The Psychology of Psychotherapist Transparency
Should psychotherapists self-disclose to their patients?
Updated November 20, 2025 | Reviewed by Kaja Perina
Part 1 of a 2-part series.
As Devon Frye's November/December 2025 Psychology Today magazine article rightly notes, the matter of psychotherapist self-disclosure or transparency goes way back to the early days of psychoanalysis . Classically-trained Freudian analysts were taught to be "abstinent" in the presence of their analysands (patients) as regards any sharing of personal information with them or, more generally, doing anything that would potentially distract or detract from or devitalize the therapy process. The idea was--and for some, still is--to provide a relatively blank screen or ambiguous Rorschach card for the patient to project their neuroses upon so as to be better able to observe and address such material in the analysis.
Central to what was to be projected is the phenomenon of transference : unconsciously projecting the patient's unresolved or conflicted feelings toward their parents onto the person of the analyst or therapist. For Freud, the analysis of this transference phenomenon is key to the success of the therapy. As is the maintenance of objectivity and detachment, not unlike the attitude that allows surgeons to do what they must do. As in most, though certainly not all things, Freud was right about this, though in some cases it has been taken too far. And this also tends to distinguish psychoanalytic psychotherapy from other more humanistic, existential, or cognitive-behavioral approaches.
For example, perhaps the most prominent living exponent of existential therapy today, Stanford psychiatrist emeritus Irv Yalom, places the primary emphasis upon the interpersonal relationship between patient and therapist as regards therapeutic efficacy.
This is also true of other humanistic therapies such as Carl Rogers' client-centered therapy, most of which were developed as a much-needed counter-balance to the one-sided imbalanced relationship between patient and psychoanalyst. (This crucial role of the clinician-patient or client connection in therapy efficacy has now been confirmed in scientific studies.)
However, Yalom takes this reaction formation (to employ the Freudian term) to an extreme, arguing that there is no reason to withhold anything about the clinician's private thoughts and feelings from the patient, and that doing so weakens and limits the intrinsic healing power of the therapeutic relationship , pretty much throwing out the Freudian baby of abstinence with the psychoanalytic bathwater.
Of all the highly influential contemporary practitioners of psychotherapy, Yalom might be the most transparent (or least abstinent) with his patients. At the same time, Yalom (2017) does still encourage exercising some caution and discretion in therapist self-disclosure.
So, which is it? To tell or not to tell?
While therapist transparency may, at first blush, appear to be an enlightened, honest, and more humane approach to doing psychotherapy, there are real concerns that the potential benefits of therapist self-disclosure do not outweigh the very real risks. As someone who has been a practicing psychotherapist for five decades, let me share and disclose some of my concerns based on my own clinical experience.
To begin with, it is the relative absence of self-disclosure on the part of the therapist that defines and distinguishes psychotherapy from other types of human relationships, such as between friends, lovers, parents, children, siblings, relatives, co-workers, etc.
Psychotherapy is, as I have frequently told patients who have broached this issue, a truly unique kind of relationship, one that in certain ways, at least when things go well, exceptionally intimate while, at the same time, not mutually intimate in the way other relationships tend to be. Indeed, for some people, psychotherapy may be the most intimate relationship they have ever had with another human being. (By "intimate" I mean emotionally and psychologically open, vulnerable, and close though never physically sexual .)
But at the same time, it is a decidedly one-sided affair insofar as the therapist gets to know the patient's concerns, symptoms, hopes, dreams , and their history intimately, but not vice versa. Even when the therapist chooses to engage in self-disclosure with the patient, it does not change this fundamental dynamic. Nor should it, for then it would no longer be psychotherapy about which we are speaking, but something else.
Psychotherapy is, by definition, delineated time and space dedicated to addressing the patient and his or her problems rather than those of the therapist. (Of course, therapists have problems too, but they must be addressed elsewhere.) The setting and maintaining of boundaries such as frequency and duration of sessions Too much transparency on the part of the therapist can sometimes be indicative of bad boundaries, emotional neediness, and narcissistic tendencies. Indeed, in my view, beyond a certain point, the more transparency there is on the part of the therapist the less therapeutic the relationship may become, turning instead into a kind of special friendship or mutual commiseration or more.
It takes the patient out of the "hot seat" of therapy—the intensive laser focus on his or her feelings, actions, attitudes, and issues—and tends to water down or dilute the inherent healing power of the therapy relationship. This deflection of focus during therapy sessions is something many patients consciously or unconsciously try to do, sometimes explicitly and aggressively questioning the psychotherapist about details of his or her personal life and, in other cases, doing so more indirectly or subtly, yet no less persistently. (For an extreme fictional example of boundary breaking by patients, see the 1991 comedic movie What About Bob? )
It is the psychotherapist's task and professional responsibility to prevent rather than participate in such blurring of boundaries. In my experience, with certain patients (and this raises the real possibility that self-disclosure may be more appropriate with some patients than others), the more the therapist reveals about themselves the more the patient craves to know. It never ends. So this sort of self-disclosure is antithetical to what psychotherapy is all about—and it can lead to an endless effort on the part of the patient to know more and more about the therapist, detracting from the exclusive therapeutic focus on themselves. In other cases, the patient's positive (or negative) transference to the therapist is used to try to undermine, destroy or nullify the therapeutic relationship by sexualizing, normalizing or otherwise equalizing it so as to not have to continue to be the uncomfortable focal point of therapy anymore. Which is never easy.
But this intensive and exclusive concentration on and attunement to the patient, the receiver of therapy, is essential to its success and defines the very nature of psychotherapy: someone seeking help with their problems from someone professionally trained to provide it.
To find a therapist, visit the Psychology Today Therapy Directory .
Frye, D. (2025) "Opening Up: Self-Disclosure By Therapists." Psychology Today magazine (November/December 2025).
Yalom, I.D. (2017). The gift of therapy: An open letter to a new generation of therapists and their patients. Harper Perennial. (Original work published in 2003)
Share this post Facebook Bluesky Linkedin Email
There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.
By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
Stephen Diamond, Ph.D. , is a clinical and forensic psychologist in Los Angeles, and the author of Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic: The Psychological Genesis of Violence, Evil, and Creativity .
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.
This article is part of the Bringwise Psychology Journal — daily insights on human behavior, mental health, and personal growth.