Journal of Psychotherapy Integration

© 2020 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 30, No. 1, 44 –51

1053-0479/20/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/int0000175

Trainee’s Perspective of Reciprocal Vulnerability and

Boundaries in Supervision

Christina M. Contrastano
Rowan University
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

This article explores the topics of reciprocal vulnerability, positive boundary crossings,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

self-disclosure, and role confusion in a supervisory relationship with a trainee in

clinical psychology. It reviews the literature on supervisees’ perspectives of supervi-
sors’ self-disclosure in supervision sessions and the impact on supervisees’ clinical
cases and professional development. The author also discusses the potential benefits
and risks to supervisors being open and genuine in supervision and interacting with
supervisees both in and out of supervision in ways that differ from the traditional, more
rigid norms of supervisory relationships. The article examines ways in which informal
socialization, self-disclosures, and increased vulnerability interplay with ethical stan-
dards around boundaries and multiple relationships. The author provides examples
from her supervisory experience that illustrate the pros and cons of boundary crossings
with her supervisor and the various ways boundary crossings affected her training and
professional development. The article concludes by presenting ideas for future research
in this area, including developing guidelines for supervisors and supervisees regarding
how to flexibly navigate supervisory relationships in order to enhance training and
clinical outcomes.

Keywords: clinical supervision, self-disclosures in supervision, boundaries in

supervision

My supervisory experience with a supervisor Three months into my training, my supervi-

during my predoctoral internship and postdoc- sor and I had an experience that Ladany and
toral fellowship was a profound experience. The colleagues (2012) described as a corrective re-
aspect that was most impactful to my develop- lational experience in supervision. They defined
ment, the crux of our relationship, was our a corrective relational experience as an experi-
mutual willingness to openly self-disclose and ence when a supervisee feels a “distinct shift”
be transformed by each other. My supervisor’s (p. 335), begins to emotionally experience the
willingness to be vulnerable and use herself as a supervisory relationship in a new and unex-
tool in supervision made me believe that she pected way, and feels transformed. Ladany et al.
could be “in it” with me in a real way and found that corrective emotional experiences in
created trust and openness that significantly al- supervision typically occurred after a conflict in
tered our supervisory process and affected me the supervisory relationship. They found that
both professionally and personally. supervisors tended to respond with five types of
interventions, including validating the trainee,
self-disclosing, processing the here and now
interactions in the supervisory relationship, ad-
Christina M. Contrastano, Counseling and Psychological
Services, Rowan University.
dressing parallel process, and exploring the
All supervisory material and case materials have been trainee’s feelings.
deidentified or disguised. I talked to my supervisor about how frus-
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- trated I felt coleading a dialectical behavior
dressed to Christina M. Contrastano, who is now at Family
Health and Wellness Services, 45 River Road, Suite 8, Sum-
therapy (DBT) skills group with her. I was
mit, NJ 07901. E-mail: Christina.Contrastano@FHWSonline intimidated by her extensive knowledge of DBT
.com and her leadership presence. My time coleading
44
 TRAINEE’S PERSPECTIVE OF RECIPROCAL VULNERABILITY 45

with her was ending in a few weeks and I felt fortable expressing and processing their emo-
like I was missing an opportunity to grow. I tions in supervision instead of only having more
explained that I did not feel like we were co- technical discussions focused the mechanics of
leading, but instead like I was observing her therapy. They felt more invested in supervision
lead the group, and that before I could think of and were more likely to bring up personal is-
what to say to clients, she quickly intervened. sues, genuine reactions to clients, and things
My supervisor responded by suggesting that that occurred in the supervisory relationship
perhaps she was not allowing enough space for compared with before the corrective relational
me to lead. To my surprise, she shared that she experience. Overall, trainees felt that the super-
sometimes struggles with coleading because of visory relationship deepened, they were evalu-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

urges to be in control and feeling ownership of ated more positively, and their clinical work
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

the material. She said that this was something improved because of the corrective relational
she was working on in her own professional experience. My experience resonates with these
development and thanked me for the feedback. findings.
I had expected her to tell me I was doing some- My supervisor responding to me in this way
thing wrong. I was not used to supervisors ad- felt authentic, differed from the more profes-
mitting faults or sharing their own experiences sional stance I was used to, and was exactly
in this way. Luckily, because of her level of what I needed at that time in my training. I
attunement with me, my supervisor noticed appreciated her humanness. I felt like she was
there was more that I was not saying and asked there with me, understood how I felt, accepted
how I was feeling in that moment. I began to cry my feelings and was willing to help support me
tears I had not realized I was holding back and in making sense of my emotions. She modeled
explained my awareness that I was limiting for me how to “be” with a client. In response, I
myself in all aspects of my training. I shared my became more transparent and was willing to let
avoidance of taking risks related to fears of go some of my perfectionistic tendencies and
making mistakes and being viewed as inade- desires to impress her and genuinely share my
quate. She empathized and shared her own fears emotions in ways that increased my insight and
of being perceived as flawed by others. Again, I enhanced my clinical work.
was shocked. I would have never guessed, but I After this corrective relational experience, we
soon learned, that we both struggled with some committed to giving each other honest feedback
of the same insecurities and challenges, such as and directly addressing any issues that arose in
striving for perfectionism, balancing work with our relationship so that we could hopefully
personal lives, and prioritizing self-care. work through them. My supervisor invited me
My supervisory experience is reflected in the to give input on not only the supervision process
literature. Multiple authors (Farber, 2006; Hig- and our relationship but also her leadership style
don, 2001; Ladany & Lehrman-Waterman, in our work environment, in which she was in
1999) proposed that both supervisee and super- an administrative position, and her clinical
visor self-disclosure is a critical part of super- skills. She allowed me to watch videotapes of
vision and that excellent supervisors share her sessions with clients and give her feedback
power in the relationship by disclosing their as a supplement to our supervision. I felt com-
thoughts and feelings. Research supports the fortable sharing things she could improve as
idea that supervisor self-disclosure can encour- well as strengths. She appeared to truly value
age supervisees to disclose more openly and can my feedback, which felt empowering and
have positive effects on the supervisory rela- greatly increased my confidence in my clinical
tionship, future supervision relationships, and skills. This improved my work with clients and
clinical work (Knox, Burkard, Edwards, Smith, also made me a more vocal member of the
& Schlosser, 2008; Ladany & Walker, 2003; clinical team during case consultations.
Ladany, Walker, & Melincoff, 2001; Mataz- I felt safe sharing my honest reactions to
zoni, 2008; Yourman, 2003). clients, her and the work environment, as well
Ladany et al. (2012) reported that after a as sensitive issues I avoided with other super-
corrective relational experience, trainees were visors. I confided in her about personal difficul-
typically willing to be more vulnerable. Super- ties as they impacted my professional work. As
visees said that afterward they felt more com- we worked in this deeper way, we learned more
 46 CONTRASTANO

about each other personally during what hap- Results of Kreider’s (2014) study proposed
pened to be a period of significant, life-altering that “it is the authenticity of the supervisor,
transitions in both our lives. In the same week rather than his or her training or role, which
that I found out I was going to be a mother, my exerts the most influence on the comfort of the
supervisor’s mother died. We worked together supervisee to disclose important issues in super-
during my pregnancy, first year of motherhood, vision” (p. 266), and suggested that supervisor
and a miscarriage, as well as my supervisor’s disclosure can improve supervision. Similarly,
mother’s last months of life, death, and her first Slavin (1998) questioned
year of living without her. We supported each whether the kind of personal engagement that pro-
other as we dealt with loss, role transitions, and motes and creates change can take place-either in the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

life adjustments, and processed how those were therapeutic setting or supervisory one-without analysts
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

impacting our work with clients and each other. or supervisors themselves being vulnerable to being
influenced, to being affected, to being touched, and to
At times, supervision was emotionally charged be wounded from the other direction (i.e., from the
for both of us, and a couple of times, we both patient and the supervisee). (p. 236)
cried in our supervision sessions.
Motherhood became a theme in our supervi- I agree that supervisors cannot have a signif-
sion related to the life events described above icant influence on supervisees without allowing
and my disclosure of my desire to be taken care themselves to be open to the possibility that
of by supervisor but also a need to be indepen- they will be deeply affected by the supervisee.
dent. After I shared this, my supervisor was Our reciprocal vulnerability allowed me to dis-
open about her reactions to me, including that cover how I could be similarly vulnerable and
impactful with my clients. Of course, in super-
she often felt nurturing toward me and had
vision and in therapy in addition to vulnerabil-
urges to reassure or “rescue” me. She also
ity, mutuality, emotional expression, and self-
shared her faith in my abilities and said she was
disclosure, there must be appropriate and ethical
cautious not to fragilize me. In some ways, a
boundaries (American Psychological Associa-
supervisor–supervisee relationship is similar to
tion, 2010).
a mother– daughter relationship. My supervisor
Kozlowski et al. (2014) studied positive
helped me identify my personal and profes- boundary crossings, defined as supervision
sional goals and dreams, supported my dreams events in which “a professional deviates from
as attainable, even when I doubted myself, and the strictest professional role, but is not uneth-
created an environment to help me achieve ical per se” (Gottlieb, Robinson, & Younggren,
those dreams. 2007, p. 241). Gift giving, socializing outside of
Although much of this differs from some work, and self-disclosing about non-work-
theoretical models of traditional supervision, it related issues are some examples of boundary
is in line with multiple authors’ suggestions that crossings. Boundary crossings differ from
mutuality, receptivity, vulnerability, and flexi- boundary violations, which usually include ex-
bility in a supervisory relationship are beneficial ploitation and harm to the supervisee (Gottlieb
(Kozlowski, Pruitt, DeWalt, & Knox, 2014; et al., 2007). As my supervisor and I grew
Kreider, 2014; Ladany et al., 2001; Slavin, closer, we both initiated positive boundary
1998; Walsh, Gillespie, Greer, & Eanes, 2003). crossings. For example, my supervisor gave me
Walsh and colleagues (2003) found that super- her cell phone number and invited me to contact
visees were more likely to disclose a mistake to her to consult on a high-risk case. However, this
their supervisor if they perceived that they had eventually led to us texting each other, often not
a mutual relationship, defined as “one in which about work-related issues. Similar to the partic-
each participant affects, and is affected by, the ipants in Kozlowski et al.’s study, I felt that the
other, resulting in mutual empathy and empow- positive boundary crossings enhanced our su-
erment” (p. 85). Similarly, Slavin (1998) sug- pervisory relationship and felt the same effects
gested that in order to create safety, a supervisor their participants reported, such as “increased
needs to share vulnerability in the relationship feelings of comfort, camaraderie, being really
so that the supervisee feels that they are not just understood by the supervisor, and feeling cared
the recipient of influence but also can have an for” (p. 117). Like me, participants felt that
impact on the supervisor. positive boundary crossings also improved their
 TRAINEE’S PERSPECTIVE OF RECIPROCAL VULNERABILITY 47

connection with clients. Despite these findings, existed, and angry with her for putting me in
positive boundary crossings also created role this position. All of these emotions started to
confusion for the supervisees, “particularly with negatively affect my ability to participate in
regards to how much the supervisor was their supervision.
friend versus an authority figure” (Kozlowski et Rogers and Holloway (1993) explained,
al., 2014, p. 120). “Professionally intimate relationships are a del-
Although our positive boundary crossings did icate exercise in boundary definition and bound-
not feel inappropriate to either of us, there were ary crossing” (p. 266). My supervisor had not
times when the relationship felt like friendship. defined our boundaries clearly for me, and as
I enjoyed her friendship, but I was also aware of the authors cautioned, “if boundaries are not
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

our power differential and felt uncertain about clearly defined and are inadvertently crossed, a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

how to navigate our roles. Bernard and Good- sense of mistrust, violation, or embarrassment
year (2009) suggested that sometimes in super- may result” (p. 266). Similarly, Knox, Edwards,
visory relationships, the person with greater Hess, and Hill (2011) found that in order for
power is less aware of the power dynamics than supervisors’ self-disclosures to have a positive
the person with lesser power and may cross a effect on supervisees, it was important for su-
boundary with good intentions without realizing pervisees to clearly understand their supervi-
how it may affect the supervisee. Consistent sors’ intentions for self-disclosing. When my
with Kozlowski et al.’s (2014) findings, there supervisor shared personal information without
were disadvantages to the intimacy of our su- a clear context, I sometimes was not sure what
pervisory relationship. Although I often felt like I was supposed to do with that information,
I was relating to my supervisor human to hu- because I would respond in a certain way to a
man, supervisory relationships are inherently friend but was aware that my supervisor was not
evaluative and hierarchical. As the person in the primarily a friend and found it confusing nego-
position with less power, I was aware that I was tiating the complexity of our relationship.
vulnerable in a different way than my supervi- Johnson (2002) emphasized the importance
sor and that my doctorate and ability to become of clarifying expectations and said that effective
licensed were hinging on her evaluation. She mentors are explicit when it comes to defining
instilled such a level of trust that I never felt I their expectations regarding how the relation-
had to be cautious in my self-disclosures be- ship will look and what it will include. Kozlow-
cause of her evaluative position, but I did fear ski et al. (2014) stressed the importance of
saying something that would damage our per- supervisors addressing boundary crossings in
sonal relationship and, at times, found myself supervision and discussing the limitations of the
censoring for this reason. supervisory relationship. For as direct as we
Our boundary crossings also negatively im- often were, my supervisor and I did not initially
pacted my relationships with team members in have this explicit discussion, which contributed
my training setting. Rogers and Holloway to my uncertainty about aspects of our relation-
(1993) described professional intimacy as a ship, particularly because it felt drastically dif-
level of intimacy between collegiality and per- ferent from my other supervisory relationships.
sonal intimacy. My relationship with my super- Thanks to the commitments we had made to
visor had many of the qualities of professional each other about discussing conflict in the su-
intimacy: common ground, mutual validation, pervisory alliance, I felt able, although nervous,
reciprocity, trust, and flexibility in collaborative to directly address these issues with my super-
style. Rogers and Holloway explained that pro- visor. Our conversation was as follows:
fessional intimacy between two people can cre-
ate an exclusionary perception and foster jeal- Trainee: It feels like you, as the per-
ousy in the workplace, which I experienced. son with more power, are
Team members gave my supervisor feedback the one making all the rules
about their perceptions of our relationship, lead- of this relationship. You
ing her to try to establish more rigid boundaries seem to get to decide when
with me. This abrupt shift in boundaries made we are friendly and when
me feel rejected. I also felt foolish, like I had we have to have a more pro-
read more into the relationship than actually fessional relationship. I’m
 48 CONTRASTANO

worried my feelings about it than escape from conflict or

are negatively affecting my discomfort?
ability to participate in su-
pervision with you. Supervisor: Yes, that was my kneejerk
reaction to feeling bad about
Supervisor: I’m glad you are telling me. how my actions have af-
You are correct that because fected you. Let’s try to find
of my role, I do have more a way to be flexible. I think
power in this relationship, that is going to require on-
and I can understand why going checking in with each
other. Can we commit to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

you feel like you do. Maybe

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

it would be better if I
stopped being your direct
My supervisor’s responsiveness and ability to
supervisor because your
listen nondefensively, acknowledge her mis-
clinical training is important
takes, apologize, and work with me to figure out
and I do not want our rela-
a way to repair showed me that my opinions
tionship to detract from your
mattered to her and that she wanted to maintain
learning.
healthy boundaries with me. This experience
That day we ended the conversation both feel- was the most impactful interaction of our su-
ing upset and considering the idea that maybe pervisory experience by far and felt like a sec-
we should terminate our supervisory relation- ond corrective relational experience in supervi-
ship. The next day, after reflection, we met to sion (Ladany et al., 2012). The relationship did
talk about it again. I later learned that my su- not repair instantly, and it was a painful process
pervisor sought peer consultation about this is- that we both admitted we sometimes wanted to
sue after our talk. avoid, but it was transformative for me that we
were able to stay “in it” and work it out. It
Supervisor: I have not attended to defin- helped me learn how to work through alliance
ing the boundaries of this ruptures with clients and allowed me to reflect
relationship well for you and on my own boundaries and self-disclosures with
I am sorry about that. I’d clients, colleagues, and my future supervisees
like to continue supervising when I am in the role of supervisor. During a
you if you feel that you can subsequent conversation with my supervisor, I
still fully engage in supervi- told her how this process helped me as a future
sion. The choice is yours, psychologist.
but I hope we can talk about
everything and how compli- Trainee: It was actually refreshing to
cated it feels for both of us see you “mess up” since you
and find a way to repair. always seem to be so per-
fect. Since I want to practice
Trainee: Thank you for offering to dialectical behavior therapy,
stay in it with me. Your I’ve been thinking about
response yesterday felt like boundaries with my clients
a rejection. Before, we had and consultation team in
had talked about being hon- light of this experience. I
est with each other, so that feel like it’s impactful for
we could work things out if clients, especially adoles-
problems arose. Your solu- cents, to see that I am a vul-
tion seemed like fleeing nerable and flawed human. I
from the problem and push- feel like it can be powerful
ing me away rather than for them to see that I am
trying to resolve it together. right there with them trying
Wouldn’t we want our cli- the skills, just as you were
ents to stick with it rather right here with me trying to
 TRAINEE’S PERSPECTIVE OF RECIPROCAL VULNERABILITY 49

figure out all this boundary would have worked for another supervisory dy-
stuff. ad. The relationship could have gone down a
different path of irreversible damage if I had not
Supervisor: I am so glad you have been spoken up and my supervisor had not been as
able to learn and make receptive as she was when I confronted her.
meaning out of my I am in agreement with authors who believe
mistakes. that universal and rigid rules about boundaries
Trainee: I also feel like these discus- in supervision are not realistic and each dyad
sions have helped me prac- has to figure out their own authentic way of
tice how to give difficult working together (Kozlowski et al., 2014; Pear-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

feedback to clients and team son & Piazza, 1997). In support of flexible
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

members. The way you ap- boundaries, Burian and Slimp (2000) said that
proached talking about us trainees cannot transition to a professional
from the beginning of super- realm and develop professional identities “with-
vision felt like you gave me out some degree of social interaction resulting
permission to bring things in the potential for the development of social
like this up to you. You relationships” (p. 333). Boundaries should be
showed me how to help cli- modified according to the circumstances of the
ents feel safe and respected, relationship, as long as they are boundary cross-
as well as how to give them ings and not violations.
an opening to discuss our For us, open communication was a key part
therapeutic alliance and their of the dynamic process of supervision and cre-
emotional reactions to things ating boundaries, but this can be tricky in both
I say or do, which I think therapy and supervision given the power imbal-
can be beneficial. ances. In our case, acknowledging the power
differential and making it part of the conversa-
Kozlowski et al. (2014) found that the major- tion was helpful. Future researchers should ex-
ity of participants did not discuss the boundary plore the efficacy of techniques used to foster
crossing in supervision because they felt too this communication and help supervisors and
intimidated or anxious. I am grateful that my supervisees become more willing to express
supervisor made me feel respected and safe vulnerability in supervision while also balanc-
enough to address boundary issues with her. We ing the need to keep ethical boundaries. Re-
had conversations about our expectations as we searchers should study supervisor behaviors
tried to resolve lingering feelings and clarify our that may help clarify roles and expectations in
roles. We discussed the degree of mutuality supervision, such as developing informed con-
comfortable in our relationship and the range of sent procedures, as well as guidelines or deci-
appropriate contexts for interactions. Eventu- sion-making models that allow for flexibility in
ally, we found a flexible way to establish and boundaries.
respect boundaries without losing the vulnera- There needs to be more studies regarding
bility that made our supervisory relationship so supervisees’ experiences of self-disclosures and
unique to us. We revisited these issues on an how it affects their clinical work. As suggested
ongoing basis as things changed, checked in by Knox et al. (2011), future research could
with each other about how the supervisory ex- learn more about how supervisees experience
perience was going from each of our perspec- different types of supervisors’ disclosures (i.e.,
tives, and adapted as needed. positive or negative). Many of the studies on
This supervisory experience has made me self-disclosure in supervision, as well as bound-
reflect deeply on the complexities of supervi- ary crossings, have been qualitative in nature.
sory relationships and has given me ideas about Researchers need to conduct quantitative stud-
how I would like to proceed as a supervisor in ies examining the effects of supervisors’ and
my future career. However, it has also made me supervisees’ self-disclosures and levels of vul-
astutely aware that supervision is not a “one size nerability as well as the effects of boundary
fits all” experience and that although this way of crossings and role confusion on training. A lon-
working was meaningful to us, I am not sure it gitudinal study could examine how supervisors’
 50 CONTRASTANO

self-disclosures and various experiences of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,

them impact supervisees’ clinical work later in 38, 241–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028
their careers as well as future supervisory expe- .38.3.241
riences with the former supervisees in the role Higdon, A. (2001). The effects of supervisor self-
disclosure on perceptions of supervisor effective-
of both supervisee and supervisor.
ness. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section
As Ladany et al. (2012) mentioned, supervi- B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61, 4457.
sion research has mostly looked at trainees’ Johnson, W. B. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strat-
progress in terms of their ability to use clinical egies and guidelines for the practice of mentoring.
skills rather than transformative relational Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
changes. It would be beneficial to have more 33, 88–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.33
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

studies examining how relational changes in the .1.88

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

supervisory relationship affect training and clin- Knox, S., Burkard, A. W., Edwards, L. M., Smith, J. J.,
ical outcomes. As mentioned by Kozlowski et & Schlosser, L. Z. (2008). Supervisors’ reports of the
al. (2014), it is imperative for supervisors to effects of supervisor self-disclosure on supervisees.
engage in their own supervision or consultation. Psychotherapy Research, 18, 543–559. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/10503300801982781
It would be interesting to see if supervisors who Knox, S., Edwards, L. M., Hess, S. A., & Hill, C. E.
are also in their own supervision or consistently (2011). Supervisor self-disclosure: Supervisees’
use consultation differ in their use of self- experiences and perspectives. Psychotherapy, 48,
disclosures or instances of positive boundary 336–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022067
crossings or if supervisees perceive their self- Kozlowski, J. M., Pruitt, N. T., DeWalt, T. A., &
disclosures and boundary crossings differently. Knox, S. (2014). Can boundary crossings in clin-
Ultimately, what I have learned from the pos- ical supervision be beneficial? Counselling Psy-
itive and negative aspects of this supervisory chology Quarterly, 27, 109–126. http://dx.doi.org/
experience is that I would like to work from a 10.1080/09515070.2013.870123
framework, both as a supervisor and a therapist, Kreider, H. D. (2014). Administrative and clinical
in which I learn from and with the supervisee/ supervision: The impact of dual roles on super-
visee disclosure in counseling supervision. The
client as a fellow fallible, vulnerable, and gen- Clinical Supervisor, 33, 256–268. http://dx.doi
uine human rather than from a position as an .org/10.1080/07325223.2014.992292
expert or authority. This way of working seems Ladany, N., Inman, A. G., Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Crook-
most authentic to my values, and I have person- Lyon, R. E., Thompson, B. J., . . . Walker, J. A.
ally experienced how transformative it can be (2012). Corrective relational experiences in supervi-
for a supervisee. sion. In L. G. Castonguay & C. E. Hill (Eds.),
Transformation in psychotherapy: Corrective ex-
periences across cognitive behavioral, humanistic,
References and psychodynamic approaches (pp. 335–352).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical ation. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13747-016
principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Ladany, N., & Lehrman-Waterman, D. E. (1999).
Retrieved from http://apa.org/ethics/code/index The content and frequency of supervisor self-
.aspx disclosures and their relationship to supervisor
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2009). Funda- style and the supervisory working alliance.
mentals of clinical supervision (4th ed.). Upper Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 143–
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. 160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.1999
Burian, B. K., & Slimp, A. O. (2000). Social dual- .tb00567.x
role relationships during internship: A decision- Ladany, N., & Walker, J. A. (2003). Supervisor self-
making model. Professional Psychology: Re- disclosure: Balancing the uncontrollable narcissist
search and Practice, 31, 332–338. http://dx.doi with the indomitable altruist. Journal of Clinical
.org/10.1037/0735-7028.31.3.332 Psychology, 59, 611– 621. http://dx.doi.org/10
Farber, B. (2006). Supervisee and supervisor disclo- .1002/jclp.10164
sure. In B. Farber (Ed.), Self-disclosure in psycho- Ladany, N., Walker, J. A., & Melincoff, D. S. (2001).
therapy (pp. 180–197). New York, NY: Guilford Supervisory style: Its relation to the supervisory
Press. working alliance and supervisor self-disclosure.
Gottlieb, M. C., Robinson, K., & Younggren, J. N. Counselor Education and Supervision, 40, 263–
(2007). Multiple relations in supervision: Guid- 275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2001
ance for administrators, supervisors, and students. .tb01259.x
 TRAINEE’S PERSPECTIVE OF RECIPROCAL VULNERABILITY 51

Matazzoni, T. A. (2008). The influence of supervisor Slavin, J. H. (1998). Influence and vulnerability in
self-disclosure on supervisory working alliance in psychoanalytic supervision and treatment. Psycho-
beginning and advanced therapists-in-training. analytic Psychology, 15, 230–244. http://dx.doi
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: .org/10.1037/0736-9735.15.2.230
The Sciences and Engineering, 69, 1960. Walsh, B. B., Gillespie, C., Greer, J. M., & Eanes, B. E.
Pearson, B., & Piazza, N. (1997). Classification of dual (2003). Influence of dyadic mutuality on counselor
relationships in the helping professions. Counselor trainee willingness to self-disclose clinical mistakes to
Education and Supervision, 37, 89–99. http://dx.doi supervisors. The Clinical Supervisor, 21, 83–98. http://
.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.1997.tb00535.x dx.doi.org/10.1300/J001v21n02_06
Rogers, J. C., & Holloway, R. L. (1993). Professional Yourman, D. B. (2003). Trainee disclosure in psy-
intimacy: Somewhere between collegiality and chotherapy supervision: The impact of shame.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

personal intimacy? Family Systems Medicine, 11, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 601– 609.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

263–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0089049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10162

Perspectivas de Aprendiz de la Vulnerabilidad Reciproca y Limites en la Supervisión

Este articulo explora los temas de la vulnerabilidad reciproca, cruces de limites positivos, auto divulgación, y la confusión
de roles en una relación supervisora con un aprendiz en psicología clínica. Este revisa la literatura sobre las perspectivas
de aprendices del auto divulgación de supervisores durante las sesiones de supervisión y su impacto en los casos clínicos
y el desarrollo profesional del aprendiz. La autora también comenta en los beneficios potenciales y riesgos para los
supervisores en ser abiertos y genuinos en la supervisión y el interactuar con aprendices durante y fuera de la supervisión
en maneras que salen de las maneras tradicionales y normas más rígidas de las relaciones supervisoras. El articulo examina
maneras en las cual la socialización informal, auto divulgación, y más vulnerabilidad interactúan con los estándares éticos
sobre los límites y las relaciones múltiples. La autora provee ejemplos de su experiencia supervisora que demuestran los
pros y contras de cruces de límites con su supervisor y las varias maneras que los cruces de límites afectaron su capacitación
y desarrollo profesional. El articulo concluye con presentar ideas para investigaciones futuras en esta área, incluyendo el
desarrollar pautas para supervisores y aprendices sobre como navegar flexiblemente las relaciones supervisoras para mejorar
la capacitación y los resultados clínicos.

supervisión clínica, autorrevelaciones en supervisión, límites en supervisión

受训者在督导中的相互脆弱性与边界观
本文探讨了临床心理学中的实习生的相互脆弱性、正向跨界、自我表露和督导关系中的角色混淆等问题。本文综
述了学员对在督导时，督导的自我揭露的看法的相关文献，以及自我表露对督导临床案例和专业发展的影响。作
者还讨论了与传统的、更为严格的督导关系规范不同，督导在督导过程中保持开放和真诚，并在督导内外与学员
的互动，可能带来的好处和风险。这篇文章探讨了非正式的社会化、自我表露和日益增加的脆弱性与围绕边界和
多重关系的道德标准相互作用的方式。作者从她的督导经验中提供了一些例子，说明了她和她的督导跨越界限的
好处和坏处，以及越界对她的培训和专业发展的各种影响。最后，本文提出了该领域未来研究的思路，包括为督
导和学员制定指导方针，指导他们如何灵活处理督导关系，以提高培训和临床效果。

临床督导, 督导中的自我表露, 督导中的界限

Received September 14, 2018

Revision received January 3, 2019
Accepted March 27, 2019 䡲