Transference and countertransference interpretations: harmful or helpful in short-term dynamic therapy?

Abstract

Finding effective and economical interventions in brief therapy has become a challenge for therapists of all orientations needing to make noticeable progress within a short period and to achieve positive, measurable outcomes. In this paper three theoretical positions and the empirical data purporting to support them were examined: (1) not using either transference or countertransference interpretations; (2) using transference but not countertransference interpretations; and (3) relying heavily on both kinds of interpretations. Though limited research prevents firm conclusions, findings support infrequent, careful, and cautious usage of transference and countertransference interpretations, including crafting them to meet specific patient characteristics and reflect presenting problems. If appropriately used, both interpretations can affect outcome by contributing to alliance building, perseverance in therapy, and goal attainment. If inappropriately used, however, both interpretations can cause harm, even premature termination. Finally, research findings do not support the theoretical position that positive outcome depends on transference and countertransference interpretations.