psychological concepts

Many psychotherapy or counseling clients are, indeed, distressed, traumatized, anxious, depressed and therefore vulnerable.

From the first day in graduate school in psychology, psychotherapists and counselors(1) in training have been instructed to pay great attention to the "inherent power differential" in psychotherapy, to be aware of the "imbalance of power between therapists and clients", and they have been repeatedly told to "never abuse or exploit our vulnerable and dependent clients."

From the first day in graduate school in psychology, psychotherapists and counselors(1) in training have been instructed to pay great attention to the "inherent power differential" in psychotherapy, to be aware of the "imbalance of power between therapists and clients", and they have been repeatedly told to "never abuse or exploit our vulnerable and dependent clients."

While the universal assumption about the "power differential" is like an undercurrent in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, psychotherapy, and counseling, there is paradoxically a split between the ethicists, risk management experts and boards who over-emphasize the "power differential", and the clinicians and the theoreticians who largely avoid or ignore any reference to power (Heller, 1985).

From the first day in graduate school in psychology, psychotherapists and counselors(1) in training have been instructed to pay great attention to the "inherent power differential" in psychotherapy, to be aware of the "imbalance of power between therapists and clients", and they have been repeatedly told to "never abuse or exploit our vulnerable and dependent clients."

Ethics texts and risk management advice columns in our professional newsletters have all presented a similar unified message about therapists' unilateral power and clients' inherent vulnerability.

From the first day in graduate school in psychology, psychotherapists and counselors(1) in training have been instructed to pay great attention to the "inherent power differential" in psychotherapy, to be aware of the "imbalance of power between therapists and clients", and they have been repeatedly told to "never abuse or exploit our vulnerable and dependent clients."

While the universal assumption about the "power differential" is like an undercurrent in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, psychotherapy, and counseling, there is paradoxically a split between the ethicists, risk management experts and boards who over-emphasize the "power differential", and the clinicians and the theoreticians who largely avoid or ignore any reference to power (Heller, 1985).

From the first day in graduate school in psychology, psychotherapists and counselors(1) in training have been instructed to pay great attention to the "inherent power differential" in psychotherapy, to be aware of the "imbalance of power between therapists and clients", and they have been repeatedly told to "never abuse or exploit our vulnerable and dependent clients."

From the first day in graduate school in psychology, psychotherapists and counselors(1) in training have been instructed to pay great attention to the "inherent power differential" in psychotherapy, to be aware of the "imbalance of power between therapists and clients", and they have been repeatedly told to "never abuse or exploit our vulnerable and dependent clients."

While the universal assumption about the "power differential" is like an undercurrent in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, psychotherapy, and counseling, there is paradoxically a split between the ethicists, risk management experts and boards who over-emphasize the "power differential", and the clinicians and the theoreticians who largely avoid or ignore any reference to power (Heller, 1985).

Ethics texts and risk management advice columns in our professional newsletters have all presented a similar unified message about therapists' unilateral power and clients' inherent vulnerability.

As early as 1951, the prominent psychoanalyst Ernest Jones, raised a concern about the assumption of therapists' omnipotence, and labeled it as the "God syndrome."

From the first day in graduate school in psychology, psychotherapists and counselors(1) in training have been instructed to pay great attention to the "inherent power differential" in psychotherapy, to be aware of the "imbalance of power between therapists and clients", and they have been repeatedly told to "never abuse or exploit our vulnerable and dependent clients."

Generally, even though interns, graduate students and supervisees do not feel very powerful, the idea that they are powerful has been very appealing.

Clinicians tend to ignore the issue of power that is a reflection of the culture at large that often associates power with coercion, abuse, or injustice, in order not be perceived by themselves or others as controlling and dominating (Proctor, 2002).

As early as 1951, the prominent psychoanalyst Ernest Jones, raised a concern about the assumption of therapists' omnipotence, and labeled it as the "God syndrome."

Ethics texts and risk management advice columns in our professional newsletters have all presented a similar unified message about therapists' unilateral power and clients' inherent vulnerability.

From the first day in graduate school in psychology, psychotherapists and counselors(1) in training have been instructed to pay great attention to the "inherent power differential" in psychotherapy, to be aware of the "imbalance of power between therapists and clients", and they have been repeatedly told to "never abuse or exploit our vulnerable and dependent clients."

A more inclusive look at power reveals that the power differential in some instances is completely valid, but in many other instances it is a myth.

Many psychotherapy or counseling clients are, indeed, distressed, traumatized, anxious, depressed and therefore vulnerable.

While the universal assumption about the "power differential" is like an undercurrent in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, psychotherapy, and counseling, there is paradoxically a split between the ethicists, risk management experts and boards who over-emphasize the "power differential", and the clinicians and the theoreticians who largely avoid or ignore any reference to power (Heller, 1985).

Clinicians tend to ignore the issue of power that is a reflection of the culture at large that often associates power with coercion, abuse, or injustice, in order not be perceived by themselves or others as controlling and dominating (Proctor, 2002).

Ethics texts and risk management advice columns in our professional newsletters have all presented a similar unified message about therapists' unilateral power and clients' inherent vulnerability.

The error is to see the power differential as always relevant - as if all clients are the same and all therapist-client relationships identical.

Clinicians tend to ignore the issue of power that is a reflection of the culture at large that often associates power with coercion, abuse, or injustice, in order not be perceived by themselves or others as controlling and dominating (Proctor, 2002).

Ethics texts and risk management advice columns in our professional newsletters have all presented a similar unified message about therapists' unilateral power and clients' inherent vulnerability.

As early as 1951, the prominent psychoanalyst Ernest Jones, raised a concern about the assumption of therapists' omnipotence, and labeled it as the "God syndrome."

Ethics texts and risk management advice columns in our professional newsletters have all presented a similar unified message about therapists' unilateral power and clients' inherent vulnerability.

Despite the evident fact that some therapists and counselors are successful and powerful while many others struggle financially and are, at times, emotionally fraught, the faulty belief that all therapists hold ultimate power over all their clients lives on.

Many modern day consumers seek therapy to enhance the quality of their lives, improve their loving relationships or find meaning and purpose for their lives.

Many others are also very young, impaired and vulnerable and can be easily influenced by their therapists.

Ethics texts and risk management advice columns in our professional newsletters have all presented a similar unified message about therapists' unilateral power and clients' inherent vulnerability.

Despite the evident fact that some therapists and counselors are successful and powerful while many others struggle financially and are, at times, emotionally fraught, the faulty belief that all therapists hold ultimate power over all their clients lives on.

Many psychotherapy or counseling clients are, indeed, distressed, traumatized, anxious, depressed and therefore vulnerable.

From the first day in graduate school in psychology, psychotherapists and counselors(1) in training have been instructed to pay great attention to the "inherent power differential" in psychotherapy, to be aware of the "imbalance of power between therapists and clients", and they have been repeatedly told to "never abuse or exploit our vulnerable and dependent clients."

Many modern day consumers seek therapy to enhance the quality of their lives, improve their loving relationships or find meaning and purpose for their lives.

From the first day in graduate school in psychology, psychotherapists and counselors(1) in training have been instructed to pay great attention to the "inherent power differential" in psychotherapy, to be aware of the "imbalance of power between therapists and clients", and they have been repeatedly told to "never abuse or exploit our vulnerable and dependent clients."

Generally, even though interns, graduate students and supervisees do not feel very powerful, the idea that they are powerful has been very appealing.

Nevertheless, the view of power as an attribute possessed exclusively by psychotherapists has been unchallenged in postgraduate training and continuing education workshops.

As a result, the discussion of power has been primarily confined to ethics and risk management classes, licensing boards and court hearings.

Then, on the other hand, other clients are strong, authoritative and successful.

From the first day in graduate school in psychology, psychotherapists and counselors(1) in training have been instructed to pay great attention to the "inherent power differential" in psychotherapy, to be aware of the "imbalance of power between therapists and clients", and they have been repeatedly told to "never abuse or exploit our vulnerable and dependent clients."

Clinicians tend to ignore the issue of power that is a reflection of the culture at large that often associates power with coercion, abuse, or injustice, in order not be perceived by themselves or others as controlling and dominating (Proctor, 2002).

From the first day in graduate school in psychology, psychotherapists and counselors(1) in training have been instructed to pay great attention to the "inherent power differential" in psychotherapy, to be aware of the "imbalance of power between therapists and clients", and they have been repeatedly told to "never abuse or exploit our vulnerable and dependent clients."

As early as 1951, the prominent psychoanalyst Ernest Jones, raised a concern about the assumption of therapists' omnipotence, and labeled it as the "God syndrome."

In these settings the emphasis has been on harm and on the supposed vulnerability of clients to therapists' immense power and influence.

Clinicians tend to ignore the issue of power that is a reflection of the culture at large that often associates power with coercion, abuse, or injustice, in order not be perceived by themselves or others as controlling and dominating (Proctor, 2002).

Ethics texts and risk management advice columns in our professional newsletters have all presented a similar unified message about therapists' unilateral power and clients' inherent vulnerability.

Clinicians tend to ignore the issue of power that is a reflection of the culture at large that often associates power with coercion, abuse, or injustice, in order not be perceived by themselves or others as controlling and dominating (Proctor, 2002).

Clinicians tend to ignore the issue of power that is a reflection of the culture at large that often associates power with coercion, abuse, or injustice, in order not be perceived by themselves or others as controlling and dominating (Proctor, 2002).

(The exceptions to the rule have been some feminist, humanist, narrative and postmodern psychotherapists.)

As a result, the discussion of power has been primarily confined to ethics and risk management classes, licensing boards and court hearings.

While the universal assumption about the "power differential" is like an undercurrent in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, psychotherapy, and counseling, there is paradoxically a split between the ethicists, risk management experts and boards who over-emphasize the "power differential", and the clinicians and the theoreticians who largely avoid or ignore any reference to power (Heller, 1985).

Many psychotherapy or counseling clients are, indeed, distressed, traumatized, anxious, depressed and therefore vulnerable.

Despite the evident fact that some therapists and counselors are successful and powerful while many others struggle financially and are, at times, emotionally fraught, the faulty belief that all therapists hold ultimate power over all their clients lives on.

Clinicians tend to ignore the issue of power that is a reflection of the culture at large that often associates power with coercion, abuse, or injustice, in order not be perceived by themselves or others as controlling and dominating (Proctor, 2002).

In these settings the emphasis has been on harm and on the supposed vulnerability of clients to therapists' immense power and influence.

Many psychotherapy or counseling clients are, indeed, distressed, traumatized, anxious, depressed and therefore vulnerable.