- Email: [email protected]
Therapist liberation
BEHAVIOR THERAPY 9, 676--677 (1978)
Therapist Liberation Although behavior therapists are among the most vocal critics of psychiatric classification and the iatrogenic stigma of diagnosis, they appear implicitly to endorse a dichotomy between "adjustment" and "maladjustment." This is particularly apparent in that (1) few behavior therapists emphasize the use of self-disclosure in counseling, and (2) admissions by behavior therapists that they are undergoing therapy themselves are considered almost scandalous. This latter point was well illustrated in reactions to Lazarus' (A. A. Lazarus, 1971, Psychological Reports 28, 349-350) disclosure that some behavior therapists seek nonbehavioral treatments for their own personal problems. In both therapy and student training, the traditional behavior therapist has often adopted the role of "paragon of adjustment." This reluctance to communicate our own personal dilemmas and our fallible attempts at coping could be interpreted as (1) an indication that we have no adjustment problems, (2) a reflection of embarrassment regarding our problems (implying, of course, that adjustment problems are something to be embarrassed about), or (3) an indication that we do not view the client or student as a person with whom we care to share intimate information. Despite the fact that vicarious learning may be one of the most powerful processes in human behavior change, it would appear that few behavior therapists utilize it optimally in either their clinical conduct or their supervision of student therapists. I know few behavior therapists who would claim a total absence of anxiety, frustration, or other distress in their personal lives. While these problems may be generally less acute than those observed in clients, I believe that their omission may frequently detract from therapy or supervision. For example, the student trainee may develop unrealistic professional standards if he or she believes that the supervisor is always confident, well-informed, and prepared for any clinical emergency. The modeling of professionally relevant coping skills (via current life stresses or retrospective accounts) may be one of the most valuable learning experiences that can be offered the trainee. Furthermore, preliminary research on the differential effects of coping versus mastery modeling suggests that the former may be significantly more effective (M. J. Mahoney & D. Arnkoff, Cognitive and self-control therapies. In S. L. Garfield & A. E. Bergen (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. New York: Wiley, in press. 2nd ed. Some of the foregoing ideas have recently been explored in my clinical work at Penn State, where I have been using a coping model of both psychotherapy and clinical supervision. In addition, my students and I have recently completed 2 years of exploration of "co-counseling," in which we divided into dyads and alternated in the roles of counselor and client. Co-counseling was a voluntary endeavor designed primarily to offer practice in clinical methods plus opportunities for confidential personal counseling. Anonymous evaluations by participants revealed that most students chose the co-counseling opportunity and 88% reported that it had been both personally and professionally helpful. They unanimously An extended report is available from the author. 676 0005-7894/78/0094-0676501.00/0 Copyright© 1978by Associationfor Advancementof BehaviorTherapy. All rightsof reproductionin any formreserved.
ABSTRACTS
677
reported that my use of a coping, self-disclosing model of supervision had positively affected their professional self-concept. Although I am aware that co-counseling and a coping model of therapy and supervision may be inappropriate for certain individuals and situations, I think that the pendulum is currently fixed at a mastery extreme. Given the meager state of our current knowledge about therapeutic process, it would seem reasonable to explore the parameters and promise of a more balanced alternative. Likewise, I (for one) would welcome liberation from some of our own implicitly perfectionistic professional roles. MICHAEL J. MAHONEY
The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 RECEIVED: April 25, 1977; REVISEDAND FINAL ACCEPTANCE: June I, 1978
Therapist Liberation Although behavior therapists are among the most vocal critics of psychiatric classification and the iatrogenic stigma of diagnosis, they appear implicitly to endorse a dichotomy between "adjustment" and "maladjustment." This is particularly apparent in that (1) few behavior therapists emphasize the use of self-disclosure in counseling, and (2) admissions by behavior therapists that they are undergoing therapy themselves are considered almost scandalous. This latter point was well illustrated in reactions to Lazarus' (A. A. Lazarus, 1971, Psychological Reports 28, 349-350) disclosure that some behavior therapists seek nonbehavioral treatments for their own personal problems. In both therapy and student training, the traditional behavior therapist has often adopted the role of "paragon of adjustment." This reluctance to communicate our own personal dilemmas and our fallible attempts at coping could be interpreted as (1) an indication that we have no adjustment problems, (2) a reflection of embarrassment regarding our problems (implying, of course, that adjustment problems are something to be embarrassed about), or (3) an indication that we do not view the client or student as a person with whom we care to share intimate information. Despite the fact that vicarious learning may be one of the most powerful processes in human behavior change, it would appear that few behavior therapists utilize it optimally in either their clinical conduct or their supervision of student therapists. I know few behavior therapists who would claim a total absence of anxiety, frustration, or other distress in their personal lives. While these problems may be generally less acute than those observed in clients, I believe that their omission may frequently detract from therapy or supervision. For example, the student trainee may develop unrealistic professional standards if he or she believes that the supervisor is always confident, well-informed, and prepared for any clinical emergency. The modeling of professionally relevant coping skills (via current life stresses or retrospective accounts) may be one of the most valuable learning experiences that can be offered the trainee. Furthermore, preliminary research on the differential effects of coping versus mastery modeling suggests that the former may be significantly more effective (M. J. Mahoney & D. Arnkoff, Cognitive and self-control therapies. In S. L. Garfield & A. E. Bergen (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. New York: Wiley, in press. 2nd ed. Some of the foregoing ideas have recently been explored in my clinical work at Penn State, where I have been using a coping model of both psychotherapy and clinical supervision. In addition, my students and I have recently completed 2 years of exploration of "co-counseling," in which we divided into dyads and alternated in the roles of counselor and client. Co-counseling was a voluntary endeavor designed primarily to offer practice in clinical methods plus opportunities for confidential personal counseling. Anonymous evaluations by participants revealed that most students chose the co-counseling opportunity and 88% reported that it had been both personally and professionally helpful. They unanimously An extended report is available from the author. 676 0005-7894/78/0094-0676501.00/0 Copyright© 1978by Associationfor Advancementof BehaviorTherapy. All rightsof reproductionin any formreserved.
ABSTRACTS
677
reported that my use of a coping, self-disclosing model of supervision had positively affected their professional self-concept. Although I am aware that co-counseling and a coping model of therapy and supervision may be inappropriate for certain individuals and situations, I think that the pendulum is currently fixed at a mastery extreme. Given the meager state of our current knowledge about therapeutic process, it would seem reasonable to explore the parameters and promise of a more balanced alternative. Likewise, I (for one) would welcome liberation from some of our own implicitly perfectionistic professional roles. MICHAEL J. MAHONEY
The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 RECEIVED: April 25, 1977; REVISEDAND FINAL ACCEPTANCE: June I, 1978