A. Jordan Wright
8 min
Self psychology, founded by Heinz Kohut, posits that individuals require specific functions from others, known as selfobjects, to maintain a healthy sense of self. While traditionally viewed as an overarching developmental framework, this paper argues that selfobject functions can serve as a practical, moment-to-moment decision-making tool for counselors. Instead of relying solely on general therapeutic stances, counselors can use the selfobject model to navigate micro-interactions.
The author identifies three primary categories of selfobject interactions that counselors can employ to address a client's immediate needs:
By categorizing potential responses into these three functions, counselors can more deliberately choose interventions rather than relying on intuition alone. The paper illustrates this through case scenarios—including an angry client, a self-doubting client, and a distressed caller on a COVID-19 helpline. In each case, selecting a specific selfobject orientation helps shift the client's emotional state or cognitive focus effectively. This approach is particularly valuable for counselor education, providing a concrete model for trainees to evaluate their own interventions and understand when a particular response might (or might not) have been helpful.
Alex: Counseling already has traditions of empathy, acceptance, and genuine engagement. What does this add beyond those familiar principles?
Sam: Wright explicitly connects the functions to Carl Rogers’ principles of unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence, or genuineness. But he highlights tensions in trying to embody all of them continuously. A genuine reaction, for example, may not feel unconditionally positive. His proposal makes the immediate purpose of a response more explicit.
Alex: Let’s make that concrete. What happens when reassurance could also sound like approval of something unwise?
Sam: That tension drives the angry-moment example. A client loves his work but feels undervalued. After his boss publicly insults him, he later shouts at the boss in private. He tells the counselor what happened, then looks over, waiting for a response.
Alex: The counselor could recognize that he finally stood up for himself, while still worrying about the consequences. How does Wright separate those possibilities?
Sam: The mirroring response is, “That took a lot of guts!” It affirms his willingness to confront a recurring problem, not his judgment or self-control. In the account, he relaxes enough to consider what the confrontation could mean for his future at the company.
Alex: But recognizing courage could still reinforce shouting at the boss. Does the paper acknowledge that trade-off?
Sam: It does, directly. The supportive response risks reinforcing an unwise behavior pattern. The twinship alternative instead says, “That situation sounds so tough.” Here, the described reaction is more intense anger and further explanation, rather than calming down.
Alex: That makes emotional intensity a poor shortcut for judging whether the interaction helped. More anger could mean the client feels able to explain himself.
Sam: That is how Wright interprets this example: the response validates feelings and permits elaboration without shame. The guiding alternative asks whether he could have handled things differently. The client then considers other responses, but the account also describes possible shame or embarrassment.
Alex: Those are quite different outcomes. Were these responses tested against each other, or are we hearing illustrations of what each might do?
Sam: They are illustrations, not a controlled comparison. The paper describes responses and client reactions, but reports no comparative outcome study. We cannot treat these accounts as evidence that affirmation reliably calms clients, or guidance reliably produces shame.
Alex: Then the practical contribution is a way to organize possibilities. It isn’t a ranking of which response works best.
Sam: Wright explicitly says we cannot know which option will be most beneficial in a given moment. The counselor still has to use the relationship, knowledge of the client, and judgment. The framework makes alternatives visible; it doesn’t resolve that uncertainty.
Alex: Does the idea travel beyond the angry client? Otherwise, it might just be a useful way to discuss that particular dilemma.
Sam: Another example concerns a woman experiencing depression and anxiety after a breakup. She says she keeps failing and will never be any good. Her treatment has largely used cognitive and behavioral techniques: examining beliefs and changing behavior.
Alex: In that setting, immediately examining the claim would fit the treatment. Why consider anything else?
Sam: Wright describes affirmation as a possible preparation for that work: remind her of positive accomplishments before evaluating her belief. Twinship instead normalizes the painful feeling and allows shared sadness. Guidance moves directly to a familiar strategy for weighing evidence about whether she is failing.
Alex: So the framework doesn’t replace the treatment approach. It asks whether this moment calls for preparation, emotional connection, or direct use of a technique.
Sam: And Wright illustrates it outside formal counseling, too. A truck driver calls a COVID-19 helpline feeling overworked and unrecognized. The service offers support, specifically not counseling. Affirmation recognizes his contribution, empathy acknowledges his frustration, and guidance suggests contacting a union or advocacy group.
Alex: That setting changes the purpose of the interaction. Feeling heard on a support call may be a reasonable endpoint, without demonstrating lasting therapeutic change.
Sam: Which is why the evidence needs careful boundaries. These examples show how the categories can shape responses across settings. They do not establish improved long-term outcomes, better training, or superiority over usual practice. My reading is that this is a usable teaching proposal, not a validated decision rule.
Alex: Given those limits, who should read the full document, and where should they start?
Sam: Counselor educators, supervisors, and clinicians looking for a practical reflection tool should read it. Start with “Selfobject Decisions in Counseling: An Angry Moment,” because its alternatives expose the trade-offs clearly. Then read “Implications for Counselors and Counselor Educators.”
Alex: What makes that implications section useful beyond choosing a response in real time?
Sam: Wright also proposes using the framework after an interaction goes badly. Ask which need the counselor addressed, and whether the client needed something else. That offers a language for supervision and for examining strains in the therapeutic relationship, though its effectiveness remains untested here.
Alex: And for researchers outside counseling, what is the one idea to carry away?
Sam: Affirming someone, understanding them, and guiding them are different ways to help. Before choosing the next sentence, ask which kind of help this moment calls for.
Alex: Thanks for listening.