Today I found a creepy AI audio summary of the 3rd edition of our theories text. Maybe I should have liked it, because it was super-glowing. But the AI voice overweening on my behalf felt wrong.
In contrast, the following content is real and excerpted from our forthcoming 4th edition of Counseling and Psychotherapy Theories in Context and Practice
To continue with the creepy, the following is what was generated when I asked ChatGPT to create an image of itself.
********************************
Theories and lenses are tools we use to make sense of our complicated world. We’re not saying that the world is more complicated in 2026 than it was 23 years ago, when the first version of this text was published, but the proliferation of information in the modern digital age means that there’s more to sift through than our brains can handle. We hope this text provides you with intellectual structure, insights, practical tools, and fun companionship on your road to understanding and engaging in counseling and psychotherapy.
While walking across the University of Montana campus the other day (which is beautiful on any day, but especially during the fall here in Montana), we noticed an annual tradition on campus had recurred—a fresh, large, orange pumpkin was placed on the top of a spire on University Hall, over 100 feet above the ground, just in time for Halloween. The impossibly steep roof of the clock tower, and the brazenness of putting a fresh gourd up there each year (for decades!) leads to speculation—let’s call them theories—about how a pumpkin could possibly make it on top of the spire.
Is it a renegade group of rock climbers who scale the building each October? Is the University somehow complicit in keeping the tradition alive while sternly warning students not to climb the building? With advancements in drone technology, has someone figured out how to hoist a heavy pumpkin and drop it on that precise point? Is it a 3-D optical phenomenon that doesn’t exist other than in socially constructed reality?
Which theory is correct? But what if it’s not one theory; maybe the pumpkin tradition has evolved over time. After decades of being on campus, our guess is, we’ll never know. The same is probably true with theories and lenses of counseling. We’ll never know—for certain—if the perspective we take is “the correct” one. The best we can do is continue learning about human behavior and the theories that explain it and do our best for our clients by using lenses and theories to help understand their unique situations and help make things better. The pumpkin problem is much easier.
We encourage you to carry theories and lenses from this textbook around with you to help you to make sense of the world—not just in terms of counseling and therapy, but in terms of understanding complexities of the world we live in. At a time where there’s a tendency to over-rely on artificial intelligence to get “the answer” to your questions, playing with different theories is good for your neural connectivity—and probably good for your clients’ well-being, because embracing and valuing different perspectives is good for all of us as we try to navigate this wildly complex world.
* * * some content is skipped here * * *
We believe in several things: First, we cannot help but be affected by contemporary socio-cultural-political events. Second, regardless of socio-cultural-political movements, the counseling and psychotherapy space needs to be safe, sacred, and inclusive for everyone, and especially people with limited resources, diverse identities, and a history of distress or trauma. Third, although we talk about creating a safe space for clients to explore their lives, our offices are not instantly safe, and simply saying the words, “this is a safe space” won’t magically create trust and safety. We need work with clients to, over time, make it experientially safe.
We hope you can use the theories in this text to create and support an inclusive psychotherapy where positive and transformative work happens.
WHAT’S NEW IN THE FOURTH EDITION?
We’ve been receiving solicited and unsolicited feedback on this “Theories text” since 2003. Most of the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. At conferences, people often approach us and say how much they love this book. They love the anecdotes, our irreverent attitudes, and our occasional efforts at humor. Yes, we believe this theories text is the funniest one on the market. Positive feedback from students and faculty has been incredibly affirming, mostly because our primary goals were to create an engaging, interesting, and practical theories text.
As a side note, we recognize there’s not much competition for funniest theories book on the market. But if there was a formal theories textbook humor competition, we would win hands down.
We’ve also received constructive feedback. Although less affirming, constructive feedback is essential to our personal and professional growth and development. We’ve tried to use constructive feedback to create an even better textbook. We invite you to provide us with whatever type of feedback you like.
So. . .what’s new in the Fourth Edition?
To add perspective to the text, we added a co-author. Bryan Cochran is a professor of psychology and LGBTIQ+ scholar. His voice and perspective are woven into every chapter, but especially our two new chapters. In chapter 2, Bryan describes several lenses that influence how we all practice counseling and psychotherapy. These lenses include: (a) Critical race theory; (b) Queer theory; (c) Intersectionality, and (d) a few other important contemporary perspectives. These lenses are not counseling or psychotherapy theories, but they can and should be used with theories and evidence-based approaches to make us more sensitive, humble, and competent in working with all clients.
In chapter 13, Bryan takes us on a deep dive into third wave behavioral treatments. These treatments include:
Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR),
Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT),
Prolonged exposure (PE), and
The unified protocol (UP).
Each of these treatments incorporate mindfulness; they also have substantial empirical support. Learning about them will make you a better therapist.
To better address culture and social justice issues, we’ve done what Derald Wing Sue recommended 15 years ago. We eliminated the “multicultural chapter” and distributed cultural and diversity content throughout the other chapters, with a big emphasis in chapter 2. Our goal was to more fully integrate diversity into all theoretical approaches. We look forward to hearing from you regarding whether we accomplished that goal.
As before, every chapter includes sub-sections titled (a) cultural sensitivity, (b) gender and sexuality, and (c) spirituality. As it turns out, we still haven’t discovered the neurological basis of everything, but apparently folks are still trying. Neuroscience is featured in chapter 1 and incorporated throughout the text via the “Brain Box” feature that appears in most chapters.
WORDS TO (and from) THE WISE
* * * some content is skipped here * * *
Language is liberating and activating. Although we’ve done our best to follow professional language guidelines, no doubt, sometimes you will react to our language choices, our examples, and our content. If we were in the same room as you as you had an emotional reaction, we would say something like, “Thank you for your passion.” And then we would do our best to non-defensively explore your reaction and our language, example, or content. If you engage in class discussions with classmates (or your instructor) about this text, we hope you will afford each other mutual respect and compassion for the emotions that can and will arise from studying counseling and psychotherapy.
But these posts are more than just about counseling and psychotherapy theories. They’re also about life. My first title was something like, “Things Everyone Should Know about Counseling and Psychotherapy Theories.” So, for episode one of the Theories Series, I’ve used both titles. Going forward, it will just be the Theories Series.
Each Theories Series episode will include an excerpt from our forthcoming 4th edition of our textbook, Counseling and Psychotherapy Theories in Context and Practice. As you may have heard, our theories text is, hands down, the funniest theories text on the market. As you may have also heard, the bar for producing the funniest theories text is rather low.
Here we go. The jokes are free, so they may also be worthless.
Many students ask us, “Should I get a PhD in psychology, a master’s degree in counseling, or a master’s in social work?”
This question usually brings forth a lengthy response, during which we not only explain the differences between these various degrees but also discuss additional career information pertaining to the PsyD degree, psychiatry, school counseling, school psychology, and psychiatric nursing. This sometimes leads to the confusing topic of the differences between counseling and psychotherapy. If time permits, we also share our thoughts about less-confusing topics, like the meaning of life.
The famous strategic therapist Jay Haley (1977) was once asked: “In relation to being a successful therapist, what are the differences between psychiatrists, social workers, and psychologists?” He responded: “Except for ideology, salary, status, and power, the differences are irrelevant” (p. 165). Many different professional tracks lead toward becoming a successful mental health professional—despite a few ideological, salary, status, and power differences.
In this section, we explore three challenging questions: What is psychotherapy? What is counseling? And what are the differences between the two?
[the excerpt skips some ground here]
A Working Definition of Counseling and Psychotherapy
Counseling and psychotherapy are mostly similar and often overlapping. Therefore, we use the words counseling and psychotherapy interchangeably. Sometimes we use the word therapy as a generic term representing psychosocial interventions.
To capture the natural complexity of this thing we call counseling or psychotherapy, we offer a 12-part working definition of counseling and psychotherapy. Counseling or psychotherapy is:
(a) a process that involves (b) a trained professional who abides by (c) accepted ethical guidelines and has (d) competencies for working with (e) diverse individuals who are in distress or have life problems that led them to (f) seek help (possibly at the insistence of others) or they may be (g) seeking personal growth, but either way, these parties (h) establish an explicit agreement (informed consent) to (i) work together (more or less collaboratively) toward (j) mutually acceptable goals (k) using theoretically based or evidence-based procedures that, in the broadest sense, have been shown to (l) facilitate human learning or human development or reduce disturbing symptoms.
Although this definition is long and multifaceted, it’s still probably insufficient. For example, it wouldn’t fit self-administered therapies, such as self-analysis or self-hypnosis—although we’re quite certain that if you read through this definition several times, you’re likely to experience a self-induced hypnotic trance.
*************************************
Hahaha. People come for the theories, but they stay for the jokes.
We’re in the throes of editing our Theories text, meaning I’m so deep into existential, feminist, and third wave counseling and psychotherapy theories that I may have lost myself. If any of you find me somewhere on the street babbling about Judith Jordan and Frantz Fanon and Bryan Cochran, please guide me home.
This brings me to a big ask.
As part of 4th wave feminism, we’re more deeply integrating intersectionality into the practice of feminist therapy. Among other things, intersectionality is about identity. I’m interested in using a variation of Irvin Yalom’s “Who are you?” group technique to explore identity in anyone willing to respond to this post.
To participate, follow these instructions.
Clear a space for thinking, writing, and exploring your identity.
Ask yourself the question: “Who am I?” and write down the response as it flows into your brain/psyche.
Repeat this process nine more times, for a total of 10 responses, numbering each response. One rule about this: You can’t use the same response twice.
After you finish your list of 10, write a paragraph or two about how you were affected by this activity.
If you’re comfortable sharing, send me your list of 10 identities along with your reflections (email: john.sf@mso.umt.edu). If you prefer the more public route, you can post your responses here on my blog. Either way, because I’m in 24/7 theories mode, you may not hear back from me until middle November!
There’s a chance I might want to quote one or more of you in the theories text, instructor’s manual, student guide, or in this blog. If that’s the case, I will email you and request permission.
Thanks for considering this activity and request. Identity and identity development are fascinating. Whether we’re talking about multiple identities (intersectionality), emotions and behaviors (Blake), or the “microbes within us” (Yong), we all contain multitudes.
At long last, we’ve begun work on revising our Counseling and Psychotherapy Theories text for its 4th edition. Over the past several weeks, I’ve been putting in an hour or two a day, chipping away on chapter revisions, reaching out to reviewers, and planning with our new and very exciting co-author, Dr. Bryan Cochran, a highly esteemed psychology professor at the University of Montana. If you’re reading this, I want you to know of Bryan’s awesomeness (and if you’re Bryan, I want you to feel the pressure of this public announcement of your awesomeness) [hahahaha!]
You all probably know that our Theories textbook is far and away the Theories textbook with the most hilarity. No doubt, this is a rather low bar, given that I can’t find any funny stories in any other theories texts. We view theories hilarity to be extremely important in a theories text, because reading many theories texts can parallel the proverbial experience of watching paint dry.
Bryan’s addition to the writing team will give us something we need—an expert in the LGBTQ+ domain, and someone with a talent for telling stories that are simultaneously engaging, informative, and fun to read. Right now, he’s busy writing a “Lenses” chapter (to be Chapter 2) to orient readers to important theory-related lenses like (a) Queer theory, (b) Critical Race theory, (c) Intersectionality, and more. I, for one, can hardly wait for his Queer theory quips.
News Flash: In the past, I’ve put out broad calls for chapter reviewers. This time, I’m being selective and directly asking prominent theories experts to review chapters and offer guidance. Some examples: For the Adlerian chapter we’ve got Marina Bluvshtein (woohoo!) and Jon Sperry (wow!). For the Psychoanalytic chapter, we got Nancy McWilliams (amazing!) and Pratyusha Tammala-Narra (fantastic!).
If you happen to be a specific theories subject matter expert, you should email me at john.sf@mso.umt.edu to get in on the fun. Or if you have a prominent theories friend/colleague to recommend, have them email me.
As one last theories teaser, below I’m pasting a few excerpts from Nancy McWilliams’s 2021 article titled, “Diagnosis and Its Discontents: Reflections on Our Current Dilemma.” I love this article as it gives a glimpse into problems with contemporary diagnoses and how psychodynamic therapists use individualized assessment in ways to honor the real-life complexities clients bring into psychotherapy. The excerpts below are from her article, which is linked at the end of this post.
On Labeling
The idea that one is anxious (or depressed or obsessive) about something that has meaning is being lost. Fitting an individual into a category tends to foreclose exploration of what is unique to a patient; it especially prevents insights into unexpected aspects of a person’s psychology or exploration of areas that are felt as shameful – the very areas that are of particular value in planning and carrying out psychotherapy.
On the vexing ways in which patients think about themselves and their diagnoses
It used to be that a socially avoidant woman would come for therapy saying something like, “I’m a painfully shy person, and I need help learning how to deal better with people in social situations.” Now a person with that concern is likely to tell me that she “has” social phobia – as if an alien affliction has invaded her otherwise problem-free subjective life. People talk about themselves in acronyms oddly dissociated from their lived experience: “my OCD,” “my eating disorder,” “my bipolar.” There is an odd estrangement from one’s sense of an agentic self, including one’s own behavior, body, emotional and spiritual life, and felt suffering, and consequently one’s possibilities for solving a problem. There is a passive quality in many individuals currently seeking therapy, as if they feel that the prototype for making an internal psychological change is to describe their symptoms to an expert and wait to be told what medicine to take, what exercises to do, or what self-help manual to read.
On “chemical imbalances”
. . . viewing psychological suffering as a set of disorders that can be fixed or improved chemically can easily invite the obverse assumption that those painful experiences are ultimately caused by random or genetically based chemical differences among individuals. This is a false conclusion, of course, something like saying that because marijuana improves appetite, the cause of low appetite is lack of marijuana. But it is nevertheless a frequent leap of illogic – in the thinking of nonprofessionals and of some professionals as well – to ascribe much severe psychological suffering to a “chemical imbalance.” Such a construction tempts us to ignore all the painful other sources of psychological suffering, such as poverty, neglect, trauma, and the myriad ways in which human beings can injure each other psychologically.
On not overgeneralizing research findings/recommendations to unique patients
. . . consider patients at the extreme end of the obsessive-compulsive continuum, whose obsessions border on delusional beliefs, who suffer profound annihilation anxiety, who wholeheartedly believe they will die if they fail to carry out their rituals, and who regard the therapist with suspicion for not sharing their conviction – in other words, the subgroup of obsessive patients that Kernberg (1984) would consider as psychologically organized at the low borderline or psychotic level. My experience suggests that with this group exposure therapy not only fails, it demoralizes the patients, makes them feel like failures personally, and kills any hope they may have that psychotherapy can help. It also demoralizes therapists, who have been told again and again that exposure therapy is the treatment of choice for OCD. If they believe their teachers, such clinicians can easily conclude they are simply not good enough therapists.
If I’ve piqued your interest in “Diagnosis and its discontents” by Nancy McWilliams, here’s a pdf of the article.
I’ve got two events coming up, one sooner and one later.
This Friday, I’m doing the closing talk for Tamarack’s Grief Institute (which is on Thursday and Friday in Missoula, and available online too!).
This is late notice, as the end of day tomorrow (March 3) is the registration deadline. The whole Institute is worth attending. The fantastic Dr. Joyce Mphande-Finn kicks things off on Thursday morning. Then, the amazing Dr. Micki Burns takes over . . . and I’ll be bringing it home Friday afternoon. Check it out. Here’s a registration link:
This June, I have the incredible fortune of joining Dr. Jeff Linkenbach and the renowned Montana Summer Institute in Big Sky, Montana (and Livestream) from June 17-20. Here’s a description of what’s happening!
Reimagining Community Health:
Uncovering Positive Norms and & Activating Hidden
Protective Factors
In Big Sky, Montana and via Livestream: June 17-20, 2025
Join us at the 2025 Montana Summer Institute for three and a half transformative days dedicated to advancing community well-being. Through thought-provoking keynotes, interactive workshops, and engaging discussions, you’ll explore innovative strategies that leverage positive norms and amplify protective factors.
Learn to uncover hidden community strengths, identify untapped opportunities, and craft impactful communications that drive meaningful change. With insights from leading experts and experienced practitioners, you’ll gain practical tools to reimagine your approach to data, messaging, and the people you serve—all through a positive, effective frame.
Don’t miss this opportunity to expand your expertise, deepen your impact, and shape healthier, more resilient communities. For more information, visit www.montanainstitute.com
Is there any chance you will join us in June? It would be wonderful to have you there! Here is the Montana Discount Code to give $100 off the price: MSIMONT which would give $100 off registration
***********************
And here’s a fancy flyer for the Montana Summer Institute:
This post is for my Chinese friends, or my friends who speak Mandarin . . . or anyone who wants to read about the process of self-evaluation, the pain of self-reflection, and personal/professional growth.
Last year I was asked to participate as a psychotherapist for the One-Way Mirror Project. The project was inspired by the old and now classic “Three Approaches to Psychotherapy” videos. Not surprisingly, I was honored to be asked to participate, and said yes despite a number of challenging factors, including doing therapy late at night with a Chinese woman via Zoom. I share this because this post is about transparency and so I’m transparently beginning by making excuses for not being the best therapist I imagine myself to be.
Here’s the scenario: One session. Minimal pre-meeting information. Post-session viewing (by me) and commentary on my performance. One other therapist also met with the same client. I get to watch his session; he gets to watch mine. We then have a Zoom meeting to debrief and share our thoughts about our respective sessions (mine was in English; his was in Mandarin).
This was a super-interesting process.
Below, I’m sharing my written self-reflection comments. There’s also a video version . . . which is similar to, but not verbatim from, these notes. The comments are numbered sequentially.
I hope you enjoy this self-reflection/analysis. Thanks for reading.
John S-F – Commentary on His Session with Evelyn
My first reaction to watching this video of myself was embarrassment. I’m sharing this reaction because it’s true. I don’t want to pretend that I think this is a particularly good session.
That said, I also don’t think it was a particularly bad session. I did some things well, and some things less well. In this commentary I will try to describe: (a) what I’m doing (or trying to do), especially from different theoretical perspectives, (b) how Evelyn is responding, (c) what I’m doing well and what I’m doing that’s much less good.
In critiquing my own work, I’m also hoping to connect with all of you. Whether you’re a beginning student or an experienced professional psychotherapist, watching ourselves and hearing ourselves can be humbling and embarrassing. It’s natural for all of us to make mistakes and be imperfect . . . and in this session I do an excellent job of being imperfect😊. . . so much so that while watching the video, during several points I kept shouting at myself to “shut up!” So, that’s a glimpse into one thing I would change about MY behavior in this session. Although I’m okay with being imperfect, I’m not very comfortable with being as imperfect as I was in this session.
How I Work – 0:10 – This explanation has three main goals. First, I’m showing transparency, which is consistent with person-centered and feminist therapies. Second, I’m explaining the process of our session, which is a role induction designed to help clarify expectations. Third, I’m including an invitation for collaboration.
SFBT Opening Question – 1:30 – “If we have a useful meeting, what will we accomplish?” This is a goal-oriented question to help me be more aware of Evelyn’s vision of a successful session.
Evelyn’s Goal – 1:50 – Evelyn says she wants a “different perspective” of what she’s worried about.
JSF’s Goal – In a single session treatment, and maybe most therapy sessions, it’s best to begin with what the client wants. Evelyn’s goal is a “cognitive goal.” In this moment, I decide to go with George Kelly’s “Credulous approach to assessment,” which essentially means “believe the client.” That could be a variation of Carl Rogers’s assertion that we should “Trust the client, because the client knows what hurts and where to go.” JSF – Your goal is my goal, as long as it’s legal and healthy.”
What I Know – 2:25 – This is another effort to be like Carl Rogers and show transparency.
Feelings and Thoughts Around That – 3:00 – Here, I’m trying to prompt her to explore feelings and/or thoughts. She says, “So many worries overwhelming” and talks about not knowing what is overwhelming and then references social media, and four main issues/worries: (a) Fitness/body image/comparison, (b) feelings of unfairness related to gender issues, (c) she loves her partner, but “he is a man” (with sarcasm, implying he therefore cannot understand), (d) humiliation linked to breasts filling with milk involuntarily.
A Broad Summary/Paraphrase – I respond with an accurate summary of her four “feelings and thoughts”
“You can choose; I cannot” – 7:10 – Evelyn focuses on the inherent sex/gender unfairness as related to having a baby. In response, we discuss the burden of social responsibility and how she has internalized societal expectations around being a woman.
May I Share an Observation? – 8:30 – At this point, I try to be a mirror that reflects back to Evelyn what I’m experiencing as one of her positive attributes or strengths. When working across cultures, it’s especially important to be affirming of client strengths. I end this reflection using first-person pronouns—which is a language skill that Rogers used and called “Walking within” – 9:10
Evelyn Continues – 10:45 – to talk about feeling powerless and influenced by her age, generation, societal expectations, and then notes that she wants to “make peace with what she wants to be and what she can be.” The thought of having a baby is a particular trigger for her anxious thoughts and fears. – 11:15
An Intellectual Grasp – 12:15 – I observe that Evelyn has a good intellectual grasp of feminism and of her internalized expectations about how women should be.
A Reflection and SFBT Question – 12:35–13:29 – Using too many words, I finally get out a “Unique outcomes” question: “How have you dealt with internalized fears and conflicts before?”
I Love That Question – 13:35 – Evelyn reflects on a story from age 24 and provides examples of how she felt time running out, dated like crazy, was very brave, and fought back toward her goal of a loving relationship even after having her heart broken.
How did you manage? – 15:03 – I continue to pursue Evelyn’s pre-existing strengths and insights around, with a bit of a focus on what motivated her to “fight back.”
As a Good Therapist – 15:35 – Evelyn expresses motivation to be a good therapist and that requires expansive live experiences.
Anything Else Pull You – 16:54 – Evelyn shares an early fear of death, noting, after an anecdote, that her class presentation on death left her feeling “more lonely (or different) than ever.” – 17:54. [not psychoanalytic]
I Reflect – 18:30 – Being a better therapist and fear of death motivate her to live a life full of experiences.
Imagine self at end of life – 19:00 – Found someone I love and would like to have a child. I want to try it. That would complete my experience. – 19:30
Values vs. Anxieties – 19:55 – Still feel anxieties. “I have to carry a child” etc. . . walking within. Amplifying expectations so she can hear them.
That’s my barrier –
Fought those off those expectations before – 20:45 – And yet . . . you have fought off expectations before. What makes you think you will be a victim to those expectations in the future? Here, I’m trying to identify what CBT people might consider an “irrational” or “maladaptive” thought/belief that doesn’t have much evidence to support it. Also, exception. . .
Focus on the Physical/Somatic – 22:25 – Evelyn notes this task is “harder” and supports that with physical changes she’s experiencing with aging. . . and I interpret that as “Anticipatory grief” regarding her physical decline [this is likely death anxiety too]
Self-Disclosure – 23:40 – May I share something? “I have a 35-y/o daughter with similar issues.” [Too many words! Should have stopped when Evelyn laughed and put her hand to her face and then explored her initial reaction]. I finally get to “What’s your reaction?” [Late, but I got there]. She says . . . and this is potentially central to “one” therapy goal: “I feel, like, less lonely.” [Again, I should just stop there or repeat it back. . . or “What’s it like inside to feel less lonely?”].
Curious about what I could learn from her – 25:35 – I turn this around. Why? Because I want her to value herself as a source of wisdom.
When I share with my partner – 26:25 – She notes “he can relate” and that “men are limited.” [This could have been good transference exploration or Adlerian basic mistake]
Session shift to “so much feeling” – 27:16 – Evelyn is talking about her emotionality, I’m reflecting ok. More on unfairness, but notes BF is pretty accepting. I do a strength-based reflection, “Openness, strength, do not run from feelings!” This is a little CBT as I want her to “perceive” herself with more strengths to cope with her future challenges.
Thoughts about yourself? – 31:00 – I’ve been working on some CBT stuff and now am shifting back to the important self-evaluation process. Her response is constructive as she describes lots of planning she has already done for this coming year.
I want to hear out my fears – 32:10 – This is a great insight on her part. It prompts me to have her listen to her fears in the here and now. Evelyn responds [33:10] that she likes that question and explores, perhaps with a tiny bit of surprise, that her fears are not harsh, but more of a gentle reminder to not have regrets. [Here, I could and probably should have had her get deeper into here and now processing. “Let’s have you hear the gentle voice of your fear right now. What’s it saying to you? Say it as if you are the fear. Also, could have used repetition.]
Reflections and WW – I stay with the themes and use WW to keep bringing them back. Why? In part, desensitization. Hearing her anxiety-producing words in a potentially trusting/comforting setting can take some edge or power out of them [MCJ – 1924]. She says, somewhat conclusively, “Sounds like fear just wants me to get prepared and not critique.” [One thought, I could have been her child and asked her to tell me what she has learned.]
Evelyn asks JSF Q – 36:28 – This is one place where I fall off the rails. She asked me a question and my obnoxious, intellectual, professor-self emerges. . . for far too long. [I could have said, “I have some thoughts about that, but I’d like to hear yours first.”] Instead, JSF blah, blah, blah, and to compound the error, I do not check in on her reaction.
Evelyn continues exploring – 40:52 – She notes Yuval Harrare and feminism as a new way to resolve conflicts without war. I do manage to shift back to listening with a pretty good paraphrase: “Communication with your partner may be your best way to grow and develop and maintain your feminist identity through childbirth and your relationship.”
Evelyn recognizes perfect equality not possible – 42:35 – JSF “Love what you said. What do you think? How does it feel?” [2 Qs, boo, but my focus on her self-evaluation is still pretty solid.] I continue with “What’s your assessment of yourself and your communication skills?” I’m hoping she can express trust in her communication skills.
Non-violent communication as restraint – 46:00 – This is an interesting side road where E says, “Sometimes I just want to be violent and like a child” and notes that she prefers “emotionally charged communication.” She finds emotions and aggressive communication to be helpful. [Note: at this point I’m beginning to feel time pressure. No time to go deeper. If more sessions, I’d earmark this and close. Instead, I ask, “Is it ok to have both” (nonviolent and emotional communication) as a quick prompt toward integration.
Moving toward closing – 49:00 – I’ve lost track of time because of early tech problems. I’d like to think that’s my excuse for ending poorly. First, I begin a summary. This isn’t good. It’s MY summary . . . and I should be asking for HER summary before offering mine. I’m far too verbal. The content isn’t terrible.
Thank-you so much – 52:45 – She’s tracking time, and this should be it. I’m not. And do another disclosure and ask for her summary.
Sorry for all the posts, but apparently there’s lots happening in early 2025.
The big NEWS post won’t be until tomorrow.
As you know, on this Friday, January 10, I’ll be doing an online, two-hour workshop on Strategies for Integrating Traditional and Strengths-Based Approaches to Suicide for the Cognitive Behavior Institute.
I’m posting the workshop handouts here, in advance, for anyone interested.
Every day, I keep getting older. I can’t seem to stop myself. And every day, I keep running into dialectics. They’re everywhere. My aging experiences of ubiquitous dialectics seems consistent with the fact that yesterday, Merriam-Webster declared “polarization” their word of the year (https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/word-of-the-year).
Boo, Merriam-Webster! I would have chosen dialectics. Here’s one of the definitions for dialectic listed in the online M-W dictionary: “the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite.” TBH, I have very little understanding of what the heck Hegel was talking about, but I’m pretty sure it’s happening ALL. THE. TIME.
This morning I find myself plagued by the idea that although most mental health professionals advocate mindfulness, many mental health professionals (including myself, sometimes), aren’t very mindful when using basic counseling skills in practice. Today’s topic is questions. I’m polarized inside a dialectical and thinking, “We should all be more mindful and intentional in our use of questions in counseling and psychotherapy.” At the same time, I’m sure, “we should all relax and be more of ourselves.”
With these confusing caveats in mind, today, tomorrow, and maybe the next day, I’m posting about the very basic use of questions in counseling and psychotherapy. This content is excerpted from our Clinical Interviewing textbook.
Here’s our opening section on questions, which is conveniently found in Chapter 5 of Clinical Interviewing, which I’m continually surprised that not everyone has read (but really not at all surprised).
**************************************
Questions
Imagine digging a hole without a shovel or building a house without a hammer. For many clinicians, conducting an interview without using questions constitutes an analogous problem: How can you complete the interviewing task without using your most basic tool?
Despite the central role of questions in clinical interviewing, we’ve avoided discussing them until now. Similarly, when teaching clinical interviewing skills, we usually prohibit question asking for a significant portion of the course (J. Sommers-Flanagan & Means, 1987). Our rationale includes several factors: Questions are easy and often misused. Also, because questioning isn’t the same thing as listening, our goal is for students to develop alternative information-gathering strategies. Asking questions can get in the way of gathering important information from clients. The Little Prince expresses a fundamental problem with excessive questioning.
Grown-ups love figures. When you tell them that you have made a new friend, they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you, “What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies?” Instead, they demand: “How old is he? How many brothers has he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make?” Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him. (de Saint-Exupéry, 1943/1971, p. 17)
The questions you ask may be of no value to the person being asked. Ideally, your questions should focus on what seems most important to clients.
Despite our reservations about excessive questioning, questions are a diverse and flexible interviewing tool; they can be used to
Stimulate client talk
Inhibit client talk
Facilitate rapport
Show interest in clients
Show disinterest in clients
Gather information
Confront clients
Focus on solutions
Ignore the client’s viewpoint
Stimulate insight
There are many forms or types of questions. Differentiating among them is important, because different question types produce different client responses. In this section, we describe open, closed, swing, indirect, and projective questions. Chapter 6 covers therapeutic questions. Although we distinguish between general question types and therapeutic questions, all questioning can be used for assessment or therapeutic purposes.
Open Questions
Open questions are used to facilitate talk; they pull for more than a single-word response. Open questions ordinarily begin with either How or What. Sometimes questions that begin with Where, When, Why, and/or Who are classified as open, but such questions are only partially open because they don’t facilitate talk as well as How and What questions (Cormier, Nurius, & Osborn, 2017). The following hypothetical dialogue illustrates how using open questions may or may not stimulate client talk:
Therapist: When did you first begin having panic attacks?
Client: In 1996.
Therapist: Where were you when you had your first panic attack?
Client: I was just getting on the subway in New York City.
Therapist: Why haven’t you tried to ride the subway again?
Client: Because I’m afraid I’ll have another panic attack.
Therapist: How are you handling the fact that your fear of panic attacks is so restrictive?
Client: Not so good. I’ve been getting more and more scared to go out. I’m afraid that soon I’ll be too scared to leave my house.
As you can see from this example, open questions vary in their openness. They don’t uniformly facilitate depth and breadth of talk. Although questions beginning with What or How usually elicit the most elaborate responses from clients, that’s not always the case. More often, what’s important is the way a particular What or How question is phrased. For example, “What time did you get home?” and “How are you feeling?” can be answered very succinctly. The openness of a particular question should be judged primarily by the response it usually elicits.
Questions beginning with Why are unique in that they commonly elicit defensive explanations. Meier and Davis (2020) wrote, “Questions, particularly ‘why’ questions, put clients on the defensive and ask them to explain their behavior” (p. 23). Why questions frequently produce one of two responses. First, as in the preceding example, clients may respond with a form of “Because!” and then explain, sometimes through detailed and intellectual responses, why they’re thinking or acting or feeling in a particular manner. Second, some clients defend themselves with a “Why not?” response. Or, because they feel attacked, they respond confrontationally with “Is there anything wrong with that?” Therapists minimize Why questions because they exacerbate defensiveness and intellectualization and diminish rapport. In contrast, if rapport is good and you want your client to move away from emotions and speculate or intellectualize about something, then a Why question may be appropriate and useful.
Closed Questions
Closed questions usually begin with words such as Do, Does, Did, Is, Was, or Are and can be answered with a yes or no response. They’re useful if you want to solicit specific information. Traditionally, closed questions are used later in the interview, when rapport is established, time is short, and efficient questions and short responses are needed (Morrison, 2007). Questions that begin with Who, Where, or When also tend to direct clients toward talking about specific information; therefore, they should be considered closed questions (see Practice and Reflection 5.1).
Closed questions restrict verbalization and lead clients toward details. They can reduce or control how much clients talk. Restricting verbal output is useful when working with clients who talk excessively. Closed questions are used to clarify behaviors and symptoms and consequently used when conducting diagnostic interviews. (For example, in the preceding example about a panic attack on the New York subway, a diagnostic interviewer might ask, “Did you feel lightheaded or dizzy?” This question would help confirm or disconfirm one symptom possibly linked to panic disorder.). As compared to open questions, closed questions usually feel different to clients.
Sometimes, therapists inadvertently or intentionally transform open questions into closed questions with what’s called a tag query. For example, you might start with, “What was it like for you to confront your father after all these years,” and then tag “was it gratifying?” onto the end.
Transforming open questions into closed questions is fine if you want to limit client elaboration. When asked closed question, clients will likely focus solely on the answer (e.g., whether they felt gratification when confronting their father, as in the preceding example). Clients may or may not elaborate on feelings of fear, relief, resentment, or other thoughts, emotions, and sensations.
If you begin an interview using a nondirective approach, but later change styles to obtain more specific information through closed questions, it’s wise to use role induction to inform your client of your forthcoming shift. You might say,
We have about 15 minutes left, and I have a few things I want to make sure I’ve covered, so I’m going to start asking you more specific questions.
Beginning therapists are usually advised to avoid closed questions because closed questions are frequently interpreted as veiled suggestions. For example:
Client: Ever since my husband came back from active duty, he’s been moody, irritable, and withdrawn. This makes me miss him terribly, even though he’s home. I just want my old husband back.
Therapist: Have you tried telling him how you’re feeling?
We usually boldly tell our students to never ask, “Have you tried. . .” We believe have you questions are advice-giving in disguise. We’re not against advice; we’re just against asking questions that imply clients should have already tried what you’re recommending. In the preceding interaction, the client might think the therapist is suggesting she should open up to her husband about her feelings. Although this may be a reasonable idea, therapists and clients are better served with an open question: “What have you tried to help get your old husband back?” Our advice—which is not disguised in the least—is that when you feel an impulse to ask a “have you” question (and you will), simply stop yourself, and add the word “What” to the beginning to make it an open question. Closed questions are a helpful interviewing tool—as long as they’re used intentionally and in ways consistent with their purpose.
Swing Questions
Swing questions can function as either closed or open questions; they can be answered with yes or no, but they also invite more elaborate discussion of feelings, thoughts, or issues (Shea, 1998). Swing questions usually begin with Could, Would, Can, or Will. For example:
Could you talk about how it was when you first discovered you were pregnant?
Would you describe how you think your parents might react to finding out you’re leaving?
Can you tell me more about that?
Will you tell me what happened in the argument between you and your daughter last night?
Ivey and colleagues (2023) believe swing questions are the most open of all questions. They note that clients are empowered to decline answering a swing question by saying something like, “No. I’d rather not talk about that.”
For swing questions to work, you should observe two basic rules. First, avoid using swing questions unless rapport has been established. Without rapport, swing questions may backfire and function as a closed question (i.e., the client responds with a shy or resistant yes or no). Second, avoid using swing questions with children and adolescents, especially early in the relationship. This is because children and adolescents often interpret swing questions concretely and respond accordingly (J. Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2007b). For example:
Counselor 1: Would you tell me more about the fights you’ve been having with your classmates?
Young Client 1: No.
Counselor 2: Could you tell me about how you felt when your dad left?
Young Client 2: No.
Counselor 3: Would you like to come back to my office?
Young Client 3: No.
Swing questions with young clients (especially if you don’t have positive rapport) can produce awkward and unhelpful interactions.
Indirect or Implied Questions
Indirect or implied questions usually begin with I wonder or You must or It must (Benjamin, 1987). They’re used when therapists don’t want to directly ask or pressure clients to respond. The following are examples of indirect or implied questions:
I wonder how you’re feeling about your upcoming wedding.
I’m wondering about your plans after graduation.
I’m curious if you’ve given any thought to searching for a job.
You must have some thoughts or feelings about discovering your child is transgender.
It must be hard for you to cope with your wife being shipped out to serve overseas.
You can use other indirect sentence stems to gently imply a question or prompt clients to speak about a topic. Common examples include “I’d like to hear about…” and “Tell me about…”
Indirect or implied questions can be useful early in interviews or when approaching delicate topics. Like immediacy, they can contain a supportive self-disclosure of interest. They’re noncoercive, so they may be especially useful as an alternative to direct questions with clients who seem reticent (C. Luke, personal communication, August 7, 2012). When overused, indirect questions can seem sneaky or manipulative; after repeated “I wonder…” and “You must…” probes, clients may start thinking, “And I’m wondering why you don’t just ask me whatever it is you want know!”
Projective or Presuppositional Questions
Projective questions are used to ask clients to imagine particular scenarios and help them identify, explore, and clarify unconscious or unarticulated conflicts, values, thoughts, and feelings (see Case Example 5.5). Solution-focused therapists refer to projective questions as presuppositional questions (Murphy, 2023). These questions typically begin with some form of What if and invite client speculation. Projective questions can trigger mental imagery and prompt clients to explore thoughts, feelings, and behaviors they might have if they were in a particular situation. For example:
What would you do if you were given one million dollars?
If you had three wishes, what would you wish for?
If you needed help or were really frightened, or even if you were just totally out of money and needed some, who would you turn to right now? (J. Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 1998, p. 193)
What if you could go back and change how you acted during that argument (or other significant life event): What would you do differently?
Projective questions are also used to evaluate client values, decision making, and judgment. For example, a therapist can analyze a response to the question “What would you do with one million dollars?” to glimpse client values and self-control. Projective questions are sometimes included as a part of mental status examinations (see Chapter 9 and the Appendix).
CASE EXAMPLE 5.5: PROJECTIVE QUESTIONING TO ELICIT VALUES
Your use of projective questions is limited only by your creativity. John likes to use projective questions to explore relationship dynamics and values. For example, with a 15-year-old male client who had an estranged relationship with his father and was struggling in school, John asked, “If you did really well on a test, who’s the first person you would tell?” The client responded, “My dad.” After hearing this response, John used the fact that the boy continued to value his father’s approval to encourage the boy and his father to meet together for counseling to improve their communication and relationship.
[End of Case Example 5.5]
And . . . here’s a pdf of the Chapter 5 Table describing the different question types.
I’m virtually in Vermont tomorrow doing an all-day-long workshop on working with so-called challenging youth in counseling and psychotherapy. We start at 8am Mountain Time . . . and 10am on the East coast. Here’s the link to register for the workshop for anyone who suddenly has found themselves with a wide open day. The cost is: $195.
John Sommers-Flanagan 