Reflections on the meaning of clinician self-reference: are we speaking the same language?

Self-reference refers to clinician revelations about themselves. Theory and research on self-reference are limited by a lack of uniform conceptualizations. This paper discusses two types of self-reference, self-disclosure, and self-involving responses. Included are definitions of each type of self-reference; description of definitional inconsistencies in the literature; discussion of prevalence, functions, and the multidimensional nature of self-reference; and practice implications and research recommendations. The ideas presented herein are intended to prompt researchers, practitioners, and educators to carefully consider the nature, scope, and functions of self-reference, and in doing so, bring greater conceptual and operational clarity to their work. In this paper, I discuss my perspective on the conceptual dis- tinctions concerning clinician self-reference. These distinctions are important because they have implications for researchers, practi- tioners, and educators interested in the effects of self-reference on psychotherapy and supervision processes and outcomes. Before describing my point of view, I would like to credit the sources of my long-standing interest in this topic. My initial introduction to practitioner self-reference came when, as an undergraduate, I en- rolled in a paraprofessional helping skills course in the mid 1970s. The course instructor and senior author of the text, Helping skills: A basic training program (Danish, D'Augelli, & Hauer, 1980), was Dr. Steven Danish. Danish defined and distinguished between two types of self-reference—self-disclosure and self-involving re- sponses. Then, when I was a graduate student, Dr. Danish sug- gested I conduct a study to empirically demonstrate the distinc- tions between self-disclosure and self-involving responses. His suggestion prompted me to conduct a series of analogue studies (McCarthy & Betz, 1978; McCarthy, 1979, 1982) investigating differential effects of self-disclosure and self-involving responses on client perceptions of the therapist and client verbal responses. For over 35 years, I have taught courses in basic counseling and supervision skills, including self-reference. Each of these experi- ences has enhanced my understanding of the subject. In describing my conceptualization of clinician self-reference, I compare and contrast my ideas to those of the authors in this special section of this issue (Khurgin-Bott & Farber, this issue, pp. 330-335; Knox, Edwards, Hess, & Hill, this issue, pp. 336-341; Yeh & Hayes, this issue, pp. 322-329) and to other researchers who investigate this topic. Throughout I use the term "clinician" to refer to therapists and to supervisors. More research has been done on therapist self-reference than on supervisor self-reference, and I believe a majority is generalizable to supervision. However, fur- ther investigations, similar to the study by Knox et al. (this issue), are needed to establish unique effects of self-reference in super- vision relationships. The following sections of this paper include definitions of self-reference; definitional inconsistencies; prevalence and func- tions of self-reference; multidimensional aspects of self-reference; practice implications; and research recommendations. It is my hope the ideas presented herein will prompt researchers in partic- ular, but also practitioners and educators to carefully consider the nature, scope, and functions of self-reference, and in doing so, bring greater conceptual and operational clarity to their work.