1. Empirical Perspectives on Object Relations Constructs
Geoff Goodman, Ph.D.

2. I. From the Consulting Room to the Laboratory (Bornstein & Masling)
Limitations of clinical evidence
personal and professional biases (counter transference)
a. conscious and deliberate
b. unconscious and unintentional
c. intense, emotional nature of patient- therapist exchanges
2. self-fulfilling prophecy
a. suggestion by therapist
b. need to gain approval of therapist by patients
c. patient material therefore supports therapist’s assumptions

3. Continued… B. strengths of clinical evidence
hypothesis-- generating
experience-- near
C. Purpose of empirical research
test hypotheses generated by empirical research
generate hypotheses from results
operationalize experience-- distant theory and make it more relevant to clinical practice

4. Continued… D. Contributions of object relations theory
object relations concepts (e.g., attachment) easier to operationalize then classical psychoanalytic concepts (e.g., drives)
object relations theory more accessible to other disciplines (e.g., developmental psychology) in focus on concepts such as self-representation
importance of reinvigorating psychoanalytic theory and demonstrating its validity to those outside the psychoanalytic community

5. II. Projective Assessment of Object Relations (Stricker & Gooen-Piels)
Conceptual differences among the measures
object relations versus object representations
material to be coded
a. TAT/CAT
b. Rorschach Inkblot Test
c. earliest memories
d. dreams

6. Continued…
e. unstructured open-ended descriptions of significant others
f. semi structured interviews
g. responses to clinical vignettes
h. psychotherapy transcriptions (videos)
B. Nature of projective data
1. data that emerge from unconscious domain
2. variation of undifferentiation and lack of integration to high differentiation, integration, and complexity

7. C. Rorschach data
Developmental Analysis of the Concept of the Object Scale (DACOS)-- 3 dimensions
differentiation-- full or part human
articulation-- quality of attributions (physical/ functional)
integration-- action interval, integrated with object, integrated interaction with another object
makes diagnostic distinctions
measures therapeutic response

8. 2. Mutuality of Autonomy Scale (MOAS)
interaction of human, animal or inanimate percepts developing toward separation- individuation
7-point scale
makes diagnostic distinctions
predicts future functioning
predicts self- mutilating from non-mutilating BPD

9. D. TAT data
Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale (SCORS)-- 4 dimensions
a. Complexity of Representations of People
b. Affect tone of relationship paradigms
c. Capacity for emotional investment in relationships and moral standards (later split into 2 dimensions)
d. understanding of social causality (like RF)
e. 5-point scales

10. Continued… f. developmentally based except for affect tone
g. dominant interpersonal concerns added in 2001 for content assessment
h. makes diagnostic distinctions
i. predicts current functioning
j. associated with childhood experiences
2. other coding systems for TAT not developed
from an object relations perspective

11. E. Dream data Krohn Object Representation Scale for Dreams (ORSD)
complete, differentiated, alive developing from primary narcissism to empathic object relatedness
8- point scale
makes diagnostic distinctions
predicts supervisor-- therapist ratings
predicts clinical improvement

12. Continued… f. predicts therapeutic alliance
g. predicts ratings of physical health
2. other coding systems for dream data not developed from an object relations perspective
F. Early memories data
1. Early Memories Test (EMT)
a. interview involving 16 queries
b. distinguishes between sex abuse history from non-sex abuse history
c. makes diagnostic distinctions

13. 2. Comprehensive Early Memories Scoring System (CEMSS)
9 categories, one of which is object relations
5 subcategories of object relations
1) perception of others
2) perception of self
3) perception of environment
4) individual distinctiveness
5) degree of interpersonal contact

14. Continued… c. 3-point scales d. makes diagnostic distinctions
e. associated with severity of psychopathology

15. G. Parental/ significant other/ therapist/ self representations
Object Representations Inventory (ORI)
a. 12 scorable attributes on 7-point scales
b. degree of ambivalence on 9-point scale
c. conceptual level on 9-point scale
d. open-ended descriptions of significant others
e. makes diagnostic distinctions
f. predicts clinical improvement
g. predicts adaptive coping
h. distinguishes secure from insecure adults

16. 2. Differentiation- Relatedness Scale (DRS)
differentiation-- relatedness as present in descriptions of self and others
10-point scale
distinguishes secure from insecure adults
predicts clinical improvement

17. III. Object Relations Research on Borderline Patients
Examination of Rorschach responses
1. BPD patients more malevolent than psychotic patients
2. BPD patients cognitively advanced object representations than psychotic patients and normal controls
3. affect tone not developmental construct
4. BPD patients not necessarily preoedipally fixated

18. B. Examination of TAT responses
BPD patients lower on affect tone, emotional investment, social causality, and complexity than depressed patients and normal controls
some BPD patients produced a number of complex representations
BPD adults higher on complexity, emotional investment, and social causality then BPD adolescents
risk factors < age 5 were predictive of object relations scores but not > age 5

19. Continued…
5. maternal variables were predictive of object relations scores but not paternal variables
C. Examination of early memories
patients with sex abuse history had more early memories of personal injury or damage than those without
patients with physical abuse history had more early memories lacking effective “helpers”