Therapist self-disclosure and the therapeutic relationship: a phenomenological study from the client perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Therapist self-disclosure is gaining empirical attention amidst theoretical discourse and ethical debate, particularly with regards to its influence on the therapeutic relationship. This paper presents part of a larger qualitative study that explored client experiences of therapist self-disclosure and specifically focuses on the therapeutic relationship in the context of receiving personal disclosure during therapy. Using a phenomenological approach, nine participants were interviewed about their experiences. An analysis of transcribed interviews demonstrated that therapist disclosure can have both facilitative and hindering effects with respect to the therapeutic relationship. Three main themes emerged from the analysis: early connection with therapist, therapist presence, and engagement in therapy. Implications of therapist disclosure's potential role and influence on the relationship are discussed as well as future research possibilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it