Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 1989, Vol. 20, No. 5, 329-333 Copyright 1989 by the American Psychological Association, Im 0735-7028/89/S00.7 The Parallel Process in Psychotherapy Supervision Brian W. McNeill and Vaughn Worthen Department of Counseling Psychology University of Kansas An introduction to parallel process interventions is provided by a comprehensive review of the theo- retical constructs and empirical studies regarding the use of the parallel process in supervision. Although more direct investigations of the parallel process are needed, we conclude that parallel process interventions within the supervisory relationship can be extremely potent and impactful. Recommendations for the facilitative application of the parallel process in the supervision and train- ing of professional psychologists, as well as case examples, are provided. The field of professional psychology is currently experiencing a resurgence of interest in issues of training and supervision. This resurgence has been marked by the recent development of theoretical models of the training process (e.g., Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982; Stoltenberg, 1981), as well as empiri- cal investigations of the constructs posited by these models (see reviews by Russell, Crimmings, & Lent, 1984; Worthington, 1987). A component of training often underemphasized in theoreti- cal conceptualizations and empirical studies is the concept of the parallel process in supervision. Loganbill et al. (1982) and Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987) defined the parallel process in the supervisory relationship as a process in which one ascer- tains in supervision certain vestiges of the relationship between the supervisee and his or her client. Those authors believed that it is important for both supervisors and supervisees to recognize and attend to the parallel process in its multiplicity of forms as a potent and dynamic type of intervention in supervision. Indeed, in one of the early reviews of the supervision literature, Schlessinger (1966) noted that of the authors who referred to the phenomenon of the parallel process in supervision, many emphasized the value of this process as a form of communica- tion in supervision and as a rewarding focus for supervisory activity. Thus the purpose of our article is to introduce the reader to the concept of the parallel process in psychotherapy supervision. Literature related to the historical development and use of the parallel process, along with empirical investiga- tions of this concept, is examined. Last, we demonstrate, BRIAN MCNEILL received his PhD from Texas Tech University in 1984. He is currently a counselor in the University Counseling Center and assistant professor and director of training in the Counseling Psychology Program at the University of Kansas. His research interests are in the areas of training and supervision and social influence processes in coun- seling. VAUGHN WORTHEN received his MSEd from Brigham Young Univer- sity in 1985. He is currently a PhD candidate in counseling psychology at the University of Kansas. CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to Brian W. McNeill, Department of Counseling Psychology, University of Kansas, 116 Bailey Hall, Lawrence, Kansas 66045. through case examples, the application of the parallel process as a facilitative intervention in the supervision and training of psychologists. Theoretical Constructs The idea of the parallel process in supervision has its origin in the psychoanalytic concept of transference. Analysts in- volved in supervision observed that the transference of the ther- apist and the countertransference of the supervisor within the supervisory session appeared to parallel what was happening in the therapy session between client and therapist. One of the first references to parallel processes was made by Searles (1955), who labeled it the reflection process, suggesting that "processes at work currently in the relationship between patient and thera- pist are often reflected in the relationship between therapist and supervisor" (p. 135). Searles also proposed that these processes be examined in order to assess whether they were chiefly coun- tertransference reactions or genuine reflections of the therapist- patient relationship. Wagner (1957, cited in Doehrman, 1976) specifically described what he termed process centered supervi- sion as focusing on the interaction among client, therapist, and supervisor; that is, the supervisor makes use of what is occur- ring in both the therapist-client relationship and the therapist- supervisor relationship to enable the trainee to use his or her own experience of emotional difficulties in receiving help from the supervisor to facilitate understanding of the client's situa- tion. Both Searles (1955) and Hora (1957) stressed the parallel process as an unconscious identification with the client. Hora posited that supervisees involuntarily assume the client's tone and behavior to convey to the supervisor emotions experienced while working with the client. Searles (1955) further hypothe- sized that unconscious identification might help to explain the "reflection process," stating "It is as if the therapist were uncon- sciously trying, in this fashion, to tell the supervisor what the therapeutic problem is" (p. 144). He believed that as the super- visory relationship progressed, and as the supervisor and thera- pist advanced in self-awareness, they became increasingly free of countertransference reactions and thus freer to examine the "therapeutically useful" reflection process. Although Searles stated that the reflection process was significant in its implica- 329