Tag Archives: Carl Rogers

Clinical Interviewing, Counseling and Psychotherapy Theory and Practice

Exploring Empathy — Part I

Leave a comment

Happy Saturday. This post is the first of a three-part preview of our discussion on Empathy from Clinical Interviewing, 5th Edition.

See: http://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Interviewing-2012-2013-John-Sommers-Flanagan/dp/1118390113/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

Empathic Understanding

Empathic understanding is a central concept in counseling and psychotherapy. Rogers (1980) defined empathy as:

. . . the therapist’s sensitive ability and willingness to understand the client’s thoughts, feelings, and struggles from the client’s point of view. [It is] this ability to see completely through the client’s eyes, to adopt his frame of reference, (p. 85) . . .  It means entering the private perceptual world of the other . . . being sensitive, moment by moment, to the changing felt meanings which flow in this other person. . . . It means sensing meanings of which he or she is scarcely aware. (p. 142)

Rogers’s definition of empathy is complex. It includes several components.

  • Therapist ability or skill
  • Therapist attitude or willingness
  • A focus on client thoughts, feelings, and struggles
  • Adopting the client’s frame of reference or perspective-taking
  • Entering the client’s private perceptual world
  • Moment-to-moment sensitivity to felt meanings
  • Sensing meanings of which the client is barely aware

A Deeper Look at Empathy

As with congruence and unconditional positive regard, the complexity of Rogers’s definition has made research on empathy challenging. Many different definitions of empathy have been articulated (Batson, 2009; Clark, 2010; Duan & Hill, 1996). According to Elliott, Bohart, Watson, & Greenberg (2011), recent advances in neuroscience have helped consolidate empathy definitions into three core subprocesses:

  1. Emotional simulation: This is a process that allows one person to experientially mirror another’s emotions. Emotional simulation likely involves mirror neurons and various brain structures within the limbic system (e.g., insula).
  2. Perspective-taking: This is a more intellectual or conceptual process that appears to involve the pre-frontal and temporal cortices.
  3. Emotion regulation: This involves a process of re-appraising or soothing of one’s own emotional reactions. It appears to be a springboard for a helping response. Emotional regulation may involve the orbitofrontal cortex and prefrontal and right inferior parietal cortices.

Empathy is an interpersonal process that requires experiencing, inference, and action. In chapter 1 we noted that playing a note on one violin will cause a string on another violin to vibrate as well, albeit at a lower level. In therapy, this has been referred to as resonance. Most people have had the experience of feeling tears well up at a movie or while someone talks about pain or trauma. This is the experiential component of empathy that Elliot et al., (2011) referred to as emotional simulation).

Beyond this physical/experiential resonance, one person cannot objectively know another person’s emotions and thoughts. Consequently, at some level, empathy always involves subjective inference. This process has been referred to as perspective-taking in the scientific literature and is considered a cognitive or intellectual requirement of empathy (Stocks, Lishner, Waits, & Downum, 2011).

Empathy—at least within the context of a clinical interview—also requires action. Therapists must cope with and process the emotions that are triggered and then provide an empathic response. Most commonly this involves reflection of feeling or feeling validation, but nearly every potential interviewing response or behavior can include verbal and nonverbal components that include empathy. The action component of empathy is likely what Elliot et al., are referring to with the term emotional regulation.

Simple guides to experiencing and expressing empathy can help you develop your empathic abilities. At the same time, we don’t believe any single strategy will help you develop the complete empathy package. For example, Carkhuff (1987) referred to the intellectual or perspective-taking part of empathy as “asking the empathy question” (p. 100). He wrote:

By answering the empathy question we try to understand the feelings expressed by our helpee. We summarize the clues to the helpee’s feelings and then answer the question, How would I feel if I were Tom and saying these things? (p. 101).

Carkhuff’s empathy question is a useful tool for tuning into client feelings, but it also oversimplifies the empathic process in at least two ways. First, it assumes therapists have a perfectly calibrated internal affective barometer. Unfortunately this is not the case as clients and therapists can have such different personal experiences that the empathy question produces completely inaccurate results; just because you would feel a particular way if you were in the client’s shoes doesn’t mean the client feels the same way. Sometimes empathic responses are a projection of the therapist’s feelings onto the client. If you rely solely on Carkhuff’s empathy question, you risk projecting your own feelings onto clients.

Consider what might happen if a therapist tends towards pessimism, while her client usually puts on a happy face. The following exchange might occur:

Client: “I don’t know why my dad wants us to come to therapy now and talk to each other. We’ve never been able to communicate. It doesn’t even bother me any more. I’ve accepted it. I wish he would accept it too.”

Therapist: “It must make you angry to have a father who can’t communicate effectively with you.”

Client: “Not at all. I’m letting go of my relationships with my parents. Really, I don’t let it bother me.”

In this case, asking the empathy question: “How would I feel if I could never communicate well with my father?” may produce angry feelings in the therapist. This process consequently results in the therapist projecting her own feelings onto the client—which turns out to be a poor fit for the client. Accurate empathic responding stays close to client word content and nonverbal messages. If this client had previously expressed anger or was looking upset or angry (e.g., angry facial expression, raised voice), the therapist might resonate with and choose to reflect anger. However, instead the therapist’s comment is inaccurate and is rejected by the client. The therapist could have stayed more closely with what her client expressed by focusing on key words. For example:

Coming into therapy now doesn’t make much sense to you. Maybe you used to have feelings about your lack of communication with your dad, but it sounds like at this point you feel pretty numb about the whole situation and just want to move on.

This second response is more accurate. It touches on how the client felt before, what she presently thinks, as well as the numbed affective response. The client may well have unresolved sadness, anger, or disappointment, but for the therapist to connect with these buried feelings requires a more interpretive intervention. Recall from Chapter 3 that interpretations and interpretive feeling reflections must be supported by adequate evidence.

To help with the intellectual process of perspective-taking, instead of focusing exclusively on what you’d feel if you were in your client’s shoes, you can expand your repertoire in at least three ways:

  1. Reflect on how other clients have felt or might feel
  2. Reflect on how your friends or family might feel and think in response to this particular experience
  3. Read and study about experiences similar to your clients’.

Based on Rogers’s writings, Clark (2010) referred to intellectual approaches to expanding your empathic understanding as objective empathy. Objective empathy involves using “theoretically informed observational data and reputable sources in the service of understanding a client” (Clark, 2010, p. 349). Objective empathy is based on the application of external knowledge to the empathic process—this can expand your empathic responding beyond your own personal experiences.

Rogers (1961) also emphasized that feeling reflections should be stated tentatively so clients can freely accept or dismiss them. Elliot et al., (2011) articulated the tentative quality of empathy very well: “Empathy should always be offered with humility and held lightly, ready to be corrected” (p. 147)

From a psychoanalytic perspective, it’s possible to show empathy not only for what clients are saying, but also for their defensive style (e.g., if they’re using defense mechanisms such as rationalization or denial, show empathy for those):

Client: “I don’t know why my dad wants us to come to therapy now. We’ve never been able to communicate. It doesn’t even bother me any more. I’ve accepted it. I wish he would.”

Therapist: “Coming into therapy now doesn’t make much sense to you. Maybe you had feelings about your lack of communication with your dad before, but it sounds like you feel pretty numb about the whole situation now.”

Client: “Yeah, I guess so. I think I’m letting go of my relationships with my parents. Really, I don’t let it bother me.”

Therapist: “Maybe one of the ways you protect yourself from feeling anything is to distance yourself from your parents. Otherwise, it could still bother you, I suppose.”

Client: “Yeah. I guess if I let myself get close to my parents again, my dad’s pathetic inability to communicate would bug me again.”

This client still has feelings about her father’s poor communication. One of the functions of accurate empathy is to facilitate the exploration of feelings or emotions (Greenberg, Watson, Elliot, & Bohart, 2001). By staying with the client’s feelings instead of projecting her own feelings onto the client, the therapist is more likely to facilitate emotional exploration.

A second way in which Carkhuff’s (1987) empathy question is simplistic is that it treats empathy as if it had to do only with accurately reflecting client feelings. Although accurate feeling reflection is an important part of empathy, as Rogers (1961) and others have discussed, empathy also involves thinking and experiencing with clients (Akhtar, 2007). Additionally, Rogers’s use of empathy with clients frequently focused less on emotions and more on meaning. Recall that in his original definition, Rogers wrote that empathy involved: “. . . being sensitive, moment by moment, to the changing felt meanings which flow in this other person. . .” (p. 142). And so empathic understanding is not simple, it involves feeling with, thinking with, sensing felt meanings, and reflecting all this and more back to the client with a humility that acknowledges deep respect for the validity of the client’s own experiences.

More to come on this tomorrow in “Exploring Empathy” Part II.

References

Akhtar, S. (Ed.). (2007). Listening to others: Developmental and clinical aspects of empathy and attunement Lanham, MD, US: Jason Aronson.

Carkhuff, R. R. (1987). The art of helping (6th ed.). Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press.

Clark, A. J. (2010). Empathy: An integral model in the counseling process. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88, 348-356.

Greenberg, L. S., Watson, J. C., Elliot, R., & Bohart, A. C. (2001). Empathy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 38(4), 380-384.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. R. (1980). A way of being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Stocks, E. L., Lishner, D. A., Waits, B. L., & Downum, E. M. (2011). I’m embarrassed for you: The effect of valuing and perspective taking on empathic embarrassment and empathic concern. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(1), 1-26. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00699.x

 

Clinical Interviewing

What I’m Writing Today: CI5 Chapter 5

2 Comments

With a February 1 deadline looming, I’m in all out writing and editing mode. Today’s topic: Congruence. Below is an excerpt from the draft of the upcoming 5th edition of Clinical Interviewing. I gotta say, Congruence and Carl Rogers—good stuff—way better than any NFL playoff games:). I know, Empathy would be a little better, but you can’t always get what you want.

Here’s a glimpse of the opening of chapter 5: Evidence-Based Relationships in the Clinical Interview

In 1957, Carl Rogers made a bold declaration that has profoundly shaped research and practice in counseling and psychotherapy. He hypothesized in a Journal of Consulting Psychology article that no techniques or methods were needed, that diagnostic knowledge was “for the most part, a colossal waste of time” (1957, p. 102), and that all that was necessary and sufficient for therapeutic change to occur was a certain type of relationship between therapist and client.

Although we could go back further in time and note that Freud (of course) had originally discussed the potential value of therapeutic relationships, Rogers’s revolutionary statements refocused the profession. Until Rogers, therapy was primarily about theoretically-based methods, techniques, and interventions. After Rogers {{365 Rogers 1961; 690 Rogers 1957; 363 Rogers 1942;}}, we began thinking and talking about the possibility that it might be the relationship between client and therapist—not necessarily the methods and techniques employed—that produced therapeutic change.

For years, a great debate has fulminated within the counseling and psychotherapy disciplines {{499 Wampold 2001;}}. Norcross and Lambert (2011) refer to this debate as “The culture wars in psychotherapy” (p. 3). They describe it as a polarization or dichotomy captured by the question: “Do treatments cure disorders or do relationships heal people?” (p. 3). As academics and professional organizations have engaged in this debate, typically there has been little room for moderation and common sense. There have been assertions about the “rape” of psychotherapy as well as strong criticisms of practitioners who blithely ignore important empirical research {{4453 Baker,Timothy B. 2008; 5969 Fox, Ronald E. 1995;}}. The heat of this controversy continues, in part, because we live in a world with limited health care dollars . . . and the fight to determine which forms of therapy are included as “valid” and therefore reimbursable will likely continue.

But the focus of this chapter is about a part of the controversy that’s really no longer a controversy at all. In the past two decades excellent research and research reviews have settled at least one dimension of the argument. Evidence now overwhelming shows that therapy relationships do contribute to positive outcomes across all forms of therapy and setting {{2241 Goldfried 2007; 285 Sommers-Flanagan 2007; 4074 Norcross 2011;}}. The question is no longer a matter of whether the relationship in counseling and psychotherapy matters, but how much it matters.

This chapter focuses on what has come to be known as “evidence-based therapy relationships” {{5958 Norcross 2011;}}. Although organized around specific theories and supporting research, the chapter also provides clinical examples for how the theories and evidence translate into specific evidence-based relationship facilitating behaviors that occur in the clinical interview.

Carl Rogers’s Core Conditions

Carl Rogers (1942) believed that the necessary and sufficient therapeutic relationship consisted of three core conditions: (a) congruence, (b) unconditional positive regard, and (c) empathic understanding. In his words:

Thus, the relationship which I have found helpful is characterized by a sort of transparency on my part, in which my real feelings are evident; by an acceptance of this other person as a separate person with value in his own right; and by a deep empathic understanding which enables me to see his private world through his eyes. When these conditions are achieved, I become a companion to my client, accompanying him in the frightening search for himself, which he now feels free to undertake. (Rogers, 1961, p. 34)

Congruence

Congruence means that a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors match. Based on person-centered theory and therapy, congruence is less a skill and more an experience. Congruent therapists are described as genuine, authentic, and comfortable with themselves. Congruence includes spontaneity and honesty; it’s usually associated with the clinical skill of immediacy and involves some degree of self-disclosure (see Chapter 4).

Congruence is complex and has been described as “abstract and elusive” {{5961 Kolden, Gregory G. 2011;}} (p. 187). The ability to be congruent includes an internal dimension that involves clients being in touch with their inner feelings or real self plus an external or expressive dimension that involves therapists’ being able to articulate their internal experiences in ways that clients can understand. The following excerpt from Rogers’s work illustrates these internal and external dimensions of experiencing and expressing congruence:

We tend to express the outer edges of our feelings. That leaves us protected and makes the other person unsafe. We say, “This and this (which you did) hurt me.” We do not say, “This and this weakness of mine made me be hurt when you did this and this.”

To find this inward edge of my feelings, I need only ask myself, “Why?” When I find myself bored, angry, tense, hurt, at a loss, or worried, I ask myself, “Why?” Then, instead of “You bore me,” or “this makes me mad,” I find the “why” in me which makes it so. That is always more personal and positive, and much safer to express. Instead of “You bore me,” I find, “I want to hear more personally from you,” or, “You tell me what happened, but I want to hear also what it all meant to you.” (pp. 390-391)

Rogers also emphasized that congruent expression is important even if it consists of attitudes, thoughts, or feelings that don’t, on the surface, appear conducive to a good relationship. He’s suggesting that it’s acceptable—and even good—to speak about things that are difficult to talk about. However, as you can see from the preceding example, Rogers expected therapists to look inward and transform their negative feelings into more positive external expressions of congruence.

Guidelines for Using Congruence

When discussing congruence, students often wonder how this concept is manifest. Common questions include:

  • Does congruence mean I say what I’m really thinking in the session?
  • If I feel sexually attracted to a client, should I be “congruent” and share my feelings?
  • If I feel like touching a client, should I go ahead and touch?
  • What if I don’t like something a client does? Am I being incongruent if I don’t express my dislike?

These are important questions. Watson, Greenberg, & Lietaer {{4387 Greenberg,Leslie S. 1998;}} provided one way for determining the appropriateness of therapist transparency or congruence. They wrote: “. . . it is not necessary to share every aspect of [your] experience but only those that [you] feel would be facilitative of [your] clients’ work” (p. 9). This is a good initial guideline: Would the disclosure be facilitative? In fact, sometimes, too much self-disclosure—even in the service of congruence or authenticity—can muddy the assessment or therapeutic focus. Perhaps the key point is to maintain balance; the old psychoanalytic model of therapist as a blank screen can foster distrust, reluctance, and resistance, while too much self-disclosure can distort and degrade the therapeutic focus {{2454 Farber 2006;}}.

Rogers also suggested limits on congruence. He directly stated that therapy wasn’t a time for clinicians to talk about their own feelings:

Certainly the aim is not for the therapist to express or talk about his own feelings, but primarily that he should not be deceiving the client as to himself. At times he may need to talk about some of his own feelings (either to the client, or to a colleague or superior) if they are standing in the way. (pp. 133–134) {{760 Rogers 1958;}}

Let’s say you’re working with a client and you feel the impulse to congruently self-disclose in the moment. If you’re not sure your comment will be facilitative or whether it will keep the focus on the client (where the therapy focus belongs), then you shouldn’t disclose. Additionally, you should discuss ongoing struggles with self-disclosure with your peers or supervisors because by so doing, you’ll deepen your learning about how best to be congruent with clients.

Since the 1960s, feminist therapists have strongly advocated congruence or authenticity in interviewer-client relations. Brody {{331 Brody 1984;}} described the range of responses that an authentic therapist might use:

To be involved, to use myself as a variable in the process, entails using, from time to time, mimicry, provocation, joking, annoyance, analogies, or brief lectures. It also means utilizing my own and others’ physical behavior, sensations, emotional states, and reactions to me and others, and sharing a variety of intuitive responses. This is being authentic. (p. 17)

Brody is advocating many sophisticated and advanced therapeutic strategies; but keep in mind that she’s an experienced clinician. Authentic or congruent approaches to interviewing are best if combined with good clinical judgment, which is obtained, in part, through clinical experience.