You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
TRAINING ANALYSES ARE UNIQUE. Because they are mandated, take place during psychoanalytic training, and are entered into for professional advancement as well as for relief of suffering, they activate complex issues beyond those mobilized in ordinary therapeutic analyses. Complications are inherent in the candidate's experiencing the analytic process on his analyst's couch, responding to the process in and with his patients, learning about it in his courses and clinical conferences, studying it with the help and under the scrutiny of his supervisors and fellow students, and, finally, joining his analyst as colleague, co-worker, or rival. As Calef (1972) points out, these analyses are modifications of therapeutic analyses for the achievement of training ends.
How successful are such analyses? How much do these complications compromise the analytic process? What elements in training analysis are most burdensome? Are there elements in the training context that facilitate personal analysis? What proportion of analysts have sought additional analysis subsequent to the training analysis? Was the decision to seek reanalysis the result of disappointment with the therapeutic outcome of training analysis? These questions were the stimulus to an investigation using nonanalytic tools into the nature of the training analysis as recalled and reconstructed retrospectively by 122 analysts. This paper reports the self-assessment of their satisfaction with the therapeutic outcome