Journal of Psychotherapy Integration

© 2020 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 30, No. 1, 93–101

1053-0479/20/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/int0000164

Attachment Dynamics in the Supervisory Relationship:

Becoming Your Own Good Supervisor

Micah A. Mammen
The Pennsylvania State University
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

In this article, I discuss dynamics in the supervisor–supervisee relationship that parallel

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

both the therapist– client relationship and the parent– child relationship. Just as our early
experiences being cared for by parents teach us what to expect from others and how to
view ourselves, our supervision experiences become internalized, such that trainees can
eventually become their own “good (or bad) supervisor.” First, I describe how a
supervisor’s encouragement to reflect on my reactions to clinical situations shaped the
development of a positive inner voice that guides my clinical work. I also discuss how
supervision experiences that focused on teaching specific therapeutic techniques, with
limited attention to my personal reactions during the clinical work, have been less
helpful and sometimes detrimental for increasing my independence and self-confidence
as a clinician. In recent years, theory and research in clinical psychology have
increasingly highlighted the contribution of clients and their experiences to the therapy
process, and there is a need to apply these principles to supervision. When supervision
is informed by the fact that trainees have distinct characteristics and life histories,
which affect how they experience and interact with clients, supervisors can more
skillfully guide each supervisee’s development into a competent clinician.

Keywords: supervision, supervisory relationship, reflective supervision

Early supervision experiences can set the
tone for how trainees learn to view their clients
and themselves as clinicians. Like our early
experiences being cared for by parents teach us
what to expect from others and how to view
ourselves (Bowlby, 1988; Mikulincer, 1995;
Osofsky & Lieberman, 2011; van IJzendoorn &
Sagi, 1999), trainees’ experiences being super-
vised can initiate long-term patterns not only for
being with and relating to their clients, but also
for how they learn to guide themselves in the
practice of psychotherapy (Fitch, Pistole, &
Gunn, 2010). Indeed, several models of super-
vision have applied an attachment framework to
Micah A. Mammen, Department of Psychology, The
Pennsylvania State University.
Author would like to thank Jennifer Hughes and Kristin
Callahan for their feedback and encouragement throughout
the development of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Micah A. Mammen, who is now at Southwest Autism
Research & Resource Center, 300 N 18th Street, Phoenix, AZ
85006. E-mail: mmammen@autismcenter.org
93
the supervisor–supervisee relationship, concep-
tualizing the bond between supervisor and su-
pervisee as the foundation of effective supervi-
sion and a critical mechanism for supervisee
growth and professional development (Cliffe,
Beinart, & Cooper, 2016; Fitch et al., 2010).
Consistent with this perspective, positive su-
pervisory relationships have been associated
with higher levels of trainees’ feelings of self-
efficacy in their clinical skills (Mesrie, Diener,
& Clark, 2018; Wrape, Callahan, Rieck, & Wat-
kins, 2017). Similarly, studies of the therapeutic
alliance have shown that more positive thera-
pist– client relationships facilitate clients’ par-
ticipation and self-exploration, as well as more
positive therapy outcomes (Martin, Garske, &
Davis, 2000; Romano, Fitzpatrick, & Janzen,
2008). Further, studies of the parent– child rela-
tionship have shown that a secure bond pro-
motes child self-esteem and competence for
learning new skills (Goldberg, 2000; Verschueren,
Marcoen, & Schoefs, 1996). Although supervi-
sor–supervisee, therapist– client, and parent–
child relationships have distinct qualities and
 94 MAMMEN

functions, with regard to the relationship as a
learning mechanism, strong bonds in each type
of relationship provide a safe environment
where “the learner” can seek support, freely
explore and reflect on experiences, increase
competence, and eventually develop a mental
representation of the safety and security pro-
vided by “the caregiver” (Fitch et al., 2010).
Many clinicians strive to support clients’ de-
velopment of an inner voice that is loving, com-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
I was grieving the recent loss of a parent and
also returning to training following a year-long
maternity leave after the birth of my first child.
Predictably, these highly emotional experiences
affected my reactions during assessment and
therapy with young children and their families,
as well as during supervision. My supervisor
was able to quickly pick up on the strong reac-
tions I was having in my clinical work and
address them in supervision.

passionate, and encouraging (McCullough et

Exchange 1
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

al., 2003). Some have described the develop-

ment of this caring inner voice as “becoming a
The first exchange, paraphrased below, took
‘good parent’ to oneself” (McCullough et al.,
place after my supervisor observed me as I was
2003, p. 255). Throughout this article, I discuss
providing a mother and father feedback on a
how supervision aids trainees in their develop-
developmental assessment I had completed with
ment of an inner voice that encourages confi-
their 3-year-old son.
dent clinical decision-making, critical thinking,
self-care, and recovery from missteps. That is, Supervisor: I think it would be helpful if
our supervision experiences become internal- we could focus more on
ized, such that trainees can eventually become your reactions when you’re
their own “good (or bad) supervisor.” Through- with clients. So, for instance
out my training to become a child clinical psy- . . . you’re going to hate me,
chologist, my supervision experiences have but I saved a screenshot of
ranged from empowering to demoralizing. This you during this feedback
article focuses on empowering supervision ex- session.
periences and how they have supported the de-
velopment of a positive inner voice that now Trainee: (surprised) Oh, really?
guides my clinical work. I also briefly discuss less Supervisor: Yes, I was so interested in
helpful or harmful supervision experiences, in what was going on for you
contrast to the more supportive supervision I have at that point of the feedback.
received. Overall, I examine attachment dynamics This was after you had gone
in the supervisor–supervisee relationship that mir- over the diagnosis, when the
ror both the therapist– client relationship and the child’s father and mother
parent– child relationship and can positively or were crying.
negatively influence trainee development.
Trainee: (waiting for Supervisor to
Empowerment Through Supervision open screenshot) The par-
ents were a lot more emo-
The following two empowering supervisor– tional that I had thought
supervisee exchanges took place with the same they would be about this
supervisor during the same training year. The feedback.
supervisor and supervisee were Caucasian, fe- Supervisor: (looking at screenshot) The
male, and ages 37 and 30 years, respectively. father, especially, was very
The training setting was an outpatient therapy tearful. I noticed that when
and assessment clinic in the Southern region of he started to cry, this is
the United States and was a rotation of my what you looked like . . .
predoctoral internship program. The client pop- leaning further back and
ulation included infants, children, and adoles- crossing your arms.
cents with diverse presenting problems and his-
tories of trauma, family conflict, and relational Trainee: I think sometimes I lean
difficulties. It is noteworthy that this particular back to stay calm during
training year was a time of personal hardship, as sessions.
 YOUR OWN GOOD SUPERVISOR
Supervisor: You looked like you were
trying to protect yourself at
this point of the session. I
want us to think about how
you were reacting during
this session, why you felt
the need to lean back to stay
calm, and also how the par-
ents were experiencing you.
Summary of exchange 1. This supervision
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
exchange came as a surprise for me, mainly
because I felt I had spoken with the child’s
parents in a compassionate and understanding
manner and had, thus, come across as a caring
clinician. However, I was unaware that my body
language did not convey an empathic stance
during the session, as I was clearly able to see
from the supervisor’s screenshot. It is notewor-
thy that, consistent with research on the use of
video in supervision (Hill, Crowe, & Gonsalvez,
2016), viewing session video in supervision led
to the above exchange and greatly enriched
reflective discussion on the quality of my inter-
action with the child’s parents. Though I had
hoped to appear calm when the child’s parents
expressed grief and worry over his diagnosis, as
my supervisor noticed, I looked the way I felt:
uncomfortable and concerned about becoming
dysregulated. My supervisor, on the other hand,
clearly conveyed that she was comfortable talk-
ing about the uncomfortable feelings I was ex-
periencing during the session to promote my
development as a clinician. Her feedback was
disappointing and difficult to hear, especially
because this was the first assessment I had con-
ducted under her supervision, and I had hoped
to perform well. However, she was able to bring
her observations to my attention in an inter-
ested, nonjudgmental way, which helped me
hear the feedback and feel open to exploring my
reactions with her (Wulf & Nelson, 2001). In
real time, this supervisor was able to model
willingness to be with me and to explore my
reactions as a clinician without judgment, just
as therapists do to help clients build insight into
their everyday emotions and interactions (Wat-
son, Greenberg, & Lietaer, 1998). Indeed, there
is evidence that therapy clients engage in deeper
self-exploration and show better outcomes
when their therapists show higher levels of em-
pathy (Kurtz & Grummon, 1972). Research on
the parent– child relationship has found that par-
95
ent– child dyads show more successful comple-
tion of tasks when parents show more flexibility
and sensitivity toward their children (Pratt,
Kerig, Cowan, & Cowan, 1988). With regard to
the supervisory relationship, trainees report
more positive supervision experiences and pro-
fessional development when they perceive their
supervisors as being committed and validating
(Kennard, Stewart, & Gluck, 1987; Wulf & Nel-
son, 2001). Altogether, these findings suggest that
individuals show more positive growth and devel-
opment of competence when they feel understood
and supported, rather than criticized and defen-
sive.
This exchange was early on in our supervi-
sor–supervisee relationship, and my supervisor
was able to show that she was ready to support
me in exploring territory that we had not yet
covered. What could have been a more difficult
or even disastrous supervision experience deep-
ened and transformed our relationship such that,
through my supervisor’s demonstration of sup-
port and investment in my development as a
clinical psychologist, I was able to open up
more about my reactions and interactions with
clients (Gunn & Pistole, 2012). Although my
supervisor made it clear this was an area we
needed to address, she avoided giving me direc-
tions or telling me what I should or should not
have done. By providing a safe environment for
reflecting on my experiences with clients, su-
pervision facilitated my own nonjudgmental ex-
ploration of clinical decisions (Weatherston &
Barron, 2009). I have developed better capacity
to simply notice my own feelings during ses-
sions, wonder how clients are experiencing my
verbal and nonverbal communications, and be
more willing to step back and explore my reac-
tions to clients after sessions. Further, experi-
encing my supervisor’s supportive presence in
supervision increased my capacity to make
more reflective, rather than reactive, clinical
decisions. For instance, instead of following the
inclination to immediately develop solutions to
clients’ problems, I have learned to be more
present with families, as we explore family in-
teractions and meanings behind behaviors,
which fosters improved insight as well as
greater attunement among family members
(Tomlin, Weatherston, & Pavkov, 2014). I think
about the body language and words I can use to
communicate the following: “I’m with you. It’s
 96 MAMMEN
safe to talk about this. We can work on this
together.”
Just as clients need a safe place to increase
their insight and make meaningful changes in
their lives, trainees need a safe supervision en-
vironment that will empower them to develop
their own therapeutic style and inner voice that
guides their practice (Gunn & Pistole, 2012).
Indeed, it was through a strong supervisory al-
liance that I was able to, first, be open to re-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
flecting on my experiences with clients, and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
second, effectively learn and apply clinical
skills from my supervisor.
Exchange 2
The second exchange with this supervisor
occurred a few weeks after the first exchange,
which had shown me it was safe and even
encouraged to talk about my personal reactions
during supervision. This exchange began with
my expression of frustration about a child’s
parents who were ambivalent about participat-
ing in therapy and insistent about meeting on a
specific day, at a specific time.
Supervisor: Well, they could go else-
where if they aren’t able to
find a time that works with
your schedule. It sounds like
you’ve offered them multi-
ple times and bent over
backward to work with
them. Would you ask your
primary care doctor for one
specific date and time for an
appointment?
Trainee: Ok, I guess not, but we are
working with clients on a
weekly basis.
Supervisor: True, but your time is valu-
able, too. You’ve given
them multiple options, and
if they aren’t able to make
therapy a priority, that’s
their decision. I wonder how
they’ll value your time if
you do not maintain bound-
aries for when you’ll
schedule.
Trainee: Yeah, I see your point. I just
really want to work with
this family, even though
they have been so difficult
to schedule with. The par-
ents have been really defen-
sive and resistant to explor-
ing their parenting style so
far. They’ve been critical
and dismissive of me, inter-
rupting me when I speak.
I’m really nervous about
setting this boundary about
scheduling (tearfully).
Supervisor: You’re having a strong reac-
tion to this case. You’ve had
other families who were
difficult to work with. What
is it about this family?
Trainee: I really do not know (cry-
ing). I just know how I feel
when the parents are criti-
cizing me—I start to doubt
myself—and I’ve seen them
criticize the child in a simi-
lar way.
Supervisor: It must be hard to see that
happening, knowing the par-
ents aren’t fully committed
to improving their interac-
tions with the child or even
attending therapy.
Trainee: Plus, this kid is entering
adolescence, and these next
few years with his parents
can set the tone for the kind
of relationship they have
when he is an adult. If noth-
ing improves . . . and you
never know how much time
you’ll have together . . .
Supervisor: (nodding)
Summary of exchange 2. This exchange
began with me, the trainee, expressing frustra-
tion and significant distress over a highly com-
mon situation in clinical practice— client am-
bivalence and lack of participation. The most
salient memory I have from this exchange was
feeling very distressed, as well as ashamed and
uncertain about why I was reacting so strongly
to such a commonplace event. Instead of dis-
 YOUR OWN GOOD SUPERVISOR
missing my distress or attributing it to my being
a less seasoned clinician, my supervisor ac-
knowledged how strong my reaction was and
wondered if we could explore it. My supervisor
understood that therapists’ life experiences af-
fect their interactions with clients, just as par-
ents’ stress or early caregiving experiences can
influence the parent– child relationship (Many,
Kronenberg, & Dickson, 2016; Tomlin et al.,
2014). In the above exchange, my supervisor’s
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
validation and normalization of my distress cre-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ated a safe environment for understanding my
reaction to working with this family (Kennard et
al., 1987; Worthen & McNeill, 1996). With her
calm, but engaged demeanor, I was able to learn
that I did not need to be afraid or ashamed of
having negative reactions to clients and that I
could safely explore and address such reactions.
It is also notable that, at the beginning of this
exchange, my supervisor made it clear that she
valued my time and that my time was worth
being protected. Research suggests more effec-
tive supervisors treat supervisees with respect
(Kennard et al., 1987), and my supervisor’s
respect for our supervision time and frequent
messages that my time and clinical services
were highly valuable taught me to more com-
fortably set work-life boundaries and commu-
nicate scheduling boundaries to my clients.
Over time, with the help of my supervisor, I
was able to examine and learn from more of my
countertransference experiences, and this was
highly empowering. As I developed (a) more
insight into how my own experiences and cur-
rent stressors affected my interactions with cli-
ents and (b) greater regard for my time and need
for work-life balance, I was able to make self-
care more of a priority. In turn, my improved
insight and self-care habits fostered increased
feelings of competence during my interactions
with clients, more self-compassion and recov-
ery following missteps, and enthusiasm for tak-
ing on more challenges in my clinical work.
Overall, my supervisor’s support and encour-
agement to acknowledge and address negative
reactions to clients put me on a more positive
path to becoming a child clinical psychologist.
The internal guiding voice I have developed is
based on her example and reminds me that “It is
safe and valuable to explore my feelings toward
clients” and “I have the skills to better under-
stand my reactions and provide better care to
clients.” It is unlikely that I would have shared
97
as much about my reactions or current stressors
if I had not felt safe and supported by my
supervisor. Indeed, trainees’ openness with
their supervisors depends on the supervisory
alliance (Gunn & Pistole, 2012), just as positive
parent– child relationships are associated with
better communication (Barnes & Olson, 1985),
and positive therapist– client relationships have
been linked to better client participation and
treatment outcomes (Bohart, 2000; Karver, Han-
delsman, Fields, & Bickman, 2006).
Relationships play a critical role in how we
learn to regard ourselves and our skills, which
in turn, affects our performance (e.g., in careers,
relationships; Kernis, Brown, & Brody, 2000;
Martin, Marsh, McInerney, Green, & Dowson,
2007; Orth & Robins, 2014); this suggests feel-
ing valued and respected by one’s supervisor
may have a cumulative impact on professional
development and career outcomes (Wulf & Nel-
son, 2001). Because my supervisor valued my
time and clinical skills, I was able to develop a
stronger internal voice that advocates for self-
care and for communicating my needs to col-
leagues and supervisors. Instead of wondering
whether I have accomplished enough, I am
more likely to ask, “Am I meeting my needs
adequately?” Rather than agonizing over mis-
takes or feeling like an imposter, my “good
supervisor voice” calls to mind the skills and
achievements I have earned and encourages me
to challenge myself and take chances in my
career. The safety and validation I experienced
in supervision buoys my confidence in my clin-
ical skills, and I walk into sessions feeling free
and ready to connect with my clients.
Less Satisfactory Supervision Experiences
My internal voice has also been affected by
less satisfactory supervision experiences, which
have ranged from unhelpful to problematic.
Some of these experiences have been with
highly directive supervisors, who consistently
treated supervision as a time to give specific
instructions on how to use therapeutic tech-
niques with clients. Although there have cer-
tainly been times that specific directions from
supervisors were necessary and useful (e.g., for
assessing risk for homicidality/suicidality and
safety planning), these supervision experiences
have been less helpful for learning how to be
with clients, developing my own therapeutic
 98 MAMMEN
style, and gradually increasing my capacity to
guide myself in clinical situations. Working
with highly directive supervisors has sometimes
resulted in hollow supervision that is more fo-
cused on inserting the supervisor’s knowledge
and style onto a blank slate, or me, the trainee.
Moreover, such supervision left me ill equipped
to manage and learn from my own reactions to
clients. Indeed, to improve clinical training, re-
cent perspectives on best practices in clinical
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
supervision have emphasized the need for su-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
pervisors to devote greater attention to super-
visees’ sociocultural characteristics, adjust super-
vision to meet supervisees’ needs, and support
supervisees’ self-reflection (Borders, 2014).
We know that the quality of client participa-
tion in psychotherapy, as well as client charac-
teristics and life circumstances account for a
significant portion of variance in treatment out-
comes (Asay & Lambert, 1999; Orlinsky, Ron-
nestad, & Willutzki, 2004; Wampold, 2001).
However, much like the role of the client has
been neglected in theory and research on psy-
chotherapy (Bergin & Garfield, 1994), the
supervisee’s contributions to the supervision
process— his or her characteristics, stressors,
and life experiences—are often ignored.
My most negative supervision experiences
have involved supervisors noticing I was having
difficulty applying a skill in my clinical work
and then flatly stating something along the lines
of “You’re not getting this” or “I’m not sure
what it is, but something is not connecting for
you.” Of course, receiving feedback that one is
not applying skills adequately is disappointing;
however, I was more distressed by the fact that
the feedback was communicated as a statement,
not a discussion or opportunity to jointly ex-
plore the difficulty. These statements, at least
from my perspective, squarely placed blame on
me for struggling to apply a skill that the su-
pervisor was attempting to teach. What struck
me most was the fact that I found it highly
unlikely my supervisors would use such a state-
ment to facilitate a client’s application of ther-
apy skills. Similarly, how would such a state-
ment from a parent motivate a child to perform
better on a task? Moreover, negative supervi-
sory events, including critical feedback, can
have harmful effects, for instance, on trainee
self-efficacy and professional development
(Daniels & Larson, 2001; Ellis et al., 2014;
Ladany, Hill, Corbett, & Nutt, 1996). Although
the feedback from my supervisors was meant to
be constructive, it did not inspire solutions or
my growth as a clinician. Had my supervisors
normalized my difficulty applying a clinical
skill and empathized with my feelings of inad-
equacy, it is likely I would have felt more open
to discussing ways to improve my clinical skills
(Kennard et al., 1987; Worthen & McNeill,
1996); however, my supervisors’ criticism left
me feeling defensive and alone in my struggle
to become a better clinician.
Over time, I was able to become aware that
my ability to apply novel therapeutic techniques
varied with my stress level. With supportive,
“reflective supervision” (i.e., Tomlin et al.,
2014), I would likely have gained insight into
these struggles and found ways to address them
more quickly and with less personal turmoil.
Moreover, receiving such feedback from a su-
pervisor was a highly demoralizing experience
that shaped my self-talk during clinical work.
During challenging sessions, my supervisors’
voices echoed in my head, leading me to make
self-critical statements such as “I don’t have
what it takes to help families.” These inner
statements often resulted in frustration and less
confidence in my clinical work (and less pro-
ductive interactions with clients) and required
considerable effort to restructure.
Implications for Clinical Training
In recent years, the field of psychology has
increasingly focused on understanding human
development as resulting from the interaction of
multiple processes (e.g., physiological, cogni-
tive, emotional, behavioral) across time and
context (e.g., Sroufe, 2009). This shift to a more
complex, holistic understanding of human ad-
aptation and maladaptation has influenced clin-
ical approaches, such that there has been a
greater focus on effectively applying assess-
ment and treatment modalities to meet the needs
of each individual (e.g., Lutz, 2002). For in-
stance, trauma-informed approaches have em-
phasized the interaction between traumatic ex-
periences and physiological, cognitive, and
affective processes, understanding individuals
in the context of their experiences throughout
development, and the need for individuals to
feel safe, supported, and well-regulated to en-
gage in learning and skill-building (Tedeschi &
Calhoun, 1995). “Clients are not inert objects
 YOUR OWN GOOD SUPERVISOR
upon which techniques are administered” (Ber-
gin & Garfield, 1994, p. 825), nor are parents
and children or psychology trainees. Increased
awareness and application of trauma-informed
models fosters greater emphasis on the contri-
bution of individuals and their experiences to
the therapy process (Bloom, 2016). By working
from a trauma-informed approach, clinical psy-
chologists are well equipped to: (a) develop
comprehensive understandings of clients with
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
an emphasis on the impact of context, (b) tailor
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
services to meet clients’ specific needs, and (c)
promote clients’ feelings of safety and self-
competence through strong therapeutic relation-
ships.
Supervision can be improved with the appli-
cation of principles from trauma-informed mod-
els. The lessons that have resonated the most in
my clinical training came from reflective super-
visors who treated me as a multifaceted person
with distinct characteristics and life experiences
that affect how I experience and interact with
clients. Collaborating with a nonjudgmental,
compassionate supervisor to reflect on my reac-
tions to clinical situations and use these to guide
clinical decision-making has inspired my inde-
pendence and confidence more than any other
training experience. By helping trainees de-
velop confident, reflective inner voices through
strong supervisory relationships, a good super-
visor’s voice can carry, creating an invaluable
impression on the next generation of clinical
psychologists and, in turn, the clients they
serve.
References
Asay, T. P., & Lambert, M. J. (1999). The empirical
case for the common factors in therapy: Quantita-
tive findings. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, &
S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of change:
What works in therapy (pp. 33–56). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/11132-001
Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1985). Parent–
adolescent communication and the circumplex
model. Child Development, 56, 438– 447. http://dx
.doi.org/10.2307/1129732
Bergin, A. E., & Garfield, S. L. (1994). Overview,
trends, and future issues. In A. E. Bergin & S. L.
Garfield (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy and
behavior change (4th ed., pp. 821– 830). New
York, NY: Wiley.
99
Bloom, S. L. (2016). Advancing a national cradle-to-
grave-to-cradle public health agenda. Journal of
Trauma & Dissociation, 17, 383–396. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/15299732.2016.1164025
Bohart, A. C. (2000). Paradigm clash: Empirically sup-
ported treatments versus empirically supported psy-
chotherapy practice. Psychotherapy Research, 10,
488– 493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713663783
Borders, L. D. (2014). Best Practices in Clinical
Supervision: Another step in delineating effective
supervision practice. American Journal of Psycho-
therapy, 68, 151–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/
appi.psychotherapy.2014.68.2.151
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Cliffe, T., Beinart, H., & Cooper, M. (2016). Devel-
opment and validation of a short version of the
Supervisory Relationship Questionnaire. Clinical
Psychology & Psychotherapy, 23, 77– 86. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1935
Daniels, J. A., & Larson, L. M. (2001). The impact of
performance feedback on counseling self-efficacy
and counselor anxiety. Counselor Education and Su-
pervision, 41, 120–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j
.1556-6978.2001.tb01276.x
Ellis, M. V., Berger, L., Hanus, A. E., Ayala, E. E.,
Swords, B. A., & Siembor, M. (2014). Inadequate
and harmful clinical supervision: Testing a revised
framework and assessing occurrence. The Counsel-
ing Psychologist, 42, 434– 472. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0011000013508656
Fitch, J., Pistole, M., & Gunn, J. (2010). The bonds of
development: An attachment-caregiving model of
supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 29, 20–34.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07325221003730319
Goldberg, S. (2000). Attachment and development.
London, United Kingdom: Arnold Publishers.
Gunn, J. E., & Pistole, M. C. (2012). Trainee super-
visor attachment: Explaining the alliance and dis-
closure in supervision. Training and Education in
Professional Psychology, 6, 229–237. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0030805
Hill, H. R. M., Crowe, T. P., & Gonsalvez, C. J.
(2016). Reflective dialogue in clinical supervision:
A pilot study involving collaborative review of
supervision videos. Psychotherapy Research, 26,
263–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10503307
.2014.996795
Karver, M. S., Handelsman, J. B., Fields, S., & Bick-
man, L. (2006). Meta-analysis of therapeutic rela-
tionship variables in youth and family therapy: The
evidence for different relationship variables in the
child and adolescent treatment outcome literature.
Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 50– 65. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2005.09.001
Kennard, B. D., Stewart, S. M., & Gluck, M. R. (1987).
The supervisory relationship: Variables contributing
to positive versus negative experiences. Professional
 100 MAMMEN
Psychology, Research and Practice, 18, 172–175.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.18.2.172
Kernis, M. H., Brown, A. C., & Brody, G. H. (2000).
Fragile self-esteem in children and its associations
with perceived patterns of parent-child communi-
cation. Journal of Personality, 68, 225–252. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00096
Kurtz, R. R., & Grummon, D. L. (1972). Different
approaches to the measurement of therapist empa-
thy and their relationship to therapy outcomes.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
39, 106–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0033190
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Ladany, N., Hill, C. E., Corbett, M. M., & Nutt, E. A.
(1996). Nature, extent, and importance of what
psychotherapy trainees do not disclose to their
supervisors. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
43, 10–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.43
.1.10
Lutz, W. (2002). Patient-focused psychotherapy re-
search and individual treatment progress as scien-
tific groundwork for an empirically based clinical
practice. Psychotherapy Research, 12, 251–272.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713664389
Many, M. M., Kronenberg, M. E., & Dickson, A. B.
(2016). Creating a “nest” of emotional safety: Re-
flective supervision in a child-parent psychother-
apy case. Infant Mental Health Journal, 37, 717–
727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21603
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., McInerney, D. M.,
Green, J., & Dowson, M. (2007). Getting along
with teachers and parents: The yields of good
relationships for students’ achievement motivation
and self-esteem. Australian Journal of Guidance
& Counselling, 17, 109–125. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1375/ajgc.17.2.109
Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000).
Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome
and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68,
438– 450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68
.3.438
McCullough, L., Kuhn, N., Andrews, S., Kaplan, A.,
Wolf, J., & Hurley, C. L. (2003). Treating affect
phobia: A manual for short-term dynamic psycho-
therapy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mesrie, V., Diener, M. J., & Clark, A. (2018).
Trainee attachment to supervisor and perceptions
of novice psychotherapist counseling self-efficacy:
The moderating role of level of experience. Psy-
chotherapy: Theory, Research, & Practice, 55,
216–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pst0000191
Mikulincer, M. (1995). Attachment style and the
mental representation of the self. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 69, 1203–1215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1203
Orlinsky, D. E., Ronnestad, M. H., & Willutzki, U.
(2004). Fifty years of psychotherapy process-
outcome research: Continuity and change. In M. J.
Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of
psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp.
307–390). New York, NY: Wiley.
Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2014). The development of
self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
ence, 23, 381–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0963721414547414
Osofsky, J. D., & Lieberman, A. F. (2011). A call for
integrating a mental health perspective into sys-
tems of care for abused and neglected infants and
young children. American Psychologist, 66, 120–
128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021630
Pratt, M. W., Kerig, P., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan,
C. P. (1988). Mothers and fathers teaching 3-year-
olds: Authoritative parenting and adult scaffolding
of young children’s learning. Developmental Psy-
chology, 24, 832– 839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0012-1649.24.6.832
Romano, V., Fitzpatrick, M., & Janzen, J. (2008).
The secure-base hypothesis: Global attachment,
attachment to counselor, and session exploration in
psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
55, 495–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013721
Sroufe, L. A. (2009). The concept of development in
developmental psychopathology. Child Develop-
ment Perspectives, 3, 178–183. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00103.x
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma
and transformation: Growing in the aftermath of
suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi
.org/10.4135/9781483326931
Tomlin, A. M., Weatherston, D. J., & Pavkov, T.
(2014). Critical components of reflective supervi-
sion: Responses from expert supervisors in the
field. Infant Mental Health Journal, 35, 70– 80.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21420
van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi, A. (1999). Cross-
cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and con-
textual dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research,
and clinical applications; handbook of attach-
ment: Theory, research, and clinical applications
(pp. 713–734). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Verschueren, K., Marcoen, A., & Schoefs, V. (1996).
The internal working model of the self, attachment,
and competence in five-year-olds. Child Develop-
ment, 67, 2493–2511. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/113
1636
Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy
debate: Models, methods, and findings. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Watson, J. C., Greenberg, L. S., & Lietaer, G. (1998).
The experiential paradigm unfolding: Relationship
and experiencing in therapy. In L. S. Greenberg,
J. C. Watson, & G. Lietaer (Eds.), Handbook of
experiential psychotherapy (pp. 3–27). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
 YOUR OWN GOOD SUPERVISOR 101

Weatherston, D., & Barron, C. (2009). What does a
reflective supervisory relationship look like? In S.
Heller & L. Gilkerson (Eds.), A practical guide to
reflective supervision (pp. 61– 80). Washington,
DC: Zero to Three Press.
Worthen, V., & McNeill, B. W. (1996). A phenom-
enological investigation of “good” supervision
events. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 25–
34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.43.1.25
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Wrape, E. R., Callahan, J. L., Rieck, T., & Watkins, C. E.,
Jr. (2017). Attachment theory within clinical supervi-
sion: Application of the conceptual to the empirical.
Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 31, 37–54. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/02668734.2016.1261927
Wulf, J., & Nelson, M. L. (2001). Experienced psycholo-
gists’ recollections of internship supervision and its con-
tributions to their development. The Clinical Supervisor,
19, 123–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J001v19n02_07

Dinámicas de apego en la relación de supervisión: Convirtiendose en su propio buen supervisor

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

En este artículo, discuto la dinámica en la relación supervisor-supervisado que es paralela tanto la relación terapeuta-cliente
como la relación padre-hijo. Así como nuestras primeras experiencias siendo cuidados por nuestros padres nos enseñan qué
esperar de los demás y cómo vernos a nosotros mismos, nuestras experiencias de supervisión se internalizan, de modo que
los aprendizes pueden eventualmente convertirse en su propio “supervisor bueno (o malo)”. Primero, describo cómo el
estímulo del supervisor para reflexionar sobre mis reacciones a situaciones clínicas dio forma al desarrollo de una voz
interior positiva que guía mi trabajo clínico. También discuto cómo experiencias de supervisión que se centraron en enseñar
técnicas terapéuticas específicas, con atención limitada a mis reacciones personales durante el trabajo clínico, han sido
menos útil y a veces perjudicial para aumentar mi independencia y confianza en mí mismo como clínico. En los últimos
años, la teoría y la investigación en psicología clínica han destacado cada vez más la contribución de los clientes y sus
experiencias al proceso terapeutico, y es necesario aplicar estos principios a la supervisión. Cuando la supervisión es
informada por el hecho de que los aprendices tienen características e historias de vida distintas, que afectan cómo
experimentan e interactúan con los clientes, los supervisores pueden más guíar hábilmente el desarrollo de cada supervisado
hacia un clínico competente.

supervisión, relación de supervisión, supervisión reflexiva

督导关系中的依恋动力:成为自己的好督导
在这篇文章中，我讨论了督导与受训者之间的动态关系，这种关系与治疗师和来访者之间的关系以及父母与孩子
之间的关系是平行的。正如我们早期被父母照顾的经历教会我们从他人身上期待什么，以及如何看待自己一样，我
们的督导经历也变得内在化，这样受训者最终可以成为他们自己的好(或坏)的导师。首先，我描述了一位督导鼓励我
反思自己对临床情况的反应，从而形成了指导我临床工作的积极的内在声音。我还讨论了那些专注于教授特定治疗
技术，而对临床工作中的个人反应关注有限的督导经验。这些督导对提高我作为一名临床医生的独立性和自信心帮
助更少，有时甚至是有害的。近年来，临床心理学的理论和研究越来越重视患者及其经验对治疗过程的贡献，有必
要将这些原则应用于督导。当督导得知受训者具有独特的性格和生活经历，影响他们与来访者的体验和互动时，督
导可以更熟练地指导每位受训者成长为一名称职的临床医生。

督导, 督导关系, 反思性督导

Received September 14, 2018

Revision received December 28, 2018
Accepted February 9, 2019 䡲