Women's role in psychotherapy.

Contends that the assertion of R. T. Hare-Mustin (see record 1984-07313-001) that Freud (1905) failed to recognize his own motives in his harsh and cold treatment of a female hysteric is inaccurate. It is suggested that Freud protected his patient's anonymity; weighed evidence from all sides before making judgments; put the patient's "vengefulness" in context; and treated her with integrity, courage, empathy, and a passion for the truth. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Freud and sociobiology.

Discusses comments made by M. Eber (see record 1984-00023-001) and E. I. Pollak (see record 1984-00042-001) on a synthesis of Freudian psychoanalysis and sociobiology by the present authors (Leak and Christopher; see record 1982-29262-001). Eber writes from the psychoanalytic perspective and criticizes the stress on the biological/scientific aspect of Freud's work. Pollak takes a more sociobiological approach and criticizes the present authors' article for stressing those aspects of sociobiological theory that place greater emphasis on biological determinism as opposed to behavioral plasticity. The present authors reply that (1) the original Freudian conception of psychoanalysis is the version that offers valuable insights for mainstream scientific psychology, and (2) many of Freud's notions are quite similar to contemporary sociobiological concepts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"A bit more light on Ferenczi and Freud": Response to Tabin.

Comments on the response by J. K. Tabin (see record 1995-43797-001) to the critique by L. Aron and J. B. Frankel (see record 1994-41100-001) of her article on Freud's motivation for rethinking his seduction theory (see record 1994-05584-001). Freud's priority in citing the relationship between splitting of the ego and childhood sexual trauma and his treatment of Ferenczi are highlighted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Resource collaboration, feminist therapy, and models.

Comments on an article by F. B. Tyler et al (see record 1984-02406-001), arguing that in presenting a collaborative model for psychologists, Tyler et al are perhaps unaware that the essential characteristics of the model they propose were developed over 10 yrs ago as part of feminist therapy by A. M. Brodsky and R. T. Hare-Mustin (1980). The feminist therapy model, which is based on the qualities Tyler et al promote (such as being more self-help oriented, more self-sustaining, more prosocial, and more egalitarian), has influenced other therapeutic approaches concerned with client's rights. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Some problems created by Holt's consistency: A rejoinder.

Replies to R. R. Holt's (see record 1992-27289-001) critique of S. Reisner's (see record 1992-16438-001) article on metapsychology and suggests that the critique is based on fundamental differences in approaches to Freud's studies and their relevance to contemporary psychoanalytic theory and practice. It is argued that Holt underemphasizes the relational, hermeneutic, and epistemological components of Freud's theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Freud's stance, and mine.

Responds to M. O. Slavin and D. Kriegman's (see record 1989-00599-001) and D. M. Snyder's (see record 1989-00600-001) comments on the present author's (see record 1987-21061-001) discussion of Freud's work in the context of neurophysiology and sociobiology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Material risks and informed consent to psychotherapy.

The article by R. T. Hare-Mustin et al (see record 1979-26958-001) dealing with client rights and informed consent (IC) and the article by L. Everstine et al (see record 1980-31031-001) dealing with confidentiality and IC in psychotherapy articulate ethical concerns that have not received the amount of attention their importance deserves and requires. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Science, genre, and the new style: Some constructive criticisms.

Criticizes simplifications in the article by R. T. Hare-Mustin and J. Maracek (see record 1988-31397-001) based on the poor use of sources and a failure to fully apply certain insights associated with the new style theory of language. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A response to "The relevance of Sigmund Freud for the 21st century."

The relevance of Freud's ideas for the 21st Century had been discussed (Reppen, 2006; see record 2006-05420-001). Although most of the contributors to that compendium believed that they were, I suggest that a 'yes' or 'no' answer is not possible with regard to the corpus of Freud's ideas as a whole; each idea has to be evaluated separately. Freud's theorizing is built on two different bases: a psychological and a biological one. Not only do these eventuate in two different kinds of formulations throughout this theory, but sometimes even with regard to the same construct at different times in his writing. As a consequence, the assessment of the relevance of Freud's ideas for the 21st Century must be made construct by construct. A sampling of Freud's ideas about motivation, psychopathology and treatment were examined as to their contemporary relevance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The issue of sex bias in DSM-III: Comments on the articles by Spitzer, Williams, and Kass.

Responds to comments by J. B. Williams and R. L. Spitzer (see record 1984-06864-001) and by F. Kass et al (see record 1984-06848-001) on the present author's (see record 1984-06847-001) article, in which she argued that masculine-biased assumptions about what behaviors are healthy are codified in diagnostic criteria and may account for higher treatment rates in women. The present author responds to criticisms and reiterates her point that histrionic and dependent personality disorders as defined by the DSM-III correspond to stereotypes of femininity. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Metareflections on the roles and functions of counseling psychologists.

Responds to comments by C. E. Watkins (see record 1984-32564-001) concerning the present author's (see record 1984-16046-001) discussion of the differing roles of counseling and clinical psychology. Although the 2 specialties share a number of professional activities and client groups, it is suggested that they are partially differentiated by the inclusion of normal populations in counseling treatment and severely disturbed populations in clinical psychology. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Borderline personality organization: Reply to Bauer and Sherry.

Replies to G. P. Bauer and P. Sherry's (see record 1986-25091-001) comments on the present authors' (see record 1984-12361-001) discussion of clinical and theoretical issues in the treatment of borderline patients. It is argued that Bauer and Sherry's reply was inaccurate, overly inferential, and misleading. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply from Sommer and Sommer.

Responds to comments by H. L. Garber (see record 1985-24145-001), E. Furchtgott (see record 1985-24143-001), G. S. Bernstein (see record 1985-24133-001), K. Heskin (see record 1985-24148-001), and K. B. Carsrud (see record 1985-24136-001) on issues raised by the authors (see record 1984-10654-001) on the validity of research findings reported in textbooks. The hazards of unquestioning acceptance of appealing preliminary results and the need to exercise professional judgment in interpreting results are stressed. It is argued that textbooks in such core areas as developmental and abnormal psychology should be conservative in the facts they publish. The use of replication as a means of establishing validity is advocated. (7 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Assessing symbol usage versus symbol competency.

Responds to comments by S. Sugarman (see record 1984-22390-001) and C. A. Ristau (see record 1984-22382-001) on the present authors' (see record 1984-22384-001) article on chimpanzee language acquisition. The assumption that chimpanzees use their acquired symboling capacity in a manner different from that of human children is addressed. It is concluded that these differences are not significant in that they reflect the need, with ape Ss, to report data that are not open to criticisms of cuing, rather than real differences in communicative purpose. It is argued that a distinction must be made between the totality of an ape's symbol production and the ape's capacity to respond correctly in particular test settings. This separation reveals the inappropriateness of criticizing the tests of ape capacities as though such tests were the only extant behavioral evidence of symboling capacity. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Selective citation.

States that R. T. Hare-Mustin and J. Marecek (see record 1988-31397-001) selectively omitted the following published empirical evidence based on large data sets by C. P. Benbow and J. C. Stanley (see PA, Vols 66:10019, 70:2057, 71:22695; see also 1981, 1987). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A rejoinder to Notarius.

Responds to C. I. Notarius's (see record 1984-11607-001) rebuttal of the present author's (see record 1984-11616-001) criticisms of a study by Notarius et al (see record 1983-05644-001) which supported the discharge model of the facial expressivity/physiological reactivity relationship. It is concluded that only when all data from the Notarius et al study are examined will one know what their results have shown. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Implications for psychology: Reply to comments.

Replies to the comments of D. E. Leary (see record 1986-07955-001), S. A. Mulaik (see record 1986-07961-001), D. N. Robinson (see record 1986-07966-001), and W. L. Stroud (see record 1986-07976-001) on the earlier presentation of the present authors (see record 1984-00037-001) about the new philosophy of science. The present authors are pleased with what they have been able to communicate and discuss what they feel has been misunderstood. (27 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)