In order to understand the significance of countertransference reactions, it is important to separate unexpected and unusual therapist reactions from those that are normal and expected. In this paper, two different perspectives on how to estimate the unusualness of countertransference reactions are presented. The first method compares professionally expected reactions with professionally unexpected reactions. The second method uses the recurrent reaction pattern of the therapist and the recurrent reaction pattern towards the patient to sort out countertransference reactions that can be considered as unusual. The data for the analysis consists of answers by milieu therapists on a check-list about feelings for patients. The comparison between the methods shows that it is misleading to evaluate a countertransference reaction against a common professional norm. Only when the habitual patterns of therapist and patients are used as norms is it possible to assess the significance of the countertransference reaction.