Schedule a Visit

Call Me:

Email Me:

May 16, 2020 at 8:11 pm · · 0 comments

About Psychoanalysis

A Theory of Mind

The Human Conversation—Embracing complexity, Understanding below the surface.

Psychoanalysis arose from an appreciation of the power of people talking directly to one another about questions that matter and issues that are difficult to understand. As human beings are built for communication, we aim to understand, and be understood. When reading the news, interacting on social media, or in everyday conversation, many of us seek to understand “what motivates people?”. And many of us are asking why people behave counter to their own interests.

Historical, political and economic explanations provide important insight into the irrationality of everyday life. Psychoanalysis, however, offers another perspective.

In examining what lies beneath the surface of human behavior, psychoanalysis teaches us about the unconscious psychological forces within us outside of everyday awareness.

Psychoanalysis, in providing multi-layered and multi-dimensional explanations, seeks to understand complexity.

Continue reading on APSAA

April 26, 2020 at 8:08 pm · · 0 comments

Is Psychoanalysis Right for Me?

Psychoanalysis is for those who want it, need it, and can take it.

If you google, “Is psychoanalysis right for me?” you will be linked to websites with pretty solid answers to the question. The Western New England Institute for Psychoanalysis has some good information, adapted from a more comprehensive facts page available on the website of the American Psychoanalytic Association. Those are good places to start.

To delve into the question further, I look to psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott’s wisdom. He wrote,“by and large, analysis is for those who want it, need it, and can take it.” For me, that’s as good a starting point as any.

Continue reading on Psychology Today

July 10, 2019 at 2:51 pm · · 0 comments

The Fallacy in “Evidence-Based” Treatment

This article was written by Lance Dodes M.D. and originally appeared

Today’s topic is relevant to addiction, but goes beyond it to treatment of any psychological problem. To begin, readers of this blog know that addiction is neither more nor less than a psychological symptom, and that it can be understood and treated by discovering the emotional factors that lead people to repeat their addictive behaviors.

Sadly, however, much of psychological treatment in this country doesn’t work that way. Most psychotherapy for emotional symptoms, including addiction, uses cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which is a short-term behaviorally-focused method to change behavior by following scripted steps in a manual.

Continue reading > 

May 9, 2019 at 4:42 pm · · 0 comments

The Scientific Standing of Psychoanalysis

This article was written by Prof. Mark Solms and originally appeared in the British Journal of Psychiatry and therapy

My aim is to set out here what we psychoanalysts may consider to be the core scientific claims of our discipline. Such stock-taking is necessary due to widespread misconceptions among the public, and disagreements among ourselves regarding specialist details, which obscure a bigger picture upon which we can all agree. Agreement on our core claims, which enjoy strong empirical support, will enable us better to defend them against the prejudice that psychoanalysis is not ‘evidence-based’.

I shall address three questions: (A) How does the emotional mind work, in health and disease? (B) On this basis, what does psychoanalytic treatment aim to achieve? (C) How effective is it?

Continue reading > 

January 6, 2018 at 9:12 pm · · 0 comments

Not your great-grandfather’s psychoanalysis

Psychologists have modernized the approach to better serve patients and have conducted more research that validates its success

By Amy Novotney
December 2017, Vol 48, No. 11

At age 7, Pratyusha Tummala-Narra emigrated from India to the United States with her family, leaving behind a country rife with political tensions. Her struggles to adjust to life as a racial and ethnic minority led her to pursue a PhD in psychology from Michigan State University. For the past 20 years, she has worked as a clinician, integrating psychoanalytic, multicultural and feminist perspectives into her practice, which focuses on helping immigrant and ethnic-minority clients deal with acculturation, discrimination and trauma. Her work draws on the ideas of the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, to explore how her clients’ thoughts and feelings that may lie outside awareness affect their social, cultural and political experiences.

As controversial as Freud may be, people often forget that he and his colleagues opened free clinics throughout Europe so that people of any class could have access to psychotherapy, says Tummala-Narra, who is also a professor of counseling, developmental and educational psychology at Boston College.

“When psychoanalysis came to the United States in the early 1900s, it developed into a form of treatment that seemed to only be accessible to the middle and upper-middle classes, which was never Freud’s intention,” she says. “He viewed psychodynamic therapy as a universal treatment for all people.”

Once the ruler of the therapy world, psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy fell out of favor in the United States among many mental health professionals over the past 40 years, due to several factors. Some experts cite a lack of commitment by psychoanalytic theorists to conduct research on the ther­apy’s effectiveness. Others see the treatment as too abstract because it seeks to help clients uncover deeper, often unconscious aspects of experience, while approaches such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) focus more on helping clients adjust thoughts believed to cause negative emotions. Further, many of Freud’s specific ideas, such as the Oedipus complex, have been dropped in favor of a broader view of early relationships and their impacts. And others say psychodynamic therapy is just not relevant or efficient in today’s quick-fix, insurance­limited marketplace.

But today’s psychoanalytic practitioners say that for many mental health issues, psychodynamic therapy is at least as effective as, if not better than, other therapy approaches—and should not be ignored.

“As a field we’ve moved into focusing heavily on what are considered to be empirically supported treatments, largely based on protocol and in short-term models of psychotherapy,” Tummala-Narra says. “Yet as practitioners, we’re seeing patients who are suffering from multiple stressful events in their lives, including homelessness, poverty, trauma and discrimination. Helping them deal with all of these complicated issues really requires a depth of understanding of the whole person and how these events are affecting their relationships with people and how they function in the world. To truly help our clients, we can’t always just rely on a protocol-based treatment.”

Plus, psychoanalytic thinking has evolved rapidly since Freud, says Jonathan Shedler, PhD, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado School of Medicine who also has a private practice. “The development of psychoanalytic thought did not end with Freud any more than the development of physics ended with Newton, or the development of the behavioral tradition in psychology ended with Watson,” Shedler says.

And most important, these practitioners say, a new commitment to science by psychoanalytic researchers and practitioners has led to a growing body of evidence that psychodynamic therapy is as effective as—and sometimes more beneficial than—CBT and other therapies.

Mounting research

Several recent studies have found that psychodynamic theory can provide more long-term benefits than CBT. In 2015, University College London psychoanalyst and clinical psychologist Peter Fonagy, PhD, led a study through the National Health Service in England comparing 18 months of once-a-week psychoanalytic therapy with “treatment as usual,” which included CBT, among adults with chronic depression. The researchers found that 18 months of psychoanalysis provided similar benefits in terms of observer-based and self-reported depression scores compared with the control treatment. But the team also found that patients who received psychoanalytic therapy experienced much longer effects: Two years after treatment ended, 44 percent of patients who received psychoanalysis no longer met the criteria for major depression, compared with 10 percent of the CBT group (World Psychiatry, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2015).

A second study, led by Fonagy and published in 2016, looked at parent-infant psychoanalytic psychotherapy, which aims to improve the interaction between parent and child. Participants were randomly assigned to receive parent-infant psychotherapy or supportive primary care. The authors found no significant difference in outcomes for either intervention on measures of infant development, parent-infant interaction or the parent’s ability to consider the baby’s mental state as well as their own. However, parents who had received parent-infant psychotherapy showed improvements on several measures of maternal mental health, such as less parenting stress and more positive views of themselves as parents (Infant Mental Health Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2016).

Another study published this year, led by Ellen Driessen, PhD, a postdoctoral psychology research associate at VU University in Amsterdam, found that short-term psychodynamic therapy for depression is at least as effective as CBT with regard to many important aspects of patient functioning, including reducing anxiety and pain and improving quality of life (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 85, No. 7, 2017).

“To me, the important thing is finding the psychological therapies that work best for particular patient groups and, to find those treatments, I think we have to have a better understanding of the nature of the problems that people come to us with,” Fonagy says. “That’s where I think psychoanalysis can help, because it does have a very sophisticated model of the mind.”

In a 2010 comprehensive research review, Shedler found that, particularly for common conditions such as anxiety and depression, psychodynamic therapy is at least as effective as all the other therapies that he says are branded and promoted as evidence-based (American Psychologist, Vol. 65, No. 2). Moreover, he says, the benefits of the psychodynamic approach appear to endure much longer than those of CBT.

For example, a 2006 meta-analysis he includes in his review—which was updated in 2014 to include 33 randomized controlled trials of 2,173 patients with a range of common mental disorders—showed a reduction in anxiety and depressive symptoms among participants who received short-term (less than 40 hours) psychodynamic therapy. These benefits continued increasing over time and were actually greater at long-term follow-up, nine months or more after the intervention ended. This suggests that psychodynamic therapy sets in motion psychological processes that lead to ongoing change, even after therapy has ended, Shedler says.

“For the most common conditions, such as anxiety and depression, the benefits of CBT start to dissipate the day the treatment ends,” Shedler says. “The typical finding is that by six months to a year, there is no indication that there was any benefit whatsoever.”

Not everyone agrees with that assessment. Vanderbilt University psychology professor Steven Hollon, PhD, past president of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, notes that individuals do relapse following successful treatment with either CBT or an antidepressant medication, but prior CBT cuts the relapse rate by more than half, according to a 2013 meta-­analysis he co-­authored (BMJ Open, Vol. 3, No. 4).

“Depression tends to be a chronic or recurrent disorder, so subsequent symptom return is what you would expect, but we have clear evidence that CBT has an enduring effect as compared to medication,” Hollon says. “Psychodynamic therapy may have an enduring effect, too, but that has simply never been adequately investigated. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the approach has been around for over a century and simply has not been all that adequately tested.”

Psychoanalytic practice today

One of the greatest misconceptions regarding psychodynamic therapy is that it has remained unchanged since Freud introduced it at the turn of the century, Shedler says.

“There have been sea changes in psychoanalytic theory and technique, but psychology textbooks continue to offer portrayals that are a century out of date,” he says. “People still think that patients come in four or five days a week for an hour at a time and lie on a couch,” he says.

While a few psychoanalytic therapists still practice that way, today most see their patients once a week. Tummala-Narra says she works with most of her clients once or twice weekly, and that the length of their treatment varies, with some clients lasting several weeks, and others several years.

The approach focuses on helping patients understand themselves more deeply so they can identify the factors underlying their difficulties and stop repeating the same patterns, Shedler says.

“A central way of understanding the psychodynamic approach is that there’s more to human beings than meets the eye,” he says. “There’s what you can see on the surface of things—presenting problems or symptoms or a diagnosis—and there’s what is going on psychologically that’s underlying the patient’s problems.”

The approach differs from other therapy techniques in that it seeks to help clients uncover underlying reasons for their feelings and behaviors, which may initially be outside the client’s awareness. Other approaches focus more on helping clients adjust unhelpful present thoughts.

“Psychologists who practice psychodynamic therapy are more interested in some of the complexities and subtleties of clinical work, and are less content to define success just in terms of something like lessening symptoms,” says Elliot Jurist, PhD, psychology professor at the City University of New York and ­editor of Psychoanalytic Psychology. “They tend to pursue the more ambitious goal of helping someone move toward psychological health, rather than just getting rid of what they’re suffering from.”

Tummala-Narra focuses her client discussions on past experiences, such as a client’s childhood and relationships with family members, as well as present challenges. “As the family is typically the initial space for socialization, I pay close attention to what messages ­clients have learned from parents, siblings, grandparents and other significant people in their life,” she says.

She encourages her clients to follow their thoughts wherever they lead, also known as free association, and inquires about early childhood memories and dreams to help facilitate discussion of the meaning of clients’ experiences. “Learning about each aspect of experience helps me and the client understand in more depth the nature and history of the current suffering.” That, she says, leads to insights that help the client move toward considering and engaging in new, more productive and fulfilling ways of thinking about themselves and others.

Psychodynamic therapy also allows patients to explore and rework their relationships through the therapeutic relationship by examining transference and countertransference dynamics, Tummala-Narra says. For example, the therapist may avoid or minimize the role of racism in the client’s life if he or she feels uncomfortable or has conflicted feelings about race and racism, she says. “The client in turn may unconsciously collude with the therapist’s discomfort, and minimize the role of racism in his or her life. Working through impasses or enactments of these dynamics is critical to psychoanalytic practice, and offers an opportunity to engage in a unique relationship that promotes authenticity and the ability to tolerate and work through painful affective experiences.”

Shedler agrees, noting that this is a crucial dividing line between the psychodynamic perspective and other therapy approaches. “The relationship that the patient creates with the therapist is a window into what goes right and what goes wrong in the patient’s other relationships,” he says. “We’re not just hearing about what causes the person’s problems, we’re actually experiencing it firsthand in the office.”

Looking toward the future

Given the research supporting the effectiveness of psychoanalysis, Jurist says he is hopeful that more practitioners will be open to providing it. “My hope is that this will help reduce the stigma around psychodynamic thinking and that people will take things that they find valuable and use it in their practice,” he says.

Jacques Barber, PhD, dean of psychology at Adelphi University, shares Jurist’s hope that the growing body of evidence that psychoanalytic therapy is effective will boost interest among researchers and practitioners. Unfortunately, he notes, funding to study psychodynamic therapy in the United States is difficult to come by because it requires a large sample size and can be hard to implement.

“We know that no treatment is effective for all patients,” Barber says. “Now the important question is, how do we try to predict what kind of treatment will work best for which kind of patient? I think this is what the next generation will need to deal with.”

Tummala-Narra agrees, pointing to the need for those in the profession to enlighten students, professionals and educators about the validity and relevance of psychoanalytic theory in contemporary practice.

“We need to broaden the perspective in terms of what’s thought about as effective psychotherapy, rather than relying on one subset of techniques or methods,” she says.

Ken Levy, PhD, a clinical psychology professor at Penn State University who maintains a small psychodynamically ­oriented private practice, adds that review panels, journals and psychology departments also need to pay more attention to valuing the idea of diverse thinking and diverse ideas.

“Some of the greatest achievements in psychology have occurred in the context of people having different ideas about things,” he says.

For example, Walter Mischel’s cognitive-affective personality theory is consistent with psychodynamic models such as object relations and attachment theories.

“Mischel initially saying that there was no such thing as personality led to a resurgence in personality research that now has Mischel as one of the leading frameworks in personality ­theory,” Levy says. “That happened because people had differences of opinion.”

Article originally appeared on

November 24, 2013 at 3:53 pm · · 0 comments

The George Washington University Announces Incorporation of Psychoanalysis

From James L. Griffith, MD

Chair, GWU Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

On the evening of October 11, we will celebrate the incorporation of the Washington Center for Psychoanalysis into our George Washington University Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences as a new academic division. This is a momentous event for the WCP and our department, the fruition of negotiations that began in earnest two years ago but had been periodically discussed for over two decades. The new affiliation between the WCP and our department is the only affiliation between a psychoanalytic institute and a psychiatry department that has occurred in recent history. Na-tionally, there have been three psychoanalytic institutes embedded within departments of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York University, and Emory University. In 2003, the Menninger Institute navigated a move to Baylor University after continued existence at its longstanding Kansas home became untenable due to changes in national health care economics. Unlike the Menninger move, creation of our GW-WCP affiliation has not been driven by duress, but by the promise of new vistas for joint educational and research programs that can fulfill core missions for both.

The rarity of psychoanalytic institutes within university departments of psychiatry can perhaps be explained by the emergence during recent decades of psychopharmacology and the descriptive diagnostic systems of DSM-III, -IV, and -V as dominant forces shaping the evolution of American psychiatry. A more important question, however, is why a rapprochement of psychoanalysis with academic psychiatry makes sense now. From my perspective, three reasons stand out.

First, the past 50 years of psychotherapy outcome research have firmly established that psychotherapy is among the most highly effective treatments in all of medicine with an effect size of approximately 0.8 in meta-analyses inclusive of multiple kinds of clinical problems and diverse patient populations. However, the active elements that contribute most to this effectiveness are those that engage a patient’s subjective experience, such as the mobilizing hope, emotional at-tunement, and building a collaborative therapeutic alliance. Psychoanalysis and psychodynamic psychotherapy remain our major therapeutic methods for understanding, witnessing, and responding to a patient’s subjectivity.

Second, psychoanalysis is an important method for conducting inquiry that tracks patterns of a person’s lived experience within contexts of family, workplace, community, and culture. As such, a psychoanalytic perspective can add a depth of understanding to clinical treatment, psychiatric education, and the medical humanities.

Third, the emergence of cognitive and social neuroscience provides methods for the scientific study of phenomenological observations that psychoanalysts have drawn from their patient’s lives. Psychoanalysis, always strong in generating hypotheses but weak in empirically testing them, has gained a new route back into the world of medical science. Psychoanalytic methods lend themselves to mixed methods research in which functional brain imaging, the methods of empirical cognitive and social psychology, and psychoanalytic inquiry simultaneously can examine the same human behaviors, discovering “the patterns that connect” as Gregory Bateson would put it.

As a departmental Chair, I hope that the presence of the WCP will solidify a national identity for our psychiatry department as a center of excellence for psychotherapy practice, training, and research. In our mid-Atlantic region, we want to be the psychiatry department to which patients turn first when psychiatric symptoms have become treatment refractory or carry medical co-morbidities, because our clinicians can provide complex treatment programs that seamlessly integrate somatic, psychotherapeutic, and family or social interventions. However, our best accomplishments likely will be in medical education. WCP members on our clinical faculty already make vital contributions to teaching and supervising our residents and medical students. We anticipate new opportunities for residents to study within the educational programs of the WCP. We likewise hope that the resources of our department, medical school, and university open new opportunities for students and fellows of the WCP. We are excited that the WCP is now part of our department’s identity as we face future challenges and opportunities together.

October 24, 2010 at 3:55 pm · · 0 comments

Mental Health Insurance Under the Federal Parity Law

Most people in the United States have health insurance coverage, typically provided by their employer. Historically, many health insurance plans provided far less coverage for mental health services compared to physical health (medical/surgical) services. For example, a health plan might have covered only 50 percent of costs related to seeing a psychologist but 80 percent of costs related to seeing a primary care physician. (click here)