Table 1. Systematic Search Strategy Search number Databases searched Search terms Search results 1 Psychology Cross Search (PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycBOOKS, MEDLINE) (supervis*) TI Title 23, 040 2 Psychology Cross Search (PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycBOOKS, MEDLINE) (attachment OR object OR "leader follower") AB Abstract 286,127 3 Psychology Cross Search (PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycBOOKS, MEDLINE) (relation* OR interpersonal OR bond* OR alliance or dyad) TX All Text 4,056,279 4 Psychology Cross Search (PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycBOOKS, MEDLINE) (supervis*) TI title AND (attachment OR object OR "leader follower") AB Abstract AND (relation* OR interpersonal OR bond* OR alliance or dyad) TX All Text 188 (147 after duplicates removed) 5 Web of Science (supervis*) Title AND (attachment OR object OR "leader follower") Topic AND (relation* OR interpersonal OR bond* OR alliance or dyad) Topic 177 6 Scopus supervis* Title AND (attachment OR object OR "leader follower") Abstract AND (relation* OR interpersonal OR bond* OR alliance or dyad) All Fields 263 7 Dissertation Express supervis* AND (attachment object OR "leader follower") AND (relation* OR OR bond* OR alliance or 40 8 ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global supervis* AND (attachment OR object OR "leader AND (relation* OR OR bond* OR or dyad) 96
Table 3. Characteristics of Studies Retained in the Review Authors Focus Sample/Setting Measuresa Design Sampling/data collection Supervisee attachment Bennett et al. (2008) Supervisees’ self-reported general and supervision-specific attachment styles and their perceptions of the supervisory working alliance Foundation level masters social work students/supervisees (n=72); American field placements RSQ; WAI-T Ex post facto; cross sectional Convenience; Questionnaire Duffy (2003) Supervisors’ perspectives of the impact of supervisee general insecure attachment styles on the supervisory alliance Qualified Psychotherapist supervisors (n=9); practicing in America N/a Qualitative interview (Grounded Theory) Semi structured interviews Foster et al. (2007) Similarity between supervisees’ general and supervision-specific attachment styles. Supervisor-supervisee dyads (n=90 dyads); across America; supervisors held a psychotherapy/social work doctoral/master’s degree; supervisees were psychotherapy/social work trainees with four semesters of clinical experience RSQ Ex post facto; cross sectional Volunteer; Questionnaire Gnilka et al. (2016) Supervisees’ self reported general attachment styles and their perception of the supervisory working alliance Counselling doctoral and masters students/supervisees (n=170); American internships ECR-R; SWAI- T Ex post facto; cross sectional Volunteer; Questionnaire Gunn & Pistole (2012) Supervisees’ self-reported attachment styles and their perception of the supervisory working Trainees/supervisees (n=480); American clinical/counselling psychology doctoral and masters programmes; 6.4 semesters ESS; SWAI-T Ex post facto; cross sectional Volunteer; Questionnaire specific
(2015) attachment styles and their perception of the supervisory working alliance and supervisor relational behaviours masters and doctoral counseling/clinical psychology, social work and family therapy programmes/placements WAI-T; RBS cross sectional Questionnaire Smothers (2010) Supervisees’ self-reported general attachment styles and their perception of the supervisory working alliance Trainees/supervisees (n=232); American masters and doctoral counselling, mental health, marriage/family therapy or school/career counselling programmes/placements ECRS; WAI-T Ex post facto; cross sectional Volunteer; Questionnaire Spelliscy (2007) Supervisees’ self-reported general attachment styles and their perception of the supervisor’s supervisory style and the supervisory working alliance. Trainees/supervisees (n=200); American masters and doctoral counseling psychology programmes/placements ECRS-R; SSI; Ex post facto; cross sectional Volunteer; Questionnaire Tsong (2004) Supervisees’ self-reported general attachment styles and their perception of the supervisor’s general and multicultural competencies and the supervisory working alliance Trainees/supervisees (n=310); American doctoral clinical/counselling psychology or combined psychology programmes/placements ECRS-S; SPF-C; CCCI-S; WAI-TS Ex post facto; cross sectional Volunteer; Questionnaire Supervisor attachment Armoutliev (2015) Supervisors' self-reported general attachment style, supervisory style and care giving style (deemed crucial to the quality of the supervisory relationship). Qualified clinical supervisors (n=123); practicing in America; 78% psychologists, rest counsellors, social workers, marriage and family therapists; at least one year supervising experience ECRS; SSI; ACQ Ex post facto; cross sectional Volunteer; Questionnaire Bennett et al. (2013) The impact of attachment based supervisor training on the relationship between supervisor/supervisee general attachment style, the supervisory working alliance and supervision-related affect from the perspectives of supervisor and Supervisor-supervisee dyads (n=100 dyads); two American universities; supervisors were social worker field instructors receiving training/control group; supervisees were foundation or final year masters social work students RSQ; PNAS; WAI-S/T Randomised controlled trial intervention Convenience and random assignment to intervention or control group; Questionnaire
supervisee Day (2006) Supervisors’ self-reported general attachment style and their perception of the supervisory working alliance Doctoral student supervisors (n=176); enrolled in American programmes that supervise masters level counselling students ASQ; SWAI-S Ex post facto; cross sectional Volunteer; Questionnaire Deal et al. (2011) The impact of attachment based supervisor training on the relationship between supervisee general attachment style, the supervisory working alliance and supervisee competency ratings from the perspectives of supervisor and supervisee. Supervisor-supervisee dyads (n=100 dyads); two American universities; supervisors were social worker field instructors receiving training/control group; supervisees were foundation or final year masters social work students RSQ; CBE, SLQ-R Randomised controlled trial intervention Convenience and random assignment to intervention or control group; Questionnaire Foster et al. (2006) Supervisors’ self-reported general attachment style and their perception of supervisee development (the accuracy of which may impact on supervisory working alliance) Supervisor -supervisee dyads (n=90 dyads); across America; supervisors university, mental health/counselling centre based; supervisees in clinical/counselling psychology, marriage/family therapy and social work programmes/placements; four semesters of clinical experience RSQ; Ex post facto; cross sectional Volunteer; Questionnaire Supervisor/ supervisee attachment Dickson et al. (2011) Supervisee and supervisor general attachment styles and perceptions of the supervisory working alliance from the perspective of supervisees. Trainees/supervisees (n=259); British clinical psychology doctoral programmes/placements; across different year groups RQ; RAQ; MOPS; WAI-T Ex post facto; cross sectional Volunteer; Questionnaire Epps (2000) Supervisor and supervisee self-reported general attachment styles and their perceptions of the supervisory working alliance Supervisor-supervisee dyads (n=96 dyads); counselling department at an American university; supervisors were doctoral students/supervisors; supervisees ASQ; SWAI-T/S Ex post facto; cross sectional Volunteer; Questionnaire
were masters students enrolled in counselling programmes/placements Hartig (2004) Supervisors and supervisees self-reported general/adult attachment styles and their perceptions of the supervisory working alliance Supervisor-supervisee dyads (n=124 dyads); across America; supervisors were based in colleges, universities, and school counselling settings; supervisees were students enrolled in masters or doctoral counselling programmes/placements RQ; Ex post facto; cross sectional Convenience; Questionnaire Riggs & Bretz (2006) Supervisor and supervisee general attachment styles and perceptions of the supervisory working alliance from the perspective of supervisees Trainees/supervisees (n=86); American doctoral clinical/counselling psychology or school psychology programmes/placements; advanced level of training RQ; MOPS; RAQ; Ex post facto; cross sectional Volunteer; Questionnaire Smith (2009) Supervisor and supervisee self-reported general adult attachment styles and their perceptions of supervisors’ supervisory style and the supervisory working alliance Supervisor-supervisee dyads (n=123 dyads); British universities; supervisors were qualified psychotherapists; supervisees were students/trainees enrolled in doctoral clinical psychology programmes, currently on clinical placements; across all three years of training ECR-R; SSI; Ex post facto; cross sectional Volunteer; Questionnaire White & Queener (2003) Supervisor and supervisee self-reported general attachment styles, and their perceptions of the supervisory working alliance Supervisor-supervisee dyads (n=67 dyads); three American universities; supervisors were doctoral students/supervisors or qualified psychotherapists; supervisees were masters or doctoral students enrolled in counselling programmes/placements; majority in final year AAS; SWAI-T/S Ex post facto; cross sectional Volunteer; Questionnaire Wrape (2015) Supervisor and supervisee self-reported Supervisor-supervisee dyads (n=39 RQ; Ex post facto; Volunteer;
Sheperis (2009) Analysis of variance; when supervisees self-reported secure rather than insecure supervision-specific insecure attachment (across time and experience levels) levels; Limitations: adapted wording on RQ to reflect power differential in supervisory relationship may have artificially inflated fearful attachment. 0.229***(time 1) ηp2= 0.116** (time 2) Shaffer (2015) Regression analysis; correlation analysis Working alliance ratings were higher when supervisors were perceived to use relational behaviours (supervisee attachment style non-significant). Strengths: first extensive use of the Relational Behavior Scale; Limitations: artificial inflation of association due same supervisors reported on Large. R2= 0.38***; r = 0.62*** Smothers (2010) Structural equation modelling Supervisory alliance ratings were lower when supervisees self-reported higher insecure anxious general attachment scores. Avoidant attachment Strengths: investigated whether attachment style and alliance ratings varies between ethnic groups; Limitations: unclear if non-significant finding is due to avoidance of negative feelings Medium. β= - 0.15* Spelliscy (2007) Path analysis; correlation analysis Supervisees’ perception of the supervisor’s style as attractive, warm and interpersonally sensitive predicted the supervisory alliance (supervisee attachment style non-significant). Strengths: model with good fit; Limitations: social desirability bias leading to low level of insecure attachment and non-correlations with alliance Large. r= 0.92*** Cr = 30.95*** (path coefficient; supervisory style and alliance) Tsong (2004) Multiple regression analysis The best predictor of the supervisory alliance (bond) was supervisees’ perception of the supervisors’ ability to affect their personal growth. Strengths: explored role of supervisor; Limitations: no supervisor data/perspective; unknown response rates Large. R2= 0.581* Supervisor attachment Armoutliev (2015) Hierarchical multiple regression analysis Supervisor self-reported general attachment style was unrelated to supervisor care giving style or supervisory style (both conducive to a positive supervisory relationship); Supervisory style was found to explain significant variance in care giving style and thus the relationship Strengths: considered supervisor attachment and their perspective of the supervisory alliance; Limitations: small sample size; variance in care giving style explained by supervisory style was fairly small Medium. R2= 0.14***; β= - 0.34***
another site text me saying there are rumours going around about you […] what you said wasn’t safe. I do really wonder if that ruptured my template, my blueprint. (Lou) Although Lou’s subsequent relationships seemed to suffer as a result of her “ruptured template,” she did hint that this had started to change. Again, the influential factor appeared to be the presence of a supervisor who demonstrated a relational style that Lou valued, and perhaps felt able to take a risk with. This included an explicit rather than secretive nature, taking an interest in Lou and promising to stay in the relationship long-term: …when I had my research supervision, it felt really different. It felt safe. I must admit this is the first time I have felt safe in supervision since because I know I have got the same from three years […] which feels quite supportive […] they have made it obvious they are interested in me as well as the research. I think it’s their nature, they are quite explicit. Its not secretive. (Lou) The way I relate to a supervisor is different to other relationships. This sub-theme captures the uniqueness of the supervisory relationship. Participants described the potential for new and different relationships to form with their supervisors, compared to relationships outside of supervision. Again, this seemed to be dependent on the way the supervisor behaved. Frankie hinted that despite usually forming “secure” attachments with people, she had a different type of attachment towards a supervisor who demonstrated a “disorganised” style: I don’t know what attachment I had to her. I am not someone who has non-secure attachments usually. (Frankie) Perrie also related very differently to a supervisor, compared to how she would with her parents, due to the dismissive nature of the supervisor:
attachment, it is hoped that non-attachment factors such as reciprocal disclosure are also considered. Ultimately, it is hoped that this study’s findings, and any contributions to supervisor training, will help to improve the supervisory relationship and thus the development of the supervisee and psychotherapeutic service provision to the public. References Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1968). Object relations, dependency, and attachment: A theoretical review of the infant mother relationship. Child Development, 40, 969-1025. Armoutliev, E. M. (2015). Attachment, supervisory style and caregiving in clinical supervisors. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, the University of Akron.
alliance, supervisee omissions in supervision, and supervision outcome. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California. Watkins, Jr., C. E. (1995). Pathological attachment styles in psychotherapy supervision. Psychotherapy, 32, 333-340. Watkins Jr., C. E. (2011). Toward a tripartite vision of supervision for psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapies: Alliance, transference-countertransference configuration, and real relationship. Psychoanalytic Review, 98, 557-590. Watkins Jr., C. E., & Riggs, S. A. (2012). Psychotherapy supervision and Attachment Theory: Review, reflections, and recommendations. Clinical Supervisor, 31, 256-289. Wheeler, S. & Richards, K. (2007). The impact of clinical supervision on counsellors and therapists, their practice and their clients. A systematic review of the literature. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 7, 54-65. White, V., & Queener, J. (2003). Supervisor and supervisee attachments and social provisions related to the supervisory working alliance. Counselor Education & Supervision, 42, 203-218. Winnicott, D. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 34, 89-97. Wood, J. J., McLeod, B. D., Sigman, M., Hwang, W. C., & Chu, B. C. (2003). Parenting and childhood anxiety: Theory, empirical findings, and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 134-151. Wrape, E. R. (2015). Attachment Theory within clinical supervision: Application of the conceptual to the empirical. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Texas. Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology and Health, 15, 215-228. List of Appendices Appendix A – Journal of Choice: Guidelines for Authors Appendix B - Rationale for using IPA