2. ORIGIN
• Object relations theory is an offshoot of
psychoanalytic theory that emphasizes
interpersonal relations, primarily in the family and
especially between mother and child.
3. FREUD ‘S WORK
• Initially Freud felt that suppressed childhood memories
were the reason for hysteria.
• Later corrected saying the oedipal complex that existed
between children and its repression was what caused
pathology.
• Sexual longing causes a tension that is required to be
release and as a way of this release, children form
attachments with certain figues or objects.
4. FAIRBAIRN’S CONTRIBUTION
• Children did not seek sexual satisfaction but are inclined
towards forming relationships.
• Humans are not primarily pleasure seeking.
• ORT sees internalisation as motivated by the needs for
self development and a guide to navigate the
interpersonal world.
5. DEVELOPMENTAL AND ETHOLOGICAL
EVIDENCE
• Harlow’s experiment on rhesus monkeys.
• Bowbly – attachment towards care giving figures.
• Beebe and Stern – child prewired for relationship with
caregiver.
7. • Human organism as autonomously motivated to form object
relationships and personality formation as a product of the
object relationships internalized in the developmental
process.
• Object relationships are interpersonal relationships seen from
the participant view point . They differ from interpersonal
relationships seen from the viewpoint of a third person.
8. • Example: while an observer might say two people have a
“bad” relationship, one person might experience the self as
trying to please an implacable other whom this person
regards as possessing exceptional qualities. That is the
object relationship.
• Because of the overriding importance of the attachment to the
caretaker, the child will do whatever is necessary to secure
this attachment.
9. • If the relationship requires the suppression of aspects of the
self, those potential components of the self are arrested, thus
crippling self-development.
• Example: if the caretaker will not tolerate aggressive feelings
the child will learn not to feel or act in an aggressive manner.
The aggressive component of the personality will be
arrested, thus crippling all areas that rely on aggression such
as self-assertion, ambition, and competitiveness.
10. • Development of crucial components of the self, such as
excitement, interest, enjoyment, aggression, and sexuality,
the self will be fundamentally split in a way that arrests the
development of essential components of the self.
• Winnicott called this division the split between the “true
self” and the “false self.”
• From the object-relations viewpoint, all psychogenic
pathology is a function of self-arrest induced by anxiety-
driven object attachments.
11. • According to Winnicott, each infant is born with
potential that cannot be changed, but can be either
facilitated or interfered with by caretakers.
• When the early caretakers do not meet the child’s needs
well, the child will experience the caretaking figure as
traumatizing, the child will internalize the figure as a “bad
object.”
12. Object Relations Model of
Psychotherapy
Goal
Uncover early relations internalized in childhood
and early life
Relinquish them
Create new object relations structure that foster
14. A. Resistance
Patient’s current relational patterns reflect
underlying object relations structure
The ‘more painful early relationships, stronger is
clinching to the object.’ (Fairbairn)
i.e; abused child more attached to abusive
parent
Early relationships Object relations structure
15. Resistance- even after awareness of problem
and underlying motivations, behavior persists,
continues to be out of control.
Object relations theory considers patient’s
attachment to patterns as a reflection of the
underlying object relation patterns that are
interwoven with the structure of self.
Patterns of behavior becomes unmanageable
because
a. Focus is primarily on understanding affects
16. B. Patient- Therapist Relationship
Awareness about the maladaptive pattern does
not solve the pattern
Therapeutic relationship – where patient
creates new, adaptive, authentic, meaningful
object relationships for a healthier psychological
structure
Winnicott- psychotherapeutic relationship –
17. Success of relationship depends on how it
facilitates development of true self. Patient uses
analytic relationship to create new object
relationship.
Patients use of the therapist more important than
therapist’s understanding
Role of therapist – adapt to patient’s needs,
rather than understanding unconscious.
18. Transference- more broadened concept ;
beyond the projection of one’s own past
relationships
Transference in object relations therapy
is a complex blend of past images and
present adaptations.
19. • T H E T H E R A P I S T I N T E R P R E T S T H E
T R A N S F E R E N C E
• D O E S N O T R E D U C E E V E RY A S P E C T O F T H E
R E L AT I O N S H I P T O PA S T E X P E R I E N C E ’ S
• T H E R A P I S T S E A R C H E S F O R R O O T S O F T H E
R E L AT I O N S H I P I N T H E PAT I E N T ’ S PA S T
• M O R E I M P O RTA N T LY T H E A D A P T I V E
F U N C T I O N O F T H E R E L AT I O N S H I P I N T H E
P R E S E N T
CREATION OF A NEW
OBJECT RELATIONSHIP
20. • Patient idealises therapist- Because an idealised OR
provides the security lacking in early caretaker relationship
• So therapist, interprets not just lack of security, but also the
safety provided by an idealised therapeutic relationship.
Not just interpretation alone
• Interpret idealising transference.
• Help patient develop a new relationship without repeating
patterns of the past
• The new relationship will replace the internalized bad
object.
21. PURPOSE OF THE RELATIONSHIP
• Adapt to the patient so an opportunity to create a more
positive benevolent object than the object it replaces.
• The active provision of a new different relationship is the
difference between OR model pf psychotherapy and classical
psychoanalytic viewpoint.
• In psychoanalytic viewpoint it is wrong because with OR
strategy there is gratification of patients wishes.
• Therapist must not become the new object BUT interpret the
patients desire fro the therapist to become such an object.
22. • By contrast – OR model sees personality as consisting of internalized object and health
or pathology as a product of the nature of these objects.
• Therefore anything done to facilitate the relinquishing of old objects and replacing with
new objects is beneficial to the therapeutic process and its goals.
• The old OR structure is deeply ingrained and will not be easily given up meaning a new
relationship will rarely affect change.
• Unless, the OR pattern is interpreted and patient is aware of the origins and damaging
consequences of it.
• Before, the therapists influence as a new Object can be experienced
23. SUMMARY
• Principle: Child’s relationship with early figures are autonomously
motivated.
• This parental relationship is internalized as object relationships that
form the character structure.
• The articulation of a personal idiom is arrested where there are
impingements that interfere with the child’s maturational process.
• Now, when the significant aspects of the self are blocked, the
buried self will seek veiled expression as a symptom.
• Therefore, object relations therapy is directed both to
understanding the defensive constellation and facilitating the
articulation of buried affective dispositions that lie beneath it.
• Emphasis is on insight into the transference and the patient’s
creation of a new object relationship with the therapist.
• This model widens the scope of psychoanalytic treatment beyond
24. RESEARCH
• Quality of object relations and security of attachment as
predictors of early therapeutic alliance.
• Security of attachment and quality of object relations were measured
as predictors of initial impressions of the therapeutic alliance as well
as dropout.
• 55 individual psychotherapy clients were administered the Revised
Adult Attachment Scale and the Bell Object Relations and Reality
Testing Inventory prior to their initial therapy session.
• 30 of these participants completed the Working Alliance Inventory
following their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd sessions.
• Security of attachment and quality of object relations were strongly
related.
• Security of attachment and quality of object relations showed
relations to early alliance that decreased over time.
• Attachment and object relations were not related to dropout.
