Abstracts of 2005 Award Winners' Papers:

Therapist Self-disclosure of Countertransference: Necessity or Indulgence?

David M. Myers, MA
Pennsylvania State University

Self-disclosure is arguably the most fundamental element of psychotherapy. Regardless of theoretical orientation, professional discipline, or other such line of demarcation, self-disclosure is sin qua non to therapeutic process. It is a given that some form of communication must take place in therapy for it to be considered therapy. It was not, however, until the seminal work of Sidney Jourard (1958) that self-disclosure moved from being a therapeutic given to being a factor that could be operationalized, thus lending itself to scientific study. Jourard examined differences in what people disclosed to family, friends, and strangers, while being sensitive to cultural differences in disclosure as well.

When writing about the expectation held by therapists that clients be completely open and honest during sessions, Jourard (1971), in a seemingly flippant manner, suggested that therapists should be willing to answer any of the questions that they routinely ask clients. I suspect that there was a hint of seriousness to Jourard's statement, since he viewed mutual self-disclosure in any relationship, including therapeutic dyad, as a fundamental aspect of establishing a healthy relationship.

Therapist self-disclosure, however, is a contentious issue from a therapeutic perspective. There are equally compelling arguments advocating for and against this practice. As might be expected, research has demonstrated a strong link between level of therapist self-disclosure and theoretical orientation, with psychoanalytic therapists exhibiting significantly less self-disclosure than humanistic therapists (Anderson & Mandell, 1989; Edwards & Murdock, 1994; Simon, 1988).

Countertransference has traveled a conceptual path not unlike that of self-disclosure. There have been fundamental problems stemming from defining countertransference to establishing its role in psychotherapy. It seems that the various theoretical orientations approach the topic of countertransference from widely disparate positions. In fact, countertransference, by its very definition (or lack of) is likely to mean different things to different therapists. After all, it could be argued that there is nothing more personal to therapists than their own countertransference. For the purposes of this study, countertransference is defined as therapists' reactions to clients that are rooted in therapists' unresolved intrapsychic conflicts (Gelso & Carter, 1985; Gelso & Hayes, 1998).

The classical perspective on countertransference is derived largely from the early work of Freud (1910/1959) who considered countertransference to be an unconscious and neurotic response on the part of the therapist that is in reaction to the patient's transference. Reich (1951) proposed a similar understanding, describing countertransference as a concept that "comprises the effects of the analyst's own unconscious needs and conflicts on his [or her] understanding or technique" (p. 26). At any rate, the classical stance looked upon countertransference as a negative therapeutic phenomenon that was to be overcome by the therapist.

Today some therapists are finding that countertransference may have clinical usefulness in overcoming impasses in therapy (Bird, 1972; Sandler, 1976; Strean, 1999). Countertransference is looked upon as another source of clinical information that can improve understanding of the client. In essence, what was once considered an impasse is gradually gaining acceptance as a means to traverse an impasse. One question that has received sparse empirical attention is therapist self-disclosure of countertransference. It could be argued that every therapist, by the virtue of living life and being touched by humanity, has soft spots or unresolved issues (Gelso & Hayes, 2002), but if and when to discuss these issues in therapy is still left up for debate.

One conceptual link that has emerged between the two concepts of self-disclosure and countertransference is the working alliance (see Bordin, 1979). On one hand, Wells (1994) cautions that therapist self-disclosure should not come outside of the context of a well-established working alliance. On the other hand, Hayes and Gelso (2001) suggest that self-disclosure of countertransference could deepen the working alliance. Related to this notion, Hayes, Rider, and Ingram (1997) suggested that the working alliance could act as a mediating factor between countertransference and negative outcome.

The study at hand explored these issues by using analogue methodology to simulate a therapeutic encounter. The participants for this study were 236 undergraduate students at The Pennsylvania State University. Of the total sample, 224 participants provided usable data. This sample was selected for convenience, and among the 224 students whose data were used in the analysis, 75 (33%) were male and 150 (67%) were female. With respect to ethnicity, 200 (90%) identified themselves as Caucasian, 8 (3.6%) identified as African American, 5 (2.3%) as Hispanic, 4 (1.8%) as Asian, 1 (.5%) as Arab, and 2 (.9%) as something other than the previously listed ethnicities. The mean age of participants was 20.4, and ranged from 18 to 46 years old. The participants were from undergraduate psychology and education classes, and received extra credit for participating in the study.

Participants were randomly assigned to experimental conditions, reading one of two introductory statements describing the working alliance (positive and negative) and then viewing one of three videos depicting a mock therapeutic session in which therapist self-disclosure was manipulated (countertransference, general self-disclosure, and no disclosure). The dependent measures for this study were participant rating on the expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthiness scales of the Counselor Rating Form, and the depth, smoothness, and positivity scales of the Session Evaluation Questionnaire.

Results of this study indicated that when the therapist made a general self-disclosure, he (actor was male) was viewed as more trustworthy than when he made either a countertransference disclosure or no disclosure. He was also viewed as more expert when he made a general self-disclosure, as opposed to when he did not disclose. When the two disclosure conditions were considered together (general and countertransference disclosures), the therapist was rated as more attractive than he was in the no disclosure condition. Two significant interactions between the working alliance and disclosure condition were also present on measures of expertness and depth. When the alliance was weak, disclosures led to more negative evaluations of the therapists' expertness and session depth than when the therapist did not self-disclose. However, when the alliance was strong, the therapist was viewed more favorably when he disclosed. The findings of this study support the judicious use of self-disclosure on the part of the therapist. In fact, before the formation of a strong working alliance, any disclosures by the therapist may be counter therapeutic. Additionally, general disclosures seem more likely to be helpful than are disclosures about deeply personal and unresolved issues in the therapist's life.