I wish I could check the first two because that would exactly describe my experience. Two out of three of my therapists were sending mixed signals, the third one didn't do anything confusing but the feelings still developed and they were also pretty intense. I picked "the T did nothing" option because I think it fairly reflects the fact that even with ethical T I did develop feelings, which means they were triggered by therapy situation itself. However, in other two cases, because of the Ts confusing behavior I ended up seriously traumatized, so the Ts most certainly had contributed greatly in what transpired.

I can't say though that in the third case I was completely unharmed by the inability to resolve the feelings in the way they normally get resolved in real life. Actually, in "real life", most likely, the feelings wouldn't have developed in the first place if I knew that T outside of his professional role. I don't think any other real life situation would've given the conditions for such obsession to arise. So, even in the case when the T was behaving perfectly appropriately within the traditional therapy structure I still got hurt but not as much as in two other cases. The other factor to consider is that the "good T" experience was in between the "bad" ones. If it was the first experience may be I wouldn't have been hurt at all. Who knows..

But back to the question, I guess, what I am saying is that therapy situation itself evoked strong transference in me even when the T was not doing anything to encourage it, that's why I picked "T did nothing". And, on the other hand when the other Ts did encourage it by sending mixed messages, the transference became a traumatic experience.