ABSTRACT
Results are in line with the hypothesis, that scenic relevant moments contain a higher use of negative emotional words than those in neutral scenes. Contrary to the hypothesis, Motion Energy Analysis showed no significant difference in either movement quantity or movement synchronicity between the neutral and the emotionally relevant scene, with a slight tendency of less movement in the neutral scene. Results of the presented pilot single case study of Mr. G are in line with the hypotheses that relevant now moments in survivor interviews can be understood mainly as irritating moments, including breaks, splitting, and loss of contact. This finding resembles linguistic results that the interviewee speaks louder at the same time as the interviewer speaks slower in relevant scenes. Results of the countertransference questionnaire showed that Mr. G scored highest in the entangled factors and lowest in the aggressive factor, both with no significant differences to the other four interviewed survivors.
