Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297306

DOI 10.1007/s10615-012-0408-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

Social Workers Attitudes Towards and Engagement

in Self-Disclosure
Carolyn Knight

Published online: 30 June 2012

 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract This article reports on a study of social workers engagement in self-disclosure. Consistent with theory
and research, participants limited their use of personal selfdisclosure but were more willing to be transparent with
clients. Yet, the social workers in this study did not always
feel prepared by their education to appropriately engage in
self-disclosure nor did they believe their use of this skill
was grounded in theory or research. Many of the participants also didnt feel comfortable talking about self-disclosure in supervision or with colleagues. Findings suggest
that more attention should be devoted to teaching social
work students about appropriate use of self-disclosure,
particularly its different manifestations and its indications
and contraindications. The findings also underscore the
need for more open and direct discussion of this set of
skills in supervision and consultation.
Keywords Use of self
Therapist transparency

Self-disclosure

Introduction
Self-disclosure with adult clients remains one of the more
controversial and misunderstood aspects of social work
practice. Authors generally concur that the self of the
therapist is always present in the working relationship
(Reupert 2007, 2008). Yet, others caution that the professionals intentional use of self through behaviors such as

C. Knight (&)
School of Social Work, University of Maryland Baltimore
County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA
e-mail: knight@umbc.edu

self-disclosure is a therapeutic mistake, rather than a

therapeutic intervention (Peterson 2002).
Maroda (1999) asserts that a significant reason why selfdisclosure remains so controversial is that recognition of its
therapeutic potential is a relatively new development,
particularly in the psychoanalytic literature. Self-disclosure exists outside of traditional analytic theory and practice. Having been off limits until recently, it has had no
context (1999, p. 474). She goes on to note that it is
difficult for therapists to make the transition from deliberate inhibition to deliberate disclosure (1999, p. 475).
Authors on both sides of the self-disclosure debate point
to ethical considerations as reasons why self-disclosure is
either an ill-advised or an appropriate intervention. For
example, critics argue that self-disclosure inevitably leads
to boundary violations, transforming the professional
relationship into a more personal one and discouraging
transference (Gabbard and Lester 1995; Ivey 2009). Further, it is argued that self-disclosure reflects a lack of selfawareness on the part of the clinician and is a manifestation
of countertrasnference.
In contrast, other authors argue that therapist self-disclosure is consistent with and reinforces ethical conduct.
Peterson (2002) observes that disclosures about the clinicians training and practice support the clients right to
informed consent and reinforce client/consumer rights.
Similarly, feminist theorists assert that clinician disclosures
about basic demographic and background information are
consistent with and expand the informed consent mandate
since clients have the right to know the sort of person with
whom they will be working (Mahalik et al. 2000; Simi and
Mahalik 1997).
Knox and Hill (2003) note that, based upon available
theory and research, two types of self-disclosures can be
identified: here and now and there and then. Here and

123

298

now disclosures- also known as disclosures of immediacy

or self-revealing disclosures- reflect the clinicians
thoughts and reactions to the client and what is occurring in
the session. For the remainder of this article these types of
disclosures will be referred to as transparency.
There and then disclosures, on the other handalso
known as self-involving disclosures-reflect relevant experiences from the clinicians life and circumstances outside
of the session. Throughout this article, these disclosures
will be referred to as self-involving. Self-disclosure typically is viewed as being synonymous with self-involving
disclosures. Typically, it is these disclosures that have been
criticized as being disruptive forces in the working relationship and have been questioned on ethical grounds
(Domenici 2006; Gutheil 2010).
Theoretical Foundation
Traditional psychoanalytic theory strongly argued for
therapist neutrality when working with adult clients. Such
neutrality was considered essential for the clients intrapersonal growth and her or his uncontaminated pursuit of
intrapsychic awareness and the gradual accumulation of
self-knowledge and wisdom (Maroda 1999, p. 475). Yet,
more than a half century ago, Carl Rogers, in his personcentered theory asserted that a critical component of
effective therapy is unconditional positive regard, which, in
turn, depended upon the therapists genuineness in which
her or his feelings and reactions were apparent to the client
(1961).
Therapist genuineness is consistent with Knox and
Hills conceptualization of transparency. Rogers contended
that effective use of this skill depended on clinicians
awareness of their affective responses. Rogers also argued
that personal self-disclosure that is therapeutically relevant-akin to self-involving disclosure- encouraged client
self-disclosure and trust and conveyed empathic understanding (Farber 2006; Jouard 1971; Truax and Carkhuff
1965).
More recently, Lawrence Shulman, in his interactional
model of social work, argues for the importance of the skill
of sharing worker thoughts and feelings (2008). Shulmans conceptualization of this skill includes elements of
transparency consistent with Rogers. When clients experience the worker as a real person rather than mechanical,
they can use the worker and the helping function more
effectivelyThe client who does not know at all times
where the worker stands will have trouble trusting that
worker (Shulman 2008, p. 140).
Shulman observed that transparency facilitates the
development of a working relationship, which, in turn, is a
necessary, though not sufficient, requirement for client

123

Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297306

change. Shulman acknowledges the potential for countertransference and the disruption this can create in the
working relationship. Like Rogers, he cautions that
appropriate use of his skill requires a high level of selfawareness.
Attachment and relational theories are an even more
recent set of constructs that provide support for self disclosure (Arnd-Caddigan and Pozzuto 2008). From a relational perspective, the workers disclosures promote the
working alliance and a positive attachment between the
client and worker (Dewane 2006; Smolar 2003; Tantillo
2004). Relational theorists place greatest emphasis on
therapist transparency though they do not rule out the
therapeutic benefit of self-involving disclosures.
One can be authentic, that is trying to represent
oneself more fully in the relationshipwithout selfdisclosing. For example, authenticity can occur
through verbal meansand through non-verbal
means (e.g., being attentive and emotionally present
in the moment to moment interplay of therapy).
[W]hen self-disclosure is used, it does not equal full
therapist self-revelationit is used to help the patient
recognize that the therapist has been moved in
response to his or her experience or behavior (Tantillo 2004, p. 58).
Relational theorists also observe that the clinicians
transparency can be utilized deliberately to foster client
transference. This provides both client and clinician with a
valuable opportunity to examine the clients interpersonal
relationships through the immediate relationship with the
therapist (Ganzer 2007; Smolar 2003; Tantillo 2004).
In a related vein, intersubjective theorists emphasize
empathy and therapists capacity to understand and appreciate the perspective of the client, as distinct from their own
subjective reality (Renik 1993; Smith 1999). While this
theoretical orientation does not distinguish between the two
types of disclosure, the focus is on transparency, which is
presumed to affirm the clients reality and the therapists
honesty and humanness (Gediman 2006; Gorkin in Maroda
1999). Self-disclosure also helps the client see the impact
that she or he has on the therapist and can be used when
there is a therapeutic impasse. Intersubjective theorists also
recognize the importance of transparency for modeling
healthier, more functional behavior for clients and note that
efforts to remain neutral actually have a negative impact
this process.
It appears that we may have been misguided in our
attempts to appear cool, calm and in control at all times.
Not only because we present an unrealistic model for
our patients or because we may inadvertently squash
their personal disclosures, but also because, over time,

298

now disclosures- also known as disclosures of immediacy

or self-revealing disclosures- reflect the clinicians
thoughts and reactions to the client and what is occurring in
the session. For the remainder of this article these types of
disclosures will be referred to as transparency.
There and then disclosures, on the other handalso
known as self-involving disclosures-reflect relevant experiences from the clinicians life and circumstances outside
of the session. Throughout this article, these disclosures
will be referred to as self-involving. Self-disclosure typically is viewed as being synonymous with self-involving
disclosures. Typically, it is these disclosures that have been
criticized as being disruptive forces in the working relationship and have been questioned on ethical grounds
(Domenici 2006; Gutheil 2010).
Theoretical Foundation
Traditional psychoanalytic theory strongly argued for
therapist neutrality when working with adult clients. Such
neutrality was considered essential for the clients intrapersonal growth and her or his uncontaminated pursuit of
intrapsychic awareness and the gradual accumulation of
self-knowledge and wisdom (Maroda 1999, p. 475). Yet,
more than a half century ago, Carl Rogers, in his personcentered theory asserted that a critical component of
effective therapy is unconditional positive regard, which, in
turn, depended upon the therapists genuineness in which
her or his feelings and reactions were apparent to the client
(1961).
Therapist genuineness is consistent with Knox and
Hills conceptualization of transparency. Rogers contended
that effective use of this skill depended on clinicians
awareness of their affective responses. Rogers also argued
that personal self-disclosure that is therapeutically relevant-akin to self-involving disclosure- encouraged client
self-disclosure and trust and conveyed empathic understanding (Farber 2006; Jouard 1971; Truax and Carkhuff
1965).
More recently, Lawrence Shulman, in his interactional
model of social work, argues for the importance of the skill
of sharing worker thoughts and feelings (2008). Shulmans conceptualization of this skill includes elements of
transparency consistent with Rogers. When clients experience the worker as a real person rather than mechanical,
they can use the worker and the helping function more
effectivelyThe client who does not know at all times
where the worker stands will have trouble trusting that
worker (Shulman 2008, p. 140).
Shulman observed that transparency facilitates the
development of a working relationship, which, in turn, is a
necessary, though not sufficient, requirement for client

123

Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297306

change. Shulman acknowledges the potential for countertransference and the disruption this can create in the
working relationship. Like Rogers, he cautions that
appropriate use of his skill requires a high level of selfawareness.
Attachment and relational theories are an even more
recent set of constructs that provide support for self disclosure (Arnd-Caddigan and Pozzuto 2008). From a relational perspective, the workers disclosures promote the
working alliance and a positive attachment between the
client and worker (Dewane 2006; Smolar 2003; Tantillo
2004). Relational theorists place greatest emphasis on
therapist transparency though they do not rule out the
therapeutic benefit of self-involving disclosures.
One can be authentic, that is trying to represent
oneself more fully in the relationshipwithout selfdisclosing. For example, authenticity can occur
through verbal meansand through non-verbal
means (e.g., being attentive and emotionally present
in the moment to moment interplay of therapy).
[W]hen self-disclosure is used, it does not equal full
therapist self-revelationit is used to help the patient
recognize that the therapist has been moved in
response to his or her experience or behavior (Tantillo 2004, p. 58).
Relational theorists also observe that the clinicians
transparency can be utilized deliberately to foster client
transference. This provides both client and clinician with a
valuable opportunity to examine the clients interpersonal
relationships through the immediate relationship with the
therapist (Ganzer 2007; Smolar 2003; Tantillo 2004).
In a related vein, intersubjective theorists emphasize
empathy and therapists capacity to understand and appreciate the perspective of the client, as distinct from their own
subjective reality (Renik 1993; Smith 1999). While this
theoretical orientation does not distinguish between the two
types of disclosure, the focus is on transparency, which is
presumed to affirm the clients reality and the therapists
honesty and humanness (Gediman 2006; Gorkin in Maroda
1999). Self-disclosure also helps the client see the impact
that she or he has on the therapist and can be used when
there is a therapeutic impasse. Intersubjective theorists also
recognize the importance of transparency for modeling
healthier, more functional behavior for clients and note that
efforts to remain neutral actually have a negative impact
this process.
It appears that we may have been misguided in our
attempts to appear cool, calm and in control at all times.
Not only because we present an unrealistic model for
our patients or because we may inadvertently squash
their personal disclosures, but also because, over time,

Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297306

we are likely to lose touch with who we really are. The

issue of authenticity thus becomes an intrapsychic
event for the analyst as much as an interpersonal one
with the patient (Maroda 1999, p. 478).
Intersubjective theorists observe that many- if not mostclients in need of therapy lack the ability to properly
manage and express affect. In order to assist the client in
this regard, the therapist needs to be prepared to engage in
self-involving disclosure. From an intersubjective perspective, self-disclosure is about the serious business of
emotional re-education and development[it] can be seen
as a vitally important aspect of affective communication
within the therapeutic relationship, rather than merely as a
self-indulgence by the therapist who wishes to be known
by her patient (Maroda 1999, p. 479).
A contemporary application of intersubjective theory to
understanding the benefits of self-disclosure may be found
in the phenomenon of shared trauma, in which both clinician and client are exposed- often simultaneously- to the
same traumatic event, such as human-made or natural
disasters. Intersubjective theorists would argue that selfdisclosure is not only necessary it is likely to be inevitable
in these instances (Baum 2012; Tosone 2011; Tosone et al.
2011). While there is the danger of boundary violations, the
clinicians transparency and engagement in self-involving
disclosures can be used intentionally to validate and normalize the clients feelings and model ways that the client
can manage her or his reactions to the traumatic event.
Therapist self-disclosure also can serve to distinguish the
clinicians feelings from those of the client, which actually
reduces the likelihood of boundary violations.
Feminist and multicultural perspectives also support the
use of professional self-disclosure (Brown and Walker
1990; Burkard et al. 2006; Henretty and Levitt 2009; Heydt
and Sherman 2005; Yan and Wong 2005). These approaches place particular emphasis on self-involving disclosure
as a way of normalizing and validating the clients experiences and promoting a more egalitarian relationship
between worker and client (Simi and Mahalik 1997). Selfinvolving disclosure also is assumed to be empowering to
clients and to foster a sense of solidarity with the therapist
(Brown and Walker 1990).
Finally, cognitive-behavioral theorists acknowledge the
benefits of transparency as a way of assisting the client
with reality testing, promoting client growth, and modeling
more adaptive behaviors (Goldfried et al. 2003). [T]herapists are encouraged to self-disclose the personal impact
that clients make on them. By differentially responding to
the clients ineffective and effective behaviors within the
session, the therapist encourages the clients use of adaptive interpersonal behaviors and discourages behaviors that
are problematic (Goldfried et al. 2003, p. 557).

299

Evidence-Based Foundation
A significant limitation of most of the research on selfdisclosure with adult clients is that it has focused only on
self-involving disclosure. Given this limitation, it is not
surprising that findings reveal that while the majority of
clinicians report self-disclosing, they do so infrequently
and express confusion over this behavior (Henretty and
Levitt 2009; Kelly and Rodriguez 2007).
Clinicians, including social workers, are more likely to
engage in self-involving disclosure if the need for it is
unambiguous. Yet, the need for such disclosure is rarely
clear-cut (Heydt and Sherman 2005; Reupert 2007).
Research also indicates that clinicians are particularly
likely to self-disclose to clients similarities and parallel
experiences to convey empathy and understanding and to
disclose their qualifications and credentials to convey
reassurance (Edwards and Murdock 1994; Hanson 2005).
Some evidence suggests that inexperienced clinicians may
disclose less about themselves than their more experienced
counterparts but few other differences based upon therapist
demographics have as yet been observed (Barrett and
Berman 2001). One study did find that when compared to
therapists from another discipline, social workers were less
likely to engage in self-involving disclosure, citing
boundary and ethical issues (Jeffrey and Austin 2007).
Studies of the impact that self-disclosure has on clinical
outcomes have produced contradictory findings, in part due
to the narrow definitions of self-disclosure that typically
have been employed. Most noteworthy is the finding that
there and then, self-involving disclosures generally are less
helpful than here and now transparency (Henretty and
Levitt 2009; Knox and Hill 2003). Findings do reveal that
in the early phase of work, disclosure about professional
background and transparency contribute to the establishment of the working relationship (Hanson 2005; Hendrick
1988; Heydt and Sherman 2005; Reupert 2007). Transparency also has been found to enhance the clients feelings of trust in the clinician, convey normalization,
validation, and understanding of client feelings, and result
in a lessening of symptom distress (Barrett and Berman
2001; Knox et al. 1997).
Self-involving disclosure may encourage client selfdisclosure, but evidence suggests that if too much attention
is devoted to such disclosures, clients willingness to disclose actually can be lessened (Kelly and Rodriguez 2007;
Knox and Hill 2003). On the other hand, evidence also
reveals that non-disclosure also can have a disruptive
influence on the working relationship. When the client asks
for information about the clinician and this information is
not provided, this undermines the clients trust in the clinician (Hanson 2005). Finally, disclosures about sexual
issues, particularly the clinicians feelings about the client,

123

300

Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297306

2.

have been found to be unhelpful and distracting influences

in the working relationship (Fisher 2004).

3.
Rationale for Study and Research Questions
4.
Given the confusion and controversy that surrounds selfdisclosure with adult clients, it is important to ascertain
clinicians understanding of and engagement in this most
basic of social work skills. There is evidence that this topic
does not receive the attention it deserves in the social work
classroom (Chapman et al. 2003; Heydt and Sherman 2005;
Reupert 2007). During many practitioners training,
therapist self-disclosure is either taboo or portrayed as a
mistake (Henretty and Levitt 2010, p. 70).
Further, evidence suggests that clinicians remain confused and anxious about their engagement in self-disclosing behaviors (Knox and Hill 2003). This may impact their
willingness and ability to discuss self-disclosure with colleagues and supervisors since the findings of several studies
indicate that clinicians typically avoid discussing sensitive
topics in supervision (Ladany et al. 1996; Pisani 2005;
Rosenberger and Hayes 2002; Webb and Wheeler 1998;
Yourman 2003).
The present study focuses on professional social workers understanding of, preparation for, and engagement in
the two sets of self-disclosing behaviors, transparency and
self-involving. The investigation was guided by the following questions:
1.

What are social workers attitudes towards selfdisclosure with adult clients?
To what extent do social workers feel prepared by their
social work education to engage in self-disclosure with
adult clients?
To what extent do social workers feel comfortable
talking to their supervisor, if relevant, and/or colleagues about self-disclosure with adult clients?

Research Method
Research Instrument
The researcher constructed an instrument to measure social
workers attitudes towards and engagement in self-disclosure with adults, incorporating elements of two instruments
which have been used in the past to measure this phenomenon. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to
which they engaged in behaviors identified in Hendricks
Counselor Disclosure Scale (1988, 1990). Participants were
asked how often they engaged in eight different types of
self-involving disclosures on a four-point Likert-type scale
ranging from very frequently to never (see Table 1).
The author added three questions to this part of the
questionnaire to measure transparency. These included
how often respondents: allowed clients to see their affective responses to what clients share; discussed their
thoughts and discussed their feelings about the things the
client shares. These questions employed the same fourpoint Likert-type scale (see Table 1).

To what extent do social workers engage in two types

of self-disclosing behaviors with adult clients?

Table 1 Frequencies: social workers engagement in self-disclosure

Disclosure

Never
n

Infrequently

Frequently

Very frequently

Total

Self-involving disclosures
Disclose personal relationships

36

19.1

124

66.0

26

13.8

1.1

188

100

Disclose personal feelings

51

27.1

109

58.0

27

14.4

.5

188

100

Disclose professional background

15

8.0

72

38.3

75

39.9

26

13.8

188

100

Disclose personal and professional successes and failures

67

35.6

102

54.3

17

9.0

1.1

188

100

Disclose personal beliefs

76

40.6

94

50.3

15

8.0

1.1

187

100
100

Disclose personal background

43

22.9

125

66.5

17

9.0

1.6

188

131

69.3

51

27.0

2.6

1.1

189

100

78

41.7

96

51.3

13

7.0

187

100

Allow clients to see feelings and reactions

15

8.2

90

48.9

76

41.3

1.6

184

100

Discuss thoughts about what client shares

4.8

48

25.7

110

58.8

20

10.7

187

100

Discuss feelings about what client shares

15

8.1

60

32.4

102

55.1

4.3

185

100

Disclose sexual feelings/behaviors

Disclose current issues in personal life
Transparency

123

Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297306

301

study. These individuals attended a continuing education

workshop conducted by the author and were asked to
complete the survey as if they were participating in the
study. They also were asked to provide any suggestions or
comments they had about the accompanying cover letter
and the questions themselves. Feedback from these social
workers suggested the letter and the questions were generally clear and unambiguous. Several minor changes in
wording for three questions were made.

Another section of the revised instrument built upon

research conducted by Edwards and Murdock (1994) that
identified five attitudes towards and reasons for using selfdisclosure with adult clients. Four-point Likert scales,
ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree were
employed (see Table 2).
Items added to this section of the instrument included
respondents comfort engaging in self-disclosure and their
views about whether: self-disclosure led to boundary violations; they disclosed too much or too little to clients; and
their use of self-disclosure was grounded in theory and
research (see Table 2). Respondents also were asked how
prepared they were by their education to engage in selfdisclosure and how comfortable they were discussing selfdisclosure with colleagues and/or supervisors (see
Table 3). All of these questions employed the same fourpoint Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree.
All respondents were asked to provide background
information. This included age, race, gender, years of
practice experience, and practice setting.
The research instrument was pre-tested on twenty professional social workers who did not participate in the

Sample
Five hundred members of the Maryland chapter of the
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) were
randomly selected to serve as subjects in this study.
Chapter members were considered for inclusion if they
reported on their membership form that they were engaged
in some form of direct practice and were currently
employed full- or part-time in social work practice. The
national NASW provided the researcher with the randomly
selected names. In no case was an individual who participated in the pre-test randomly selected to participate in the
actual study.

Table 2 Frequencies: social workers attitudes toward self-disclosure (SD)

Attitude

SD enhances professional attractiveness

SD encourages client SD
SD encourages client trust

Strongly
disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly
agree

Total

10

5.4

13

7.0

112

60.5

50

20.7

185

100

4.9

26

14.1

108

58.7

41

22.3

184

100

2.2

24

12.9

134

72.0

24

12.9

186

100

12

6.6

76

41.8

81

44.5

13

7.1

182

100

SD enhances perceived similarity to client

3.2

52

28.1

109

58.9

18

9.7

185

100

Comfortable disclosing (self-involving)

1.1

12

6.3

101

53.2

75

39.5

190

100

Comfortable letting clients see affective reactions (transparency)

.5

10

5.3

120

63.5

58

30.7

189

100

SD conveys expertness

SD leads to boundary violations

27

14.1

118

61.5

31

16.7

10

5.4

186

100

Not sure when to engage in SD

70

36.8

106

55.8

13

6.8

.5

190

100

Disclose too much to clients

27

14.2

91

47.9

69

36.3

1.6

190

100

Disclose too little to clients

SD grounded in theory and research

27
43

14.2
22.9

105
112

55.3
59.6

56
30

29.5
16.0

2
3

1.1
1.6

190
188

100
100

Table 3 Frequencies: social

workers preparation for selfdisclosure (SD)

Variable

Education prepared to engage in SD

Comfortable seeking guidance from
supervisor and/or colleague regarding SD

Strongly
disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly
agree

Total

%
5

2.6

90

47.4

38

20.0

57

30.0

190

100

14

7.4

108

56.3

67

34.9

0.0

189

100

123

302

Distribution of the Research Instrument

As noted, the research instrument was initially pre-tested
on twenty professional social workers. This resulted in
minor changes in wording of three questions.
In April, 2010, respondents received a copy of the
instrument via regular mail along with a cover letter that
explained the purpose of the study as an attempt to examine
social workers understanding of and engagement in selfdisclosing behaviors. The letter affirmed that the study had
received IRB approval from the authors academic institution and guaranteed anonymity. The letter also clarified
issues of informed consent; participants were advised that
they were under no obligation to take part in the study and
that completing and returning the survey constituted their
consent to participate. A postage paid return envelope was
included. Respondents were not identified in any way, and
all responses were anonymous. Due to cost, no follow-up
mailings could be sent.

Results

Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297306

clients for more than fifteen sessions (51.5 %, n = 88),

while16.4 % (n = 28) stated they saw clients for an average of eleven to fifteen sessions.
Respondents Engagement in Self-Disclosure
Eighty-five percent or more of the social workers in this
study reported they infrequently or never disclosed
information about seven of the eight self-involving topics:
personal relationships; personal feelings; personal and
professional successes and failures; personal beliefs and
attitudes; personal background; sexual issues; and current
issues in personal life. In contrast, more than one-half
stated they frequently or very frequently disclosed
information about their professional background to their
clients (see Table 1).
With respect to transparency, more than 40 % indicated
they frequently or very frequently allowed their clients to see their reactions to the things clients shared with
them. Approximately 60 % of the participants reported
they frequently or very frequently discussed with
clients their thoughts and their feelings about the things
clients shared with them (See Table 1).

Characteristics of Respondents
Respondents Attitudes Towards Self-Disclosure
A total of 192 social workers completed and returned the
research instrument. Twenty-one instruments were
returned with incorrect addresses. Thus, the response rate
among the social workers who received the survey was
40.08 %. Almost 80 % of the respondents were female
(79.2 %, n = 152). Slightly more than 90 % of the social
workers characterized themselves as white (91.0 %,
n = 162), while fifteen (8.4 %) described themselves as
African-American. The average age of the social workers
who participated in this study was 48.9, and their ages
ranged from 23 to 75.
More than 90 % of the respondents had an MSW
(93.2 %, n = 177). The average year in which respondents
graduated with their highest degree was 1985; the year in
which the highest degree was achieved ranged from 1967
to 2006. The average number of years of practice experience among the respondents was 22.3 and ranged from 2 to
39 years. Almost all of the social workers in this study held
a license to practice (95.3 %, n = 183), and the majority of
these social workers held the highest level of license,
licensed certified social worker-clinical (93.7 %, n = 149).
Slightly more than half of the social workers indicated
they worked in private practice (52.4 %, n = 88) while
almost 30 % reported they worked in agency-based practice (29.8 %, n = 50); thirty respondents stated they were
engaged in both agency-based and private practice
(17.9 %). More than one-half of the social workers who
participated in this study indicated they typically saw

123

The social workers in this study generally displayed positive

attitudes towards self-disclosure (see Table 2). For example,
80 % or more of the respondents agreed or strongly
agreed that: they were comfortable disclosing information
about themselves (self-involving disclosure) to clients when
appropriate and letting their clients see their affective reactions (transparency). Similar proportions of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that disclosure enhanced:
their professional attractiveness to clients; their clients
willingness to self-disclose; and their clients trust in them.
More than one-half agreed or strongly agreed that: their
use of self-disclosure conveyed their expertness to clients
and enhanced their perceived similarity to their clients.
Less than one quarter of the participants agreed or
strongly agreed that self-disclosure led to boundary
violations, and less than 10 % indicated they werent sure
when to engage in self-disclosure (see Table 2). Yet,
approximately one-third agreed or strongly agreed
that there were times they disclosed too much or too little
to clients. Further, more than 80 % disagreed or
strongly disagreed that their self-disclosing behavior
was grounded in theory and research.
Education and Supervision
One half of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that their education prepared them to engage in

Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297306

self-disclosure (see Table 3). More than 60 % of the

respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they
were comfortable seeking guidance from a supervisor
and/or a colleague regarding self-disclosure.
Impact of Respondent Characteristics
on Self-Disclosure
Correlation matrices utilizing Kendalls tau-b as a measure
of association were constructed to assess the influence that
nine determinant variables had on the frequency with
which respondents engaged in self-disclosure: race, gender,
age, and years of experience and graduation of respondent,
number of sessions with the client, educational preparation,
comfortable seeking guidance, and practice setting (private
practice or agency-based). To facilitate this analysis, race
of respondent was limited to white and African American;
the few respondents who described their ethnicity differently were not included in this analysis.
Two dependent measures were created. Overall selfinvolving disclosure was constructed by summing the
scores of the eight items which reflected different types of
there and then self-disclosures. Overall transparency was
created by summing the three items related to this construct.
Women were more likely to report engaging in selfinvolving disclosures (s = 0.173, p \ .009) and to be
transparent (s = 0.165, p \ .013). African American workers were more likely to engage in self-involving disclosure
(-0.189, p \ .007). The more sessions the respondent
reported having with clients the more likely she or he was to
report engaging in self-involving disclosure (s = 0.183,
p \ .009) and to be transparent (0.178, p \ .012). Respondents who reported being prepared by their education were
more likely to engage in both types of self-disclosure (selfinvolving: s = 0.201, p \ .000; transparency: s = 0.212,
p \ .000). Respondents who reported being comfortable
seeking guidance from their colleagues and/or supervisor
were more likely to be transparent (s = 0.177, p \ .012).
Neither age, years of experience, date of graduation, or
practice type was associated with either measure.

Discussion
Social Workers Attitudes Towards and Engagement
in Self-Disclosure
Participants generally expressed positive attitudes towards
self-disclosure. However, more than one-third of the participants indicated there were times when they disclosed too
much to clients and 30 % reported they disclosed too little.
Participants reasons for engaging in this skill set mirror
what have been found in previous studies to be its

303

therapeutic benefits (Hanson 2005; Hendrick 1988; Heydt

and Sherman 2005; Reupert 2007). These include
enhancing the workers professional attractiveness and the
clients trust in the worker and willingness to self-disclose
and be honest.
Theorists and researchers alike assert that disclosures
about the clinicians life beyond the session- self-involving
disclosures- are generally less helpful than those that reveal
her or his reactions to and thoughts about the client in the
here-and-now (transparency) (Knox and Hill 2003). The
exception to this is the workers disclosures about her or
his professional background. Similarly, theory and research
emphasize the role that therapist transparency plays in
fostering client engagement and trust in the worker.
The social workers in this study were less likely to
engage in self-involving disclosures, with the exception of
those that related to their professional background, and
more likely to be transparent. Yet, a number of the social
workers in this study indicated they did not rely upon theory
or research to guide their actions in this regard. Ironically,
then, participants in this study engaged in self-disclosure in
ways that are consistent with theory and research, but
appeared not to use either to guide their practice.
Social workers need to develop strategies, based upon
theory and research, to discern when and what they should
reveal to clients. Smolar (2003) argues, for example, that
the potential benefits of self-disclosure must outweigh the
risks. Essentially, Smolar is suggesting that clinicians
engage in a version of cost/benefit analysis. Four questions
can assist practitioners in conducting this analysis and also
help ensure that their self-disclosing behavior is ethically
appropriate (adapted from Peterson 2002).
1.
2.
3.

4.

Is self-disclosure necessary to protect the clients

informed consent?
Who benefits, the client or me?
Will the client be able to use the information I disclose
and/or affective reaction I share in a way that is
helpful?
Will disclosing information and/or sharing a reaction
interfere with our progress and with the working
alliance?

Rather than being a spontaneous from the gut intervention, self-disclosure should result from a thoughtful
assessment of client need and worker intention. As discussed in the section that follows, both education and
supervision have a role to play in this regard.
Previous research has not adequately addressed the
impact that personal characteristics have on clinicians
engagement in self-disclosure even though there is wide
agreement that the self of the clinician is always present
in the working relationship (Reupert 2007, 2008). In the
present study, women were more likely to engage in

123

304

self-involving disclosure and transparency, and AfricanAmerican workers were more likely to use self-involving
disclosure. These findings suggest that decisions regarding
self-disclosure reflect more than just professional judgment. Socialization and culture also may play a role in
determining when and how clinicians use themselves in
professional ways with their clients.
Not surprisingly, self-disclosure also was associated
with the number of sessions clinicians reported having with
clients. Specifically, the more sessions the social workers
in this study reported having with clients, the more likely
they were to engage in self-involving disclosure and be
transparent. As workers gain more experience with the
client, they may feel more confident self-disclosing, perhaps because they have a better sense of the clients needs
and worker-client boundaries are more clearly established.
Role of Education
Approximately one-half of the social workers in this study
did not believe that their social work education prepared
them to engage in self-disclosure. Further, almost one-half
disagreed or strongly disagreed that their use of self-disclosure was grounded in theory and research. These findings
certainly are cause for concern and suggest that social
workers are not receiving adequate preparation for self-disclosure. While the reasons for this are not altogether clear,
findings of previous research suggest that self-disclosure
does not receive the attention it deserves in the social work
curriculum, perhaps because of educators own lack of
understanding of and/or comfort with this skill set (Chapman
et al. 2003; Heydt and Sherman 2005; Reupert 2007).
It is important for educators to create an environment in
the classroom in which students are able and encouraged to
talk openly and honestly about their self-disclosures with
clients. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to create this sort
of environment given curricular demands, class sizes, and
the like (Chapman et al. 2003; Reupert 2009). Yet, it is
necessary if students are to learn to identify and manage
personal feelings and manifestations of countertransference, each of which has the potential to undermine students ability to engage in appropriate self-disclosure with
their clients. Such an environment requires that the
instructor reach for students feelings and deliberately
ask students to discuss their use of self-disclosing behaviors and reflect on their personal reactions to their clients.
The instructor also can serve as a model, engaging in
self-disclosing behaviors in the classroom. For example, in
a study previously conducted by the author that examined
teaching skills in the practice/methods sequence, one of the
most helpful was the instructors willingness to share
mistakes and missteps in her or his own work with clients
(Knight 2002). This sort of intentional self-disclosure also

123

Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297306

was found to provide reassurance and encourage students

to engage in honest discussion.
Building upon the work of Chapman et al. (2003), five
learning objectives can guide students learning in the
classroom and clinicians learning in supervision about
self-disclosure. Students/practitioners can be helped to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

articulate the theoretical and evidence-based perspectives that underpin self-disclosure;

identify and discuss the impact that clients have on
their personal reactions;
develop strategies for managing their personal
reactions;
critically examine their own professional use of self;
and
distinguish the two forms of self-disclosure and
indications and contraindications for their use with
different clients.

Role of Supervision
More than one-half of the respondents indicated they were
uncomfortable talking with colleagues and/or a supervisor
about self-disclosure. This finding suggests that social
workers are not availing themselves of the guidance of
others when it comes to self-disclosure. This actually is
consistent with research that indicates that in general, clinicians avoid discussing sensitive topics in supervision
(Ladany et al. 1996; Pisani 2005; Rosenberger and Hayes
2002; Webb and Wheeler 1998; Yourman 2003).
Given the controversy that surrounds self-disclosure and
the lack of attention it receives in the academic classroom,
it is possible that the participants viewed it as taboo and
therefore off-limits for discussion with colleagues and
supervisors. Like the classroom instructor, the supervisor
will need to be proactive and ask supervisees to discuss
their use of self-disclosure. This discussion can be guided
by the same five learning objectives that were identified
previously. The supervisor also must reach for supervisees
personal feelings and reactions to their work. This discussion enhances supervisees self-awareness, thereby minimizing the risks of countertransference. This, in turn,
increases the likelihood that supervisees self-disclosures
will be appropriate and helpful to clients.
Analogous to the classroom instructor, the supervisor
also can model the appropriate use of self-disclosure by
engaging in this behavior in the supervisory relationship
(Ganzer and Ornstein 1999). In fact, the supervisors
transparency has been found to foster the supervisory
alliance and encourage supervisee honesty (Nelson et al.
2008). Research also suggests that when the supervisor
reveals therapeutic mistakes and challenges, this facilitates
honest discussion and supervisee openness (Ladany and

Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297306

Lehrman-Waterman 1999). This is particularly likely to

occur when the supervisor discloses mistakes she or he
may have made in the supervisory relationship, itself (Gray
et al. 2001).
Limitations
While the findings of this study provide insight into clinicians use of self-disclosure as well as their perceptions of
their preparation for engaging in this skill set, limitations in
its design and implementation must be considered when
interpreting the findings. A notable limitation of this
research is that it is based upon self-report data. Thus the
accuracy of the findings must be considered. Further, while
the response rate of 40 % was acceptable for survey
research, one must consider what the results would have
looked like had a larger sample of respondents participated.
It is possible for example, that social workers who were
more comfortable with or knowledgeable about self-disclosure were more likely to participate in the study; the
opposite possibility also exists.
A related limitation is the nature of the sample. The
participants in this study were similar with respect to age,
race, and gender to members of NASW nationally (NASW
2003). Their representativeness to social workers, generally, however, is open to question. The social workers in
this study were older, mostly female, white, and highly
experienced; whether the findings would have been the
same had a younger, less experienced and more diverse
group of social workers participated is unknown.
While the research instrument appears to have good face
validity, another limitation is that its reliability and validity
are unknown. Further, respondents were only asked about
their use of self-disclosure with adult clients. Finally, while
there were several statistically significant relationships,
none were particularly strong.

Conclusion
Two different types of self-disclosing behaviors have been
identified in the literature: self-involving and transparency.
Consistent with what both theory and research suggest, the
participants in this study limited their use of self-involving
disclosure and were more willing to be transparent. Future
research, using larger, more diverse samples of social
workers, should be devoted to replicating and extending the
findings of the present study. As noted earlier, a noteworthy limitation of the present study was the lack of diversity
of the sample. Thus, future research should focus particular
attention on ascertaining the role that culture and personal
characteristics play in therapists use and clients experience of self-disclosure. In a related vein, future research

305

should examine how therapist attitudes towards and

engagement in self-disclosure differs depending upon,
among other things the age of the client, nature of client
population, and practice context since this study only
focused on adult clients and casework.
In this study, engaging in self-disclosure was based upon
self-report; participants, themselves, estimated how often
they engaged in self-disclosing behaviors. Few studies
have examined self-disclosure from the clients perspective. Thus, future research should examine not only how
often clinicians engage in self-disclosure, as estimated by
clients, but also the impact that these clinical skills have on
clients perceptions of therapeutic outcomes.
Perhaps the most noteworthy findings of this study had
to do with educational preparation and use of supervision.
The social workers in this study did not always feel prepared by their education to engage in self-disclosure nor
did they believe their use of this behavior was grounded in
theory and research. Many of the participants in this study
also didnt feel comfortable talking about self-disclosure in
supervision or with colleagues. Thus, more attention must
be devoted to identifying appropriate teaching and supervision strategies that encourage accurate and honest discussion about self-disclosure. The goal is to help students
and social workers become more intentional and thoughtful
in their use of self-disclosure.

References
Arnd-Caddigan, M., & Pozzuto, R. (2008). Use of self in relational
clinical social work. Clinical Social Work Journal, 36, 235243.
Barrett, M., & Berman, J. (2001). Is psychotherapy more effective
when therapists disclose information about themselves? Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 597603.
Baum, N. (2012). Trap of conflicting needs: Helping professionals in
the wake of a shared traumatic reality. Clinical Social Work
Journal, 40(1), 3745.
Brown, L., & Walker, L. (1990). Feminist therapy perspectives on
self-disclosure. In G. Stricker & M. Fisher (Eds.), Self-disclosure
in the therapeutic relationship. New York: Plenum Press.
Burkard, A., Knox, S., Green, M., Perez, M., & Hess, S. (2006).
European American therapist self-disclosure in cross-cultural
counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 1525.
Chapman, M., Oppenheim, S., Shibusawa, T., & Jackson, H. (2003).
What we bring to practice: Teaching students about professional
use of self. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 23, 314.
Dewane, C. (2006). Use of self: A primer revisited. Clinical Social
Work Journal, 34, 543558.
Domenici, T. (2006). Reflections on infecting the treatment. Journal
of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 10, 3956.
Edwards, C., & Murdock, N. (1994). Characteristics of therapist selfdisclosure in the counseling process. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 72, 384389.
Farber, B. (2006). Self-disclosure in psychotherapy. New York:
Guilford Press.
Fisher, C. (2004). Ethical issues in therapy: Therapist self-disclosure
of sexual feelings. Ethics and Behavior, 14, 105121.

123

306
Gabbard, G., & Lester, E. (1995). Boundaries and boundary
violations in psychoanalysis. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Ganzer, C. (2007). The use of self from a relational perspective.
Clinical Social Work Journal, 35, 117123.
Ganzer, C., & Ornstein, E. (1999). Beyond parallel process:
Relational perspectives on field supervision. Clinical Social
Work Journal, 27, 231247.
Gediman, H. (2006). Facilitating analysis with implicit and explicit
self-disclosures. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 16, 241262.
Goldfried, M., Burckell, L., & Eubanks-Carter, C. (2003). Therapist
self-disclosure in cognitive-behavior therapy. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 59, 555568.
Gray, L., Ladany, N., Walker, J., & Ancis, J. (2001). Psychotherapy
trainees experience of counterproductive events in supervision.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 371383.
Gutheil, T. (2010). Ethical aspects of self-disclosure. Psychiatric
Times, 27, 3941.
Hanson, J. (2005). Should your lips be zipped? How therapist selfdisclosure and non-disclosure affects clients. Counseling and
Psychotherapy Research, 5, 96104.
Hendrick, S. (1988). Counselor self-disclosure. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 66, 419424.
Hendrick, S. (1990). A client perspective on counselor self-disclosure.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 184185.
Henretty, J., & Levitt, H. (2009). The role of therapist self-disclosure
in psychotherapy: A qualitative review. Clinical Psychology
Review, 30, 6377.
Henretty, J. R., & Levitt, H. M. (2010). The role of therapist selfdisclosure in psychotherapy: A qualitative review. Clinical
Psychology Review, 30(1), 6377.
Heydt, M., & Sherman, N. (2005). Conscious use of self: Tuning the
instrument of social work practice with cultural competence.
Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 10, 2540.
Ivey, G. (2009). The problems of intentional therapist self-disclosure
in psychoanalytic therapy: A critical response to Zelda Knight.
South African Journal of Psychology, 39, 8692.
Jeffrey, A., & Austin, T. (2007). Perspectives and practices of clinician
self-disclosure to clients: A pilot comparison study of two
disciplines. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 35, 95108.
Jouard, S. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the
transparent self. New York: Wiley.
Kelly, A., & Rodriguez, R. (2007). Do therapists self-disclose more to
clients with greater symptomology? Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research, Practice, Training, 44, 470475.
Knight, C. (2002). Teaching generalist social work practice: Students
perceptions of the importance of the instructors own practice
experience. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 7, 93112.
Knox, S., Hess, S., Petersen, D., & Hill, C. (1997). A qualitative
analysis of client perceptions of the effects of helpful therapist
self-disclosure in long-term therapy. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 44, 274283.
Knox, S., & Hill, C. (2003). Therapist self-disclosure: Research-based
suggestions for practitioners. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59,
529539.
Ladany, N., Hill, C., Corbett, M., & Nutt, E. (1996). The nature, extent,
and importance of what psychotherapy trainees do not disclose to
their supervisors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 1024.
Ladany, N., & Lehrman-Waterman, D. (1999). The content and
frequency of supervisor self-disclosures and their relationship to
supervisor style and the supervisory working alliance. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 38, 143161.
Mahalik, J., Van Ormer, E., & Simi, N. (2000). Ethical issues in using
self-disclosure in feminist therapy. In M. M. Brabeck (Ed.),
Practicing feminist ethics in psychology (pp. 189201). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

123

Clin Soc Work J (2012) 40:297306

Maroda, K. (1999). Creating an intersubjective context for selfdisclosure. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 69, 474489.
National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (2003). Demographics.
http://www.socialworkers.org/naswprn/surveyTwo/Datagram2.pdf.
Nelson, M., Barnes, K., Evans, A., & Triggiano, P. (2008). Working
with conflict in clinical supervision: Wise supervisors perspectives. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 172184.
Peterson, Z. (2002). More than a mirror: The ethics of therapist selfdisclosure. Psychotherapy: Theory Research, Practice, Training,
39, 2131.
Pisani, A. (2005). Talk to me: Supervisee disclosure in supervision.
Smith College Studies in Social Work, 75, 2947.
Renik, O. (1993). Analytic interaction: Conceptualizing technique in
the light of the analystss irreducible subjectivity. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 68, 553571.
Reupert, A. (2007). Social workers use of self. Clinical Social Work
Journal, 35, 107116.
Reupert, A. (2008). A transdisciplinary study of the therapists self.
European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counseling, 10, 369383.
Reupert, A. (2009). Students use of self: Teaching implications.
Social Work Education, 28, 113.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. London: Constable.
Rosenberger, E., & Hayes, J. (2002). Therapist as subject: A review of
the empirical countertransference literature. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 264270.
Shulman, L. (2008). The skills of helping individuals, families,
groups, and communities (6th ed.). CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Simi, N., & Mahalik, J. (1997). Comparison of feminist versus
psychoanalytic/dynamic and other therapists on self-disclosure.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 465483.
Smith, H. (1999). Subjectivity and objectivity in analytic listening.
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 47, 465484.
Smolar, A. (2003). When we give more: Reflections on intangible
gifts from therapist to patient. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 57, 300323.
Tantillo, M. (2004). The therapists use of self-disclosure in a
relational therapy approach for eating disorders. Eating Disorders, 12, 5173.
Tosone, C. (2011). The legacy of September 11: Shared trauma,
therapeutic intimacy, and professional posttraumatic growth.
Traumatology, 17(3), 2529.
Tosone, C., McTighe, J. P., Bauwens, J., & Naturale, A. (2011). Shared
traumatic stress and the long-term impact of 9/11 on Manhattan
clinicians. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24(5), 546552.
Truax, C., & Carkhuff, R. (1965). Client and therapist transparency in
the psychotherapeutic encounter. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 12, 39.
Webb, A., & Wheeler, S. (1998). How honest do counselors dare to be
in the supervisory relationship? An exploratory study. British
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 26, 509524.
Yan, M., & Wong, Y. (2005). Rethinking self-awareness in cultural
competence: Toward a dialogic self in cross-cultural social work.
Families in Society, 86, 181188.
Yourman, D. (2003). Trainee disclosure in psychotherapy supervision: The impact of shame. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59,
601609.

Author Biography
Carolyn Knight is a Professor in the School of Social Work,
University of Maryland Baltimore County, where she teaches social
work methods courses. Dr. Knight is a licensed social worker with
more than 25 years of experience working individually and in groups
with adult survivors of childhood trauma.