Review of General Psychology Copyright 1998 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 1998, Vol. 2, No. 1,81-120 1089-2680/98/13.00 Transference in Everyday Experience: Implications of Experimental Research for Relevant Clinical Phenomena Susan M. Andersen and Michele S. Berk New York University Experimental research examining the clinical concept of transference (S. Freud, 1912/1958; H. S. Sullivan, 1953) using a social-cognitive model has demonstrated that mental representations of significant others are stored in memory and can be activated and applied in new social encounters, with consequences for cognition, evaluation, affect, motivation, expectancies, and self-evaluations (S. M. Andersen & N. S. Glass- man, 1996; S. M. Andersen, I. Reznik, & S. Chen, 1997). These findings constitute an empirical demonstration of transference in everyday social relations and suggest that transference is a normal, nonpathological process, occurring both inside and outside of psychotherapy, following basic rules of social information processing. In this article, clinical implications of this research are discussed, including how the content versus process of transference may contribute to maladaptive transference responses and the potential value of identifying triggering cues in transference in real life and in therapy, to promote more adaptive responding. Mental representations of significant others they are stored in memory and applied to new profoundly influence everyday life. In daily interpersonal encounters. social interactions our emotions, motivations, In our own work, we have examined this inferences, self-evaluations, and behaviors are process empirically and have conceptualized it all affected to an extent by information in in social-cognitive terms, that is, in terms of memory about our past relationships with mental representations of significant others that important others. Indeed, interpersonal relation- can be activated and applied to new people. We ships have long been thought to be basic to both regard careful empirical work on this topic as personality and psychopathology (e.g., Bowlby, crucial in uncovering the precise mechanisms by 1969,1973,1980; Freud, 1912/1958; Greenberg which past relationships may influence present & Mitchell, 1983; Guidano & Liotti, 1983; ones and in establishing the validity of this kind Homey, 1939; Horowitz, 1991; Kelly, 1955; of phenomenon. To this end, we have proposed a Luborsky & Crits-Christoph, 1990; Rogers, social-cognitive model of transference that has 1951; Safran & Segal, 1990; Shaver & Ruben- been examined in carefully controlled experi- stein, 1980; Sullivan, 1953; Wachtel, 1981). The mental research with "normal" samples of common assumption across the numerous theo- participants. (For related conceptual approaches, ries in these areas is that interpersonal- see Baldwin, 1992; Mayer et al., 1993; Singer, relationship patterns learned earlier in life with 1985, 1988; Singer & Singer, 1994; Wachtel, significant others may provide a framework for 1981; Westen, 1988.) In this research, it has later social relations. Relationship patterns may been shown that mental representations of influence current everyday behavior because significant others serve as storehouses of information about given individuals from one's Susan M. Andersen and Michele S. Berk, Department of life, and can be activated (made ready for use) Psychology, New York University. and applied to (used to interpret) other individu- Preparation of this article was supported by Grant als, and that this is especially likely when the R01-MH48789 from the National Institute of Mental Health. We would like to thank Noah Glassman, Dan Hart, Mardi new individual in some way resembles a Horowitz, and Marlene Moretti for their comments on an significant other (Andersen & Baum, 1994; earlier draft of this article. Andersen & Cole, 1990; Andersen, Glassman, Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- Chen, & Cole, 1995; Andersen, Reznik, & dressed to Susan M. Andersen, Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 4th Floor, New Manzella, 1996; Baum & Andersen, in press; York, New York 10003. Hinkley & Andersen, 1996). We argue that this 81 82 ANDERSEN AND BERK is the basic process by which transference findings as a springboard for describing the occurs in everyday social relations (Andersen & clinical implications of this work. In particular, Glassman, 1996). Because this process is we describe the ways in which the interpersonal consistent with what is known about basic social problems clients present in psychotherapy and cognition and the operation of social constructs, the suffering they often experience in relation to stereotypes, and exemplar representations such problems can be understood, under some (Andersen & Klatzky, 1987; Andersen, Klatzky, circumstances, in terms of the content of & Murray, 1990; Brewer, 1988; Higgins, 1989b; significant-other representations and the process Higgins & King, 1981; Smith & Zarate, 1992), by which they are activated and applied to new this work suggests that basic social-cognitive people. In this context, we highlight the processes may be at the root of transference in implications of our work for identifying transfer- everyday social perception. ence when it occurs—both inside and outside Specifically, we have shown that people use therapy—and briefly consider matters of clinical significant-other representations to "go beyond intervention also. Although the implications we the information given" about a new person draw for the clinical enterprise are speculative, (Bruner, 1957) by making representation- we believe that they are meaningfully linked consistent inferences about him or her, that is, both to the theoretical framework on which the misremembering him or her in terms of qualities social-cognitive model is based and to its that he or she does not have, but rather are part empirical findings. Empirical investigation of of the significant-other representation (i.e., those the clinical implications outlined awaits future not seen in the new person, but consistent with work. Finally, after having dealt explicitly with the significant-other representation; see Andersen our own research, we review related literatures et al, 1995; see also Cantor & Mischel, 1977). on interpersonal motivation and attachment, Perceivers seem to treat what they inferred at the self-representations and relational schemas, per- time of learning about a new person based on the sonal-action schemas, relationship patterns, nar- significant-other representation as something ratives, and self-discrepancy theory, and con- actually learned (see Johnson, Hastroudi, & sider their interface with our own work on trans- Lindsay, 1993; Johnson & Raye, 1981). Hence, ference as well as their clinical implications. the new person is remembered as if he or she were more similar to the significant other than is actually the case (Andersen et al., 1995, 1996; Andersen & Baum, 1994; Andersen & Cole, The Clinical Concept of Transference 1990; Hinkley & Andersen, 1996). Moreover, The clinical concept of transference, which when a given significant-other representation is has long been considered an essential compo- activated, representation-consistent evaluative, nent of psychodynamic psychotherapy (e.g., emotional, motivational, and self-definitional Ehrenreich, 1989; Greenson, 1965; Luborsky & processes stored in memory with the significant- Crits-Christoph, 1990), primarily has been other representation are also set into play examined theoretically rather than empirically. (Andersen & Baum, 1994; Andersen et al., The notion that people superimpose old feel- 1996; Baum & Andersen, in press; Hinkley & ings, expectations, and patterns of behavior Andersen, 1996). Hence, this body of work has learned with a past significant other, onto new empirically demonstrated that the transference others—especially a therapist—is arguably the process does occur, that it consists of significant- cornerstone of psychodynamic psychotherapy other activation and application, and that it has (e.g., Homey, 1939,1945; Sullivan, 1940,1953; multiple consequences of various kinds in see also Ehrenreich, 1989; Freud, 1912/1958; interpersonal relations. Greenberg & Mitchell, 1983; Luborsky & In this article, we describe our program of Crits-Christoph, 1990). In classical Freudian experimental research on transference and theory, transference (Freud, 1912/1958) is a consider its clinical implications. First, we crucial clinical phenomenon, occurring when briefly review major theoretical perspectives on the patient superimposes childhood fantasies transference and describe the basic tenets of the and conflicts about a parent onto the analyst empirically based social-cognitive model. Next, during psychoanalysis by weaving "the figure we review the model's basic methods and of the physician into one of the 'series' already TRANSFERENCE IN EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE 83 constructed in his mind" (Freud, 1912/1963a, p. offered by Karen Homey (Homey, 1939) 107; see also Andersen & Glassman, 1996).1 emphasizes relationship patterns with others In this process, the patient draws the analyst termed neurotic trends, although without ex- into his or her own unconscious psychosexual plicit discussion of significant-other representa- conflicts, which the analyst attempts to analyze tions. These relational patterns are thought to be by making the patient more aware of the learned with significant others as a means of displaced conflicts