A Note on the “Trial Period” in Psychoanalysis

As I have listened to analysts and analysands, it has seemed to me that ambiguity exists as to the nature of the trial period in psychoanalysis. In attempting to clarify this ambiguity, I would like to begin with Freud's original statement:

I have made it my habit, when I know little about a patient, only to take him at first provisionally, for a period of one to two weeks.2

Fenichel1 listed ten relative contraindications that must be considered before a decision is made whether or not psychoanalysis should be tried. But he subsequently stated that a trustworthy and detailed estimation of all these ten points in any given case was possible only during the analytic procedure itself. This led Fenichel to state:

That is why patients are advised to have a few weeks of trial analysis; the final decision as to whether the patient needs a complete psychoanalysis is made after these weeks.

Robert Knight3 recommended explaining to the patient that he would have a trial period for a few weeks. However, other analysts have taken this further and have thought of the trial period as an extensive prelude to every analysis. This has led to some misunderstandings and difficulties.

Perhaps three main arguments are advanced in support of the need for a trial analysis. First, it is argued that the prolonged period of observation will provide further data by which one can evaluate more carefully the indications and contraindications for psychoanalysis. Second, the trial period provides time in which one can help