Attachment Theory in Supervision:

A Critical Incident Experience

M. Carole Pistole & Jenelle C. Fitch

Critical incident experiences are a powerful source of counselor de-

velopment (T. M. Skovholt & P. R. McCarthy, 1988a, 1988b) and are
relevant to attachment issues. An attachment theory perspective of
supervision is presented and applied to a critical incident case scenario.
By focusing on the behavioral systems (i.e., attachment, caregiving,
and exploratory) identified by J. Bowlby (1969), previous conceptualiza-
tions are expanded by illuminating relational concepts that supervisors
could use to facilitate counselor learning.

Clinical supervision facilitates counselor development and engages the

counselor-in-training (i.e., the supervisee) in a hierarchal relation-
ship with a supervisor who is more knowledgeable about client care
and the counseling process and who evaluates supervisee learning
(Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). In conceptualizing this relationship as
the supervisory working alliance, Bordin (1983) emphasized the value
of an emotional bond between the supervisor and supervisee but did
not provide a clear definition of this concept. A more thorough un-
derstanding of the supervisorsupervisee relationship can be found
using Bowlbys (1988) attachment theory, which explains relational
bonding, motivation, affect management, thoughts, and behavior,
and is pertinent to the supervisor and supervisees positions. The
purpose of this article is to apply attachment theory to supervision.
We discuss the theory, define counselor critical incidents (Skovholt &
McCarthy, 1988a), illustrate the perspective with a critical incident
case scenario, and conclude with implications.

Attachment Theory
Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) could make an important contribution
to supervision by illuminating relationship functioning that could be
used to design interventions. The theorys relevance for supervision is
illustrated by Ladany, Friedlander, and Nelson (2005). These authors
noted that the supervisory alliance is essential to supervision effective-
ness and identified two important aspects of this relationship: (a) the
quality of the emotional bond and (b) the supervisors awareness of
and sensitivity to the supervisees vulnerability and need for support
and reassurance (Ladany et al., 2005, p. 13). In addition, consistent
with research indicating that supervisory support and direction are
important to the supervisee (Rabinowitz, Heppner, & Roehlke, 1986),

M. Carole Pistole and Jenelle C. Fitch, both at the Department of Educational Studies,
Purdue University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
M. Carole Pistole, Department of Educational Studies, College of Education, Purdue
University, 100 N. University Street, Beering Hall of Liberal Arts and Education, West
Lafayette, IN 47907-2098 (e-mail: pistole@purdue.edu).

2008 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2008 Volume 47 193

Ladany et al. proposed that the supervisors focus shifts between
addressing the alliance directly (e.g., when the supervisee becomes
upset during the supervisory interaction or needs reassurance) and
using the alliance as the context or catalyst for supervisee learning.
In emphasizing the quality of the emotional bond and shifting between
relationship and learning interventions, we believe that Ladany et al.
described fundamental aspects of attachment theory.
Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988) explains emotionally important
relationships and their link to learning and development throughout
life. Although it is somewhat intuitive, the theory is applied more
effectively if its concepts, process, and associated terminology are
well understood. The theory is supported by research across several
types of emotionally important relationships: parental (Cassidy, 1999),
romantic (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), academic mentoring (Lopez,
1997), group (Rom & Mikulincer, 2003), and counseling (Ligiro &
Gelso, 2002; Meyer & Pilkonis, 2001). In applications to supervision
(Bennett & Vitale Saks, 2006; Hill, 1992; Neswald-McCalip, 2001; Pis-
tole & Watkins, 1995; Riggs & Bretz, 2006; White & Queener, 2003),
scholars primarily have focused on the attachment system.
In proposing attachment theory, Bowlby (1969) linked three innate,
organically based behavioral systems: attachment, caregiving, and
exploratory. The interactions of these systems account for relational
functioning, personality development, and effective work and learning
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Attachment refers to an emotional bond
to a specific, emotionally important person. This important person
(e.g., a romantic partner, counselor, or supervisor) is referred to as the
caregiver. The attached person (e.g., supervisee) is motivated to main-
tain a range of proximity to and seek care from the caregiver, which
results in safety and felt security. The caregiver also experiences an
emotional bond, which is termed the caregiving bond. The caregiving
bond motivates the caregiver to be accessible and proximal to provide
care when the attached person exhibits what is referred to as attach-
ment behavior (e.g., emotional reactions such as anxiety, searching for
or contacting the caregiver). The caregiver responds to attachment be-
havior by providing safe haven interventions, such as reassurance and
comfort, or secure base interventions, such as guidance to help solve
problems, make decisions, or examine the meaning of internal thoughts
and feelings. To provide interventions, the caregiver must be sensitive
to cues and responsive to concerns. The caregivers interventions must
occur in a timely and flexible way that takes into account the situation
and the attached persons attachment orientation. After the caregiver
intervention, the attached person may return to exploratory behavior,
which is reflected in intellectual or work activities such as learning,
problem solving, guiding, and so forth. When motivated by the explor-
atory behavioral system, the attached person explores the environment
without undue regard for proximity to the caregiver but still returns to
the caregiver when needing the secure base function.
The normative attachment process addresses the meaning and pur-
pose of behavior motivated from the innate behavioral systems (Bowlby,

194 Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2008 Volume 47

1969). Certain conditions, such as fatigue, novel experience, external
threat (e.g., performance feedback), or internal distress (e.g., doubt,
fear, confusion), generate anxiety and activate the attachment system.
The attached person exhibits attachment behavior, which signals care
seeking and needing the caregivers accessibility. Attachment system
activation prioritizes care seeking and inhibits other behavioral sys-
tems (e.g., exploratory system behavior, offering support to others)
until the attachment system is deactivated. The attachment system
is deactivated when the caregiver provides psychological or physical
proximity with behavior that soothes or comforts the attached person;
that is, when the caregiver provides the safe haven function. For ex-
ample, a supervisee becomes stressed, perhaps by a challenge, and
the attachment system is activated. While the attachment system is
active, the supervisee may not exhibit empathy during counseling or
may not demonstrate self-reflection and planning during supervision.
The supervisee seeks the supervisor for the proximity and safe haven
(e.g., reassuring the supervisee) that deactivate attachment. Once
the attachment system is deactivated, the supervisee again exhibits
exploratory system behavior. This process may be especially relevant
when the supervisee is involved in a critical incident.

Critical Incidents
Skovholt and McCarthy (1988b) used the critical incident method
to present counselor critical incident experience. In an issue of the
Journal of Counseling and Development, 58 counselors each described
a critical incident that had a profound effect (Skovholt & McCarthy,
1988a, p. 70) on the self. These incidents portray lived experiences
(p. 69) and illustrate key counselor education experiences that typi-
cally were perceived by the counselors as essential to a developmental
turning point.
We refer to the critical incident as a lived experience that occurs in a
program-sanctioned practice setting. The critical incident constitutes
a synchronistic event (Roehlke, 1988, p. 134) that links and unlocks
meaningful, noncausal connections. In focusing on this experience, we
assume that critical incidents vary in emotional intensity (e.g., some
are draining and exhausting; Ellis, 1988) and duration. With respect
to duration, some critical incidents are episodic, such as when insight
is achieved in a counseling session (Heitzmann, 1988), and some
are continuous, such as when the experience continues over weeks
(Ellis, 1988; Haferkamp, 1988). Perhaps because of challenging the
self, critical incidents may strain the supervisees coping skills (Ellis,
1988); however, they also contribute to affective learning (Roehlke,
1988) and catalyze change (e.g., a theoretical awakening; Cobb, 1988).
The supervisee emerges from the experience in a transformed, more
sophisticated developmental position (Morrissette, 1996; Wetchler
& Vaughn, 1991). Indeed, the critical incident experience seems to
parallel the types of challenges to growth that confront our clients
(Skovholt & McCarthy, 1988a, p. 69). Each idiosyncratic, possibly
painful encounter provides a teachable moment (Furr & Carroll, 2003).

Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2008 Volume 47 195

Supervision is, therefore, imperative to guide supervisee development
and protect client care.

An Attachment Perspective:
Supervision of Critical Incident Experience
Although they have multiple attachments (e.g., a romantic partner,
a parent), adults typically prefer one particular caregiver when their
attachment systems are activated. The preferred caregiver, who is
perceived as stronger and wiser (Bowlby, 1988), may be domain spe-
cific (Marvin & Britner, 1999). For a supervisee, the supervisor may
be the preferred caregiver when stresses or anxieties are related to
counseling sessions and training experiences.
The critical incident experience activates the supervisees attach-
ment system because of the experiences novelty (Bowlby, 1969) and
the challenge that is associated with emotions, such as being drained,
exhausted (Ellis, 1988), pressured, or defensive (Haferkamp, 1988).
The supervisee exhibits attachment behavior reflected in seeking
proximity to and care from the supervisor. For example, the super-
visee may contact the supervisor between scheduled supervision
sessions. Effective counseling and learning (i.e., exploratory system
behavior) by the supervisee are inhibited until attachment security is
restored. The supervisor provides the caregiving safe haven function
that deactivates the supervisees attachment system. In functioning
from the caregiving bond, the supervisor is motivated to respond to
the supervisees attachment behavior by being accessible and provid-
ing proximity and a safe haven (e.g., reassurance that protects the
supervisee from being overwhelmed by anxiety, fatigue, and doubt).
When the supervisee is calmed and his or her attachment system is
deactivated, security is restored. The supervisee then could return to
exploratory system behavior (e.g., learning), and the supervisor could
shift to the caregiving secure base function (e.g., guiding learning
and development).
From a supervision perspective, the supervisors ability to recognize
the attachment system activation that occurs with a critical inci-
dent experience is crucial. The critical incident could lead to intense
emotion and an internal struggle with inadequacycompetence,
dependenceautonomy, or helplessnesspower (Cormier, 1988). The
supervisee, who is still relatively inexperienced, may be confused
about the meaning of the experience, may not be able to symbolize
and articulate the internal personalprofessional confusion, may not
realize that client care could be affected, or may not understand how
supervision could be useful. Thus, the supervisee is not likely to say,
Im experiencing a critical incident. Instead, the supervisor needs to
identify cues or signals of attachment system activation and determine
if, why, when, and how to intervene.
As construed from theory and research (e.g., Feeney & Collins, 2004),
the supervisor would need to recognize attachment system activation
in (a) anxiety or another emotion (e.g., anger may signal attachment
concerns; Bowlby, 1988) that seems strong for the supervisee or

196 Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2008 Volume 47

training phase; (b) proximity seeking, perhaps via contact between
supervision sessions (e.g., phone call, dropping by the office, e-mail);
or (c) hindered learning or skill regression (e.g., overly directive) that
reflects an inhibited exploratory system. In terms of responsiveness,
the supervisee perceiving supervisor accessibility (e.g., I could call
my supervisor) may be a sufficient safe haven to deactivate attach-
ment concerns. Nonetheless, when the supervisee is inexperienced or
anxiety is especially intense, the supervisors presence may be needed
in the form of vocal contact or a face-to-face meeting.
When critical incidents occur over time, the supervisor needs flex-
ibility in making decisions about if or when safe haven or secure base
intervention(s) are required. For instance, when a supervisee exhibits
repeated proximity-seeking behavior, the supervisor might decide to
intervene by first providing a safe haven intervention. Then, when the
supervisees attachment system is deactivated, the supervisor might
intervene from the secure base function to guide exploratory system
behavior (e.g., thinking, increasing self-awareness). The supervisor
could comment that the contacts seem to be useful but, curiously,
are at a higher than expected level. For example, the supervisor may
tell the supervisee, It seems to me that our contacts are helpful and
that you seem calmer. . . . I have noticed that we meet more often
about this client, and I wonder what you think about this pattern.
The supervisor also may wonder about the meaning of the contacts,
in terms of counseling process, the client, and the supervisee. For
example, perhaps the supervisee is keeping anxiety suppressed and
the attachment system deactivated in counseling sessions by access-
ing a mental representation (e.g., recalling the supervisors image or
voice) that provides proximity to the supervisor. The physical proximity
seeking (e.g., dropping by the office) then may be related to postses-
sion reflection, anxiety emergence, and attachment system activation.
By clarifying this pattern and its meaning, the supervisor guides the
supervisee to identify the stressful experience, which subsequently
could be discussed in supervision.

Critical Incident Case Scenario

Addressing critical incidents in supervision from an attachment

theory perspective is illustrated in a case scenario. In this scenario,
information has been changed to protect confidentiality. Pseudonyms
are used in place of client names, and the demographics and time
line have been modified. Whereas the exact wording of responses has
been altered, the essential meaning has been retained. Supervision
was provided by the first author.

Critical Incident: Narrative

Edie was a White doctoral counseling student in her second semester
of practicum and received live supervision using a one-way mirror
and telephone link. About 30 years old, Edie was 2 months pregnant
with her first child. She had four clients. Her newest client, Mary,

Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2008 Volume 47 197

was a White, single-again woman in her 50s who had a married
daughter and a 6-month-old grandson. Mary had grey hair, looked
like a grandmother, and was from a rural, low socioeconomic status
background. She sought counseling because of a recent, pernicious
medical diagnosis. Another of Edies clients, Fran, was in her 20s and
in counseling to work on sibling issues. Frans married sister, who
had young children, had a rapidly progressive terminal illness.
Although Edie had previous counseling experience, the supervi-
sor noticed that Edies early sessions with Mary were characterized
by a content-oriented staccato: question, answer, question, answer.
The rapidly fired questions controlled the sessions through an overly
directive style that seemed to create distance in the counseling re-
lationship, excluded empathetic interventions, and precluded Edies
thinking and Marys discussing emotion or other material. In addition,
the supervisor observed through the one-way mirror that a sense
of exhaustion radiated from Edie during sessions with Mary. Edies
other sessions, even with Fran, were characterized by empathy and
a slower, more appropriate pace. Edies flight from emotion in Marys
sessions indicated a client-specific experience that might compromise
client care. Moreover, Edie sought brief contact with the supervisor,
after seeing Mary and before the start of her next session.
From a supervisory perspective, Edie was experiencing more anxi-
ety than would be expected, even with a complex client situation, as
signaled by her between-session contact and in-session behavior. In
general, Edie was effective with other clients. With Mary, Edie was
displaying nontherapeutic interventions consistent with exploratory
system inhibition. The anxiety coupled with exploratory system inhi-
bition suggested attachment system activation. To provide effective
caregiving, the supervisor needed to be proximally accessible and
provide a safe haven intervention. The supervisors telephone call into
the session, asking softly, You seem tired. How are you? conveyed
proximity and reassurance, and was met with relief. This reaction and
Edies later statement, Thank goodness the phone rang, indicated
that the intervention was needed and provided a safe haven, deacti-
vating Edies attachment system.
Edies attachment system, however, was deactivated temporarily.
The supervisor observed that the staccato pacing resumed in the
session with Mary and emerged in later sessions. Supervisory acces-
sibility had represented a safe haven intervention that deactivated
Edies attachment system. The supervisor then used a secure base
intervention to suggest that Edie take time in session to recognize
her anxiety (i.e., cued by the fast pace) and imagine that the super-
visor was with her by being present behind the one-way mirror.
The supervisor also told Edie that her sessions with Mary would be
observed more often than her sessions with other clients; that is, the
supervisor might be behind the mirror when needed. Edie eventually
was able to recognize when she was not controlling the pace. She
later reported that when she would realize that she was using the
question-response style, she would imagine the supervisor as being

198 Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2008 Volume 47

present and subsequently would slow the pace. Although Edie man-
aged her attachment system by making the supervisor psychologically
proximal, the supervisor recognized that Edies repeated attachment
system activations and continuing visible fatigue suggested an ongo-
ing critical incident experience.
Across several supervision sessions and in support of the critical
incident hypothesis, the supervisor used the secure base function to
guide Edies self-exploration. In early supervision sessions, Edie said
that, although she was not aware of the rapid pace, she did realize she
was anxious and scared in sessions with Mary. When guided by the
supervisors wondering to what the anxiety was linked, Edie concep-
tualized her fear in the statement, How can I possibly connect with
this client who is so different in terms of age and life circumstances?
In supervision sessions, when Edie would talk about Mary and the
sessions, she would become anxious. The reemergence of Edies
anxiety suggested attachment system activation. As with calls into
counseling sessions, Edie was comforted by the supervisors caregiv-
ing safe haven reassurance. For example, in one supervision session,
Edie exhibited her attachment system activation by her quick-paced
and anxious chatter, stating, How can I be of any help to this older
woman? In response, the supervisor delivered a reassuring, safe
haven intervention by commenting, As counselors, we listen and, in
doing so, we do give something to the client.
Despite continuing to doubt her ability to connect with Mary, Edie
changed her tone, pacing, and comments to a reflective style (i.e., she
spoke more slowly, with pauses, and identified interventions to use in
session). This changed style indicated that Edies attachment system
had deactivated and that she was functioning from the exploratory
system. As she focused on how to help Mary, Edie acknowledged her
in-session emotional flight and noted that Frans sessions were a re-
minder of how valuable and vulnerable life is. In contrast, Edie did not
note that Marys diagnosis meant that she might die. The supervisor
shifted to the secure base function and stated, I wonder if being with
Mary is anxiety provoking for you because she is dealing with death,
the ending of life, while you are dealing with new life, figuratively
and realistically, because of your pregnancy. The comment seemed
to resonate with Edie, indicating that the guidance was needed and
helpful. Consistent with exploratory system behavior, Edie processed
how her own life condition intersected with Marys situation.
Because client-related critical incident experience could absorb a
supervisee over several sessions, the supervisor expected that Marys
sessions would continue to evoke Edies anxiety and attachment system
activation. At times, Edie felt anxious or unsure about therapeutic
progress as she struggled to find and maintain a counseling direc-
tion and central goal for Mary. When her confidence wavered, Edie
sought proximity in brief contacts with her supervisor. The supervisory
strategy at these times was to provide accurate reassurance. For ex-
ample, the supervisor stated, I was observing and noticed that your
voice was lower and you were more empathetic and I hear fatigue

Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2008 Volume 47 199

in your voice. Dying is a difficult issue for the client and for you, or
for any counselor. Your tiredness is legitimate, especially with your
being pregnant. With the safe haven interventions resulting in at-
tachment deactivation, Edie was observed to make herself an available
and present counselor (i.e., functioned from the exploratory system)
in her next session, which was with Fran. With Mary, in-session (i.e.,
phone calls) and postsession safe haven interventions ceased as Edie
seemed able to access internal representations more easily (e.g., im-
ages of the supervisor), which provided sufficient proximity to manage
her attachment system.
Nonetheless, Edie experienced strong anxiety and attachment
system activation during a supervision session in which Edie was
anticipating disclosing her pregnancy to Mary. After providing reas-
surance, the supervisor shifted to secure base guidance and asked, I
wonder what you can say to Mary about the pregnancy? Consistent
with exploratory system functioning, Edie planned when and how to
disclose her pregnancy and considered its influence on counseling. A
counselors pregnancy may intrude into counseling by focusing atten-
tion on and disclosing elements of the counselors personal life (Imber,
1995; Stuart, 1997). Clients may react by exhibiting new conflicts,
intensified transference or resistance, acting out, and feeling betrayed
or abandoned, with the overall effect being disruptive or facilitating
(Imber, 1995, p. 291). When she disclosed her pregnancy, Edie de-
scribed a strong connection with Mary. In contrast, Mary reported a
new aliveness, as if Edies being full of life (the antithesis of Marys
facing death) somehow encouraged visualization of her life and her
familys continuing and carrying her legacy. In their remaining ses-
sions, Edie counseled effectively as Mary dealt with the multiple issues
that confront clients facing serious illness (e.g., mortality, meaning
of life, spirituality, family legacy; Holt, Houg, & Romano, 1999). The
supervisor used secure base interventions to guide Edies processing
(e.g., the theoretical meaning that Edie was discovering in her work
with Mary).

Critical Incident: Interpretation

Edies experience exemplifies synchronicity (Roehlke, 1988) and the
idiosyncratic, person-specific aspect of critical incidents and a theo-
retical awakening. Edies pregnancy seemed to create a focal point of
the intersection in the supervisee and clients lives. A pregnant coun-
selor often deals with physiological changes, anxiety about becoming
a mother, emotional growth associated with a life transition, concern
about her babys health, and guilt over her personal life intruding into
the counseling (Imber, 1995). In addition, Sherman and Simonton
(2001) observed that vulnerability is increased when people face seri-
ous physical illnesses. Because of the pregnancy, Edies vulnerability
was increased and, because of the serious illness, Marys vulnerability
also was increased. Both were concerned with life cycle transitions.
For Edie, the transition encompassed revising her personal identity
to include motherhood. Furthermore, according to McGoldrick and

200 Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2008 Volume 47

Walsh (1999), Edie and her husband would transition from being a
couple to being a family with young children, and therefore making
Edies mother a grandmother and promising the familys continuity.
Edie was influenced greatly by beginning of life issues, whereas Mary
was confronting the end of life issues. Edies family was, therefore,
serendipitously in a similar position to that of Marys because of the
recent birth of Marys grandson.
Both Edie and Mary developed meanings that were accompanied
by a reported sense of aliveness, represented by the pregnancy
metaphor of bringing forth life. With the juxtaposition of Edies and
Marys conditions (i.e., vulnerability) and life themes (e.g., family life
cycle issues, beginning and ending life), Edie confronted the ambigu-
ity of the human condition and Mary met the reality of her impend-
ing death, which Yalom (1980) identified as an ultimate existential
concern. The noncausal connections, which perhaps include the
attachment to the supervisor, illuminated new meanings that culmi-
nated in what Edie reported as a transformed and awakened grasp
of existential theory.

Attachment Theory and Supervisor Effectiveness

From an attachment theory supervision perspective, Edie was exhibiting
a normative response to a novel and challenging situation by experiencing
anxiety and skill regression (noted through the discrepancy in responses
to Mary and not other clients). With multiple attachment activations
occurring in an ongoing critical incident experience, a supervisor would
gain feedback about the effectiveness of interventions, as an aspect of
the process. The supervisee responds to successful safe haven and se-
cure base interventions with evidence of attachment system deactivation
(e.g., decreased anxiety) and renewed exploratory system behavior (e.g.,
openness to learning, self-reflection, deriving theory-based counseling
interventions). The clients progress may also suggest that the supervisors
interventions have effectively supported the supervisees learning and
counseling. For instance, in this case, the supervisor was required to
use a relatively high level of supervisory monitoring because of Edies
nontherapeutic interventions and re-emerging anxiety. The heightened
monitoring was necessary to meet the supervisors ethical responsibility
of ensuring client care, as is consistent with the guidelines of the Associa-
tion for Counselor Education and Supervision (1993). The supervisees
learning also may reflect effective supervision. For example, the super-
visor used a secure base intervention (I wonder if your learning with
Mary may influence your work with Fran.) to guide Edie to extend her
awakened existential understanding to Frans sessions. Edie shifted the
focus to the sisters mortality, and Fran found a genuine, self-congruent
way to tell her terminally ill sister good-bye, even though other issues
were not yet resolved.
Attachment theory may also illuminate supervision difficulties (e.g.,
ineffective critical incident supervision) and negative experience re-
lated to the supervision relationship (Henderson, Cawyer, & Watkins,
1999; Nelson & Friedlander, 2001). Attachment- and caregiving-related

Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2008 Volume 47 201

thoughts, beliefs, and behavior reflect distinct but related internal
working models (Bowlby, 1988) or representations that direct attention
and affective responses (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999; Feeney &
Collins, 2004). Typically associated with attachmentcaregiving his-
tory, the internal working models account for individual differences
in orientations, with the secure attachment and security-enhancing
caregiving orientations being associated with more positive outcomes
across intellectual and social domains (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003).
Individual differences in the supervisees attachment or the super-
visors caregiving orientations may influence supervisory effectiveness
(Bennett & Vitale Saks, 2006). For example, an anxiously attached
supervisee would present with a chronically activated (i.e., hyperacti-
vated) attachment system, exhibit very frequent attachment cues, and
seek dependence on and approval from the supervisor. In contrast,
an avoidantly attached supervisee would suppress the attachment
system and behave in a defensively independent manner, failing to
want or perceive a need for supervisory input. Because a supervisee
with these insecure attachment orientations may not exhibit easily
interpreted attachment cues, the supervisor may have more difficulty
realizing when and how to intervene with safe haven reassurance or
secure base guidance.
Although Neswald-McCalip (2001) proposed that some supervisors
are able to adjust their caregiving interventions to match supervis-
ees attachment orientations, other supervisors may fail to provide
effective supervision because of their own caregiving orientations.
The supervisor may not be flexible in responding, may distance the
supervisee, may not notice attachment signals, or intrude when not
needed (Feeney & Collins, 2004). Should the supervisor be unable
to interpret or respond to attachment behavior, whether because of
the attachment or the caregiving orientation, supervision and the
relationship would be inhibited.
Further Considerations
Attachment is universal (Bowlby, 1988), although normative responses
are influenced by culture (van IJzendoorn & Sagi, 1999). For example,
consistent with home country norms, an Asian female international
supervisee might seek proximity in a humble and subtle manner. With
this supervisee, the supervisor would need to recognize proximity
seeking in nonverbal and indirect behaviors such as being near the
supervisors door. This example points to the need for the supervisor
to become well educated in attachment theory to be effective with
supervisees in a variety of supervision situations, including other
kinds of critical incidents. Especially initially, the supervisor must
think carefully about the concepts, the meaning of behavior, and the
supervisee and supervisors positions in the relationship.
Attachment and caregiving represent complex concepts and behav-
iors, particularly when individual differences (e.g., anxious or avoidant
attachment) and individuals histories are considered. For instance,
we viewed counseling as an exploratory system behavior; however,

202 Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2008 Volume 47

the supervisee also could be seen as the caregiver with the client be-
ing attached. A supervisor who wants to understand the complexities
could access a large body of attachment theory scholarship and would
be encouraged to start with recent works (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007) that summarize and organize theory and research. A supervisor
also needs to recognize that supervision in applying attachment theory
to supervision may not be readily available. The supervisor may need
to rely on introspection and perhaps personal counseling to recognize
the selfs attachment and caregiving patterns and to develop sensitive
and flexible supervision interventions.
We believe that an attachment perspective of supervision could be
applied in a variety of training situations and with several supervision
methods, although research currently is lacking. To further research,
in-session supervisee anxiety could be noted, for example, through
voice changes captured on tape or during verbal reports about a ses-
sion and through physical behaviors (e.g., fidgeting, not moving at
all) that are accessible on visual recordings. Nonetheless, important
limitations remain to be considered. The attachment perspective is
based on the supervisor and supervisee being linked by emotional
bonds that are stimulated by the high novelty and anxiety arising from
early counseling experience or critical incident experience. Therefore,
the perspective may not be useful for relatively nonanxious types of
supervision, such as administrative or case management supervision,
peer supervision groups, consultations, or perhaps supervision of su-
pervision. In addition, as experience is gained (e.g., becoming license
ready), the supervisee may no longer benefit from an attachment-based
supervision. Although clients may continue to present challenges, the
supervisee would have developed sufficient professional identity and
competence such that counseling-related anxiety would not be strong
enough to activate the attachment system. Furthermore, the supervi-
sor or supervisee who prefers strong independence and distance in
close relationships may not resonate with an attachment approach.
A supervisor who is tired, stressed, or busy may not be sensitive to
attachment behaviors. Such a professional may prefer other theories
(e.g., the event-based supervision process, Ladany et al., 2005; a
developmental model, Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1998), even
when supervising emotionally laden critical incidents.
We illustrate an attachment theory perspective of supervision us-
ing a supervisee critical incident, because such an experience often
activates the attachment system. We contend that attachment theory
concepts and the process that ensues in the interaction of the attach-
ment, caregiving, and exploratory systems provide a more insightful
supervisory approach than does relying on Bordins (1983) character-
ization of the supervisory alliance. Solely relying on the participants
attachment orientations (Riggs & Bretz, 2006; White & Queener, 2003)
also is insufficient, because the supervisors relational position is
caregiving, not attachment. In addition, attachment theory could be
applied to supervision, counseling, and clients important relation-
ships (Pistole & Watkins, 1995).

Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2008 Volume 47 203

 References
Association for Counselor Education and Supervision. (1993). Ethical guidelines for
counseling supervisors. Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://www.acesonline.
net/ethical_guidelines.asp
Bennett, S., & Vitale Saks, L. (2006). A conceptual application of attachment theory
and research to the social work studentfield instructor supervisory relation-
ship. Journal of Social Work Education, 42, 669682.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (3rd
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bordin, E. S. (1983). Supervision in counseling: II. Contemporary models of
supervision: A working alliance based model of supervision. The Counseling
Psychologist, 11, 3542.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parentchild attachment and healthy human
development. New York: Basic Books.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attach-
ment relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89111).
New York: Guilford Press.
Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the childs ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp.
320). New York: Guilford Press.
Cobb, S. M. (1988). Understanding psychodynamic concepts through personal
trauma. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 126.
Cormier, L. S. (1988). Critical incidents in counselor development: Themes and
patterns. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 131132.
Ellis, K. L. (1988). Learning from multiplicity. Journal of Counseling and Develop-
ment, 67, 74.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2004). Interpersonal safe haven and secure base
caregiving processes in adulthood. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.),
Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 300338).
New York: Guilford Press.
Furr, S. R., & Carroll, J. J. (2003). Critical incidents in student counselor develop-
ment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 483489.
Haferkamp, C. J. (1988). Autonomy, control, and affiliation: You issues or mine?
Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 75.
Heitzmann, D. (1988). Role players. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 76.
Henderson, C. E., Cawyer, C. S., & Watkins, C. E., Jr. (1999). A comparison of
student and supervisor perceptions of effective practicum supervision. The
Clinical Supervisor, 18, 4774.
Hill, E. W. (1992). Marital and family therapy supervision: A relationalattachment
model. Contemporary Family Therapy, 14, 115125.
Holt, J. L., Houg, B. L., & Romano, J. L. (1999). Spiritual wellness for clients with
HIV/AIDS: Review of counseling issues. Journal of Counseling & Development,
77, 160170.
Imber, R. R. (1995). The role of the supervisor and the pregnant analyst. Psycho-
analytic Psychology, 12, 281296.
Ladany, N., Friedlander, M. L., & Nelson, M. L. (2005). Critical events in psycho-
therapy supervision: An interpersonal approach. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Ligiro, D. P., & Gelso, C. J. (2002). Countertransference, attachment, and the
working alliance: The therapists contributions. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research,
Practice, Training, 39, 311.
Lopez, F. G. (1997). Studentprofessor relationship styles, childhood attachment
bonds and current academic orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 14, 271282.
Marvin, R. S., & Britner, P. A. (1999). Normative development: The ontogeny of at-
tachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (pp. 4467). New York: Guilford Press.

204 Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2008 Volume 47

McGoldrick, M., & Walsh, F. (1999). Death and the family life cycle. In B. Carter
& M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The expanded family life cycle: Individual, family, and
social perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 185201). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Meyer, B., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2001). Attachment style. Psychotherapy, 38, 466472.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in
adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 35 (pp. 53152).
San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynam-
ics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.
Morrissette, P. (1996). Recurring critical issues of student counsellors. Canadian
Journal of Counselling, 30, 3141.
Nelson, M. L., & Friedlander, M. L. (2001). A close look at conflictual supervisory
relationships: The trainees perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48,
384395.
Neswald-McCalip, R. (2001). Development of the secure counselor: Case examples
supporting Pistole & Watkinss (1995) discussion of attachment theory in coun-
seling supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 1827.
Pistole, M. C., & Watkins, C. E. (1995). Attachment theory, counseling process,
and supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 23, 457478.
Rabinowitz, F. E., Heppner, P. P., & Roehlke, H. J. (1986). Descriptive study of
process and outcome variables of supervision over time. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 33, 292300.
Riggs, S. A., & Bretz, K. M. (2006). Attachment processes in the supervisory rela-
tionship: An exploratory investigation. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 37, 558566.
Roehlke, H. J. (1988). Critical incidents in counselor development: Examples of
Jungs concept of synchronicity. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67,
133134.
Rom, E., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). Attachment theory and group processes: The
association between attachment style and group-related representations, goals,
memories, and functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
12201235.
Sherman, A. C., & Simonton, S. (2001). Coping with cancer in the family. The
Family Journal, 9, 193200.
Skovholt, T. M., & McCarthy, P. R. (1988a). Critical incidents: Catalysts for coun-
selor development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 6972.
Skovholt, T. M., & McCarthy, P. R. (1988b). Critical incidents in counselor develop-
ment [Special Issue]. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67(2).
Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B., & Delworth, U. (1998). IDM supervision: An inte-
grated developmental model for supervising counselors and therapists. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stuart, J. J. (1997). Pregnancy in the therapist: Consequences of a gradually dis-
cernible physical change. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 14, 347364.
van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi, A. (1999). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment:
Universal and contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Hand-
book of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 713734).
New York: Guilford Press.
Wetchler, J. L., & Vaughn, K. A. (1991). Perceptions of primary supervisor inter-
personal skills: A critical incident analysis. Contemporary Family Therapy: An
International Journal, 13, 6169.
White, V. E., & Queener, J. (2003). Supervisor and supervisee attachments and
social provisions related to the supervisory working alliance. Counselor Educa-
tion and Supervision, 42, 203218.
Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.

Counselor Education&SupervisionMarch 2008 Volume 47 205