While doing supervision today, I found myself encouraging my supervisee to be more direct, to embrace his knowledge and his good judgment, and to share his knowledge and judgment with his client. This is an interesting (and perhaps surprising) stance for me to take, because, as some of you know very well, I lean hard toward Rogerian theory. I’m a fan of honoring clients’ expertise and of Carl Rogers’s words that it is “the client who knows what hurts and where to go.”
As I age (more like fine wine, and not like moldy bananas, I hope), one truth I keep feeling is that nearly everything is both-and—not either-or. Yes, I believe deeply in the naturally therapeutic process of person-centered theory and therapy; providing clients with that “certain type of environment” will facilitate self-discovery and personal growth. On the other hand, sometimes clients need guidance. In my supervision case earlier today, my point was that the client was a very long way away from deeper personal insights. That meant my supervisee needed to loan the client his good judgment and decision-making skills. As you may recognize, “loaning clients our healthy egos” is psychoanalytic language. Nevertheless, the guidance I offered my supervisee was to engage in some CBT coaching
All this reminded me of a section I updated in the 7th edition of Clinical Interviewing. The section is titled, “Client as Expert” and I’ve excerpted it below. It captures the essence of honoring client wisdom, which, IMHO, should always precede more directive interventions.
************************************
Client as Expert
Clients are the best experts on themselves and their experiences. This is so obvious that it seems odd to mention, but sometimes therapists can get wrapped up in their expertness and usurp the client’s personal authority. Although idiosyncratic and sometimes factually inaccurate, clients’ stories and explanations about themselves and their lives are internally valid and should be respected.
CASE EXAMPLE 1.1: GOOD INTENTIONS
In one case, I (John) became preoccupied about convincing a 19-year-old client—who had been diagnosed years ago with bipolar disorder—that she wasn’t really “bipolar” anymore. Despite my good intentions (I thought the young woman would be better off without a bipolar label), there was something important for her about holding on to a bipolar identity. As a “psychological expert,” I believed it obscured her many strengths with a label that diminished her personhood. Therefore, I encouraged her to change her belief system. I told her that she didn’t meet the diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder, but I was unsuccessful in convincing her to give up the label.
What’s clear about this case is that, although I was the diagnostic authority in the room, I couldn’t change the client’s viewpoint. She wanted to keep calling herself bipolar. Maybe that was a good thing for her. Maybe that label offered her solace? Perhaps she felt comfort in a label that helped her explain her behavior to herself. Perhaps she never will let go of the bipolar label. Perhaps I’m the one who needed to accept that as a helpful outcome.
[End of Case Example 1.1]
In recent years, practitioners from many theoretical perspectives have become outspoken about the need for expert therapists to take a backseat to their clients’ lived experiences. Whether you’re working online or face-to-face, several evidence-based approaches emphasize respect for the clients’ perspective and collaboration (David et al., 2022). These include progress monitoring, client-informed outcomes, and therapeutic assessment (Martin, 2020; Meier, 2015).
When your expert opinion conflicts with your client’s perspective, it’s good practice to defer to your client, at least initially. Over time, you’ll need your client’s expertise in the room as much as your own. If clients are unwilling to share their expertise and experiences, you’ll lose some of your potency as a helper.
******************************************
So, what’s today’s big takeaway? We start with and maintain great respect for the client’s expertise. . . and then we either stay more person-centered (or psychoanalytic) or collaboratively shift toward providing more direction and guidance. And the big question is: How do we determine whether to stay less directive or become more directive?
If you feel so inclined, let me know your thoughts on that big question.
I’m presenting with one of our esteemed UM Doc students, Kanbi Knippling, M.A. You can see our title in the photo. Should be interesting and excellent content for anyone working with people who have disabilities. Kanbi is taking the lead, and I’m helping, which is fun for me.
The 7th edition of Clinical Interviewing became available earlier this year. As a part of the text revision, we updated the accompanying videos, videos that Victor Yalom of Psychotherapy.net considers to be the best of their kind. And, possibly having watched more professional training videos than anyone on the planet, Victor knows what he’s talking about, and we are humbled by his endorsement.
Videos that accompany the text cover 72 learning objectives and are extensive. The bad news is that they usually, but not always, feature me. The good news is that in our video revision and upgrade, we included numerous counselors/psychotherapists of color. . . so it’s not just all me talking about how to develop your clinical interviewing skills.
If you watch them, I hope you enjoy the videos. And, if you feel so moved, please share your reactions or suggestions with me here or via email: john.sf@mso.umt.edu.
Language is powerful, but sometimes subtle in its influence. Last week in Group class I talked about using psychoeducation to teach people the power of language. As an example, I mentioned the work of Isolina Ricci, and the best post-divorce book ever, Mom’s House, Dad’s House. Ricci tells separated or divorced parents they should change the words they use to refer to their “Ex.” Because “Ex” refers to the former relationship with a romantic partner, it gets to the heart of how people use language to live in the past. Ricci says that we should use “My children’s Mom” or “My child’s Dad” because doing so accurately describes the current relationships. Years ago, I taught her language-based principles in the divorce education courses offered through Families First.
In a class-based group, my students brought up that perhaps we should shift from language that identifies others as “racist” to describing them as “people with racist tendencies.” I was happy my students were grappling with the influence of language. . . and was reminded of my first encounter when I really learned about the power of language and labels.
While in the University of Montana library about 4 decades ago, I recall reading something by Gordon Allport. Given it was so long ago, the memory is surprisingly vivid. Sadly, I can’t conjure up the reference. What I recall is Allport describing something like this:
First, we say, John behaves nervously.
Later, it becomes, John is nervous or anxious.
Eventually, we diagnose John: John has an anxiety disorder.
Then, we diagnose everyone similar to John, and put the disorder first: Anxiety disordered youth, like John, are more likely to. . .
In the end, we’ve inserted a trait-problem in John, without consideration of the context of his initial anxiety or the specific rate of anxiety associated with his so-called “anxiety disorder.” And then we repeat this description until the problem is fully placed inside John (and others) and rarely question that presumption.
This process begs many questions. Is the anxiety really located inside John, as if it were a personality trait or a mental disorder? Where did John’s anxiety originate? If John lived years in a frightening setting, should he be blamed and labeled for having anxiety symptoms? Might it be normal for John to expect that something bad is likely to happen?
The tendency for external observers to see behaviors or symptoms in others, and then insert the behaviors and symptoms inside of those they observe is so ubiquitous that in social/cognitive psychology, they named it the “Fundamental Attribution Error.” But even that language isn’t quite right.
Fundamental attribution error is the tendency to attribute the behaviors of others as representing a “trait” or underlying disposition in them (e.g., racist). Not surprisingly, at the same time, people also tend to attribute their own behaviors to situational factors (e.g., I was more judgmental than usual, because I was a bad mood and hadn’t slept well). To use language more precisely, the fundamental attribution error might be better described as a “common” phenomenon, instead of fundamental. And, of course, that tendency is not always in error. Maybe the better terminology would be “Common misattribution tendency.” Put more simply: We tend to blame others’ behavior on them. How common is that? Very common.
This is all very heady stuff, as is often the case when we dive into constructive language and narrative therapy principles. It tends to be easier for people to change and to believe in the possibility of people changing when we use person-first language and say things like, “engaged in racist behaviors” or “exhibited signs of anxiety,” instead of using firmly constructed attributions.
Lately, in this blog I’ve been riffing with excerpts from our Clinical Interviewing textbook. Below, I’ve inserted another section from Clinical Interviewing. This excerpt is about using bias-free language in psychological reports.
******************************************
Using Bias-Free Language
No matter how careful and sensitive writers try to be, it’s still possible to offend someone. Writing with sensitivity and compassion toward all potential readers is difficult, but mandatory.
Avoiding bias and demeaning attitudes is mostly straightforward. In addition to following the APA’s guidance and writing for a multidimensional audience, the best advice we have is to encourage you to conceptualize and write your intake report transparently and collaboratively. This means:
At the beginning and toward the end of your session, speak directly with your client about the content you plan to include in the report.
Rather than surprising clients with a diagnosis, be explicit about your recommended diagnosis and rationale.
Discuss your treatment plan openly with clients. Doing so serves the dual purpose of providing clients with advance information and getting them invested in treatment.
If you’re not clear about how your client would like to be addressed in the report (Mr., Ms., gender identity, ethnicity, etc.), ask directly. Avoid mis-labeling or mis-gendering clients in a psychological report. If you’re working with clients who have physical disabilities, check to see if person-first or disability-first language is preferred.
****************************
I’ve been trying to keep the word-length of these blogs reasonable, and so if you’re interested in a bit more on this topic, this link will give you Practice and Reflection 8.4: “Person-First or Identity-First Language” from, of course, the Clinical Interviewing text.
Early this morning, I had a chance to Zoom in and present a workshop for Saint Michael’s College in Vermont. This was probably a good thing, because they had more than their share of snow to deal with. I got to be in Vermont virtually from beautiful Missoula Montana, where we’ve had spring most of winter. I wish we could borrow a few feet of that Vermont snow to get us up to something close to normal.
But my point is to share my ppts from this morning, and not talk about the weather. I had a great two hours with the Saint Michael’s professionals . . . as they posed excellent and nuanced questions and made insightful comments. Here’s a link to the ppts:
Most people intuitively know that emotions are a central, complex, and multidimensional part of human experience. Emotions are typically in response to perceptions, include sensations, and are at the root of much of our existential meaning-making. Emotions are at the heart (not literally, of course) of much of the motivation that underlies behavior.
What follows is another excerpt from Clinical Interviewing (7th edition). In this excerpt, we define and explore the use of an interpretive reflection of feeling as a tool to go deeper into emotion and meaning with clients. As with all things interpretive, I recommend proceeding with caution, respect, and humility. . . because sometimes clients aren’t interested in going deeper and will push back in one way or another.
**********************************
Interpretive Reflection of Feeling (aka Advanced Empathy)
Interpretive reflections of feeling are emotion-focused statements that go beyond obvious emotional expressions. Sometimes referred to as advanced empathy (Egan, 2014), interpretive reflection of feeling is based on Rogers’s (1961) idea that sometimes person-centered therapists work on emotions that are barely within or just outside the client’s awareness.
By design, interpretive reflections of feeling go deeper than surface feelings or emotions, uncovering underlying emotions and potentially producing insight (i.e., the client becomes aware of something that was previously unconscious or partially conscious). Nondirective reflections of feeling focus on obvious, clear, and surface emotions; in contrast, interpretive reflections target partially hidden, deeper emotions.
Consider again the 15-year-old boy who was so angry with his teacher.
Client: That teacher pissed me off big time when she accused me of stealing her phone. I wanted to punch her.
Counselor: You were pretty pissed off. (reflection of feeling)
Client: Damn right.
Counselor: I also sense that you have other feelings about what your teacher did. Maybe you were hurt because she didn’t trust you. (interpretive reflection of feeling)
The counselor’s second statement probes deeper feelings that the client didn’t directly articulate.
An interpretive reflection of feeling may activate client defensiveness. Interpretations require good timing (Fenichel, 1945; Freud, 1949). That’s why, in the preceding example, the counselor initially used a nondirective reflection of feeling and then, after that reflection was affirmed, used a more interpretive response. W. R. Miller and Rollnick (2002) made this point in Motivational Interviewing:
Skillful reflection moves past what the person has already said, though not jumping too far ahead. The skill is not unlike the timing of interpretations in psychodynamic psychotherapy. If the person balks, you know you’ve jumped too far, too fast. (p. 72)
Interpretive reflections of feeling assume clients will benefit from going “vertical” or deeper into understanding underlying emotions; they can have many effects, the most prominent include the following:
If offered prematurely or without a good rationale, they may feel foreign or uncomfortable; this discomfort can lead to client resistance, reluctance, denial, or a relationship rupture (Parrow, 2023).
When well stated and when a positive therapy relationship exists, interpretive reflections of feeling may feel supportive because therapists are “hearing” clients at deeper emotional levels; this can lead to enhanced therapist credibility, strengthening of the therapeutic relationship, and collaborative pursuit of insight.
Interpretive reflections of feeling are naturally invasive. That’s why timing and a good working alliance are essential. When using interpretive reflections of feeling, follow these principles.
Wait until:
You have good rapport or a positive working alliance.
Your clients have experienced you accurately hearing and reflecting their surface emotions.
You have evidence (e.g., nonverbal signals, previous client statements) that provide a reasonable foundation for your interpretation.
Phrase your interpretive statement:
Tentatively (e.g., “If I were to guess, I’d say…”)
Collaboratively (e.g., “Correct me if I’m wrong, but…”)
The need to phrase statements tentatively and collaboratively is equally true when using any form of feedback or interpretation. Many different phrasings can be used to make such statements more acceptable.
I think I’m hearing that you’d like to speak directly to your father about your sexuality, but you’re afraid of his response.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like your anxiety in this relationship is based on a deeper belief that she’ll eventually discover you’re unlovable.
If I were to guess, I’d say you’re wishing you could find your way out of this relationship. Does that fit?
This may not be accurate, but the way you’re sitting seems to communicate not only sadness but also some irritation.
*************************************
I hope this content has been of some interest or use to you in your work. If you want a bit more, a couple of emotion-related case examples are at the link below (and you can always buy the book:)).
In my last post, I reviewed the most basic of all therapeutic emotional responses, the reflection of feeling. As noted yesterday, reflections of feeling are, by definition, neutral . . . and providing a neutral reflection has benefits and liabilities.
For clients who have a history of experiencing negative judgments and oppression, instead of remaining neutral, it may be necessary to be explicitly validating. In Chapter 5 of our Clinical Interviewing textbook, we begin by describing and providing examples of the technique called “Feeling Validation.”
If you’re tracking closely, you’ll recall that a reflection of feeling is on the left side of the “listening continuum” and feeling validation is in the center of the listening continuum. Below, you’ll find information on using feeling validation from the Clinical Interviewing text.
**********************************
Directive Listening Skills
Directive listening skills are advanced interviewing techniques that encourage clients to examine and possibly change their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Directive listening skills can be used for assessment, exploring client issues, and facilitating insight. They include:
Feeling validation
Interpretive reflection of feeling
Interpretation (psychoanalytic or reframing)
Confrontation
Immediacy
Questions
Directive listening skills place you in an expert role. The therapist’s behaviors in this chapter range from being mostly client centered to mostly therapist centered. Client-centered directives zero in on what the client is already talking about, but take clients deeper. Therapist-centered directives shift clients toward what they’re not yet talking about. Directive listening skills operate on the assumption that clients will benefit from guidance or direction.
Feeling Validation
Reflections of feeling (discussed in Chapter 4) are often confused with feeling validation. The difference is that reflections of feeling are more purely client centered, whereas feeling validation includes your opinion, approval, or validation of client emotions. A feeling validation is an emotion-focused technique that acknowledges and validates your client’s explicit feelings. It’s a message that communicates, “What you’re feeling is a natural or normal emotional response.” Feeling validation is an emotional affirmation.
The difference between reflecting feelings versus validating feelings may seem subtle, but it provides an excellent example of the complexities of skillful interviewing. Skilled interviewers use reflection of feeling as a method to prompt clients to evaluate their own emotions. In contrast, they use feeling validation as a method to support and reassure clients. Feeling validation includes a psychoeducational-authoritative-reassurance component. Novice interviewers may not be aware of the difference.
Psychoanalytic clinicians distinguish between supportive and expressive psychotherapy techniques. Based on this distinction, feeling validation is a supportive technique, and feeling reflection is an expressive technique. Clients usually feel supported and more normal when you validate their emotions. Clients may experience greater stress if you use reflections of feeling to have them examine and judge the validity of their own emotions.
Supportive techniques like feeling validation are outside-in self-esteem boosters. They’re based on the therapist (as an outside authority) saying something like “Your anger in response to being unfairly accused of stealing something seems natural.” One drawback of outside-in self-esteem boosters is that they don’t facilitate self-discovery. The boost that comes from external emotional validation may be temporary and not lead to lasting client change. If clients come to rely on validation of their feelings, they may continue to look outward for external validation.
All approaches to feeling validation give clients the message, “Your feelings are acceptable, and you have permission to feel them.” You might even use feeling validation to suggest to clients that they should be having particular feelings.
Client 1: I’ve been so sad since my mother died. I can’t seem to stop myself from crying. (Client begins sobbing.)
Therapist 1: It’s okay to feel sad about losing your mother. That’s perfectly normal. Crying in here as you talk about it is a natural response.
The preceding exchange involves validation. By openly stating that feeling sad and crying is normal, the therapist takes on an expert or educator role.
Another way to provide feeling validation is through self-disclosure:
Client 2: I get so anxious before taking tests, you wouldn’t believe it! All I can think about is how I’m going to freeze up and forget everything. Then, when I get to class and look at the test, my mind just goes blank.
Therapist 2: I remember feeling the same way about tests.
In this example, the therapist uses self-disclosure to validate the client’s anxiety. Although using self-disclosure to validate feelings can be reassuring, it’s not without risk. Clients may wonder if therapists can be helpful with anxiety symptoms if they have similar anxieties. Self-disclosure can also enhance therapist credibility, as a client may think, “Hmm. If my therapist went through test anxiety too, maybe he’ll understand and be able to help me.” Using self-disclosure to validate client emotions can diminish or enhance therapist credibility—depending on the client and the therapeutic relationship (see Case Example 5.1).
Therapists can also use universality to validate or reassure clients.
Client 3: I always compare myself to everyone else—and I usually come up short. I wonder if I’ll ever feel confident.
Therapist 3: You’re being hard on yourself. I don’t know anyone who feels a complete sense of confidence.
Clients may feel validated when they observe or are informed that nearly everyone else in the world (or universe) feels similar emotions. Yalom provided a personal example:
During my own 600-hour analysis I had a striking personal encounter with the therapeutic factor of universality… I was very much troubled by the fact that, despite my strong positive sentiments [towards my mother], I was beset with death wishes for her, as I stood to inherit part of her estate. My analyst responded simply, “That seems to be the way we’re built.” That artless statement not only offered considerable relief but enabled me to explore my ambivalence in great depth. (Yalom & Leszcz, 2020, p. 7)
Feeling validation is a common technique. People like to have their feelings validated; and, often, counselors like validating their clients’ feelings. However, open support, such as feeling validation, can reduce client exploration of important issues (i.e., clients assume they’re fine if their therapist says so).
Potential effects of feeling validation include:
Enhanced rapport
Increased or reduced client exploration of the problem or feeling (this could go either direction)
Reduction in client anxiety, at least temporarily
Enhanced client self-esteem or feelings of normality (perhaps only temporarily)
Possible increased client-therapist dependency
In many clinical scenarios, clinicians lead with less directive skills (i.e., Chapter 4) before using more directive skills (i.e., Chapter 5). However, there are some clinical situations where feeling validation or affirmation of clients take priority.
As you think about feeling validation, and all the complexities it can include, consider the following case example.
CASE EXAMPLE 5.1: Struggling to Manage the Impulse to Project My Disability Issues onto a Client
Eddy Fagundo, Ph.D., CRC, CVE, a Senior Manager of Education Content for the American Counseling Association wrote an essay on managing his impulse to project his own issues and lived experiences onto a client. Have you ever worked with someone who reminded you of yourself? Imagine yourself in Dr. Fagundo’s role. Would you be able to manage your impulses to be too comforting and too validating? Although this case is about countertransference, projection, and overidentification with the client, it’s also about appropriately validating self-disclosure and countertransference management.
“Mommy Rosemary, why does Eddy speak Russian?’” was an odd question that had become common for my friends (at age 5-years) to ask my mother . . . in Cuba. What my friends did not know was that I was not speaking Russian; I was speaking Spanish, or so I thought! Growing up, I had speech problems, but was determined to overcome them. I never missed any of my speech therapy appointments and was disciplined in practicing the difficult Spanish rolling Rs in front of the mirror before and after school. I did it! In third grade, I won the best reader in class award. Life was bright. Little did I know, that four years later, I would immigrate to the United States, and learn a new language. But I did this too!
These memories flashed before my eyes when counseling a young Cuban immigrant male with a speech impediment. The client felt defeated, isolated, and had low expectations of himself. I was conflicted; this young man was me as a child. If I could overcome my speech problems, I wanted to tell him: He could too! At the time, I was a new rehabilitation counselor. The situation made me keenly aware of potential projection issues. I knew I could not tell the client what to do. I knew I could not tell him he would be able to succeed, just as I did, because I was no more special than he was.
And so, I consulted my colleagues and supervisor. I focused on being aware of and bracketing my feelings and reactions, and on building a therapeutic relationship. I accepted the client unconditionally and respected his right to be himself without having me project my lived experiences onto him. Instead, I used my lived experiences therapeutically by professionally and appropriately self-disclosing my past struggles with speech problems. Counselor self-disclosure, when done sparingly and effectively, builds trust, fosters empathy, and strengthens the counseling relationship.
Today, the client is fully fluent in what some would argue to be the true universal language: mathematics. He holds a doctorate in mathematics, the speech impediments are improved, and he lives a fulfilling life. Even today, I wonder how different the outcome would have been had I not had the self-awareness and professional support to counter my projection impulses.
We will encounter clients similar to us in ways that make us struggle to avoid projecting our own lived experiences onto them. We need to identify those clients, but to do so, we must first ask, “Who am I, and who is standing beside me to support me in this journey of self-discovery?”
[End of Case Example 5.1]
***********************************
Our Clinical Interviewing text also includes specific learning activities. If you want to check out a learning activity designed to add nuance to your feeling (emotional) vocabulary, check out this handout:
We’ve been talking about emotions in our Group Counseling course at the University of Montana. Even though focusing on emotions has grown immensely in popularity within contemporary counseling and psychotherapy, some students seem to be missing a few basics. Last week, when I took time to talk about the differences between (a) reflection of feeling, (b) interpretive reflection of feeling, and (c) feeling validation most of the students found the information useful. Consequently, I’m including here (and in a following blog post or two) excerpts from the latest edition of our Clinical Interviewing textbook. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Clinical+Interviewing%2C+7th+Edition-p-9781119981985
The foundation that guides how clinicians respond to clients is described in our “Listening Continuum” (see below).
This excerpt is from the section in Chapter 4 on Reflection of Feeling.
*****************************
Reflection of Feeling (aka Empathy)
The primary purpose of a reflection of feeling is to let clients know, through an emotionally focused paraphrase, that you’re tuned in to their emotional state. Nondirective reflections of feeling encourage further emotional expression. Consider the following example of a 15-year-old male (he/him) talking about his teacher:
Client: That teacher pissed me off big time when she accused me of stealing her phone. I wanted to punch her.
Counselor: You were pretty pissed off.
Client: Damn right.
In this example, the feeling reflection focuses only on what the client clearly articulated. This is the rule for nondirective feeling reflections: Restate or reflect only the emotional content that you clearly heard the client say. No probing, interpreting, or speculation are included. Although we might guess at underlying dynamics contributing to this boy’s fury, a nondirective feeling reflection focuses on obvious emotions.
Emotions are personal. Every attempt to reflect feelings is a move toward closeness or intimacy. Some clients who don’t want relational connection with you may react negatively to reflections of feeling. You can minimize negative reactions to reflections of feeling by phrasing them tentatively, especially during an initial interview:
When using reflection to encourage continued personal exploration, which is the broad goal of reflective listening, it is often useful to understate slightly what the person has offered. This is particularly so when emotional content is involved. (W. R. Miller & Rollnick, 2013, p. 59)
Emotional accuracy is your ultimate goal. However, if you miss the emotional target, it’s better to miss with an understatement than an overstatement. If you overstate emotional intensity, clients will often backtrack or deny their feelings. As we’ll discuss in Chapter 12, there’s a proper time to intentionally overstate client emotions. Generally, however, you should aim for accuracy while proceeding tentatively and understating rather than overstating clients’ emotions. Rogers (1961) would sometimes use clarification with clients after giving a reflection of feeling (e.g., “I’m hearing sadness and pain in your voice… am I getting that right?”).
If you understate a reflection of feeling, your client may correct you.
Client: That teacher pissed me off big time when she accused me of stealing her watch. I wanted to punch her.
Counselor: Seems like you were a little irritated about that. Is that right?
Client: Irritated? Fuck no—I was pissed.
Counselor: You were way more than irritated. You were pissed.
In this example, a stronger emotional descriptor is better because the client expressed more than irritation. However, any adverse effect of “missing” the emotion is minimized because the counselor phrased the reflection tentatively with “Seems like…” and then added a clarifying question at the end. Then, perhaps most important, when the client corrected the counselor, the counselor repaired the reflection to fit with the client’s emotional experience. From a psychoanalytic perspective, the repairing of emotional mirroring or empathy might be the most therapeutic part of listening (Kohut, 1984; see Practice and Reflection 4.3 to practice emotional responses to clients).
Reflections of feeling are often labeled as empathy. If only empathy were so simple. As Clark noted, “Rogers . . . was appalled by this . . . as the rich and nuanced process of empathy was reduced to trivial and repetitive expressions of a therapist identifying a client’s feelings” (p. 23). As we move forward through this chapter and other content on more directive interviewer responses, remember that empathy should be woven into nearly every therapist utterance, including confrontation, advice, and behavioral homework (Clark, 2023).
With clients, mental health professionals engage in emotional clarification, exploration, validation, and education. Your role varies depending on your clients’ needs and situation. As a technique, reflection of feeling aids clients in clarifying and exploring their emotions. For this chapter and reflection of feeling, the best path is a tentative one, wherein you function as a mirror to help clients experience and articulate their emotions with greater clarity. Doing so can serve to help clients explore and gain greater understanding of their emotional worlds. To accomplish your interviewing goals, you don’t need to know everything about the academic and popular debates over emotions; instead, you partner with clients to deepen your mutual understanding of the emotional experiences.
[Several pages of the text are skipped here]
Gender, Culture, and Emotion
Imagine you’re in an initial clinical interview with a Latino (he/him) cisgender male husband and father. He looks unhappy and your impression is that he’s angry about his wife’s employment outside the home. You’re aware that some Latine/x people have traditional ideas about male and female family roles. This knowledge provides you with a foundation for using a reflection of feeling to focus on his anger:
I’m getting the sense that you’re a little angry about your wife deciding to go back to work.
He responds,
Nah. She can do whatever she wants.
You hear his words. He seems to be empowering his wife to do as she pleases. But his voice is laden with annoyance. This leads you to try again to connect with him on a deeper level. You say,
Right. But I hear a little annoyance in your voice.
This reflection of feeling prompts an emotional response, but not the one you hoped for.
Sure. You’re right. I am annoyed. I’m fucking annoyed with you and the fact that you’re not listening to me and keep focusing on all this feelings shit.
This is a dreaded scenario for many clinicians. You take a risk to reflect what seems like an obvious emotion, and you get hostility in return. Your emotional sensitivity and effort at empathy backfires. The client moves to a defensive and aggressive place, and a relationship rupture occurs (see Chapter 7 for more on dealing with relationship ruptures).
It’s tempting to use culture and gender to explain this client’s negative reaction to your reflection of feeling. But it’s not that simple.
Although culture, gender, race, and other broad classification-based variables can sometimes predict whether specific clients will be comfortable with emotional expression, individual client differences are probably more substantial determinants. Comfort in expressing emotion is often a function of whether the client comes from a family-neighborhood-cultural context where emotional disclosure was a norm. For example, Knight (2014) reported that Black and Latino males who were unlikely to disclose to their peers attributed this tendency to their experiences living in violent communities. These young men learned that emotional expression and trusting others were bad ideas in their neighborhoods. Conversely, emotional disclosure is more likely in the comfort range of Black and Latine/x males raised in safer communities. This makes good common sense: Whether clients perceive you as safe to talk with about emotional concerns probably has more to do with their backgrounds and past experiences than you.
Overall, it’s likely that clients’ willingness to tolerate feeling reflections is based on a mix of their cultural, gender, and individual experiences. Although biogenetics may be involved too, how people handle emotions is largely socialized (McDermott et al., 2019). If you have reason to suspect that your client is socialized to be uncomfortable with emotions, you should avoid emotionally specific words. Examples of emotionally specific words include angry, sad, scared, and guilty.
Instead of emotionally specific words, you can substitute words that are emotionally vague (and less intense). Later, as trust develops, you might be able to use specific emotional words. Consider the following phrases:
You found that frustrating.
It seems like that bothered you a bit.
It’s a little upsetting to think about that.
Practice and Reflection 4.4 lists examples of emotionally vague words you might use instead of emotionally specific words.
PRACTICE AND REFLECTION 4.4: USING VAGUE AND EMOTIONALLY SAFE WORDS
Emotionally Specific Words
Substitute (Safer) Words
Angry
Frustrated, upset, bothered, annoyed
Sad
Down, bad, unlucky, “that sucked”
Scared
Bothered, “didn’t need that,” “felt like leaving”
Guilty
Bad, sorry, unfortunate, “bad shit”
Note: These words may work as substitutes for more emotionally specific words, but they also may not. It will be more effective for you to work with your classmates or in your work setting to generate less emotionally threatening words and phrases that are culturally and locally specific.
[End of Practice and Reflection 4.4]
Gender diverse clients may be emotionally sensitive in ways different than clients on the gender binary. Due to their neutrality, reflections of feeling—even when accurate—can be activating if clients are sensing you’re coming from a place of judgment. Consider the following:
Counselor: You said your family is rejecting your sexual identity, and you’re feeling terribly sad about that.
Client: Wouldn’t you?
When clients have a substantial history of interpersonal rejection, emotional invalidation, and/or oppression, neutral comments from clinicians can be perceived as judgmental. In this exchange, the counselor uses an accurate simple paraphrase along, with an emotional reflection, but the client feels judged and responds defensively. Given the client’s history, feeling judged in response to neutral reflections is natural. What the client needs (to feel connected and supported) is a response that’s explicitly affirming or validating (Alessi et al., 2019). In this case, at least until rapport is established, rather than a feeling reflection, the client would likely react better to a feeling validation (“Your sadness in response to your family’s rejection of your sexual identity seems totally normal”; see Chapter 5 for information on feeling validations).
*******************************
Thanks for reading. In the coming week, there will be additional posts on the basics and nuances of working with emotions in counseling and psychotherapy.
Imagine the possibility of a scalable single-session intervention that has been shown to be effective with a wide range of mental health issues. In these days of widespread mental health crisis and overwhelmed healthcare and mental health providers, you might think that effective single-session interventions are a fantasy. But maybe not.
This morning, my older daughter emailed me a link to two videos from the lab of Dr. Jessica Schleider of Northwestern University. Dr. Schleider’s focus is on single-session therapeutic interventions. Although I hadn’t seen the website and videos, I was familiar with Dr. Schleider’s work and am already a big fan. Just to give you a feel for the range and potential of single-session interventions, below I’m sharing a bulleted list of titles and dates of a few of Dr. Schleider’s recent publications:
Realizing the untapped promise of single‐session interventions for eating disorders – 2023
In-person 1-day cognitive behavioral therapy-based workshops for postpartum depression: A randomized controlled trial – 2023
A randomized trial of online single-session interventions for adolescent depression during COVID-19 – 2022
An online, single-session intervention for adolescent self-injurious thoughts and behaviors: Results from a randomized trial – 2021
A single‐session growth mindset intervention for adolescent anxiety and depression: 9‐month outcomes of a randomized trial – 2018
Reducing risk for anxiety and depression in adolescents: Effects of a single-session intervention teaching that personality can change – 2016
Single-session therapy or interventions aren’t for everyone. Many people need more. However, given the current mental health crisis and shortage of available counselors and psychotherapists, having a single-session option is a great thing. As you can see from the preceding list, single-session interventions have excellent potential for effectively treating a wide range of mental health issues. Given this good news about single-session interventions, I’m now sharing with you that link my daughter shared with me: https://www.schleiderlab.org/labdirector.html
I’ve been interested in single-session interventions for many years. Just in case you’re interested, here’s a copy of my first venture into single-session research (it’s an empirical evaluation of a single-session parenting consultation intervention, published in 2007).
John Sommers-Flanagan 