Case material is presented to show that certain interpretations commonly made in psychotherapy are actually accusations. Therapists make these interpretations, not because of a personal wish to criticize, but because of the dictates of their theory. An alternative theoretical approach-ego analysis-is presented that leads to nonaccusatory interpretations and, in fact, relies for its therapeutic effect on its ability to make clients less accusatory of themselves.Certain interpretations commonly made in psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy are accusatory. Therapists appear to make them, not because they are hostile or insensitive, but because of the dictates of their theory. Clients are seen as gratifying infantile impulses, being defensive, having developmental defects, and resisting the therapy. The problem is not restricted to psychoanalytically-oriented therapy. Even therapists who reject the psychoanalytic model may nevertheless view clients as dependent, narcissistic, manipulative, and resistant, and as refusing to grow up and face the responsibilities of adulthood. Therapists who conceptualize people in these ways may have a hard time making interpretations that do not communicate at least some element of this pejorative view.Many therapists may object to the point being stated here. Infantile impulses, developmental defects, defenses, and resistances are not generally A shortened version of this paper was given at the 1982 Psychological Association convention in Washington, D.C.Requests for reprints should be sent to Daniel B. Wile,