Assessing Specific Effects of Inpatient Group Psychotherapy

Abstract

This article will examine how the psychoanalytic idea of containing can be used in group therapy to form a conceptual bridge such that the group dynamics are not simplistically reduced to individual dynamics, nor that the individual is lost in the “group–as–a–whole” concept. I take the concept of “containing” as versatile in the sense that Bion (1970) meant it to be—that is, the psychological phenomenon of containment is manifest at various system levels: intrapsychic, interpersonal, group, and societal. This article will explore how far this “bridging concept” can be pursued to understand groups theoretically. The article will review various forms of containing, following Bion’s ideas, and in particular a therapeutic, or flexible, form in contrast to rigid and fragile forms.     

Secondary Revision: On Rethinking the Analytic Process and Analytic Technique

The author relates aspects of his own personal history and professional development in an effort to explain the changes in his way of thinking and working as an analyst that have evolved over the past thirty years. He also includes some of his current thinking on the questions of countertransference, the uses of memory, and contemporary analytic technique.     

Logic Semantics with the Potential Infinite

A form of quantification logic referred to by the author in earlier papers as being ‘ontologically neutral’ still made use of the actual infinite in its semantics. Here it is shown that one can have, if one desires, a formal logic that refers in its semantics only to the potential infinite. Included are two new quantifiers generalizing the sentential connectives, equivalence and non-equivalence. There are thus new avenues opening up for exploration in both quantification logic and semantics of the infinite.     

Other voices,other minds

I argue to a conclusion I find at once surprising and intuitive: although many considerations show trust useful, valuable, important, or required, these are not the reasons for which one trusts a particular person to do a particular thing. The reasons for which one trusts a particular person on a particular occasion concern, not the value, importance, or necessity of trust itself, but rather the trustworthiness of the person in question in the matter at hand. In fact, I will suggest that the degree to which you trust a particular person to do a particular thing will vary inversely with the degree to which you must rely, for the motivation or justification of your trusting response, on reasons that concern the importance, or value, or necessity of having such a response.     

Construing a “Perfect Knight”: A Personal Construct Investigation of Mass Murder

We report three studies in which we examined the structure of interpersonal construct systems. We attempted to identify (a) the degree to which individuals' differentiation in the constructs they used to construe themselves paralleled the differentiation in the constructs they used to construe other and (b) the differences and similarities in the content of constructs used by subjects to construe themselves, liked peers, and disliked peers. In addition, we compared the content of the liked- and disliked-peer constructs with those used by employees construing co-workers in a previous study. Findings indicated that Ziller, Martell, and Morrison's (1977) checklist measure of self differentiation was weakly correlated in the first sample and uncorrelated in the second sample with Crockett's (1965) Role Category Questionnaire (RCQ), a measure of other differentiation. Differentiation scores from the other and self versions of the RCQ were moderately correlated. Content analyses revealed that self constructs were drawn largely from the same pool as those used in describing liked and disliked peers; they were more similar to the liked-peer constructs than the disliked-peer ones, but also drew heavily on the disliked-peer construct pool. Constructs used to describe liked and disliked peers were very similar to those used to describe co-workers but were clearly influenced by context. To account for the findings, we suggest that constructs become meaningful and thus prominent in a particular domain because of their usefulness for the particular construal tasks encountered in that domain.