Transference is one of the foundational concepts of psychoanalysis. Freud conceptualized transference not as a phenomenon limited to therapy, but as something that spontaneously emerges in all human relationships, including between patient and analyst (Freud, 1925/1961b, p. 42; 1910/1964b, p. 51 as cited in Zepf, 2010). However, he emphasized that the analytic setting uniquely intensifies this process, creating conditions in which unconscious material—particularly unresolved childhood experiences—is re-enacted and projected onto the therapist. Within this framework, the therapeutic relationship becomes a stage where the “entire childhood drama” is revived and emotionally relived under the influence of the unconscious (Freud, 1914/1958b, p. 154; 1914/1957b, p. 151 as cited in Zepf, 2010).
Building on Freud’s foundation, Melanie Klein highlighted (1952) how the analytic process not only reactivates early experiences but also revives the defenses and mechanisms originally used to cope with them. As unconscious memories begin to surface, the patient is compelled to repeat early object relations—shaped by both internal and external conflicts—within the relationship with the analyst. In this sense, transference is not only a replay of the past but also a re-enactment of the ways the patient once defended against anxiety, often unconsciously replicating the very patterns that maintain psychic suffering (Klein, 1952).
Over time, the notion of transference has expanded beyond the analytic setting, becoming relevant across various therapeutic approaches as a key to understanding relational dynamics. But what happens when the analytic frame shifts from the couch to the screen? As therapy becomes increasingly virtual, so do the manifestations of transference. In today’s digital world, patients may not just see their therapists during the 50-minute hour, they may also follow, search for, or silently observe them on Instagram, WhatsApp, or even LinkedIn. The therapeutic relationship, once limited to the consulting room, now spills over into the digital sphere.
With the rise of teletherapy and social media, the traditional therapeutic frame has been significantly altered. The patient may now encounter their therapist not only during the designated “50-minute hour”, but also in the form of profile pictures, social media profiles, or even “last seen” notifications on messaging platforms. This expanded availability gives rise to new forms of transference that unfold not within the session, but in the digital space surrounding it. For example, a patient may feel neglected if their therapist takes hours to reply to an email or anxious if they see the therapist active online but not engaging with them. Moreover, the blurring of therapeutic boundaries in online spaces challenges the traditional principle of neutrality. A therapist’s visible online presence—whether carefully curated or unintentionally revealing—can invite idealization, envy, or suspicion from patients.
These changes demand a renewed understanding of how transference functions when therapy is no longer confined to the room, but instead unfolds within a digitally mediated space. Transference has always been a dynamic and relational process, shaped not only by the patient’s inner world but also by the structure of the therapeutic setting and the analyst’s mind. As treatment options move increasingly into digital spaces, the frame that once contained and clarified transference is now being stretched—and, at times, blurred—by technology. Yet, rather than rendering transference obsolete, this shift reveals its enduring adaptability. Whether played out through silences on the couch or delays in email replies, patients continue to bring their unconscious histories into the therapeutic relationship. In the digital age, transference does not disappear; it simply finds new screens through which to speak.