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.
Psychoanalysts are usually better at generating hypotheses about the behavior of their patients than at proving or disproving these hypotheses by empirical methods with suitable controls. We therefore welcome studies like that of Turnbull, Jenkins, and Rowley, which assess the hypotheses and impressions of psychoanalysts using more objective measures and controls. I am going to discuss their paper from two vantage points: (1)the findings of the study and how they might change using alternative methodologies; (2) the general questions raised by the paper concerning psychological patterns in confabulation and the specific characteristics of “The Unconscious.”
The study uses independent raters to assess the impressions of clinicians about their own patients. The authors take clinical data from Kaplan-Solms and Solms (2000), from which they select confabulatory material, which they then have assessed by independent raters for “pleasantness.” The hypothesis of the study seems to be that if motivational factors such as wish-fulfillment are involved in confabulation, the confabulations will tend to be more pleasant than unpleasant.