Fiedler , F. (1951). Factor Analysis of Psychoanalytic, Non-directive, And Adlerian Therapeutic Relationships. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1951, 15, 32-38

8/12/2019 Fiedler , F. (1951). Factor Analysis of Psychoanalytic, Non-directive, And Adlerian Therapeutic Relationships. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1951, 15, 32-38.

1/7

FACTOR ANALYSES OF PSYCHOANALYTIC, NON-DIRECTIVE, AND ADLER IAN THERAPEUTICRELATIONSHIPS1FRED E. FIEDLER

UNIVERSITY O F CHIC G O

TWO previous papers by the author [2,3 ] describedthe methods used inquan-t i fying and comparing therapeutic re-lationships created by ten experts and non-experts of the psychoanalytic, nondirective,and Adlerian schools. The results of these in -vestigations showed that the therapists whoar e consideredto beexperts by their colleaguescreate a relationship which approximates moreclosely the concept of the ideal therapeutic re-lationship which has previously been described[2] thando therelationships createdby non-experts. It was also demonstrated that expertscreate therapeutic relationships which are moresimilar to relationships created by experts ofdifferent schoolsand less similar to those creat-ed by nonexperts of their own school. Thepresent paper will describe the results of multi-ple factor analyses of therapeutic relationshipsand discuss in more detail some of the dimen-sions which different iate experts from non-experts, an d therapists of oneschool f rom thoseof another school.

The hypothesis of this and previous investi-gations has been that the therapeutic relation-ship is not a funct ion of a particular theory ortechnique but rather of other determinantswhich are concomitant with expertness andtherapeutic skill. For lack of a better criterion,expertness is here accepted as the reputa tionwhich the therapist enjoys among his col-leagues. In turn, this investigation concerns it -self with isolating the more specific aspectswhich are inherent in therapy conducted byexperts (presumably good t h e r a p y ) by con-trasting it with therapy conducted by non-

1The writer wishes to express his appreciationto Dr. D. W. Fiske, and Messrs. R. W. Heine andR. D. Quinn for their suggestions and criticisms ofthis paper.

experts (which presumably islessgood),andthat w e shall thereby be able to identify ex-pertness without recourseto such standards asreputation and status based on theoreticalwritings or administrative ability. This paperwill attempt to identi fy th e specific aspectswhich are common to therapeutic relationshipscreated by experts regardless of school.

P R OC EDUR ESince the methodology and rationale, aswellas the restrictions and limitations of thesestudies, have already been presented in some

detail [3 ] they will only be briefly summa-rized here.O ne psychoanalytically trained, onenondirec tive ly t ra ined jud ge , one judge ( thewriter) who had received some training inboth methods, as well as one ju d g e who hadreceived no tra ining in therapeutic theory ormethods, listened independent ly to ten record-ed therapy interviews, each of which they as-sessed in termsof anarray of 75 statements de -scriptive of therapeutic relationships [see 3, pp.438-439]in accordance with u sual(^-techniquemethodology [1, 4].The assessments of eachjudge were then intercorrelated and the result-ing correlation matrices factor analyzed[5].

The recorded interviews were obtainedfrom fou r psychoanalytic, fou r nondirective,and tw o Adlerian therapists w ho were askedfor onerecording between th e sixth and seven-teenth t rea tment hour with a patient whomthey considered neither psychotic, encepha-lopathic, psychopathic, nor incompetent andw ho permit ted the hour to be recorded. Thetherapists w ere so selected that two of the fou rpsychoanalytic therapists were relative begin-ners, one an expert who enjoys national reputa-tion, and one a therapist w ho enjoys a morelimited reputation as an expert. The same is

32


2/7

FACTOR ANALYSESOF THERAPEUTIC RELATIONSHIPS true of the four nondirective therapists, whileone of the Adlerians is anationally recognizedexpert and the other a beginner.

Since each judge's training and orientationwere different, it was felt that the assessmentsof each judg e shouldbetreated separately. Thes tudy thus conta ins four factor analyses.8'8Each judge was also asked to identify thefactors from his assessments in terms of hisow n frame of reference.The statements which constitute the basisof the factor interpretations will be summa-rized in this paper.The code numbersrefer tothe statements which are listed in the previouspaper [3]. This will enablethe reader whoso desires to go back to the statements whichemerged as factors.

THE RESULTSJudgeH.Theoblique,rotatedfactormatrix(Table 1), obtained from the ratings of thepsychoanalytically trained judge, yielded fourfactors.Factor H-A was named Insecurity ex-

pressed in imm obility. The second no ndi rect iveexpert and the two nondirective nonexpertsshowed high factor saturations; th e Adlerianexpert emerged with a moderate negative fac-tor saturation and is,therefore, on the oppositepole of this pa rticular dimension.Therapists with high factor saturations are de-scribed as: 64. The therapist feels somewhat tenseand on edge.4 65 . The therapist seems to be alittle afraid of the patient. 113, The therapist letsth e patient determine th e course of the session.(Also 24, 103.) Statements less characteristic of2Each correlation matrix w as factored twice toimprove communality estimates. The actual factor-ing was done by Mr, John Mellingerof the Psycho-metric Laboratory, Department of Psychology, TheUniversi ty of Chicago, to whom th e writer wishesto express his appreciation.3To reduce printing costs, 16 tablesshowing cor-relation matrices, factor matrices, and distributionof residuals have been deposited with the Ameri-can Docum entation Institute. Ord er Docum ent 2933from American Documentation Institute, 1719 NStreet, N. W., Washington 6, D. C., remit t ing $.50for m icrofilm (images 1 in. high on standard 35mm. motion picture film) or $1.60 for photocopies( 6 x 8 in.) readable without optical aid.*Statements descriptive of factors in this studywere obtained as follows: Items were selected onwhich therapists with high factor loadings wererated similarly while therapists with low factorloadings obtained scores on that statement wh ichwere higher or lower by one or more points.

therapists with high factor saturations are, for in-stance: 72. The therapist's feelings do not seemto be swayed by the patient 's remarks. 31. Thetherapist is usual ly able to get what th e patientis trying to communicate. (Also 135, 141, 134, 131,43, 63, 54,42.) This judge f e l t that th e statementstended toward a description of a therapist who,when he feels insecure in the face of implicit de-mands by patients, responds by stiffening and fall-ing back on an overly rigid use of technique.

Factor H-B was namedbyJudge H Poorcommunication. One of the nondirective non-experts,ND-N25,and theA dlerian novicehadhigh factor saturations on this factor, whilethe nationally known nondirective expert hasa high negative factor saturation, that is, has good communication with his patient.Thisfactor describes therapists whose tensions areexpressed in a need toimpose theirow nnotionson the patient at the expenseof not hearingexpressions of thepatientwhich arecontradic-tory to the therapist's beliefs.

Statements characteristic of therapists high onthis factor are, fo r instance: 12. The therapist oftenmisses the point the patient is trying to get across.135. The therapist directs and guides th e patient.65 . The therapis t feels somewhat tense and onedge.15. The therap ist 's comments tend to divert thepatient 's trend of thought. (Also 4, 3, 14, 13, 2.)Statements less characteristic of therapists high onthis factor are: 73. The therapis t mainta ins af r iendly , neutra l a t t i tude throughout . 25 . The ther-apist usually maintains rapport with the patient.(Also 124, 25, 41, 44, 31, 111.)

Factor H-C wasnam ed Security expressedin optim al em otional distance. All expertsexcept ND-E2 have high saturation on thisfactor while only onenonexpert,PA-N1, doesso . This factor describes a therap ist who isneither too intimate nor too distant from hispatient an d hence ca n interact freely withouttensions. The therapist is interested, but notinvolved, in the patient's problems; he is de-tached from the patient's problems but notaloof an d coldly disinterested.

Statements characteristic of therapists with highfactor loadings are : 73. The therapist maintains af r iendly , neutra l a t t i tude throughout . 31. The ther-apist is usually able to get what th e patient ist ry ing to communicate .

BThe notations in this paper are the same asthose used in the previous paper [3, Table 1].PAPsychoanalytic EExpertN D N o n d i r e c t i v e NNonexper tIP In d i v i d u a lPsychology (A dlerian )


3/7

4 FREDE. FIEDLERStatements less characteristic of these therapistsa re : 1. The therapis t cannot maintain rappor t wi ththe pat ient . 11. The therapist flounders around be-fore getting th e pat ient ' s meaning. 4. The thera-

pist's ow n needs completely inter fere wi th his un-ders tanding of the patient. (Also 103, 112, 12, 64,65.)The fou rth factor, H-D, was labelled

Empathy. Only experts received high satu-rations on this factor: PA-E1, ND-E1, N D-E2 ,IP-El.Therapist ND-E2, th eonly expertnot representedon Factor H-C, has thehighestsaturation on this factor. Factor H-D is alsoclosely allied to therapists' ability to com-municate ; th e statements concern th e ther-apist's ability to maintain rapport, to followthe patient's line of thought, and to show lik-ing for the patient.Statements more characteristic of therapists highon this factor are: 25, 34, 123, 94; statements lesscharacteristic of therapists high on this factor are:3, 2, 52, 14.

TABLE 1*R O T A T E D O B L I Q U E F A C T O R MATRIX J U D G E H)

Therapis tsPA-E1 (Psychoanalytic)PA-E2PA-NlPA-N2ND-E1 (Nondi rec t ive)N D - E 2ND-N1N D - N 2IP-El ( A d l e r i a n )IP-Nl

H-A-01-03092 9

02535359-3604

H-B-17-04

0245-52-06-01030870

H-C356043

-08440200005107

H-D52-0908-0132582 2-023200

Decimal points have been deleted in this and subse-quent tables.

TABLE 2C O R R E L A T I O N S B E T W E E N P R I M A R Y V E C T O R S

(JUDGE H)H-Ap H-Bp H-Cp H-Dp

H-ApH-BpH-CpH-Dp

2 875

-1144 2 2 -05

It will be noticed that experts are mostprominently differentiated on the two factorswhich deal with communication and properemotional distance (H-CandH-D).Fourofthe five experts and only one nonexpert havehigh loadings on one or both of these factors.

The ratings of thepsychoanalytically trainedj udge do not show any factors which woulddifferentiate one school clearly from another.Only Factor H-A ( Inse cur ity expressed inimm obility ) singles out three of the four non-directive therapists to the exclusion of allothers. Even here, however, we cannot con-siderthis factor as representativeof one schoolsince the nationally known therapist, who isundoubtedly th e most representative therapistin the group, has a zero saturation on thisfactor.Judge Q.The nondirectively trained jud gedescribed hisFactor Q-A as follows: Thera-peutic approach or a t t i tude factor: emotionalstability, interest in, and esteemof the patient,communication excellent on both, the intel-lectual and affective level. All experts andno nonexperts have high factor saturat ionsonthis factor, which is quite similar to FactorsH-C and H-D obtained from the ratings ofth e psychoanalytically oriented judge (seeTables 3 and 4).

T he statements which characterize this factorconcern mainly the aspects of communication andproper emotional distance, e.g.: 75. The therapis tshows little positive or negative emotion in his re-actions to the patient. 71. The therapis t is interestedbut emotional ly uninvolved. 44. The therapist 's re-m a r k s fit in just r ight with th e patient 's mood andcontent. 42. The therapis t is able to participatecompletely in the patien t 's com mun ication. Otherstatements more characteristic of therapists wi thhigh factor loadings are 72 , 32, 43, 81, 31, 83,while statements less characteristic of high thera-pists are 12, 64, 1, 3, 5, 14, 51.

Judge Q named th e second facto r Personals e c u r i t y i n s e c u r i t y fa c to r : e mo tio na llyestrangedsubmissive, protective. TherapistsPA-N2 ,ND-N1, ND-N2have high loading s;ND-E2'sfactorloadingisrelativelyslight. Thestatements which characterize this factor de-scribe the therapist as being a little afraid ofth e patien t, hesitant abou t asking questions,apologetic, currying favor, etc., inother words,insecureand try ing to please.Statements characteristic of therapists high onthis factor are: 65 , 111, 114, 103, 104, 112, 131;

statements less characteristic of these therapists are72 , 133, 55 .The third of Judge Q 's factorswas named Status s u p e r i o r i t y f a c to r : e motionallyestrangeddominating, aloof, or cold. This


4/7

F CTOR ANALYSESOFTHERAPEUTIC RELATIONSHIPS

factor is the opposite in many respects fromFactor Q-B. Therapists PA-E1, PA-E2, PA-Nl,andIP-N1have high saturations and thenondirective therapistND-N2a moderate sat-uration on Factor Q-C, which characterizesthe therapists as relatively more rejecting, con-descending,with a more tutorial attitude to-ward the patient.

Statements 53, 132, 141, 143, 133, 142, 145, and54 are more characteristic of therapists with highfactor saturations; 113, 112, 102, 103, 104, 115, 131,92 , 101, and 45 are less characteristic of therapistswith high factor saturations.The last fac tor in this gro up,Q-D,is a resid-ual factor which cannot beinterpreted on thebasis of our factor loadings.As in the case of Judge H's ratings, d i f -ferentiation between experts and nonexperts ismost clearly apparent in terms of the ther-apists' ability to communicate and relate emo-tionally in a manner which isneither too closenor too distant to the patient. Differences be-tweenschools do not emerge clearly,b ut wherethey tend to be present, i.e., Factors Q-B and

Q-C,they are in terms of status differences.TABLE 3ROTATED OBLIQUE FACTOR MATRIX (JUDGE Q)

TherapistsPA-E1 (Psychoanalytic)PA-E2PA-N1PA-N2ND-E1 (Nondirect ive)ND-E2N D - N 1ND-N2IP-El ( A d l e r i a n )IP-N1

Q -A6944-03-097777021083-35

Q-B0702006202307455-0905

Q-C537380-04020107342 452

Q-D23-18-1704-141601

-071221Residual factor.

TABLE 4C O R R E L A T I O N S BETWEEN PRIM ARY V E C T O R S

(JUDGE Q)

Q-BD 2 8-14-21 17-39 4Judge F. This judge, the writer, hadreceived some training in both psychoanalyticand nondirective therapy. Since the writer

knew the identityof all therapists, theseresultsmust beaccepted m ore cautiously.Factor F-A was named Security andther-apycenteredness. The factor is described byth e attempt on the part of the therapist tounderstand his patient's feelings and focus onthe patient's thinking, in the course of whichstatusconcernsof the therapist are completelyovershadowed.Thus, the therapist isdescribedalso asa cting neither superiornor submissivetoth e patient, treating th e patient like a friendwhile not diverting the patient's trend ofthought, missing th e patient's point, showingthe patient condescend ing, hostile or tutorialattitudes, etc. (seeTable5).

Statem ents 33, 124, 41, and 12 5 are cha racteristicof therapists with high loadings on Factor F-A;63, 133, 15, 12, 134, 143, 52 , and 144 are lesscharacteristic of therapis ts ND-El, ND-E2 , N D -Nl. IP-N1 has a high negative saturation on thisfactor.This factor is the onlyone of eleven whichsingles out two experts and one nonexpertofone school to the exclusion of therapists ofotherschools.This factorwas named without

reference to the therapists who obtained highfactor loadings on it, and one would imaginethatthe statementscorrespond rather wellwithth e Client-centered attitude which Rog ershas described. On the other hand, the writerknew, of course, whom he was rating at thetimethese assessments w ere m ade.Factor F-B was named Poor rapport, andinsecurity. All nonex perts and no expertsreceived high factor saturations on F-B. Thisis therefore another factor which clearly dif-ferentiates experts from nonexperts regardlessof school. Again, the aspect ofcomm unicationan d security are prominently brought out inthe statements which characterize the factor.Therapists are described ashaving no compre-hension of the feelings the patient istrying tocommunicate, missing the point the patient istrying tomake, being able to understand onlythe intellectual aspects of what the patient issaying,feeling tenseand on edge, etc.Statements 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 64, 23, 24, and 1are more characteristic of therap ists with high fac-tor saturations; 41, 33, 31, 35, 93, 94, 32, 144, 122 ,92 , 42, and 45 are less characteristic of these thera-pists (the nonexperts).FactorF-C wasnamed Superiority ; ther-


5/7

36 FREDE. FIEDLERapistsPA-E1, PA-E2,PA-N1,IP-El,andIP-Nl received high loadings onthis factor. Al-thoug h n one of the nondirective therapists hasa high loadingon thisfactor, one of thepsycho-analytic n onexp erts alsohas azero correlation.This factor, which is highly correlated withFactor F-A (.75) (seeTable 6), also tendstodifferentiate among schools, though with agreat deal more overlap. In both factors overhalf of the statements come from the Statusroledimensionof the scale [see 3].The last factor, F-D, was named Pass-ivity ;PA-E2, PA-N1, ND-E1,andND-N1have moderate factor saturations, whereas th eloading of N D - N 2 isbarely interpretab le.Statements which are characteristicof thisfactord escribe therapists as letting th e patientdetermine the course of the session, showinglittle emotional reaction, being interested butemotionally uninvolved, hesitant about askingquestions, etc.

Statements 113, 75, 71, and 111 are characteris-tic, an d 55, 135, and 95 are less characteristic, oftherapis ts with h igh sa tura t ionson this factor.As in the ratings of previous judges, th efactor related to communication differentiatesbetween experts and nonexp erts most c lear ly.O ne factor has emerged which differentiatesthree of the fo ur non directive therapists fromtherapists ofother schools. No ndirec tive thera-pists are here described as being less status con-scious; some of the psychoanalytic therapistsand theAdlerians, as can be expected, are seenas more authori tar ian, tutor ia l , and wi thgreater tendency to guide and direct the pa-

tient.Judge W. Four factors were obtained fromthe matr ix of Judge W, the rater who hadnever done nor been in psychotherapy. Factors

TABLE 5R O T A T E D OBLIQUE FACTOR M ATRIX (JUDGE F)


(JUDGE F)

Therapis tsPA-E1 (Psychoanaly t ic)PA-E2PA-NlPA-N2ND-E1 (NondirND-E2ND-NlN D - N 2

ctive)

IP-El (Adler ian)IP-Nl

F-A-0406-0509475443-03

O S-50

F-B07115656-06074869-0266

F-C585043-0507-02-07034336

F-D105350-OS48084334-0610

F-A,F-BpF-CpF-DP

FA1175

-35

F-BP F-Cp

-25 06 -31

F-Dp

W-A and W-D are positively correlated(.67); FactorsW-B and W-D areneg ativelycorrelated ( .61) (seeTables7 and 8).

Judge W nam ed Factor W-A Self confi-denceandsincere interestin thepatient. Thetw o nondirective experts, ND-E1 and ND-E2, received high factor loadings; PA-E2'san dPA-N2's loadings areslight;theAdleriannovice,IP-N1, received a high negative factorloading.

This factor consists of statements whichindicate rapport an d acceptanceof the patient,as well as a measure of participation on thepartof the therapist.Statements 2 5, 74 , 122, 135, and 35 were char-acteristic of therap is ts with h igh fac tor sa tura t ions;

143, 63, 4, and 145 we re lesscharacteristic of thesetherapists.Factor W-B was named Inability to copewith thepatient due to lackof insight. Onlytherapist ND-N2 received a high factor load-

ing;IP-NTs factor saturation is slight.The statements descriptive of this factorindicate lack of rapport, some anxietyon thepart of the therapist, lack of understandingofthe patient's feelings, aswellas thetherapist'sinability to take some positiveaction.Statements 1, 2, 65, and 3 are characteristic; 121,122, 135, 21, 71, 34, 22, and 25 are less character-istic of therap ists with high factor loading.Factor W-C, Poor rapport, is somewhatsimilar to the previous factor.The therapists,PA-N1 an d PA-N2, are seen asaloof and un-able to understand and interact with the pa-tienton an emo tional level.Statements 24 and 61 are character is tic , whilestatements 41, 73, 42, 43, and 45 are less char-

acteristic,of therapists with high factor saturations.The last ofJudgeW's factors, W-D,wasnamed Emotionally closerelationship. Onlytherapists IP-El and PA-N1 have interpre-tablefactorsaturations.Thisfactor iscorrelat-


6/7

FACTOR ANALYSES OFTHERAPEUTICRELATIONSHIPS 7edwith Factor W-A, Self confidenceandsin-cere interest in thepatient. Although JudgeW labelled the factor Emotionally close re-lationship, the statements seemrather to de-scribe a relationship in which the therapist isquiteactive.

Thus, the two statements characteristic of thera-pists with high factor loadings are, The therapisttalks down to the pat ient as if he were a child,and, The therapist treats the patient like his pu-pil. (Statements 141 and 134). Less characteristicof these ther apis ts are being cool to the patient,drawing emot ional ly away from the patient, andbeing hesitant about asking questions. (Statements61, 62, and 111.)The twocorrelatedfactors,W-A and W-D,

TABLE 7R O T A T E D O B L I Q U E F A C T O R M A T R I X (JUDGE W)

Therapists W-APA-El (Psychoanalytic) 25PA-E2 34PA-NlPA-N2ND-E1 (Nondi rND-E2N D - N 1ND-N2

0032ctive) 615802-02IP-El (A d l e r i a n ) 00IP-Nl -61

W-B010507-0812-092 758-0331

W-C-07-20605608012 2-01-0209

W-D302 4-040203-0300-014328


J U D G E W )W^ W W W-D

W-A,,W-Bpw-cpW-Dp

-33-2467

7 -61 -08

in combination encompass al l experts, andthey include only one nonexpert (PA-N2)whom Judge W consideredto be a good ther-apist. Although the factor patterns obtainedfrom th e ratingsof this judge were not asclearand unequivocal as those obtained from thetrained judg es, we can ag ain find the aspectsof communication and emotional distance asthe most salient elements of the therapeuticrelationship. Again we find no factor whichdifferentiates one school from another.

DISCUSSIONThe hypothesiso fthis investigationh asbeen

that the therapeutic relationship is a functionof expertness rather than a particular theoryor methodology.Thishy pothesishasbeensup-ported in the present investigation.While w ehave found several factors which clearly dif-ferentiate expertsfrom nonexperts, onlyone ofthe factors has differentiated three therapistsof oneschool f rom those of another school. Asca n beseen from Table 9 , there are no factorswhich characterize therapists of any of thethree schools. We are thus not justified inspeaking of atypically psychoanalyticor atypi-cally non directive or Ad lerian therapeutic re-lationship.As has also been pointed out in a previouspaper [3], the most characteristic aspectsofth e relationship which differentiate expertsfrom nonexperts, presumably good from poor therapists, is the greater ability of theexpert to understand the feelings of the pa-tient, his greater security in the therapeuticsituation, and his capacitytoshow interestandwarmth without becoming overly involved

TABLE 9F A C T O R P A T T E R N S O B T A I N E D F R O M T H E F O U R J U D G E S

JudgeH (P A )Therapists A B CPA-ElPA-E2PA-NlPA-N2ND-E1ND-E2ND-N1N D - N 2IP-ElIP-Nl

(x)XXX-X XXXX-W XX

DX

(x)XW

JudgeQA BXX

XXX-W

X

XX

N D )C DXXX

(x)X

JudgeF (PA& N D )A B C D

XXX

-X

XXX XXXX XX (x )

XXXX(x)

JudgeWA B(x)(x)XX

X-X (x)

( U N T N D )C D

XX

(x)

X

X Factor loadings above .60X Factor loadings between .40 and .59(x) Factor loadings between .30 and .39


7/7

8 FREDE. FIEDLERwith th epatient. Whether or not the therapistis directive or nondirective doesnot seemto affect hisabilitytocomm unicatein o ursenseof the word. We are dealing here, of course,with a broad concept of the words under-standing and communication. Also includ-ed in these terms are rapport, and ability tolisten with the third ear. It is, perhaps,inthis respect that the investigations, based onwire recorded interviews, have the greatestadvantag e over typescripts.It istruethatmuchof thecontentof theinteractionis soon forgot-ten by the listener, but in return he retains adefinite feelingfor the atmosphere and the ten-or of the interaction. It is this somewhat in-tangible component which we have here at -tempted to quantify and factor.This investigation raises again the question,how can this additional evidence contributeto more effective training of therapists? Oneis almost driven to concludethat the teachingof how to create effective therapeutic relation-ships (rather than technical information onhow to interpret or reflect) is perhap s a taskwhich might profitably be left fo rparents orperhaps as second choice to training-the rapists.While it should be relatively simple to decideon the basis of this or similar techniques ofmeasurement, who is capable of establishinggood therapeutic relationships with patients,and thus, who has become a good therapist,we are still not in the position to provide abetter manual for the conduct of successfultreatment.

SUMMARY A N D CONCLUSIONSThe present paper presents the results offour multiple factor analyses based on Q-tech-niqueassessmentsof onewire recorded the rapyinterview from each of ten therapists. Fourpsychoanalytically trained, four nondirective,an d tw o Adlerian therapists participated.Half of the therapists are experts of nationalorlocal reputation, th e others are nonexperts.

The present paper describesthe factors whichwere obtained from one psychoanalyticallytrained judge, one nondirective judge, oneperson who has had no training in psychologyand has neither done, nor been in therapy, andthe w riter, w ho has received some psycho analyt-ic an d some nond irective training.The results indicate that therapists of oneschool do not create a relationship which ischaracteristically different from that createdby therapists of the two other schools re-presented inthis investigation. In each of thefactormatricesone factor or a pair of correlat-ed factors was found which clearly differenti-ates experts from nonexperts regardless ofschool. These factors are related to the ther-apist's ability tocomm unicate with and under-stand the patient, and to his security and hisemotional distance to the patient. No factorswere found which clearly separate therapistsof one school from those of another. Thehypothesis of this series of investigations,thatthe nature of the therapeuticrelationship is afunction of expertness rather than school, hasthus been further supported.It must be reemphasized that this study issubject to the same restrictions on general-izations which apply to thewriter's previouspaper [3].Received March 30, 1950.

R E F E R E N C E S1. BURT, C, AND S T E P H E N S O N , W. Alternativeviews on correlation between persons. Psycho-metrika, 1939, 4, 269-282.2 . F I E D L E R , F. E. The concept of an ideal thera-peutic relationship. J . consult. Psycho ., 1950,14, 239-245.3. F I E D L E R , F. E. A comparisono f therapeutic re-lationships in psychoanalytic, nondirective an dAdler ian therapy./. consult. Psychol., 1950,14,436-445.4. S T E P H E N S O N , W. M ethodological considerationsof Jung's typology. J. mint.Set. 1939,85 , 185-205.5. THURSTONE, L. L. Multiple factor analysis.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1947.

Documents

Fiedler , F. (1951). Factor Analysis of Psychoanalytic, Non-directive, And Adlerian Therapeutic Relationships. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1951, 15, 32-38