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.
The term countertransference is frequently used loosely. Its definition runs the gamut from a restricted concept referring to the analyst's own transference response, to the all-inclusive use of any and all reactions of the analyst to the patient. Furthermore, conceptual and semantic difficulties occur when terms like empathy, intuition, and insight are used interchangeably with countertransference. Statements such as, “He is an intuitive therapist,” or “He works with his feeling responses,” tend to make countertransference desired and respected. Samuel Sperling23 considered this problem in a recent presentation at the American Psychoanalytic Association meetings. He pointed out that the lack of clarity regarding these concepts led to misunderstanding in communication. He also questioned the claim of analysts that they gained understanding of the patient's mental processes through countertransference analysis, implying that such responses were desirable.
The objectives of this paper are (1) to further emphasize the need for clarity in the use of the concepts referred to above, (2) to emphasize the desirability of continuing to view countertransference as a counterresistive interference with treatment, (3) to point up the importance of a realistic, nonphobic attitude toward counter-transference, so that its manifestations can be recognized more readily