The Timing of Interventions: A Countertransference Dilemma, when to Talk and when not to Talk

In her eighth session, Ms. A reported a dream for the first time: “I way lying down and a bird was sitting on my shoulder interrupting me.” I understood this as a clear communication regarding my activity in the sessions.

This dream focused my attention on the question of when I should talk or be quiet, which I knew could have some subjective elements. In my family, where everyone was always talking, it had been difficult for me to get a word in and I had developed a hesitancy about when to talk. If I talked when they stopped, the timing was often off because their pauses usually occurred at moments of tension. Now I sensed that this problem could interfere with my functioning as an effective analyst.

When I began seeing patients, it was hard not to talk every five minutes; I felt I had to demonstrate my analytic knowledge. Supervision helped me to listen to the patient, to understand that my role was to listen in such a way that the patient could say everything. Yet I knew there was a difference of opinion among analysts as to how to do this.

The discussion of timing in the psychoanalytic literature deals mainly with the readiness of patients to receive an interpretation, not with their need for contact from the analyst. However, there are indications of wide concern about the dilemma of talking versus free-floating attention (Fenichel, 1941), and there is general agreement that the analyst needs to use tact, empathy, and clinical judgment as a basis for knowing when to intervene.