Discussion of Papers by Saslow & Matarazzo, and Lacey.

Milton Greenblatt
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/10036-011
2024-02-23
Abstract:I have been asked to discuss two excellent papers-one by G. Saslow and J. D. Matarazzo (see record 1959-08550-009) having to do with intensive analysis of the parameters and qualities of a highly specific interview procedure-the interaction chronograph method of Chapple; the other paper by J. I. Lacey (see record 1959-08550-010) concerning the use of physiological data to evaluate psychotherapy. These two papers have little in common. Saslow and Matarazzo's paper has not a word about physiology. It is specific in its focus as it examines only one interview procedure and is concerned primarily with the use of this procedure as a scientific instrument. It is closely written and closely reasoned, passing from one reliability question to another in systematic fashion. Although the question of validity is raised, relatively little validity data are given and the paper, too, has relatively little concern with content of the interview. Lacey's paper, on the other hand, is broad in scope and ranges sensitively over the whole field of interview psychophysiology. It examines critically many different approaches, techniques and experimental models; it discusses content, affect, conflict, transference and counter-transference, and all the other elements that constitute the soul of psychotherapy. He attempts to put the data critically within a systematic pattern of thought developed from his own experience, and even searches for new integrative concepts to help us along in psychophysiology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)
multidisciplinary sciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?