Empirical Evidence for the Importance of Conceptualizing Client Strengths

Case conceptualizations from 120 counselors-in-training and post-master's-level counselors were examined for inclusion of positive and negative client characteristics. Conceptualizations of clients with whom counselors felt effective were more positive than negative, whereas conceptualizations of clients with whom counselors felt less effective were more negative than positive. Differences across counseling specialization, duration of counseling experience, and counselor cognitive complexity were explored. Keywords: strengths-based counseling, case conceptualization, counselor cognitions ********** Theorists, researchers, and practitioners alike espouse the importance of emphasizing the client's strengths in counseling (e.g., DeFrain & Asay, 2007; Fluckiger & Holtforth, 2008; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). This empirical study was conducted in an effort to better understand if counselors are identifying client strengths in practice. Case conceptualizations from 120 counselors-in-training and post-master's-level counselors were examined for inclusion of positive and negative client characteristics. Participating counselors described two clients, one with whom they felt effective and one with whom they felt less effective. Differences in strengths focus across counselor perception of effectiveness, counseling specialization, counselor level of experience, and counselor cognitive complexity were explored, and the results informed important implications for counselors and counselor educators. INTRODUCTION TO STRENGTHS-BASED COUNSELING Strengths-based counseling is deeply rooted in humanistic ideology. Humanism can be an ambiguous term because of its broad application and informal use (Aspy, 2001), but the definitive components of humanistic philosophy are human freedom, human growth, a holistic and antireductionistic view of individuals, the unique subjective experience of each individual, and the inherent worth of all human beings (Aspy, 2001; Aspy & Aspy, 1998; Hansen, 2005; Ohlsen, 1997; Schoenholtz, 2000). Humanistic philosophy emerged as an ideological rebellion against the reductionistic approaches of psychoanalysis and behaviorism (Hansen, 2005). Rather than seeing clients as machines, which could be reduced down to simple cognitions, behaviors, or instinctive drives that control their being, humanists viewed their clients holistically, free to be and become their own unique selves (Hansen, 2005; Ohlsen, 1997). As a result of this new perspective, the humanistic approach to counseling distinguished itself from other approaches by making the therapeutic relationship its primary focus (Aspy & Aspy, 1998; Hansen, 2005; Ohlsen, 1997; Rogers, 1957; Schoenholtz, 2000), which outcome research has since confirmed is essential to counseling effectiveness (Sexton, Whiston, Bleuer, & Walz, 1997). The goal in the therapeutic relationship is a deep connection between the counselor and client in which the client feels known and understood by the counselor (Rogers, 1957). Through the practice of empathic listening, genuineness, and unconditional positive regard, the therapeutic relationship is established and the counselor communicates his or her value for the client as a unique, complex human being who has worth (Rogers, 1957). This recognition of client worth is empowering to clients (Aspy & Aspy, 1998; Ohlsen, 1997; Schoenholtz, 2000), giving them hope that as they grow through the process of counseling, they will find those strengths within themselves to withstand and even thrive amid the difficulties in their lives (Cheavens, Feldman, Woodard, & Snyder, 2006; Harris, Thoresen, & Lopez, 2007). To establish an empowering therapeutic relationship, counselors must believe all clients have a base of strengths, supports, and resources (Stalling, 1994). This belief is the hallmark of the strengths perspective, which asserts that all people have inherent value, the ability to grow and change, a tendency toward self-correction, and remarkable resiliency (Allison et al. …