The Process of Taiwanese Clients’ of Ren (Forbearance) in the Therapeutic Relationship

• Main Authors: Chen, Yi-An, 陳奕安
• Other Authors: 陳秉華
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2014
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/20476011249940947509

碩士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 教育心理與輔導學系 === 102 === It is almost unavoidable that clients will be dissatisfied or displeased with the counselor at some point in counseling. When it happens, Taiwanese clients are likely to use Ren (forbearance) to cope with the negative feelings, and to keep the counseling relationship harmonious and conflict-free. The current study sought to explore the context and the reasons behind Taiwanese clients’ use of Ren, the practices of Ren they used, and how their interaction with the counselor in the process of Ren would affect the counseling. 8 participants were interviewed about their experience of Ren in counseling. Data analysis was conducted using Grounded Theory methods. The findings were as follows: 1. The context triggering the clients’ Ren were “The counselor was ‘not like a counselor,’ ” “The client’s perspective was different from the counselor,’” “The counselor’s approach did not suit the client’s need or state,” and “The client did not understand the counselor.” 2. The reasons for the clients to use Ren were “Trusting the counselor,” “Maintaining a harmonious relationship,” “Acting according to the perceived power differential in the therapeutic relationship,” “Other relational factors,” and “Non-relational factors.” 3. When using Ren, the clients’ means of interacting with the counselor could be either “Non-communicational” or “Communicational.” 4. When the clients “Trusted the counselor,” “Could no longer bear it,” “Knew that the relationship was about to end,” and “Were discussing a similar topic with the counselor” they were likely to reveal the previously-withheld negative feelings. 5. When the clients used Ren to withhold their negative feelings, they reported that the counselor would not always respond to them. However, when the clients did reveal their negative feelings in the therapeutic relationship, the counselor would invariably respond. Regardless of the pattern of the interaction in the dyad, the clients could perceive the outcome as either positive or negative. 6. The clients reported that the counselor could “Spontanesously identify the client’s feelings and deal with it,” “Display genuine affect state,” “Clarify the client’s needs and thoughts,” “Adjusts intervention” to help them with their Ren. Based on the results, four main conculsion are drawn: 1. Taiwanese clients’ use of Ren is mainly triggered by their perceived difference with the counselor in the content discussed, the counseling process, and the affect state. 2. Taiwanese clients’ use of Ren may be due to that they seek to accomplish their counseling goal. Preserving the therapeutic relationship is another important reason. Different reasons may lead the clients to adopt different practices of Ren. 3. If the clients persistently use Ren solely as self-inhibition, there are likely to be negative effects on their self, the therapeutic relationship, and the outcome of the counseling. However, if the clients reveal their negative feelings, they are more likely to perceive that the counselor responds by eliminating the difference triggering their use of Ren. However, their revelation may also result in conflict with the counselor. 4. When Taiwanese clients trust their counselor, they may be capable to choose more freely whether to use Ren or not in the therapeutic relationship, and thus are more likely to benefit from their difference with the counselor. Finally, suggestions were made for helping professionals working with Taiwanese clients, counselor educators in Taiwan, and future research.