Who's afraid of psychoanalytic research? Analysts' attitudes towards reading clinical versus empirical research papers

The authors point out that psychoanalytic research papers are cited with le ss frequency than clinical papers, and, presumably, are read with less freq uency. Results from two sets of questionnaires from psychoanalysts indicate that a majority of analysts report high levels of conviction in the ration ales and techniques in their clinical work. However, analysts with higher d egrees of conviction read fewer research papers than analysts with lower de grees of conviction. The authors speculate that analysts with higher degree s of conviction may have an underlying sense of uncertainty about their ana lytic work. Their uncertainty may generate concerns that research may raise questions and doubts about their rationales and techniques, and, consequen tly, they have little interest in empirical psychoanalytic research. Such a n attitude would be understandable because analysts sense or explicitly bel ieve that confidence in their work is an important, perhaps essential, elem ent in the mutative effects of treatment, and must be maintained and protec ted. The authors believe that clinical and research approaches have each co ntributed to the development of psychoanalysis and that both need to be use d.