Adaptive - communicative psychotherapy

1. Introduction

Version followed: Robert Langs's late "adaptive" form of the communicative approach, as set out in Fundamentals of Adaptive Psychotherapy and Counselling (2004). That book has three classes of intervention: silence, managing the ground rules (frame), and trigger-decoded interpretation. Validation comes only from the patient's encoded material. Listening procedures (indicators, adaptive contexts/triggers, playback of derivatives) come from the earlier Clinical Workbook for Psychotherapists (1992; Routledge reissue 2002) and Interventions in the Bipersonal Field (1979). Death anxiety is added from Langs (1998, 2004, 2006). Langs's 2005 "strong adaptive" label, meaning work built on trigger decoding and the secured frame, is the version followed here. "Weak adaptive" work (attending to conscious adaptation without trigger decoding) is not taught [source: Langs 2005, title only; definitions [uncertain]]. Self-processing (Empowered Psychotherapy) is covered only as an adjunct format.

What it is. An individual psychoanalytic psychotherapy built on one premise. The mind has a conscious system and a deep unconscious system. The deep unconscious perceives what actually happens in therapy, above all how the therapist handles the ground rules and what the therapist says. It reports those perceptions only in disguised (encoded) form, through narratives: dreams, stories, anecdotes [source: Langs 2004 ch. 2–5, via Daniels 2012; Wikipedia "Robert Langs"]. The deep unconscious is described as "exquisitely in touch with reality" [source: Langs 2004:34, via Daniels 2012].

How change happens. Patients' symptoms and resistances are adaptive responses to current emotionally charged events (triggers). The most powerful triggers are the therapist's frame interventions, and beneath all of them lies death anxiety. Change comes from two things together. (1) The therapist secures the frame, giving a holding, healing setting. (2) The therapist offers trigger-decoded interpretations that link the patient's encoded themes to the triggers that evoked them; Langs calls this the essence of insight-based self-healing. Only interventions that draw encoded validation are counted as helpful [source: Langs 2004 ch. 12 abstract; Wikipedia "Robert Langs"; Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…"].

2. Framework

Langs does not set out manualised phases with session counts. What follows is an operational sequence. Phase labels are [synthesis]; the content of each phase is sourced as marked.

Format [source: Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…"; Daniels 2012 citing Langs 1998:43–46]: individual sessions in a private, soundproofed professional office, which stays the same throughout. Fee, session time, length and frequency are fixed. The therapy is open-ended. Session length and frequency are not fixed in the sources found; use your standard 45–50 minutes, once or more weekly [uncertain]. Langs's earlier work used the couch and free association. In the 2004 "counselling" framing, face-to-face work is allowed [uncertain]. Self-processing runs as separate 90-minute classes or tutorials [source: Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…"].

Phase 0: First contact (usually a phone call). Goal: set up the first meeting without starting therapy or breaching the frame. Keep the call short: arrange time and place and say little else. Do not take history or advise by phone [synthesis from secured-frame rules; Langs 2004 ch. 13 "The First Session" not drawn on]. Move on when the appointment is fixed.

Phase 1: First session (1 session). Goal: hear the presenting indicators and establish the secured frame. Set out fee, time, frequency, place, total privacy and confidentiality (no third parties, no insurance or report involvement where possible), the fundamental rule (say whatever comes to mind), and the therapist's relative anonymity. Listen to the patient's response to the frame as a first trigger [source: Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…" ideal-frame list; Daniels 2012 citing Langs 1998:43–46; ordering [synthesis]]. Move on when the ground rules are stated and agreed, and the patient has started to tell narratives.

Phase 2: Ongoing work (open-ended; most of the therapy). Goal: repeat the listening–intervening–validating cycle every session. Steps: indicators → triggers → themes → bridge to therapy → choose intervention class → check for validation [source: Langs 1992/2002 Clinical Workbook contents; Langs 2004 Part 2 chapter sequence]. Within a session, choose the intervention by readiness. Give a full interpretation when the trigger is mentioned, strong themes are present and a bridge is present. Use playback when themes are present but the trigger has not been mentioned. Stay silent when there are no meaningful narratives. Make frame-securing interventions when a frame issue is live [source: Clinical Workbook section titles; the decision rules are a standard communicative teaching that is [uncertain]]. Criteria for progress: fewer indicators (symptoms, gross resistances), freer narrative flow, encoded validation of interventions, and tolerance of the secured frame without fleeing.

Phase 3: Termination. No termination protocol was found in the accessible sources [uncertain]. [synthesis] Treat any talk of ending as a trigger. Set a fixed termination date that stays in place. Listen for encoded validation or invalidation of the date. Interpret the separation and death-anxiety themes it evokes.

3. Guiding principles

Each principle is followed by its practical meaning (→).

The deep unconscious is the only valid judge of an intervention. → Ignore conscious agreement or praise. Judge your intervention by the narratives that follow it [source: Langs 2004 ch. 12 abstract; Daniels 2012 citing Langs 1998:39].
Adaptation to triggers drives the material. → Before formulating, always ask which recent event, usually something you did, the patient is working over [source: Wikipedia "Robert Langs"; Langs 1979 via Winborn].
Type Two over Type One derivatives. → Read narratives as encoded perceptions of real triggers in the therapy (Type Two). Do not read them as free-floating fantasy (Type One), which Langs calls haphazard and open to defensive use [source: Langs 1979 via Winborn; Wikipedia].
Narratives, not intellectualisation, carry the message. → Value stories, dreams and anecdotes. Treat abstract, non-narrative talk as low-yield communicatively [source: Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…"; Daniels citing Langs 2004:52].
The frame is the most important arena of intervention. → Your handling of fee, time, place, privacy, confidentiality and anonymity is your most powerful intervention. Langs calls it the "most fundamental arena of intervention" [source: Langs, quoted in Wikipedia "Frame (psychotherapy)"].
Secured frame = safe, holding, healing; modified frame = unconsciously harmful. → Patients often welcome deviations consciously, but encode them as seductive or persecutory. Do not grant them without listening first [source: Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…"].
Relative anonymity and neutrality. → No deliberate self-disclosure, no directives, no advice. Interventions are "neutral" only when they gain encoded validation [source: Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…"].
Avoid non-interpretive questioning. → Do not ask questions, clarify or confront. Work only with the material of the current session [source: Daniels 2012 citing Langs 1998:43–46].
The patient's deep unconscious supervises the therapist. → Treat encoded criticism as accurate feedback on your errors. Correct yourself rather than defending [source: Daniels 2012 citing Langs 1998:8–9, 40; Self & Society article].
No therapist denial. → Expect to be the trigger, especially after errors. Your own denial will hide the triggers you created [source: Daniels 2012 citing Langs 2004:47].
Death anxiety underlies frame issues. → Deviations stir predatory/predator anxiety and guilt. The secured frame stirs existential death anxiety ("entrapment"). Expect both, and interpret them [source: Wikipedia "Robert Langs"; Daniels citing Langs 2006:34, 2008:1].
The secured-frame paradox. → The secure frame heals but also frightens. Patients may push for deviations or flee, so be ready to interpret rather than relax the frame [source: Wikipedia "Frame (psychotherapy)"; Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…"].
Silence is the default. → Speak only when the material permits a validatable intervention [source: Langs 2004 "Three Classes of Intervention" (silence as a class); Clinical Workbook; the default framing is [synthesis]].
The therapist analyses their own interventions. → After each session, review what you did as a trigger and decode the patient's response to it [source: Clinical Workbook section "Analyzing the therapist's interventions"].

4. Intervention inventory

Langs (2004) names three classes of intervention: silence, ground-rule (frame) management, and trigger-decoded interpretation. The Clinical Workbook adds playback of selected derivatives. The listening operations below are listed because the method depends on doing them in session. Step order and all example wording are [synthesis] unless cited. All therapist language is (illustrative), not Langs's own.

4.1 Identifying indicators (symptoms and resistances)

Purpose / when: Indicators show where therapeutic work is needed. They are the patient's symptoms, gross behavioural resistances (lateness, missed sessions, requests to change the frame) and communicative resistances (no narratives, missing trigger). Track them throughout every session [source: Langs 2004 ch. 8 title; Clinical Workbook "indicators"; resistance subtypes [uncertain], recalled from secondary accounts].
Steps: (1) Note the new or intensified symptoms the patient reports. (2) Note frame-related behaviour: lateness, requests to reschedule or change the fee, questions about you. (3) Note whether the session has narratives or is all intellectualising. (4) Rank the indicators: the most acute one should be the focus of the eventual interpretation.
Example language: None. This is listening work, done silently.
Watch for / working: Indicators should become the endpoint of the interpretation: the trigger and themes explain why this symptom now. Fewer indicators over time shows progress.

4.2 Identifying triggers (adaptive contexts)

Purpose / when: Find the current event the patient is adapting to, most often your own intervention or frame handling. Do this every session before speaking [source: Wikipedia "Robert Langs"; Clinical Workbook "adaptive contexts (manifest, derivative, and known implications)"; Daniels citing Langs 2004].
Steps: (1) List what you did since last session and in this one: frame changes (holiday, rescheduling, fee, a third party, a phone call), errors, any unusual comment, the length of your silences. (2) Check whether the patient mentioned the trigger directly (manifest), only alluded to it (derivative/represented), or left it out entirely. (3) Spell out the trigger's "known implications": what it means at face value, e.g. a cancelled session = abandonment, unreliability, putting yourself first. (4) Also note outside triggers, especially death-related events (illness, loss), as the deepest adaptive context.
Example language: None at this step. Wording appears only in playback or interpretation.
Watch for / working: A good trigger fits the themes closely. If no trigger fits, you are probably missing your own contribution (see 4.11).

4.3 Extracting themes from narratives

Purpose / when: Read the encoded message. Use whenever the patient tells a story, a dream or a memory, which is the main carrier of deep unconscious meaning [source: Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…"; Daniels citing Langs 2004:52; Self & Society].
Steps: (1) Separate narrative material from intellectualisation. (2) Strip each story to its themes: who did what to whom, and with what quality (e.g. "someone left me waiting", "a mother let her daughter off and it harmed her"). (3) Group the themes into perceptions of the therapist (Type Two) and other trends. (4) Look for themes that portray a correction: an image of how things should be done. That is a model of rectification (see 4.7).
Example language: None at this step.
Watch for / working: Strong themes are concrete and emotionally charged. Thin, generic themes mean there is not yet enough to interpret, so stay silent.

4.4 Bridging themes to the therapy

Purpose / when: Check whether the encoded themes refer to the therapy relationship. Look for a "bridging" image: a mention of the therapist, the office, money, time or another treater [source: term "bridge" from secondary teaching [uncertain]; the principle that themes encode perceptions of the therapist: Langs 1979 via Winborn; Self & Society].
Steps: (1) Scan for any manifest reference to therapy, even a passing one. (2) Match themes to the trigger: does "a friend's mother enabling her" fit "therapist agreed to reduce the fee"? (3) If the fit is clear but there is no bridge, consider playback (4.6).
Example language: None at this step.
Watch for / working: The trigger, the themes and the bridge should all point the same way. If they don't, keep listening.

4.5 Silence

Purpose / when: One of the three intervention classes. It lets the patient build narrative and the trigger emerge, and it holds the frame. Use it whenever the material does not yet permit a validatable intervention [source: Langs 2004 ch. 10 title; Clinical Workbook "silence"].
Steps: (1) Do not fill gaps with questions, reassurance or clarification. (2) Keep listening for triggers and themes. (3) Break silence only to secure the frame, to play back or to interpret.
Example language: None.
Watch for / working: Encoded responses to your silence. Images of being held or given space suggest validation. Images of neglect or abandonment may mean you stayed silent when an intervention was due [synthesis].

4.6 Playback of selected derivatives

Purpose / when: Use when there are rich themes but the trigger has not been mentioned. You give back the key themes so the patient can link them to the trigger themselves [source: Clinical Workbook "interpretations and the play-back of selected derivatives"; the trigger-missing indication [uncertain], from secondary communicative teaching].
Steps: (1) Choose the 2–3 themes that best fit the trigger you suspect. (2) Repeat them in the patient's own imagery, without naming the trigger. (3) Suggest that they may relate to something here. (4) Then go silent and wait.
Example language (illustrative): "You've spoken of a landlord who changed the terms without warning, and a friend who let you down at the last minute. Perhaps these images connect to something here."
Watch for / working: It is working if the patient then names the trigger ("Well, you did move our Thursday session") and new narratives follow. If it isn't working, the patient intellectualises or changes the subject; return to silence.

4.7 Frame-securing interventions (managing the ground rules)

Purpose / when: Establish and keep the secured frame, which Langs calls the "most fundamental arena of intervention". Use when setting up therapy, when the patient asks for a deviation, and when the encoded material asks for one to be corrected [source: Wikipedia "Frame (psychotherapy)"; Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…"; Daniels citing Langs 1998:20–21, 40].
Ground rules to secure [source: Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…"; Daniels citing Langs 1998:43–46]: a single fixed private setting; fixed fee, time, length and frequency; total privacy and confidentiality (no third parties, records or reports); free association; relative anonymity (no deliberate self-disclosure, no directives); no physical contact or contact outside sessions; neutral (validatable) interventions. In 1998 the couch is also listed. Langs (2004) is said to list 14 frame factors, but the list was not accessed [uncertain].
Steps (when a deviation is requested or has happened): (1) Don't grant or refuse on the spot if you can avoid it. Listen for the encoded response to the request itself. (2) Look for a model of rectification: themes showing what the deep unconscious says should be done, e.g. a story of an enabling parent who caused harm, after a fee-reduction request (Langs's "Ms Frank" vignette). (3) Secure the frame in line with that model, and give your reasons through the themes. (4) If you caused the deviation, correct it and interpret its impact.
Example language (illustrative): "You asked whether we could reduce the fee, and then told me about your friend's mother, who made everything easy for her and how that damaged her. It seems part of you is saying that lowering the fee would harm the work, so the fee will stay as agreed."
Watch for / working: After securing, look for encoded validation: images of safety, strength, people who keep their word. Also expect existential death anxiety, "entrapment" themes or a wish to flee, and interpret it (4.8) [source: Daniels citing Langs 2006:34].

4.8 Trigger-decoded interpretation

Purpose / when: The core insight intervention. It shows the patient how their encoded themes are an adaptive response to a specific trigger, and how that explains the indicator. Use when the trigger, strong themes and an indicator are all present [source: Langs 2004 ch. 11 title; Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…"; Daniels citing Langs 2004:52].
Steps: (1) Name the trigger (preferably the way the patient raised it). (2) Gather the themes and present them as the patient's unconscious perception of the trigger, not as a fantasy. (3) Link this to the current indicator: symptom, resistance or frame request. (4) If the themes contain a model of rectification, add what is to be done about the frame. (5) Stop and listen.
Example language (illustrative): "I cancelled Tuesday at short notice. Since then you've told me about a babysitter who didn't show up and a boss who only cares about himself. It seems you experienced my cancellation as uncaring and unreliable. That may be part of why the panic came back this week."
Death-anxiety extension: If the trigger touches loss, illness, ending or the secured frame, include those themes as death-related (predatory, predator/guilt, or existential) [source: Wikipedia "Robert Langs"; Daniels citing Langs 2006, 2008; exact phrasing [synthesis]].
Watch for / working: See 4.9. Validation is a new narrative that confirms or extends the interpretation. Flat agreement, argument, or images of being misunderstood suggest the trigger was wrong.

4.9 Monitoring the validating process

Purpose / when: Test every intervention. Langs counts an intervention as helpful only if it draws "encoded unconscious validation" [source: Langs 2004 ch. 12 abstract (SpringerLink)].
Steps: (1) After each intervention, listen to the next narratives as commentary on what you just did. (2) Validation: new stories with positive images (wise, helpful, caring, competent figures) and/or fresh material that extends the interpretation. (3) Non-validation: images of people who are foolish, intrusive, seductive or harmful, or a return to flat talk. (4) If it is non-validated, treat your intervention as the new trigger and decode it.
Example language: None at first. Interpret non-validation once it is clear (illustrative): "After my comment you spoke about a doctor who gave the wrong prescription. Perhaps I missed something important."
Watch for / working: Only trigger-decoded interpretive and frame-securing interventions are expected to validate. Almost everything else draws non-validating imagery [source: Langs 2004 ch. 12 abstract]. Specific subtypes (e.g. cognitive vs interpersonal validation) were not verified [uncertain].

4.10 Establishing the frame in the first session

Purpose / when: Set out the secured frame from the start. Use in the first session [source: Langs 2004 ch. 13 title; content [synthesis] from the ground-rule lists in "Some Fresh Ideas…" and Daniels].
Steps: (1) Let the patient talk first and listen for indicators and narratives. (2) In the second half, state the fee, the fixed time and frequency, the responsibility for sessions (a common communicative convention: the patient pays for missed sessions [uncertain]), total confidentiality and privacy, and the fundamental rule of saying whatever comes to mind. (3) Make no personal disclosures. (4) Treat the patient's reaction to the frame as a trigger and listen for validation.
Example language (illustrative): "We'll meet on Mondays at 4 for 50 minutes; the fee is … per session. What you say here stays here. No reports go to anyone else. Your task is to say whatever comes to mind, especially stories and dreams."
Watch for / working: Images of safety and containment validate. Early pressure to change the frame is the first indicator to work with.

4.11 Analysing your own interventions (self-review)

Purpose / when: Find the triggers you created and your countertransference errors. Do it after every session, and urgently after non-validation [source: Clinical Workbook "analyzing the therapist's interventions", "common errors in intervening"; Daniels citing Langs 2004:47; Self & Society].
Steps: (1) List each intervention and frame decision from the session. (2) For each, read the patient's following narratives as an encoded perception of it. (3) Identify the error (a deviation, a non-neutral comment, a question, self-disclosure). (4) Plan a correction: frame rectification and/or an interpretation.
Example language: None. This is done outside the session.
Watch for / working: Recurring critical themes after a particular habit of yours show a chronic error to correct.

4.12 Dream / origination narrative with guided associations

Purpose / when: Generate rich encoded material when the patient intellectualises. This is central in self-processing and usable in ordinary sessions [source: Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…"; Empowered Psychotherapy contents; Wikipedia "Robert Langs"].
Steps: (1) Invite a dream. If there is none, invite an "origination narrative", a made-up story. (2) Ask for guided associations: memories and stories that each element of the dream or story brings to mind (not intellectual explanations). (3) Extract the themes across all the associations (4.3). (4) Identify the triggers (4.2) and trigger-decode (4.8).
Example language (illustrative): "Could you tell me a dream, or if none comes, make up a short story? Then let each part of it lead you to a memory or a story."
Watch for / working: Associations that are narratives, not interpretations. Note that inviting stories is itself a technique Langs links to self-processing. In secured-frame psychotherapy it may count as a directive [uncertain].

4.13 Self-processing format (adjunct)

Purpose / when: A structured, teaching-based format ("empowered psychotherapy") for training, for supervision, or for patients who want to learn trigger decoding [source: Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…"; Empowered Psychotherapy contents].
Steps: (1) 90-minute session in a secured frame. (2) For the first 40 minutes the participant works alone, without comment: dream or made-up story → guided associations → identify triggers (including your frame management) → trigger decode. (3) You then help them get past communicative and psychological defences to reach decoded insight. (4) In training, the last 20 minutes are formal case supervision.
Example language (illustrative): "For the first part I'll stay quiet while you work with your dream. Then we'll look together at what you weren't able to reach."
Watch for / working: Whether the participant reaches trigger-decoded insight that gets encoded validation. Self-processing resistances (avoiding triggers, staying intellectual) are worked on directly [source: Empowered Psychotherapy contents, "focusing on resistances"].

5. Handling problems

Patient pushes for a frame deviation (fee cut, extra session, phone contact, a report for insurance or a third party). Langs says deviations feel safe consciously but are experienced unconsciously as harmful, seductive or persecutory; requests for "false love" often follow death-related trauma [source: Langs, "Some Fresh Ideas…"; Daniels citing Langs 2006:101–103]. Response: listen for the encoded reply to the request, find the model of rectification, secure the frame in line with it, and interpret, as in 4.7. Also look for a recent loss or illness that may be driving the request.
Patient wants to flee after the frame is secured (talk of quitting, missed sessions, "this feels like a cage"). This is the secured-frame paradox: existential death anxiety and entrapment [source: Wikipedia "Frame (psychotherapy)"; Daniels citing Langs 2006:34]. Response: do not loosen the frame. Name the trigger (the secured frame, or a specific securing act) and interpret the entrapment/death themes, as in 4.8. (illustrative) "Since we kept the time fixed, you've spoken of a lift that got stuck and a relative in hospital. Perhaps the firmness here feels confining as well as safe."
Stuck: no narratives, only intellectualising (a communicative resistance). Response: stay silent first (4.5). If it persists across sessions, check whether you are the trigger (4.11). Then consider inviting a dream or story with guided associations (4.12), noting that this may count as a directive in strict secured-frame work [uncertain]. [synthesis] Do not ask clarifying questions; Langs advises against questions [source: Daniels citing Langs 1998:43–46].
Repeated non-validation of your interventions. Response: treat your interventions as the trigger. Decode the critical images, correct the error (rectify the frame, or interpret your mistake), and reduce non-interpretive comments [source: Langs 2004 ch. 12 abstract; Clinical Workbook "common errors"]. [synthesis] Get communicative supervision or self-processing for your own countertransference [source for self-processing as training: "Some Fresh Ideas…"].
Rupture after a therapist error or a deviation you caused (lateness, a chance meeting, a slip of confidentiality). Response: (1) Identify it as the trigger. (2) Rectify it where possible, e.g. make up the time, stop the third-party contact. (3) Interpret the patient's encoded perception of it, without defending yourself. (4) Watch for validation [source: model of rectification, Daniels citing Langs 1998:20–21, 40; step order [synthesis]].
Unavoidable deviations (institutional settings, insurance, legally required reports, video sessions). The sources say all modified frames are unconsciously harmful [source: "Some Fresh Ideas…"]. A Rhodes University study found all ten rules broken in a hospital setting, yet secure-frame work was judged feasible with training [source: Rhodes repository abstract]. Response [synthesis]: keep every other rule secured, tell the patient about the unavoidable deviation once, treat it as a standing trigger, and interpret its effects whenever the themes allow. Online or video work is not covered here [uncertain].
Overwhelm / acute distress. Not addressed here [uncertain]. Response [synthesis]: the method has no stabilisation techniques. Check the immediate trigger (often a death-related event or your own frame action), interpret if the material allows, and keep the frame steady. If there is risk to life, take the safety action your jurisdiction requires. Accept that this deviates from the frame, then work with how the patient encodes it.
Non-adherence (lateness, missed sessions, unpaid fees). Treat these as gross behavioural resistances and indicators (4.1) [source: Langs 2004 ch. 8 title]. Response: keep to the agreed responsibility for sessions and fees, find the trigger the behaviour responds to, and interpret it. [synthesis] Do not waive fees or negotiate. That would itself be a deviation.
Patient asks direct personal questions or for advice. Response: keep relative anonymity: no self-disclosure, no directives [source: "Some Fresh Ideas…"]. [synthesis] Stay silent or answer only by interpreting the request as an indicator; (illustrative) "Your question about my family came right after you told me about a teacher who kept everything hidden. Perhaps my reserve here feels withholding."
Modality-specific trap: decoding everything as about you, or reading Type One fantasy. Response: only interpret when an identifiable trigger and strong themes fit together. Without them, stay silent. Do not offer readings of symbols without a trigger [source: Langs 1979 via Winborn on Type One derivatives; Clinical Workbook "precepts of listening"].
Patient consciously dislikes the strict frame or your silence ("you're cold"). Response: do not take conscious complaint or praise as evidence either way. Listen for the encoded response [source: Daniels citing Langs 1998:39]. [synthesis] If the themes do show a perception of you as depriving, interpret that perception in relation to the trigger. Do not drop the frame.
Patient with limited capacity for symbolising (no narratives, action-oriented). Response: Langs's Type B/C field concepts apply. In a Type B field, contain the patient's projective identifications and do not re-project them. In a Type C field, focus interpretive work on the patient's metaphors [source: Langs 1979 via Winborn]. Practical adjustments beyond this are [synthesis].

Sources

Sources:

Books cited (content via the sources above):

Langs, R. (2004). Fundamentals of Adaptive Psychotherapy and Counselling. Palgrave Macmillan.
Langs, R. (1992/2002). Clinical Workbook for Psychotherapists. Karnac/Routledge.
Langs, R. (1979). Interventions in the Bipersonal Field.
Langs, R. (1998). Ground Rules in Psychotherapy and Counselling. Karnac.
Langs, R. (2006). Love and Death in Psychotherapy. Palgrave.
Langs, R. (2005). The challenge of the strong adaptive approach. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22, 49–68.
Langs, R. Empowered Psychotherapy: Teaching Self-Processing. Karnac.
Smith, D. L. (1991). Hidden Conversations: An Introduction to Communicative Psychoanalysis. Routledge.

← Previous · I-014Modern psychoanalysis Next · I-016 →Neuropsychoanalysis