ABSTRACT
Controversies about the interpretation of patients' associations, texts, and other materials are rarely amenable to experimental or empirical exploration. One may look to criteria beyond the given data in the attempt to validate interpretive strategies. For example, Freud (e.g., Freud, 1940) insisted that the interpretation of psychological events be consistent with biological “facts.” Alternatively, interpretations may be judged by the extent to which they elaborate and enrich understanding (Ricoeur, 1970, 1977, 1986). Interpretations may be judged for their pragmatic efficacy in producing therapeutic change or providing a basis for decisions (e.g., in law). Generally, interpreters adopt a congenial and/or traditional point of view whose broad outlines they rarely question.
