Attachment Theory in Supervision: A Critical Incident Experience. by M. Carole Pistole , Jenelle C.

Fitch Critical incident experiences are a powerful sourceof counselor development (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 conceptualizations 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 relationship 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 understanding of the supervisor-supervisee relationship can be found using Bowlby's (1988) attachment theory, which explains relational bonding, motivation, affect management, thoughts, and behavior, and is pertinent to the supervisor and supervisee's 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 theory's relevance forsupervision is illustrated by Ladany, Friedlander, and Nelson (2005). These authors noted that the supervisory alliance is essential to supervision effectiveness and identified two important aspects of this relationship: (a) the quality of the emotional bond and (b) the supervisor's awareness of and sensitivity to the supervisee's "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), Ladany et al. proposed that the supervisor's 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 (Ligiero & Gelso, 2002; Meyer & Pilkonis, 2001). In applications to supervision (Bennett & Vitale Saks, 2006; Hill, 1992; Neswald-McCalip, 2001; Pistole & 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 maintain 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 attachment behavior (e.g., emotional reactions such as anxiety, searching for or contacting the caregiver). The caregiver responds to attachment behavior 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 caregiver's interventions must occur in a timely and flexible way that takes into account the situation and the attached person's 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 exploratory 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 purpose of behavior motivated from the innate behavioral systems (Bowlby, 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 caregiver's accessibility. Attachment system activation prioritizes care seeking and inhibits other behavioral systems (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 example, 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 typically 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 programsanctioned 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 supervisee's 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). 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 specific (Marvin & Britner, 1999). Fora 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 supervisee's attachment system because of the experience's 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 supervisee 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 supervisee's attachment system. In functioning from the caregiving bond, the supervisor is motivated to respond to the supervisee's attachment behavior by being accessible and providing 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 supervisor's ability to recognize the attachment system activation that occurs with a critical incident experience is crucial. The critical incident could lead to intense emotion and an internal struggle with inadequacy-competence, dependenceautonomy, or helplessness-power (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 personal-professional 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, "I'm 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 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 attachment concerns. Nonetheless, when the supervisee is inexperienced or anxiety is especially intense, the supervisor's 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 flexibility in making decisions about if or when safe haven or secure base intervention(s) are required. For instance, when a supervisee exhibits repeated proximityseeking behavior, the supervisor might decide to intervene by first providing a safe haven intervention. Then, when the supervisee's 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 accessing a mental representation (e.g., recalling the supervisor's image or voice) that provides proximity to the supervisor. The physical proximity seeking (e.g., dropping by the office) then may be related to postsession 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, was a White, single-again woman in her 50s who had a married daughter and a 6month-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 Edie's clients, Fran, was in her 20s and in counseling to work on sibling issues. Fran's married sister, who had young children, had a rapidly progressive terminal illness. Although Edie had previous counseling experience, the supervisor noticed that Edie's 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 relationship, excluded empathetic interventions, and precluded Edie's thinking and Mary's 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. Edie's other sessions, even with Fran, were characterized by empathy and a slower, more appropriate pace. Edie's flight from emotion in Mary's 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 anxiety 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 inhibition suggested attachment system activation. To provide effective caregiving, the supervisor needed to be proximally accessible and provide a safe haven intervention. The supervisor's 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 Edie's later statement, "Thank goodness the phone rang," indicated that the intervention was needed and provided a safe haven, deactivating Edie's attachment system. Edie's 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 accessibility had represented a safe haven intervention that deactivated Edie's 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 supervisor was "with her" by being present behind the oneway 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 present and subsequently would slow

the pace. Although Edie managed her attachment system by making the supervisor psychologically proximal, the supervisor recognized that Edie's repeated attachment system activations and continuing visible fatigue suggested an ongoing critical incident experience. Across several supervision sessions and in support of the critical incident hypothesis, the supervisor used the secure base function to guide Edie's selfexploration. 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 supervisor's wondering to what the anxiety was linked, Edie conceptualized 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 Edie's anxiety suggested attachment system activation. As with calls into counseling sessions, Edie was comforted by the supervisor's caregiving 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 Edie's attachment system had deactivated and that she was functioning from the exploratory system. As she focused on how to help Mary, Edie acknowledged her insession emotional flight and noted that Fran's sessions were a reminder of how valuable and vulnerable life is. In contrast, Edie did not note that Mary's 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 Mary's situation. Because client-related critical incident experience could absorb a supervisee over several sessions, the supervisor expected that Mary's sessions would continue to evoke Edie's anxiety and attachment system activation. At times, Edie felt anxious or unsure about therapeutic progress as she struggled to find and maintain a counseling direction and central goal for Mary. When her confidence wavered, Edie sought proximity in briefcontacts with her supervisor. The supervisory strategy at these times was to provide accurate reassurance. For example, the supervisor stated, "I was observing and

noticed that your voice was lower and you were more empathetic" and "I hear fatigue 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 attachment 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., images 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 reassurance, 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 counselor's pregnancy may intrude into counseling by focusing attention on and disclosing elements of the counselor's 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 "disruptiveor facilitating" (Imber, 1995, p. 291). When she disclosed her pregnancy, Edie described a strong connection with Mary. In contrast, Mary reported a new aliveness, as if Edie's being "full of life" (the antithesis of Mary's "facing death") somehow encouraged visualization of her life and her family's continuing and carrying her legacy. In their remaining sessions, 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 Edie's processing (e.g., the theoretical meaning that Edie was discovering in her work with Mary). Critical Incident: Interpretation Edie's experience exemplifies synchronicity (Roehlke, 1988) and the idiosyncratic, person-specific aspect of critical incidents and a theoretical awakening. Edie's pregnancy seemed to create a focal point of the intersection in the supervisee and client's lives. A pregnant counselor often deals with physiological changes, anxiety about becoming a mother, emotional growth associated with a life transition, concern about her baby's 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 serious physical illnesses. Because of the pregnancy, Edie's vulnerability was increased and, because of the serious illness, Mary's 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 Walsh (1999), Edie and her husband would transition from being a couple to being a family with young children, and therefore making Edie's mother a grandmother and promising the family's continuity. Edie was influenced greatly by beginning of life issues, whereas Mary was confronting the end of life issues. Edie's family was, therefore, serendipitously in a similar position to that of Mary's because of the recent birth of Mary's 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 Edie's and Mary's conditions (i.e., vulnerability) and life themes (e.g., family lifecycle issues, beginning and ending life), Edie confronted the ambiguity of the human condition and Mary met the reality of her impending 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 culminated 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 secure base interventions with evidence of attachment system deactivation (e.g., decreased anxiety) and renewed exploratory system behavior (e.g ., openness to learning, selfreflection, deriving theory-based counseling interventions). The client's progress may also suggest that the supervisor's interventions have effectively supported the supervisee's learning and counseling. For instance, in this case, the supervisor was required to use a relatively high level of supervisory monitoring because of Edie's nontherapeutic interventions and re-emerging anxiety. The heightened monitoring was necessary to meet the supervisor's ethical responsibility of ensuring client care, as is consistent with the guidelines of the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (1993). The supervisee's learning also may reflect effective supervision. For example, the supervisor 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 Fran's sessions. Edie shifted the focus to the sister's 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 related to the supervision relationship (Henderson, Cawyer, & Watkins, 1999; Nelson & Friedlander, 2001). Attachment- and caregiving-related 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 attachment-caregiving history, 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 supervisee's attachment or the supervisor's caregiving orientations may influence supervisory effectiveness (Bennett & Vitale Saks, 2006). For example, an anxiously attached supervisee would present with a chronically activated (i.e., hyperactivated) 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 supervisees' 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 supervisor's 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 supervisor's positions in the relationship. Attachment and caregiving represent complex concepts and behaviors, 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, the supervisee also could be seen as the caregiver with the client being 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 sells 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 session 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 supervision. 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 supervisor 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 using 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 attachment, caregiving, and exploratory systems provide a more insightful supervisory approach than does relying on Bordin's (1983) characterization of the supervisory alliance. Solely relying on the participants' attachment orientations (Riggs & Bretz, 2006; White & Queener, 2003) also is insufficient, because the supervisor's relational position is caregiving, not attachment. In addition, attachment theory could be applied to supervision, counseling, and clients' important relationships (Pistole & Watkins, 1995). 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 student-field instructor supervisory relationship. Journal of Social Work Education, 42, 669-682. Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (3 rd 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, 35-42. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books. Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Aconstruct revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory. research, and clinical applications (pp. 89-111). New York: Guilford Press. Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the child 's ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 3-20). 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, 131-

132. Ellis, K. L. (1988). Learning from multiplicity. Journal of Counseling and Development, 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. 300-338). New York: Guilford Press. Furr, S. R., & Carroll, J. J. (2003). Critical incidents in student counselor development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 483-489. 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, 18,47-74. Hill, E. W. (1992). Marital and family therapy supervision: A relationalattachment model. Contemporary Family Therapy, 14, 115-125. 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, 160-170. Imber, R. R. (1995). The role of the supervisor and the pregnant analyst. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 12, 281-296. Ladany, N., Friedlander, M. L., & Nelson, M. L. (2005). Critical events in psychotherapy supervision: An interpersonal approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ligiero, D. P., & Gelso, C. J. (2002). Countertransference, attachment, and the working alliance: The therapist's contributions. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 39, 3-11. Lopez, F. G. (1997). Student-professor relationship styles, childhood attachment bonds and current academic orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 271-282. Marvin, R. S., & Britner, P. A. (1999). Normative development: The ontogeny of attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications {pp. 44-67). New

York: Guilford Press. 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(3rded., pp. 185-201).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, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press. Morrissette, P. (1996). Recurring critical issues of student counsellors. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 30, 31-41. Nelson, M. L.,& Friedlander, M. L. (2001).A close look at conflictual supervisory relationships: The trainee's perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 384-395. Neswald-McCalip, R. (2001). Development of the secure counselor: Case examples supporting Pistole & Watkins's (1995) discussion of attachment theory in counseling supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 18-27. Pistole, M.C.,& Watkins, C. E. (1995). Attachment theory, counseling process, and supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 23, 457-478. 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, 292-300. Riggs, S. A., & Bretz, K. M. (2006). Attachment processes in the supervisory relationship: An exploratory investigation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 558-566. Roehlke, H. J. (1988). Critical incidents in counselor development: Examples of Jung's concept of synchronicity. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 133-134. 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, 1220-1235. Sherman, A.C.,& Simonton, S. (2001). Coping with cancer in the family. The Family Journal, 9, 193-200. Skovholt,T. M., & McCarthy, P. R. (1988a). Critical incidents: Catalysts forcounselor development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 6972. Skovholt, T.M., & McCarthy, P. R. (1988b). Critical incidents in counselor development [Special Issue]. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67(2). Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B., & Delworth, U. (1998). IDM supervision: An integrated developmental model forsupervising counselors and therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stuart, J. J. (1997). Pregnancy in the therapist: Consequences of a gradually discernible physical change. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 14, 347-364. van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi, A. (1999). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 713-734). New York: Guilford Press. Wetchler, J. L., & Vaughn, K. A. (1991). Perceptions of primary supervisor interpersonal skills: A critical incident analysis. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 13, 61-69. White, V. E., & Queener, J. (2003). Supervisor and supervisee attachments and social provisions related to the supervisory working alliance. Counselor Education and Supervision, 42, 203-218. Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books. 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). Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com Publication Information: Article Title: Attachment Theory in Supervision: A Critical Incident Experience. Contributors: M. Carole Pistole - author, Jenelle C. Fitch - author. Journal Title: Counselor Education and Supervision. Volume: 47. Issue: 3. Publication Year: 2008. Page Number: 193+.

COPYRIGHT 2008 American Counseling Association; COPYRIGHT 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.