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.
In many psychoanalytic cases adverse neurotic patterns manifested by patients appear to be reactions to attitudes and/or interventions by the analyst. These reactions may be attributed to particular treatment processes and techniques.
Currently, no precise terminology in the literature specifically describes this phenomenon. The closest references to it is the more general term iatrogenic (Hinsie & Campbell, 1970, p. 371), which identifies any treatment technique that causes adverse reactions in the patient but without direct reference to the psychotherapist. It would appear, however, that in the psychotherapeutic relationship this condition warrants a more precise term, not only because the frequency and scope of occurrence are extensive, but because it would prove beneficial to study and understand this phenomenon. To delineate its origins, causes, characteristics, and outcomes would lead to understanding it and learning how to use it for the benefit of the patient. In my experience I have encountered many manifestations of this situation, as have a number of colleagues with whom I have consulted regarding this problem. Since there is no term available to explain these reactions, it might be of practical use to adopt one.
I have therefore termed this phenomenon “psych-iatrogenic,” or