Duncan2014

457
C H A P T E R
At bottom every man (sic) knows well enough that he is a unique being, only once on this
earth; and by no extraordinary chance will such a marvelously picturesque piece of diver-
sity in unity as he is, ever be put together a second time.
—Friedrich Nietzsche
T
here seems to be a prevailing view that to be an accomplished psychotherapist one
must be well versed in evidence-based treatments (EBTs) or in those models that have
been shown in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to be efficacious for different “disor-
ders.”The idea here is to make psychological interventions dummy-proof, where the people—
the client and the therapist—are basically irrelevant (Duncan & Reese, 2012). Just plug in the
diagnosis, do the prescribed treatment, and, voilà, cure or symptom amelioration occurs! This
medical view of therapy is perhaps the most empirically vacuous aspect of EBTs because the
treatment itself accounts for so little of outcome variance, while the client and the therapist—
and their relationship—account for so much more. The fact of the matter is that psycho-
therapy is decidedly a relational, not a medical, endeavor (Duncan, 2010), one that is wholly
dependent on the participants and the quality of their interpersonal connection.
A long time ago in a galaxy far way, I was in my initial clinical placement in graduate
school at the local state hospital. This practicum was largely, if not totally, intended to be an
assessment experience. Tina, my first client ever, was like a lot of the clients—young, poor,
disenfranchised, heavily medicated, and on the merry-go-round of hospitalizations—and at
the ripe old age of 22, she was called a “chronic schizophrenic.”
I gathered up my WAIS (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale), the first of the battery of tests
I was attempting to gain competence with, and was on my merry but nervous way to the
assessment office, a stark, run-down room in a long past its prime, barrack-style building
that reeked of cleaning fluids overused to cover up some other worse smell, the institu-
tional stench. But on the way, I couldn’t help but notice all the looks I was getting—a smirk
29
The Person of the Therapist: One
Therapist’s Journey to Relationship
Barry L. Duncan

HUMANISTIC APPLICATIONS TO PRACTICE458
from then on. I wound up getting to know
Tina pretty well and often reminded her how
she had helped me. The more I got to know
Tina and realized that her actions, stemming
from horrific abuse, were attempts to take
control of situations in which she felt pow-
erless, the angrier I became about her being
used as a rite of passage for the psychology
trainees—a practice that I stopped.
I’ll never forget the lessons that Tina
taught me in the very beginning of my psy-
chotherapy journey: Authenticity matters,
and when in doubt or in need of help, ask the
client because you are in this thing together.
Thanks, Tina, for charting my course toward
relationship.
This chapter addresses the person of
the therapist and what qualities of thera-
pists make a difference in outcomes—after
the client, the therapist is the most potent
aspect of change in therapy, and in most
respects is the therapy. With that empiri-
cally based assertion as a backdrop, the
factors that account for change are pre-
sented, and through stories of clients, I
describe my journey to a relational per-
spective of psychotherapy.
THE COMMON FACTORS
It is easier to discover a deficiency in
individuals,instates,andinProvidence,
than to see their real import and value.
—Hegel
To understand the common factors, it is
first necessary to separate the variance due
to psychotherapy from that attributed to cli-
ent/life factors, those variables incidental to
the treatment model, idiosyncratic to the
specific client, and part of the client’s life
circumstances that aid in recovery despite
participation in therapy (Asay & Lambert,
1999)—everything about the client that has
nothing to do with us (see Figure 29.1).
from an orderly, a wink from a nurse, and
funny-looking smiles from nearly everyone
else. My curiosity piqued, I was just about
to ask what was going on when the chief
psychologist put his hand on my shoulder
and said, “Barry, you might want to leave
the door open.” And I did.
I greeted Tina, an extremely pale young
woman with short brown, cropped hair,
who might have looked a bit like Mia
Farrow in the Rosemary’s Baby era had Tina
lived in friendlier circumstances, and intro-
duced myself in my most professional voice.
And before I could sit down and open up my
test kit, Tina started to take off her clothes,
mumbling something indiscernible. I just
stared in disbelief, in total shock really. Tina
was undaunted by my dismay and quickly
was down to her bra and underwear when I
finally broke my silence, hearing laughter in
the distance, and said, “Tina, what are you
doing?” Tina responded not with words but
with actions, removing her bra like it had
suddenly become very uncomfortable. So
there we were, a graduate student, speech-
less, in his first professional encounter, and
a client sitting nearly naked, mumbling now
quite loudly but still nothing I could under-
stand, and contemplating whether to stand
up to take her underwear off or simply con-
tinue her mission while sitting.
Finally, in desperation, I pleaded, “Tina,
would you please do me a big favor? I mean
I would really appreciate it.” She looked
at me for the first time and said, “What?”
I replied, “I would really be grateful if you
could put your clothes back on and help me
get through this assessment. I’ve done them
before, but never with a client, and I am
kinda freaked out about it.” Tina whispered
“Sure,” put her clothes back on, and com-
pleted the testing.
I was so appreciative of Tina’s help that I
told her she really pulled me through my first
real assessment. She smiled proudly, and ulti-
mately smiled at me every time she saw me

The Person of the Therapist: One Therapist’s Journey to Relationship 459
common factors—the client is the engine of
change (Bohart & Tallman, 2010).
If we do not recruit these unique client
contributions to outcome, we are inclined to
fail. When I was an intern, I worked in an
outpatient unit that provided “stress man-
agement” services but mainly was devoted to
clients with the moniker “severely mentally
ill.” By that time, I had experience in two
community mental health centers and the
aforementioned stint in the state hospital.
The hospital experience lingered, leaving me
with a bad taste in my mouth. Now, in my
internship position, my charge was to help
people stay out of the hospital, and I took
that charge quite seriously.
One of my first clients was Peter. Peter
was not very well liked because he some-
times said ominous things to other clients in
the waiting room or often spoke in a bois-
terous way about how the florescent lights
Calculated from the oft-reported .80
effect size of therapy, the proportion of out-
come attributable to treatment (14%) is
depicted by the small circle nested within
the larger circle at the lower right side of the
left circle. The variance accounted for by
client factors (86%), including unexplained
and error variance, is represented by the
large circle on the left. Even a casual inspec-
tion reveals the disproportionate influence
of what the client brings to therapy. More
conservative estimates put the client’s
contribution at 40% (Lambert, 2013). As
examples, persistence, faith, a supportive
grandmother, depression, membership in a
religious community, divorce, a new job,
a chance encounter with a stranger, and a
crisis successfully managed all may be
included. Although hard to research
because of their idiosyncratic nature, these
elements are the most powerful of the
Figure 29.1 The Common Factors
Client/Life factors (86%) (includes unexplained and error variance)
Treatment effects
14%
Feedback effects
21%–42%
Alliance effects
36%–50%
Model/Technique:
Specific effects
(model differences)
7%
Model/Technique:
General effects (rational
and ritual), client
expectancy (hope, placebo),
and therapist allegiance
28–?%
Therapist effects
36%–57%
NOTE: There is some controversy surrounding how potent this effect is, hence the question mark.

home for the first time, overwhelmed by life,
training day and night to keep his spot on
the racing team, topped off by his falling in
love for the first time. When the relation-
ship ended, it was too much for Peter, and
he was hospitalized, and then hospitalized
again, and again, and so on until there was
no more money or insurance—then the state
hospitalizations ensued.
Enjoying a level of conversation not
achieved before, I asked Peter what it would
take to get him going again on his bike. He
said that his bike had a broken wheel, and
he needed me to accompany him to the bike
shop. Peter was afraid to go out in public
alone for fear of threatening someone and
ending up in the hospital. I immediately
consulted with my supervisor, who gave me
an enthusiastic green light. The next day, I
went with Peter to the bike shop, where I
bought a bike as well. Peter and I started
having our sessions biking together. Peter
still struggled with the voices at times, but
he stayed out of the hospital, and they never
kept him from biking. He eventually joined
a bike club and moved into an unsupervised
living arrangement.
You can read a lot of books about
“schizophrenia” and its treatment, but you’ll
never find one that recommends biking as a
cure. And you can read a lot of books about
treatments in general, and you’ll never read a
better idea about a client dilemma than will
emerge from a unique client in relationship
with you—a person who cares and wants to
be helpful.
Figure 29.1 also illustrates the second step
in understanding the common factors. The
second, larger circle in the center depicts the
overlapping elements that form the 14% of
variance attributable to therapy. Visually,
the relationship among the common factors
is more accurately represented with a Venn
diagram, using overlapping circles and shad-
ing to demonstrate mutual and interdepen-
dent actions.
controlled his thinking through a hole in his
head. As a new intern, I was put under con-
siderable pressure to address Peter’s less than
endearing behaviors, particularly because he
sometimes offended the stress management
clients, who were seen as coveted treasures.
Actually, Peter was a terrific guy with a very
dry sense of humor, but a man of little hope
who lived in dread of returning to the state
hospital. His behaviors were mostly distrac-
tion efforts from the tormenting voices that
told him that people were trying to kill him.
Peter’s unfortunate routine was that
he was terrorized by these voices until he
started taking action that would ultimately
wind him up in the state hospital. He might
empty his refrigerator for fear that someone
had poisoned his food, creating a stench that
would soon bring in the landlord and ulti-
mately the authorities. Or, occasionally, he
would start threatening or menacing oth-
ers, those he believed were trying to kill him.
Once hospitalized, his medications were
changed, usually increased in dose, and he
essentially slept out the crisis. These cycles
occurred about every 4 to 6 months and had
done so for the past 8 years. Peter’s “treat-
ment” brought with it tardive dyskinesia and
about 100 pounds of extra weight.
I felt profoundly sad for this young man,
who was about the same age as me. I also felt
completely helpless. I knew he was ramping
up for another admission—he had already
emptied his refrigerator and left the contents
on the kitchen floor.
Only because I had no clue what to do, I
asked Peter what he thought it would take
to get a little relief from his situation—just a
glimpse of a break from the torment of the
voices and the revolving-door hospitaliza-
tions. After a long pause, Peter said that it
would help if he could start riding his bike
again, and he told me about what his life
was like before the bottom fell out. Peter
had been a competitive cyclist in college. I
heard the story of a young man away from

more positive findings (Beutler et al., 2004).
For example, Kraus, Castonguay, Boswell,
Nordberg, and Hayes (2011) found that
therapist competencies can be domain spe-
cific, as some therapists were better at treat-
ing certain “conditions.” Specificity in the
definition of experience may be important.
My colleagues and I put this to the test in our
examination of therapist effects in the study
mentioned above (Owen et al., in press).
This analysis revealed that, similar to other
studies, demographics were not significant
but specific experience in couple therapy
explained 25% of the variance accounted
for by therapists. So experienced therapists
can take some solace that getting older does
have its advantages—as long as it is specific
to the task at hand.
And the absolute certainty—the client’s
view of the alliance is not only a robust
predictor of therapy outcomes but also per-
haps the best avenue to understand therapist
differences. Marcus, Kashy, and Baldwin
(2009) noted,
High levels of consensus in client ratings of
their therapist indicate that clients of the
same therapist tend to agree about the
traits or characteristics of their therapist,
suggesting that there is something about
the therapist’s manner or behavior that
evokes similar response from all of his or
her clients. (p. 538)
Baldwin, Wampold, and Imel (2007)
found only modest therapist variability (2%)
compared with other studies, but they
reported that therapist average alliance qual-
ity accounted for 97% of that variability.
Owen et al. (in press) found that therapist
average alliance quality accounted for 50%
of the variability in outcomes attributed to
therapists. In general, research strongly sug-
gests that clients seen by therapists with
higher average alliance ratings have better
outcomes (Crits-Christoph et al., 2009;
Zuroff, Kelly, Leybman, Blatt, & Wampold,
Therapist Effects
Therapist effects represent the amount
of variance attributable not to the model
wielded but rather to who the therapist is—
it’s no surprise that the participants in the
therapeutic endeavor account for the lion’s
share of how change occurs. Depending on
whether therapist variability is investigated
in efficacy or effectiveness studies, a recent
meta-analysis suggested that 5% to 7% of
the overall variance is accounted for by ther-
apist effects (Baldwin & Imel, 2013).1
This
is a conservative finding compared with ear-
lier estimates that suggested that 8% to 9%
of the variance is accounted for by therapist
factors (Wampold, 2005), including a recent
investigation by my colleagues and I (Owen,
Duncan, Reese, Anker, & Sparks, in press),
which found that 8% of the variability was
accounted for by therapists. Therefore, in
Figure 29.1, a 5% to 8% range is depicted,
or 36% to 57% of the variance attributed
to treatment. The amount of variance, there-
fore, accounted for by therapist factors is
about five to eight times more than that of
model differences.
Although we know that some therapists
are better than others, there is not a lot of
research about what specifically distin-
guishes the best from the rest. Demographics
(gender, ethnicity, discipline, and experi-
ence) don’t seem to matter much (Beutler
et al., 2004), and although a variety of thera-
pist interpersonal variables seem intuitively
important, there is not much empirical sup-
port for any particular quality or attribute
(Baldwin & Imel, 2013). So what does mat-
ter? There’s a preliminary possibility and one
absolute certainty.
A possibility is experience, but not the
generic kind that we were often told would
make us better. A criticism often leveled at
research investigating therapist experience
is that it is not operationally defined and
that a more sophisticated look may yield

predictive beyond early benefit suggests a
more causal relationship.
Based on the profound work of Carl
Rogers (1957), the concepts of empathy,
positive regard, and genuineness still repre-
sent the best way to understand and facilitate
the relational bond. Rogers (1980) defined
empathy as the “therapist’s sensitive ability
and willingness to understand the client’s
thoughts, feelings and struggles from the cli-
ent’s point of view” (p. 85). It is important
to remember that perceived empathy is quite
idiosyncratic; some experience empathy as
an affective connection, some as a cognitive
understanding, and others as a more nurtur-
ing experience (Bachelor, 1988). So there is
no single, invariably facilitative empathic
response, but finding how clients experience
empathy is well worth the effort. A recent
meta-analysis of 57 studies looking at empa-
thy and outcome (Elliott, Bohart, Watson, &
Greenberg, 2011) found a significant rela-
tionship, an r of .31. Similarly, another idea
championed by Rogers, unconditional posi-
tive regard, characterized as warm accep-
tance of the client’s experience without
conditions, a prizing, an affirmation, and a
deep nonpossessive caring or love (Rogers,
1957), continues to demonstrate the
centrality of the relationship to outcome.
A recent meta-analysis of 18 studies exam-
ining positive regard and outcome found a
significant relationship, an r of .27 (Farber
& Doolin, 2011). And finally, there’s con-
gruence/genuineness, “that the therapist is
mindfully genuine in the therapy relation-
ship, underscoring present personal aware-
ness, as well as genuineness or authenticity”
(Kolden, Klein, Wang, & Austin, 2011,
p. 65). Kolden et al. (2011) meta-analyzed
16 studies and found a significant relation-
ship between congruence/genuineness and
outcome, an r of .24. Lambert (2013) rightly
notes that these relationship variable corre-
lations are much higher than those of spe-
cific treatments and outcome. A gas furnace
2010). These results suggest that enhancing
alliance abilities may provide a clear path-
way to better results (see Duncan, 2010). So
the answer to the oft-heard question about
why some therapists are better than others is
that tried and true but taken-for-granted old
friend, the therapeutic alliance.
The Alliance
Bordin (1979) defined the alliance with
three interacting elements: (1) a relational
bond, (2) agreement on the goals of ther-
apy, and (3) agreement on the tasks of
therapy. Historically, the amount of vari-
ance attributed to the alliance has ranged
from 5% to 7% of the overall variance or
36% to 50% of the variance accounted for
by treatment (e.g., Horvath & Bedi, 2002)
More recently, Horvath, Del Re, Flückiger,
and Symonds (2011) examined 201 studies
and found the correlation between the alli-
ance and outcome to be r = .28, accounting
for a slightly higher 7.5% of the variance.
Putting this into perspective, the amount of
change attributable to the alliance is about
five to seven times that of a specific model
or technique.
Based on studies showing that early
change accounted for most of the vari-
ance attributed to the alliance, some have
suggested that the relationship of the alli-
ance to outcome could be a consequence
of how much clients are benefiting from
therapy (e.g., Barber, 2009). However, sev-
eral recent studies have confirmed that there
appears to be little evidence that control-
ling for prior change substantially reduces
or eliminates the alliance–outcome correla-
tion (Crits-Christoph, Connolly Gibbons,
& Mukherjee, 2013; Horvath et al., 2011).
Similarly, my colleagues and I (Anker,
Owen, Duncan, & Sparks, 2010) found that
the alliance at the third session significantly
predicted outcome over and above early
reliable change. The fact that the alliance is

After setting up camp the first night, I felt
inexplicably worried about Maria. This was
before cell phones. So I hiked 4 miles back
to my truck in the darkness and drove to a
pay phone in a nearby town to see how she
was getting along. She was okay.
That call proved to be a turning point.
Afterward, Maria became proactive in
therapy and outside it. She started going to
church, got involved in a singles group, and
signed up for additional technical training
that would allow her to change jobs. Her
thoughts of suicide stopped, and she discon-
tinued taking antidepressants. In sessions,
at her direction, we talked less about how
lousy she felt and more about how she could
change her life. Over the next 6 months,
she left her unrewarding job, where every-
one knew her as a psychiatric casualty, and
joined a medical missionary project in Asia.
Six months later, she wrote to let me know
that things were going pretty well for her in
northern Thailand:
I picture myself in your office, just telling
you stuff and you listening. Every time I
called you, you called me back. It didn’t
always help, but you were there. And I real-
ized that is just what a little girl would
want from her daddy, what I had been
missing all my life and wanting so badly.
Finally, when I was 35 years old, someone
gave it to me. I sure am glad I got to know
what it feels like to have someone care
about me in that way. It was a beautiful gift
you gave me. You also made me realize
how much God loves me. When you called
me that weekend you went backpacking, I
thought to myself, “If a human can do that
for me, then I believe what the Bible says
about us all the time.” So thanks for loving
me—because that’s what you did.
Maria taught me to honor the client’s
view of the alliance—she knew that she
needed a certain sort of contact to heal, and I
gave it to her.That was not all I did, but it was
explosion when Maria was 6 years old had
killed both her father and sister. Her mother
had collapsed emotionally after the accident
and spent most of her days in bed. Maria
had essentially grown up without a parent
and, partly as a result, had been repeatedly
sexually abused by an uncle. By the time I
saw her, Maria was 35 and had been in ther-
apy and taking antidepressants for most of
her life. She held a responsible but unsatisfy-
ing job in a biotechnology company. Maria
had tried to kill herself five times, leading to
five psychiatric stays. She called her latest
therapist eight or nine times a day, leaving
agonized messages with the answering ser-
vice, demanding to be called back. Perhaps
because of her borderline diagnosis, Maria’s
demands were rarely, if ever, met by her
therapist, which provoked Maria into esca-
lating levels of distress and self-harming. She
was headed toward another suicide attempt
when her resentful and burned-out therapist
referred her, with a sense of relief, to me and
an investigation I was involved in called the
“impossible”-case project (Duncan, Hubble,
& Miller, 1997).
After consultation with my colleagues,
I decided to encourage Maria’s calls and
nurture rather than limit our relationship. I
worked hard to court Maria’s favor during
our first three sessions, and it wasn’t easy.
She sat in my office tight-lipped, twisting
a handkerchief in her hands. She told me
from the first that she wanted her phone
calls returned, because she only called when
she was in really bad shape. I returned
her calls when I had spare time during the
workday and again in the evenings after my
last client, talking each time for about 15
minutes. Perhaps because I reliably called
her back, she rarely called more than once
or twice a day. In our sessions, she seemed
to get softer.
Then, after our sixth session, I went
on a backpacking trip with my son Jesse,
entrusting my colleagues to cover for me.

only as effective as its delivery system—the
client–therapist relationship. So you can’t
have a good alliance without some agree-
ment about how therapy is going to address
the issues at hand. Tryon and Winograd
(2011) conducted two meta-analyses related
to the agreement on tasks—goal consensus
(which included agreement on tasks) and
collaboration—and their relationship to out-
come. Looking at 15 studies, they found a
goal consensus–outcome d of .34, indicating
that better outcomes can be expected when
client and therapist agree on goals and the
processes to achieve them. Based on 19 stud-
ies, the collaboration–outcome meta-analysis
found a d of .33, suggesting that outcome is
likely enhanced when client and therapist are
in a cooperative relationship. So your client’s
perception of any of the big three relational
variables as well as agreement about goals
and the methods to attain them are individu-
ally more powerful than any technique you
can ever wield..
Perhaps the most important part of this
collaboration is whether the favored expla-
nation and ritual of the therapist fits client
preferences. Swift, Callahan, and Vollmer
(2011) conducted a meta-analysis of 35
studies of client preference, breaking client
preferences into three areas: role, therapist,
and treatment preferences. They found that
clients who received their preferred condi-
tions were less likely to drop out and that
the overall effect size for client preference
was d = .31. So it makes sense to ensure that
whatever explanation and ritual is chosen is
a framework that both the therapist and the
client can get behind.
Your alliance skills are truly at play here:
your interpersonal ability to explore the cli-
ent’s ideas, discuss options, collaboratively
form a plan, and negotiate any changes
when benefit to the client is not forthcoming.
Traditionally, the search has been for inter-
ventions that promote change by validating
the affectionate container for our conver-
sations, which included discussions of what
she wanted to change and how she could
make it happen. Maria also taught me the
power found in simple acts of human caring,
in empathy and positive regard. Of course, I
had no idea of the connection of my actions
to her desire for a loving father; it never
occurred to me, perhaps because we were
close in age. Within the limits of what I can
ethically and personally manage, I have
learned to provide as much human caring
and nonpossessive love as possible.
The more cognitive aspects of the alliance
are the agreements with the client about
the goals and tasks of therapy. When we
ask clients what they want to be different,
we give credibility to their beliefs and val-
ues regarding the problem and its solution.
Collaborative goal formation begins the
process of change, wherever the client may
ultimately travel. Tasks include specific tech-
niques or points of view, topics of conversa-
tion, interview procedures, the frequency of
meetings, and all the nuts and bolts aspects
of doing the work, including scheduling,
cancellation, payment, and between-session
contacts. These are all aspects of the task
dimension and can count for or against us
in the alliance. In our follow-up study of the
Norway Feedback Project, we found that
the highest category of complaints was the
everyday aspects of providing service (Anker,
Sparks, Duncan, Owen, & Stapnes, 2011).
Asking for help to set the tasks of therapy
further demonstrates respect for client capa-
bilities, and sets the stage for further efforts
to enlist participation. This is probably our
biggest alliance blind spot. In an important
way, the alliance depends on the delivery of
some particular treatment or technique—a
framework for understanding and solving
the problem (Hatcher & Barends, 2006).
There can be no alliance without a treat-
ment, and on the other hand, technique is

It’s hard work. We often think that
“therapeutic work” only applies to clients;
it actually applies to us too. We have to earn
this thing called the alliance. We have to put
ourselves out there with each and every per-
son, each and every interaction, and each
and every session. It is a daunting task to
be sure, but one whose importance and dif-
ficulty are perpetually minimized. It gets so
little press compared with models and tech-
niques and is often relegated to statements
like “First gain rapport and then . . . ” or
“Form a relationship and then . . . ”—as
if it is something we effortlessly do before
the real intervention starts. The alliance is
not the anesthesia to surgery. We don’t offer
Rogerian reflections to lull clients into com-
placency so we can stick the real interven-
tion to them! Intervention is not therapy.
When Lisbeth was introduced to me in
the waiting room, she told me to go f . . . k
myself. I was doing a consult because this
16-year-old was refusing to go to school and
had assaulted five foster parents. Lisbeth
was one angry adolescent, and my initial
thought was “Wouldn’t it be sweet if she
told me what she was angry about,” because
I knew there had to be a good reason. In the
opening moments, I asked Lisbeth what she
thought would be most useful for us to talk
about and she said, “What I think of you is
that you are a condescending bastard with no
understanding of your clients whatsoever!”
Whew, she knew how to hit where it hurt!
But slowly, and surely, I listened, and I didn’t
react to her as others had likely responded.
I maintained my conviction that if I under-
stood her story, everything—especially her
anger—would make complete sense. For
example, she told me how she refused medi-
cation in one of her many hospitalizations
and had threatened to break the kneecaps of
the psychiatrist who attempted to force her
to take meds. This likely stimulated replies
about the inappropriateness of her violent
the therapist’s favored theory. Serving the
alliance requires taking a different angle:
the search for ideas that promote change
by validating the client’s view of what
is helpful—the client’s theory of change
(Duncan & Moynihan, 1994). The appli-
cation of any agreed-on explanation or
technique represents the alliance in action.
Perhaps some idiosyncratic blend of client
ideas, yours, and theoretical/technical ones
might ultimately be just the ticket. The lit-
mus test of any chosen rationale or ritual is
whether or not it engages the client in pur-
posive work and makes a difference.
THE ALLIANCE: ONE LAST WORD
We all have clients who rapidly respond to
us, to whom we connect quickly. But what
about the folks who are mandated by the
courts or protective services or who just
plain don’t want to be there (like almost all
kids)? What about people who have never
been in a good relationship or have been
abused or traumatized? What about folks
that life just never seems to give a break or
those who have lost hope? Well, the thera-
pist’s job, our job, is exactly the same
regardless. If we want anything good to
happen, it all rests on a strong alliance—we
have to engage the client in purposeful
work. The research about what differenti-
ates one therapist from another as well as
my personal experience suggest that the
ability to form alliances with people who
are not easy to form alliances with—to
engage people who don’t want to be
engaged—separates the best from the rest.
For example, Anderson, Ogles, Patterson,
Lambert, and Vermeersch (2009) found a
significant relationship between how thera-
pists responded to challenging clients on a
performance test of interpersonal skills and
their outcomes in actual practice.

MODEL/TECHNIQUE: GENERAL
EFFECTS (EXPLANATION AND
RITUAL), CLIENT EXPECTANCY
(HOPE, PLACEBO), AND
THERAPIST ALLEGIANCE
Ensuring that any selected treatment reso-
nates with both the client (expectancy) and
the therapist (allegiance) also complements
the so-called placebo factors, or the general
effects of delivering any model or technique.
Model/technique factors are the beliefs and
procedures unique to any given treatment.
But these specific effects, the impact of the
differences among treatments, are very
small—only about 1% of the overall vari-
ance or 7% of that attributable to treatment.
But the general effects of providing a treat-
ment are far more potent. When a placebo
or technically “inert” condition is offered in
a manner that fosters positive expectations
for improvement, it reliably produces effects
almost as large as a bona fide treatment
(Baskin, Tierney, Minami, & Wampold,
2003). (There is some controversy surround-
ing how potent this effect is, hence the ques-
tion mark in Figure 29.1.) Models achieve
their effects in large part, if not completely,
through the activation of placebo, hope, and
expectancy, combined with the therapist’s
belief in (allegiance to) the treatment admin-
istered. As long as a treatment makes sense
to, is accepted by, and fosters the active
engagement of the client, the particular
approach used is unimportant. Placebo fac-
tors are also fueled by a therapist belief that
change occurs naturally and almost univer-
sally—the human organism, shaped by mil-
lennia of evolution and survival, tends to
heal and to find a way, even out of the heart
of darkness (Sparks & Duncan, 2010).
Feedback Effects
Common-factors research provides gen-
eral guidance for enhancing those elements
tendencies, ad nauseam. I simply said that
she didn’t want to kill the psychiatrist, after
all, but only wanted to permanently impair
her, a significant difference. And I got a
slight smile, and a bit more conversation.
Lisbeth told me that she had been
removed from her home at age 13 because of
multiple sexual abuses by her mother’s boy-
friends, and since then, she had been in five
foster care homes; the fifth foster care par-
ent was Sophie, who sat before me now. She
also told me that the previous 18 months of
therapy had not addressed her goal of telling
her mother off, once and for all. In fact, no
attempt was made to allow any approxima-
tion of this to happen.
After a while of allowing her story to
wash over me, I ventured a comment that
Lisbeth was like a salty old sailor, she
cursed like a sailor and had a storied life—
she was crusty at the ripe old age of 16.
She smiled in a way that acknowledged
that I both understood and appreciated
her. Lisbeth rewarded me with an explana-
tion of her anger. She told me how she was
relieved to be removed from her home and
that her first foster care parent expressed
her intention to adopt both Lisbeth and her
5-year-old sister. But instead, her sister was
adopted, and Lisbeth was dumped. That’s
when the assaults started and the complete
dismissal of school. So the first adult that
she trusted, after having none in her life
worthy of her trust, betrayed her totally
and completely.
There is no more righteous anger than
this kid felt. I said that, and we connected.
And Lisbeth, via work with others who
finally addressed her goal for therapy,
completed her GED (General Educational
Development) online and settled in with her
foster parents. The relationship is not always
easy, and it demands a lot from us, but it is
almost always not only worth the effort but
also why we became therapists—at least,
why I became a therapist.

improvement, fits client preferences, maxi-
mizes therapist–client alliance potential
and client participation, and is itself a core
feature of therapeutic change. Feedback
embodies the lessons I learned from Tina,
providing for a transparent interpersonal
process that solicits the client’s help in
ensuring a positive outcome.
MY JOURNEY TO RELATIONSHIP:
CLOSING THOUGHTS
Listening creates a holy silence.When
you listen generously to people, they
can hear the truth in themselves,
often for the first time. And when
you listen deeply, you can know
yourself in everyone.
Rachel Remen,
Kitchen Table Wisdom
I was recently asked (Kottler & Carlson,
2014) what it is that I do, and who I am, that
most made my work effective (assuming that
it is). What I do that is most important in
contributing to my effectiveness is that I rou-
tinely measure outcome and the alliance (via
PCOMS). This allows me to deal directly and
transparently with clients, involving them in
all decisions that affect their care and keeping
their perspectives the centerpiece of everything
I do. In addition, it serves as an early-warning
device that identifies clients who are not ben-
efiting, so that the client and I can chart a dif-
ferent course, which in turn encourages me to
step outside my therapeutic business-as-usual,
do things I’ve never done before, and there-
fore continue to grow as a therapist. This also
allows me to focus every session with every
client on the alliance, so that I tailor what I do
to the client’s expectations. Finally, tracking
outcome and the alliance also enables proac-
tive efforts to improve, without guesswork or
waiting for the platitudes about experience
to manifest. It enables our clients—especially
shown to be most influential to positive
outcomes. The specifics, however, can
only be derived from the client’s response
to what we deliver—the client’s feed-
back regarding progress in therapy and
the quality of the alliance. Although it
sounds like hyperbole, identifying clients
who are not benefiting is the single most
important thing a therapist can do to
improve outcomes. Combining Lambert’s
Outcome Questionnaire System (Lambert
& Shimokawa, 2011) and our Partners
for Change Outcome Management System
(PCOMS) (e.g., Anker, Duncan, & Sparks,
2009; Reese, Norsworthy, & Rowlands,
2009), nine RCTs now support this asser-
tion. A recent meta-analysis of PCOMS
studies (Lambert & Shimokawa, 2011)
found that those in the feedback group
had 3.5 higher odds of experiencing reli-
able change and less than half the odds of
experiencing deterioration. In addition,
collecting outcome and alliance feedback
from clients allows the systematic tracking
of therapist development, so that neither
client benefit nor therapist growth over
time is left to wishful thinking. Visit https://
heartandsoulofchange.com/ for more infor
mation (The measures are free for individ-
ual use and are available in 23 languages.).
PCOMS is listed by the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Administration as an
evidence-based practice. It is different
from what is usually considered evidence
based because feedback is atheoretical and
therefore additive to any therapeutic ori-
entation and applies to clients of all diag-
nostic categories (Duncan, 2012).
An inspection of Figure 29.1 shows that
feedback overlaps and affects all the fac-
tors—it is the tie that binds them together—
allowing the other common factors to be
delivered one client at a time. Soliciting
systematic feedback is a living, ongoing pro-
cess that engages clients in the collaborative
monitoring of outcome, heightens hope for

Although much psychopathological gob-
bledygook accompanied her, it was safe to
say that Rosa was a “difficult” child—prone
to tantrums, which included kicking, bit-
ing, and throwing anything she could find. I
began the session by asking Rosa if she was
going to help me today, and she immediately
yelled, “No!”—leaning back, with her arms
folded across her chest. As I turned to speak
with Enrique and Margarita, Rosa began
having a tantrum in earnest—screaming at
the top of her lungs and flailing around,
kicking me in the process.
With Rosa’s tantrum escalating, Margarita
dropped a bombshell. In a disarmingly quiet
voice, she announced that she didn’t think she
could continue foster-parenting Rosa. The
tension in the room immediately escalated;
the only sound was Rosa’s yelling, which had
become more or less rote at that point. I felt
as if I’d been kicked in the gut. I’d expected
to be helping the foster parents contain and
nurture a tough child. Now it felt like I was
participating in a tragedy in the making.
Here was a couple trying their best to do the
right thing by taking in a troubled kid with
nowhere else to go, but they seemed ready to
give up. The situation was obviously wrench-
ing for Margarita and Enrique, but it was
potentially catastrophic for Rosa. In this rural
setting, they were her last hope, not only of
living with family but of living nearby at all,
since the closest foster care placement was at
least 100 miles away. I contemplated Rosa’s
life unfolding in foster care with strangers,
who’d encounter the same difficulties and
likely come to the same impasse—resulting in
a nightmare of ongoing home placements.
What’sthecorrectdiagnosisforMargarita?
Is there an EBT for feeling overwhelmed,
hopeless, and not knowing whether you can
go on parenting a tough kid?
Margarita continued explaining why
she couldn’t go on, speaking softly while
tears rolled down her cheeks. Not only did
she feel she couldn’t handle Rosa, she also
those who aren’t responding well to our ther-
apeutic business-as-usual—to teach us how to
work better.
That’s what I do. But what I bring to
the therapeutic endeavor is that I am a true
believer. I believe in the client, I believe in the
power of relationship and psychotherapy as
a vehicle for change, and I believe in myself,
my ability to be present, fully immersed in
the client and dedicated to making a differ-
ence. The odds for change when you com-
bine a resourceful client, a strong alliance,
and an authentic therapist who brings him-
self or herself to the show are worth betting
on, certainly a cause for hope, and respon-
sible for my unswerving faith in psychother-
apy as a healing endeavor.
I believe in psychotherapy, not in spite
of its inherent uncertainty but because of it.
Although we long for the structured,scripted,
predictable, manualized, surefire way to con-
duct a session, uncertainty is endemic to the
work as it is to life, and therefore is impor-
tant to embrace. Uncertainty is the place of
unlimited possibilities for change. It is this
indeterminacy that gives therapy its texture
and infuses it with the excitement of discov-
ery. This allows for the “heretofore unsaid,”
the “aha moments,” and all the spontane-
ous ideas, connections, conclusions, plans,
insights, resolves, and new identities that
emerge when you put two people together in
a room and call it psychotherapy. Tolerance
for uncertainty creates the space for new
directions and insights to occur to both the
client and you.
Seven-year-old Rosa had gone to live
with foster parents—her aunt and uncle,
Margarita and Enrique—because the paren-
tal rights of her birth parents had been termi-
nated. Her father and mother were addicts
with long criminal records; the father was
in jail, and the mother was still using. Rosa
clearly had been born with two strikes
against her: (1) parents missing in action and
(2) her development impaired by drugs.

born of hopelessness, had lost its strangle-
hold, though nothing had been said explic-
itly about that. Now all smiles and bubbly,
Rosa was bouncing up and down in her
chair. Somewhat out of the blue, Margarita
announced that she was going to stick with
Rosa. “Great,” I said quietly. Then, as the
full meaning of what she’d said washed
over me, I repeated it a bit louder, and then
a third time with enthusiasm—“Great!”
I asked Margarita if anything in particu-
lar had helped her come to this decision.
She answered that, although she’d always
known it, she’d realized in our session even
more than before that there was a wonder-
ful, loving child inside Rosa and that she,
Margarita, just had to be patient and take
things one day at a time. The session had
helped her really see the attachment that was
already there. I felt the joy of that moment
then, and I still do. Follow-up revealed that
this family stayed together. Margarita never
again lost her resolve to stick with Rosa. In
addition, many of Rosa’s more troubling
behaviors fell away, perhaps as a result of
having stability in her life for the first time.
In my view, the session included that inti-
mate space in which we connect with people
and their pain in a way that somehow opens
the path from what is to what can be. My
heartfelt appreciation of both the despair of
the circumstance and their sincere desire to
help this child, combined with the fortuitous
“attachment” experience, generated new
resolve for Margarita and Enrique. This ses-
sion taught me, once again, that anything is
possible—that even the bleakest sessions can
have a positive outcome if you stay with the
process. Just when things seemed the most
hopeless, when both the family and I were
surely down for the count and needed only
to accept the inevitable, something mean-
ingful and positive emerged that changed
everything—including me. This is the power
of relationship and why my psychotherapy
journey continues on course.
worried about the child’s attachment to her.
As Margarita expressed her doubts in a near
whisper, Enrique’s eyes began to tear up, and
a feeling of despair permeated the room. At
that moment, I felt helpless to prevent a terri-
ble ending to an already bad story and didn’t
have a clue about what to do. Meanwhile,
Margarita began gently caressing Rosa’s
head and speaking softly to her—the Spanish
equivalent of “There, there, little one”—
until the little girl started to calm down.
With her tantrum at an end, Rosa turned to
face Margarita, and then she reached up and
wiped the tears from her aunt’s face. “Don’t
cry, Auntie,” she said warmly, “don’t cry.”
Witnessing these actions was yet another
reminder to me of how new possibilities can
emergeatanymomentinaseeminglyhopeless
session and the uncertainty of what will hap-
pen next. “It’s tough to parent a child who’s
been through as much as Rosa has,” I said.“I
respect your need to really think through the
long-term consequences here. But I’m also
impressed with how gently you handled Rosa
when she was so upset and with how you,
Rosa, comforted your Auntie when you saw
her crying. Clearly there’s something special
about the connection between you two.”
Margarita replied that Rosa definitely had
a “sweet side.”When she saw that she’d upset
either Margarita or Enrique, she quickly
became soft, responsive, and tender. I began
to talk with Margarita and Enrique about
what seemed to work with Rosa and what
didn’t. While Rosa snuggled up to Margarita,
we talked about how to bring out Rosa’s
sweet side more often. As ideas emerged, I
was in awe, as I often am, of the fortitude cli-
ents show when facing formidable challenges.
Here was a couple in their late 40s, who’d
already raised their own two children, con-
sidering taking on the responsibility of raising
another one who had such a difficult history.
By now, the tension and despair present
a few moments before had evaporated. The
decision to discontinue foster parenting,

NOTE
1. The percentages are best viewed as a defensible way to understand outcome
variance but not as representing any ultimate truths. They are meta-analytic estimates
of what each of the factors contributes to change. Because of the overlap among the
common factors, the percentages for the separate factors will not add to 100%.
REFERENCES
Anderson, T., Ogles, B., Patterson, C., Lambert, M., & Vermeersch, D. (2009).
Therapist effects: Facilitative interpersonal skill as a predictor of therapist suc-
cess. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 755–768.
Anker, M., Duncan, B., & Sparks, J. (2009). Using client feedback to improve
couple therapy outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77,
693–704.
Anker, M., Owen, J., Duncan, B., & Sparks, J. (2010). The alliance in couple therapy:
Gender, partner influence, and the alliance-change relationship in a naturalistic
sample. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 78, 635–645.
Anker, M., Sparks, J., Duncan, B., Owen, J., & Stapnes, A. (2011). Footprints of
couple therapy: Client reflections at follow up using a mixed method design in
routine care. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 22, 22–45.
Asay, T. P., & Lambert, M. J. (1999). The empirical case for the common factors
in therapy. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart
and soul of change (pp. 33–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Bachelor, A. (1988). How clients perceive therapist empathy: A content analysis of
“received” empathy. Psychotherapy, 25, 227–240.
Baldwin, S. A., & Imel, Z. (2013). Therapist effects. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin
and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavioral change (6th ed.,
pp. 258–297). New York, NY: Wiley.
Baldwin, S. A., Wampold, B. E., & Imel, Z. E. (2007). Untangling the alliance-
outcome correlation: Exploring the relative importance of therapist and patient
variability in the alliance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75,
842–852.
Barber, J. P. (2009). Towards a working through of some core conflicts in psycho-
therapy research. Psychotherapy Research, 19, 1–12.
Baskin, T. W., Tierney, S. C., Minami, T., & Wampold, B. E. (2003). Establishing
specificity in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis of structural equivalence of pla-
cebo controls. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 973–979.
Beutler, L. E., Malik, M., Alimohamed, S., Harwood, M. T., Talebi, H., Noble, S., &
Wong, E. (2004). Therapist variables. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and
Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavioral change (5th ed.,
pp. 227–306). New York, NY: Wiley.
Bohart, A., & Tallman, K. (2010). Clients: The neglected common factor. In
B. Duncan, S. Miller, B. Wampold, & M. Hubble (Eds.), The heart and soul of
change: Delivering what works (2nd ed., pp. 83–12). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association Press.

Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working
alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16, 252–260.
Crits-Christoph, P., Connolly Gibbons, M., & Mukherjee, D. (2013). Process-
outcome research. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of
psychotherapy and behavioral change (6th ed., pp. 298–340). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Crits-Christoph, P., Gallop, R., Temes, C., Woody, G., Ball, S., Martino, S., & Carroll,
K. (2009). The alliance in motivational enhancement therapy and counseling as
usual for substance use problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
72, 176–191.
Duncan, B. (2010). On becoming a better therapist. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Duncan, B. (2012). The partners for change outcome management system (PCOMS):
The heart and soul of change project. Canadian Psychology, 53, 93–104.
Duncan, B., Hubble, M. A., & Miller, S. D. (1997). Psychotherapy with “impossible”
cases: Efficient treatment of therapy veterans. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Duncan, B., & Moynihan, D. (1994). Applying outcome research: Intentional utili-
zation of the client’s frame of reference. Psychotherapy, 31, 294–301.
Duncan, B., & Reese, R. J. (2012). Empirically supported treatments, evidence-based
treatments, and evidence-based practice. In G. Stricker & T. Widiger (Eds.), Hand-
book of psychology: Clinical psychology (2nd ed., pp. 977–1023). Hoboken. NJ:
Wiley.
Elliott, R., Bohart, A., Watson, J., & Greenberg, L. (2011). Empathy. Psychotherapy,
48, 43–49.
Farber, B., & Doolin, E. (2011). Positive regard. Psychotherapy, 48, 58–64.
Hatcher, R. L., & Barends, A. W. (2006). How a return to theory could help alliance
research. Psychotherapy, 43, 292–299.
Horvath, A. O., & Bedi, R. P. (2002). The alliance. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psycho-
therapy relationships that work (pp. 37–69). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Horvath, A., Del Re, A. C., Flückiger, C., & Symonds, D. (2011). Alliance in indi-
vidual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 48, 9–16.
Kolden, M., Klein, M., Wang, C., & Austin, S. (2011). Congruence/genuineness.
Psychotherapy, 48, 65–71.
Kottler, J., & Carlson, J. (2014). Becoming a master therapist. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kraus, D., Castonguay, L., Boswell, J., Nordberg, S., & Hayes, J. (2011). Therapist
effectiveness. Psychotherapy Research, 21, 267–276.
Lambert, M. J. (2013). The efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy. In
M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and
behavior change (6th ed., pp. 169–218). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lambert, M. J., & Shimokawa, K. (2011). Collecting client feedback. Psychotherapy,
48, 72–79.
Marcus, D., Kashy, D., & Baldwin, S. (2009). Studying psychotherapy using the one-
with-many design. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 537–548.
Owen, J., Duncan, B., Reese, J., Anker, M., & Sparks, J. (in press). Accounting for
therapist variability in couple therapy outcomes. Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy.
Reese, R., Norsworthy, L., & Rowlands, S. (2009). Does a continuous feedback
model improve psychotherapy outcomes? Psychotherapy, 46, 418–431.

Rogers, C. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality
change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95–103.
Rogers, C. (1980). A way of being. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Sparks, J. A., & Duncan, B. L. (2010). Couple and family therapy and the common
factors. In B. Duncan, S. Miller, B. Wampold, & M. Hubble (Eds.), The heart
and soul of change (2nd ed., pp. 357–392). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Swift, J., Callahan, J., & Vollmer, B. (2011). Preferences. In J. Norcross (Ed.), Psy-
chotherapy relationships that work: Evidence-based responsiveness (2nd ed.,
pp. 301–315). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tryon, G. S., & Winograd, G. (2011). Goal consensus and collaboration. Psycho-
therapy, 48, 50–57.
Wampold, B. E. (2005). What should be validated? The psychotherapist. In
J. C. Norcross, L. E. Beutler, & R. F. Levant (Eds.), Evidence-based practices in
mental health (pp. 200–208, 236–238). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Zuroff, D., Kelly, A., Leybman, M., Blatt, S., & Wampold, B. (2010). Between-
therapist and within-therapist differences in the quality of the therapeutic
relationship. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 66, 681–697.

Duncan2014

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Duncan2014 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Duncan2014