IJSP Number 8, 2026

International Journal of Supervision in Psychotherapy, Number 8, 2026 Page | 18 to the supervisee present a case, I frequently ask myself the question, “In addition to telling us about the client, what is the supervisee revealing about their Self? This question provides us with a bridge to discuss the concept of countertransference in psychotherapy as it emerges in supervision. COUNTERTRANSFERENCE In my early years as a psychotherapist the concept of “countertransference” was the bane of my existence. I suffered whenever a supervisor or colleague implied that I was in countertransference with my clients. I believed that countertransference was irrefutable evidence that something was wrong with me as a psychotherapist. I was ashamed when I worried that my clients were in crisis, or when I felt tenderness and protectiveness, or when I was irritated or bored. In my superficial understanding of countertransference, I believed that if I had an emotional reaction in response to my clients, it meant that I was unconsciously reliving some unfinished aspect of my own life and enacting it within the psychotherapy. After all, I knew that Sigmund Freud and other psychoanalytic writers postulated that countertransference was the analyst ’ s transference of old emotional reactions onto the client, hence a hindrance in the psychotherapy. Freud [4] wrote that countertransference was the “ result of a patient ’ s influence on his [the psychotherapist ’ s] unconscious feelings” (p. 144). Later in my training I read Donald Winnicott ’ s article entitled “ Hate in the Counter- T ransference” [5], in which he depicted countertransference as having two dimensions: first, as personal countertransference which he, like Freud, defined as the psychotherapist ’ s emotional and behavioral reactions to the client that are based on their own unresolved issues. The second dimension Winnicott termed objective counter-transference: the tender, understanding response by the psychotherapist that may be needed by a client who was consistently criticized as a child. Winnicott saw objective countertransference as normal, understandable responses “ to the actual personality and behavior of the patient” (p. 60). Paula Heimann [6] elaborated on Winnicott ’ s idea. She said that the psychoanalyst ’ s total emotional reactions to the client were often an indicator of what was happening within the client ’ s unconscious. This idea, along with many discussions with colleagues about our internal responses to clients shifted my understanding of countertransference. I no longer viewed countertransference as solely my personal failure; countertransference may also be the gateway to understand the client ’ s unconscious experience. Heinrich Racker [7] furthered Heimann ’ s ideas and delineated two distinct types of countertransference: concordant and complementary. In a concordant identification, the psychotherapist is stimulated by the client and responds to them with empathy. In a complementary countertransference, the psychotherapist identifies with the client ’ s internal “ other” and responds with indifference, boredom, disdain, superiority, or merely a lack of empathy. Otto Kernberg [8] reiterated Racker ’ s ideas when he described countertransference as being present in any therapy situation because of two factors: the therapist ’ s history of relationships and the feelings induced by the client. Heinz Kohut [9] defined the concept of self-object transference as an unconscious portrayal of significant others onto the psychotherapist and how such a portrayal mobilized countertransference in the psychotherapist. Kohut proposed that in order to understand the