytic Association, the New York Psychoanalytic Institute and Society, and the Institute for Psychoanalytic Training and Research (IPTAR); and is Director of Research at The Bernard L. Pacella
Parent Child Center at The New York Psychoanalytic Society and Institute. She is the author of one book and numerous research and theoretical articles on the psychoanalytic process.
Bernard Maskit is Leading Professor of Mathematics at Stony Brook University. He is the author of one book and over 60 research articles in pure mathematics. He has recently turned to mathematical and computerized aspects of psycholinguistics, collaborating with Wilma Bucci, colleagues, and students.
Computerized Views of Psychoanalytic Treatments
At Increasing Magnifications
Bernard Maskit
Wilma Bucci
Our study uses linguistic measures to examine features of therapeutic interaction at increasing levels of precision, in a sample of six sessions each, from six recorded psychoanalytic treatments (treated by 5 different analysts), representing early, middle and late phases of treatment. The work is based on Bucci’s theory of the referential process, which views psychoanalytic treatment as moving through phases of arousal, symbolizing through narration, and reflection. Computerized measures of these phases allow us to evaluate therapeutic interventions as to the degree to which they facilitate (or impede) the patient’s exploration and integration.
1. The first and broadest level compares basic linguistic measures for patients and analysts across the six treatments. In all treatments, as
expected, analysts were generally more reflective, showed less disfluency (less struggle and hesitation) and were generally lower in Referential Activity (less immersion in their emotional states while reporting narratives) than the patient. Clinical implications of exceptions are examined.
2. We then look more closely at measures combining several discourse variables for patient speech only, where two of three predictions based on the theory of the referential process were upheld.
3. We go on to focus particularly on the relationship between Intensity of Referential Activity (MHW=Mean High Referential Activity) and Reflection (REF) in the patient’s language. The MHW measure represents degree of vividness and immediacy in a patient’s narrative – the degree to which the experience is active for patients as they generate their associations. We can say that some degree of this
immersion represents the necessary risk involved in deeper exploration. The REF measure represents the extent to which patients are able to step back and look at the experience and at themselves. A positive difference score (REF -MHW), indicates greater containment of emotionally charged memories and associations through self-reflection. A negative score indicates more intense immersion in the emotional experience. This measure has been shown to have clinical significance in previous work, varying in interpretation depending on context. We see that in 32
of the 36 sessions studied here, the patient’s REF-MHW score was positive, the patient’s reflection exceeded their emotionality; furthermore, three of the four exceptions occurred in one treatment.
Examination of one case We will spend the remainder of this presentation looking more closely at this exceptional case, where the emotionality exceeded the reflection in 3 sessions.
The patient was a woman who was not at all psychologically minded and who entered treatment with severe symptoms that were largely resolved about halfway through the treatment. The analyst was highly skilled and well-known. The patient was relatively high in Referential Activity throughout the treatment, her negative difference scores were largely caused by her low levels of Reflection at the beginning of treatment. Her Reflection increased from the beginning to the middle of treatment; then both Reflection and Referential Activity declined somewhat toward the end.
Zooming our linguistic microscope on particular sessions and particular interactions within these, the measures indicate that the analyst worked early in treatment to provide the reflective capacity that the patient lacked; then changed his mode of intervention somewhat as the patient’s self-reflection increased. The work was successful in bringing about a symptomatic cure; also successful in enabling deeper exploration – up to a point. The data suggest that the very active work in and about the relationship was successful in activating arousal, not so successful in titrating
the painful arousal to a point that was acceptable to be maintained. We hope that the presentation of the measures will stimulate discussion as to the nature of the therapeutic work, and how we can apply our approach to the study of the therapeutic process in this and other treatments in a clinically useful way.
Research in Progress Committee:
Wilma Bucci
Leon Hoffman
John Crow
Wendy Olesker
Richard Weiss
Leon Hoffman, MD
Director, Pacella Parent Child Center of
The NY Psychoanalytic Institute & Society
167 East 67th Street
NY NY 10065
212.249.1163
917.767.6575
73542.334@compuserve.com
http://www.theparentchildcenter.org/