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.
Alexander dates his interest in experimentation with quantitative factors in psychoanalytic treatment from 1925, the year of The Development of Psychoanalysis by Rank and Ferenczi. He now considers what measures in treatment bring about a useful transference and therapeutic success. He suggests that in the initial stages of analysis neutrality should be preserved until the transference neurosis develops, then countertransference attitudes should be controlled by the analyst to create an analytic atmosphere opposite to that currently re-experienced by the patient in the transference. This prevents the transference from becoming too intense and consequently unusable. In technique the most important quantitative problem is resolution of the patient's dependency within the transference. In the course of treatment the transference neurosis offers increasing gratification of wishes for dependency because of the regressive processes inherent in analysis. The current overemphasis on pregenital factors by analysts in their work with patients furthers this regression. To combat it, the analyst should 'drive the patient against the Oedipal barrier' both by interpretation and by reducing the number of interviews. The latter method is an effective way of bringing the dependency needs into consciousness and is indicated in 'most cases'. Analysts should reserve the exploration of the pregenital phases primarily for schizophrenia, the perversions, and other definitely preoedipal disturbances. Finally, Alexander deals briefly with patients' experiences with the therapist outside of therapy, planned interruptions, and the giving of advice. All have their places in regulating the intensity of transference.
This paper is essentially a further exposition of Alexander's controversial views about the need of modifications of psychoanalytic technique. Two brief case reports are included. The first is intended to show how an analysis was interrupted because of the analyst's fail