Manipulations that disrupt generative processes decrease conformity to examples: Evidence from two paradigms

Participants in six experiments viewed experimenter‐provided examples of space creatures (Experiments 1–3) or nonwords (Experiments 4–5b) and then created their own novel space creatures or nonwords. Consistent with previous research, people borrowed many of the features found in the examples despite instructions to avoid using any aspects of the experimenter's examples. However, requiring people to include a designated shape in their space creatures or a designated letter in their nonwords attenuated this effect. Additionally, the type of shape or letter (conventional versus unconventional) also affected conformity. These results suggest that the strategies that people use to create novel products can affect the level of conformity and also highlight the importance of adopting unconventional, or at the very least, new strategies when creating new products.     

Adaptive memory: Animacy effects persist in paired-associate learning

Recent evidence suggests that animate stimuli are remembered better than matched inanimate stimuli. Two experiments tested whether this animacy effect persists in paired-associate learning of foreign words. Experiment 1 randomly paired Swahili words with matched animate and inanimate English words. Participants were told simply to learn the English “translations” for a later test. Replicating earlier findings using free recall, a strong animacy advantage was found in this cued-recall task. Concerned that the effect might be due to enhanced accessibility of the individual responses (e.g., animates represent a more accessible category), Experiment 2 selected animate and inanimate English words from two more constrained categories (four-legged animals and furniture). Once again, an advantage was found for pairs using animate targets. These results argue against organisational accounts of the animacy effect and potentially have implications for foreign language vocabulary learning.     

Opening What Has Been Closed,Relaxing What Has Been Clenched: Dissociation and Enactment Over Time in Committed Relationships

I use dissociation and the concept of the multiple self to link Mitchell's profound insight with Goldner's critique. In the process, I use the idea of dissociation to think about the nature of different kinds of long-term relationships.     

“One Never Knows,Do One?”: Commentary on Paper by the Boston Change Process Study Group

I discuss the work of the Boston Change Process Study Group, focusing on the paper in this issue of Psychoanalytic Dialogues, but also addressing broader issues across the range of their work. After describing the considerable similarities between their views and mine, I focus on three areas about which I have questions: the concept and clinical use of mutual enactment, BCPSG's use of nonlinear dynamic systems theory, and certain problems revolving around science and social construction.     

The Fusion of Horizons: Dissociation,Enactment, and Understanding

All understanding is context dependent, and one of the most significant contexts for clinical purposes is the self-state. How we understand the other, and ourselves, depends on the state(s) we occupy. Dissociations between an analyst's self-states can, therefore, limit or impede understanding of the analysand by depriving the analyst of a fitting context within which to grasp what the analysand says and does. Clinical understanding may require the breach of such dissociations. I lay out some of the implications of thinking about transference and countertransference along these lines, with detailed examples illustrating the consequences of the analyst's dissociations and their eventual resolutions. Among the advantages of this way of thinking is that it amounts to a psychoanalytic account of the hermeneutic circle.     

The Interpersonal Field: Its Place in American Psychoanalysis

Today the concept of the interpersonal field, while seldom credited to those who created it, is widely used in psychoanalysis. After reviewing how the concept of the field defines interpersonal and relational psychoanalysis, I take up the rejection of the idea in American mainstream psychoanalysis in the decades just after it was proposed by Sullivan and Fromm, why that rejection took place, and how the entire discipline of psychoanalysis in North America might have fared if the idea had been widely recognized earlier than it was.     

Field Theory in Psychoanalysis,Part I: Harry Stack Sullivan and Madeleine and Willy Baranger

This is the first of two articles comparing conceptions of the field in interpersonal/relational psychoanalysis (IRP) and Bionian field theory (BFT). This article compares the thinking of the originators of IRP and BFT, Harry Stack Sullivan and Madeleine and Willy Baranger.     

Breathing Together: Reply to Harris and Shaw

These two very different but complementary discussions address two different “registers” of my thinking in my paper on patients who “live in airless intrapsychic worlds.” Harris is most interested in the meta-theoretical and historical contexts and frames of my theory and clinical approach, viewing my contribution as an example of various broad trends in contemporary relational psychoanalytic thought. Shaw, by contrast, engages with my particular insights and clinical/theoretical framework for understanding and working with patients whose struggles very much resemble and overlap with the struggles of the adult children of “traumatically narcissistic” parents, which his seminal work has focused on. In my Replies I voice my appreciation of each of their unique perspectives on my ideas, and engage with each of them regarding certain differences in our theoretical and clinical sensibilities.