Dreaming of freud: Ferenczi,freud, and an analysis without end

The beginning of this paper documents Sigmund Freud's pre-psychoanalytic experience as a ‘first hand’ observer of childhood behavior both professionally and as the patriarch of a large extended family in Vienna. During 1898, Freud was in the midst of an intensive correspondence with Wilhelm Fliess – his most trusted confidant, mentor and colleague – when he wrote, in part, about his sister Marie whose family was relocating in Berlin. She was apparently about to consult Fliess as her prospective physician. During the process, Freud voiced psychological assessments not only about his sister; but, also about her husband and their three daughters. The youngest among them was a 5-year old whom he characterized as “a rather gifted child, severely [hysterical]” (bracketed word in quotation juxtaposed for clarity).

Eleven years later, Freud wrote a case study about a 5-year old boy whose pseudonym, for publication purposes, was Little Hans. The life of Little Hans (as well as the lives of his parents) has been thoroughly examined and we now know something about how he matured as an adult. In a contrasting context, less is known about the ‘psychological trajectory’ of Freud's 5-year old niece who also distinguished herself in certain respects as she matured during her abbreviated later life. She remained the subject of documentable correspondence mailed to him by his youngest daughter Anna as well as foreboding prospects articulated in a letter he subsequently wrote to an English nephew.     

Adolescent decisional autonomy regarding participation in an emergency department youth violence interview

Much attention has been given to determining whether an adolescent patient has the capacity to consent to research. This study explores the factors that influence adolescents' decisions to participate in a research study about youth violence and to determine positive or negative feelings elicited by being a research subject. The majority of subjects perceived their decision to participate to be free of coercion, and few felt badly about having participated. However, adolescents who were alone in the room during the assent process were more likely to report that they chose freely to be a research subject. This study may influence the ways physicians communicate with adolescent patients around research assent within a clinical care environment.     

Attribution in conversational context: Effect of mutual knowledge on explanation-giving

Attribution theorists typically have conceived the attribution process in terms of universal laws of cognitive functioning, independent of social interaction. In this paper we argue for the notion, grounded in recent ordinary language philosophy, that any consideration of the form of everyday explanation must take into account its function as an answer to a ‘why’ question within a conversational framework. Experiment 1 provides support for the idea that speakers should identify as causally relevant that necessary condition for the occurrence of an event about which the enquirer is ignorant. Experiment 2 replicates this basic finding and further demonstrates that speakers will change their explanations to enquirers believed to be sharing different knowledge about the same target event. Experiment 2 also assessed the role of individual differences in conversational rule-following, and found in apparent contrast some previous predictions that high self-monitoring individuals were no more likely than lows to tailor their explanations to suit the enquirer's knowledge state. If anything, the reverse occurred. Taken together, these experiments support the central contention of the abnormal conditions focus model (Hilton and Slugoski, 1986), that the common sense criterion of causality is that of an ‘abnormal condition’ rather than constant conjunction as instantiated in the ANOVA model of causal attribution (Kelley, 1967, 1973).