|The Behavioral Developmental Approach to Understanding the Development of Projection, Transference, and Counter-Transference
|Saturday, May 29, 2010
|1:30 PM–2:50 PM
|Travis A/B (Grand Hyatt)
|Area: DEV; Domain: Service Delivery
|Chair: Michael Lamport Commons (Harvard Medical School)
|Discussant: Darlene E. Crone-Todd (Salem State College)
|CE Instructor: Teresa Balawejder, M.S.
|Abstract: Here we present a behavioral developmental approach to understanding the development of projection, transference and counter transference. These presentations dicuss three things: First, the evolutionary origin of projective, transferenal and counter transferential behavior and the persistence of such reactions in humans. The second is how projective, transferential and counter transferential behaviors and perceptions developed as part of self-observation, planning and attachment. The basic behaviors develop during the first few behavioral developmental stages as described in the Model of Hierarchical Complexity (Commons & Pekker, 2008). The include Circular Sensory Motor Stage 2 and Sensory-Motor Stage 3. The third is how development of perspective-taking occurs. Perspective-taking is based on the more accurate observation of others and of how they will respond to one's own behavior. Because these two newer ways of knowing are more successful at predicting behavior, they come to dominate projective and transferential means of understanding. These domination follows from Herrnstein’s (1970) matching law
|A Behavioral Developmental Account of Projection
|LUCAS ALEXANDER HALEY COMMONS-MILLER (University of California, Irvine)
|Abstract: The concept of projection is derived originally from the psychoanalytic literature but the phenomenon may be explained from other theoretical perspectives. Here we present a behavioral developmental approach to understanding the development of projection. The approach describes three aspects that underlie projective behavior. The first is the evolutionary origin of projective behavior and the persistence of such reactions in humans. The second is how new projective behaviors and perceptions are developed as part of self-observation and planning. The third is how development of perspective-taking occurs. Perspective-taking is based on the more accurate observation of others and of how they will respond to one's own behavior. The brain basis for social perspective-taking is primarily in the forebrain and develops throughout the lifespan. It overrides projection in many cases. Projection is transformed as the stage at which it occurs changes. Here, the stages from the Model of Hierarchical Complexity (Commons & Pekker, 2008) are applied to projection.
|A Behavioral Developmental Account of Transference
|PATRICE MARIE MILLER (Harvard Medical School)
|Abstract: The traditional description and explanation of transference behavior derives from the psychoanalytic literature. Attributes of important figures in a person's past are misattributed to persons in the present. A behavioral developmental perspective on transference has not been systematically developed as yet. Here we present [the beginnings of a behavioral developmental approach. The basic formation of transference in helping situations has to do with the sense that the helper is saving the patient. Transference is a special case of attachment. The basic situation in attachment is that the infant is suffering and the adult saves them by ameliorating the discomfort and providing calming and soothing. When infants do not get saved as is the case with the some orphans in orphanages, they do not develop attachment. The basic attachment paradigm for the first stages from the Model of Hierarchical Complexity is outlined. Attachment is shown to occur at the first two behavioral developmental stages, Sensory or Motor Stage 1 and Circular Sensory Motor Stage 2. The process of transference follows the process of attachment. Because the therapist “saves” the patient attachment and therefore transference forms
|A Behavioral Developmental Account of Counter-Transference
|MICHAEL LAMPORT COMMONS (Harvard Medical School)
|Abstract: Counter-transference is just transference, but with a reverse vector: That is, it is transference from the person (commonly the treater) who receives the original transference to the person who did the original transferring (commonly the patient). A number of studies on doctor-patient relationships (e.g., Commons & Rodriguez, 1990, 1993, Commons, et al., 2006) clarify transference and counter-transference interactions, such as an idealization in the transference that evokes a reciprocal counter transference. The therapist's counter- transference may be evoked by the actual reality-based demeanor and attitude of the patient. In fact, the participants do not have to have interacted directly at all; literature and films manipulate us without our knowing it. Though hard evidence is lacking, most behavioral and cognitive behavioral therapies probably produce less counter-transference than more dynamic ones because a) the therapy works more on the present; b) the therapist uses techniques that are clearer and less magical appearing; c) there are more direct gains, so there is less of a paucity of reinforcement; and d) the therapist is more of a consultant than inscrutable guru.