Object Relations Theory

Walsh (2010) explains object relations theory focuses on the concept that the internalized images and attitudes we have regarding others determines our relationship with the self and influences our approach when forming new relationships.  The theory focuses on interpersonal relations, specifically within early childhood with an emphasis on the mother-child relationship.  The theory based in both ego psychology and developmental theory emphasizes that our inner world is composed of representations and feelings of others, which have a direct impact on the feelings and attitudes we have about ourselves.  The framework for the theory draws on the concept of attachment theory and the effects of early nurturing.  In other words, the theory assumes that the quality of our interpersonal relationships during development can predict the quality of our future relationships.

Object relations theory is a very nice fit for the social work profession as it recognizes the significance of environment on the individual’s development and functioning (Walsh, 2010). 

The following page from the Psychology Department at Sonoma University has a great break down of some of the key terms in object relations and information regarding the major proponents of the theory:

http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/objectrelations.html

Individuals with poor object relations will often have frequent relationship conflicts due to the maladaptive defense mechanisms they have developed.  These defense mechanisms can include splitting, introjection, and projection identification (Walsh, 2010). The following public video links provide some insight into some of these defense mechanisms:

Introjection

Splitting & Projection

Walsh (2010) describes the concept of splitting to be the most frequent defense mechanism demonstrated in people with poor object relations.  Individuals utilizing this defense see others as either “good” or “bad”.  Typically, others are good when they fulfill a need for the individual but others who disappoint, frustrate, or anger the individual are considered “bad”.  This defense mechanism will usually carry over into the clinical setting as the client may alternate between perceiving the worker as either “good” or “bad” (Walsh, 2010). 

What does it look like?

http://vimeo.com/12011714

References

Walsh, T. (2010).  Theories for direct social work practice (2nd ed.). CA. Belmont: Brooks/Cole.