PSYCHOTHERAPY: THEORY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
VOLUME 16, # 3 , FALL, 1979
RESOLVING SPLITS:
USE OF THE TWO CHAIR TECHNIQUE
LESLIE S. GREENBERG
Faculty of Education, Department of Counselling Psychology
University ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. V6T1W5
ABSTRACT: The therapeutic use of the two chair oper-
ation is discussed. The distinctive features of three
types of splits, Conflict, Subject/Object, and Attribu-
tion, are described to aid process diagnosis. Each
split is characterized by the nature of the two parts,
relationship between the parts and the client's subjec-
tive experience of the split. Five principles of the
Gestalt method for resolving splits, Separation and
Contact, Responsibility, Attending, Heightening and
Expressing, are presented. The nature of the client
process in each chair in the dialogue is described in
terms of depth of experiencing and voice quality.
Examples of specific interventions implementing each
principle are given.
The complex interventions of many experien-
tially oriented therapists are frequently regarded
as intuitive artistic endeavours, and are too often
thought to be unteachable in any systematic way.
Without denying the intuitive aspects of good
therapy, there does appear to be a basic structure
to many of the interventions of good therapists.
The fundamentals of many techniques in the field
today are specifiable and teachable and more
effort is needed for laying bare some of the tacit
knowledge (Polanyi, 1958) and underlying prin-
ciples governing these skilled performances. In
this paper the underlying principles of a method
for resolving splits, derived from the practice
of Gestalt therapy, are presented.
Many systems have stressed the importance of
polarities and splits in human functioning (Jung,
1966; Rank, 1945; Perls, 1951) and Gestalt ther-
apists make explicit use of those ideas, in their
work with the empty chair (Perls, 1973; Fagan,
1974). In this Gestalt experiment the person
plays the role of both sides of the conflict, usu-
ally locating each side in a separate chair, and
316
proceeds to have an encounter between them.
This two chair technique has become a popular
and fashionable one and is presently being used
by many practitioners in the field, who sense its
relevance to their practice, even though they may
not be trained in the particulars of Gestalt
therapy. This operation can be used with skill
And sensitivity in order to carry a person forward
in their resolution of splits but it is too often
misused and becomes just a flashy dramatic
technique 'full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing.'
Perls and others have written about and dem-
onstrated their work with splits, but there has
been little specification of the principles which
guide the therapists' moment by moment per-
formance in therapy nor of the component skills
needed in their behavioral repertoire. The pur-
pose of this paper is to spell out the specifics of a
Gestalt method of working with splits, in order to
facilitate training, supervision and research of
this method.
Although the Gestalt approach is wholistic in
emphasis, valuing that the whole is greater than
the sum of the parts. Gestalt therapists do
respect and pay attention to minute detail in
behavior in order to promote the formation of
new Gestalten (Perls, 1973). This specification of
the details of a Gestalt technique will in similar
spirit promote a sharper awareness of some of the
elements of a complex therapeutic performance.
Practice in the specifics of this complex skill by
the therapist will in turn lead to higher level
integrations and improved therapeutic perform-
ance much the same as the manner in which
practice with notes allows one to excel in the
playing of more complex melodies.
 RESOLVING SPLITS: TWO CHAIR TECHNIQUE
The first step in the use of this operation is the
recognition of splits in a person's functioning.
Whenever an internal conflict is obviously ex-
pressed, such as, "I would like to but I don't
dare;" "I want to but I can't;" "I'm not sure
whether I can;" "I feel like crying but I'm hold-
ing back;" the basic nature of the experience,
that of fragmentation, a split in the person's
functioning, can be readily extracted from the
person's own verbalizations about their experi-
ence. Instead of a single clear preference arising,
the person is torn between alternatives. There is
an experience of two parts of the self split into
partial selves in opposition, rather than the ex-
perience of a single integrated self in process.
Clearly identifying this split and sensing the op-
posed forces within, becoming aware of the
conflict between the two parts, represents the
fundamental task for the client in this experi-
ment.
In general, the split can be identified by its
verbal markers, i.e., what the person is saying.
Often we find, "I should do this but I. . . ," "I
want to stop but I. . . ," "I am happy but I
wonder if. . . ," and then the stage is set for an
interminable merry-go-round of self cancella-
tion, of if/then, yes/but, etc. . . . These words
are the markers of the split, i.e., "I want to be
honest but I just can't. I always end up telling
lies." In this marker of the split, we find one
part, the first " I " (It) who wants to be honest
is not fully aware of the separate existence of
the second " I " (l^) who wants to fabricate. This
marker, "I want to but I can't" represents the
split in its most salient form.
If at this point, people take responsibility for
both sides in the conflict, namely for wanting to
do something and also not wanting to do it, and
become aware of how they are preventing them-
selves, they may discover the path to resolution.
The opportunity for contact between parts, if
provided, leads to creative problem resolutions
in the form of an integration or centering "the
reconciliation of opposites so that they no longer
waste energy in useless struggle with each other
but can join in productive combination and inter-
play." (Perls, 1970)
The recognition of splits is predominantly a
perceptual skill, the making of a 'process diag-
nosis,' by identifying verbal or non-verbal mar-
kers of a client's internal state of conflict. What
is important about this diagnosis is that it cap-
tures an aspect of the client's ongoing function-
317
ing that at that moment requires and is highly
amenable to change. Diagnosis of 'moments' of
this nature enable optimal use of the therapist's
executive skills, i.e., they highlight particular
client states that at that moment are most pro-
ductively worked on in a particular way.
Three types of process splits occur most fre-
quently in clients' presentation of their 'prob-
lems in living' to the counsellor. The Conflict
Split is one in which two partial aspects of the self
are in opposition to each other and are felt as two
opposing tendencies. A Subject/Object Split is
one in which clients express that they are doing
something to themselves. The third split, prolific
in many clients' presentations, is the Attribution,
when one aspect of the self is attributed to the
world.
A study of a number of examples of naturally
occurring splits showed that they could be de-
fined on the basis of distinctive features in the
clients' behavioural productions. The following
scheme for defining splits was developed from a
formal observation procedure, (Greenberg
1976).
The Split
A split is a verbal performance pattern in
which a client reports a division of the self pro-
cess into two partial aspects of the self or tenden-
cies. The three types of splits detailed below
differ in that the relationship between the parts of
self (R) and the person' s subjective experience of
the splits (S) are different for each type of split.
1. Conflict
This split is characterized by the two partial
aspects of the self being in opposition with each
other. The relational feature is a word or words
which indicate that the two parts are being set
against each other (but, yet, if/why). The per-
son's subjective experience of this type of split is
one of struggle, indicated by some process or
content cue that the person is involved in some
form of inner struggle, striving or coercion
(should, must, want, etc.).
Examples
a) Sometimes I think that I am cold and rejecting; maybe
/ (PI)* am but (Re) / (P2) don't want (Ss) to be.
b) / (PI) should (Ss) be more tolerant yet (Re) / (P2)
can't. (Ss).
c) / (PI) have to (Ss) complete this. / (P2) don't really
318 LESLIE GREENBERG
want to (Ss) but (Re) / (PI) must (Ss).
d) On the one side (Re), / (PI) don't want to (Ss) tie
myself down. On the other side (Re) however, /
(P2) want (Ss) the security offered me by marriage.
I just don't know (Ss) what to do.
* PI, part one. P2, part two. Re, conflict indicator. Ss,
struggle indicator.
2. Subject/Object
In the second type of split the two partial
aspects of the self are in subject-object relation to
each other. One partial aspect of the self (the
subject, I) does something of which the other
aspect (the object self) is the recipient or the
observer. The person is usually fully invested in
one aspect of the self in this situation. The rela-
tional feature is a pronoun such as myself or I
which indicates the self as an object. The subjec-
tive feature is either a process or a content cue
indicating discontent or exasperation with the
behaviour in which the person is engaged.
a) / (PI)*judge (Sd)myself (P2 Ro).
b) My difficulty (Sd) is that when I'm (PI) writing my
paper, I'm (P2) also marking it. (Ro)
c) / (PI) close off (Sd) my feelings (P2, Ro). / (PI)
don't allow (Sd) myself (P2, Ro) to feel.
* PI, part one. P2, Part two. Ro, Object indicator. Sd,
discontent indicator.
3. Attribution
In the attribution-type split a feeling that is
actually a part of the self is attributed to an
outside object or person. The relational feature is
a third person or object indicator such as he, they
or it. There are two subclasses of attribution
discriminated by the subjective feature.
a) Attribution of Opposition
This attribution is indicated by the person's
hypersensitivity to a minor manifestation of at-
titudes or feelings expressed by a third person. If
a person is bothered in this way, this is taken as
evidence that something of importance, that
needs to be resolved, is being touched on. The
subjective feature is a process or content cue
indicating a disagreement with or a struggle
against a third person in which the self is
strongly invested.
a) My father (Pl*Rt) says I should (So) finish the four
years, / (P2) keep trying (So) to tell him I'm not
learning anything.
b) He (PI, Rt) thinks this (what I say) is ridiculous.
/ (P2) get so upset (So). / can't, I just can't (P2 So)
ever get him to see my point of view.
b) Attribution of Agency
In this attribution split, people 'give up their
power' to the environment and then feel acted on
or alienated by it. The goal is to regain one's
power, an experience which leads the individual
to feel less victimized or alienated and more able
to do something about their situation. The sub-
jective feature in this type of split is one of
passivity in which people experience something
being done to them by a third person or the locus
of control lying in the third person.
a) She (PI,* Rt) made (Sp) me (P2) feel embarrassed
(angry, etc.).
b) / (PI)need (Sp) them (P2, Rt) to reassure me.
* PI, attributed part. P2, part two. Rr, third person or ob-
ject indicator. So, opposition indicator. Sp, passivity indi-
cator.
Discussion of the Two Chair Operation
The therapist's initial function in this opera-
tion is to suggest an experiment to help demar-
cate the two parts of a split. The experiment is set
up by the therapist but control and observation
are shared with the client. The therapist's mo-
ment by moment interventions may not always
follow a linear or logical path. They are rather
designed to bring to fullness the totality of ex-
pression that is occurring in the present. It is the
counsellor's ongoing awareness of the client,
and sometimes of himself, that form the basis of
this shuttling intervention, jumping from the
dialogue to a body movement to an interesting
voice quality, following any facet of expression
that may add to the client's awareness of what is
unfolding in the present.
In initiating this experiment therapists do not
approach their clients with the deliberate inten-
tion of doing something to them. Rather, the
therapists approach the situation as true obser-
vers and when a split jumps vividly as a figure
into their field, they follow their awareness and
engage in a two chair experiment. If the therapist
becomes deliberate and invested in identifying
particular conflicts, reifies these, and engages in
the operation in a premeditated way, the benefit
of the 'process diagnosis,' viz., that the split is
an indicator of present readiness for change, will
be lost.
 RESOLVING SPLITS: TWO CHAIR TECHNIQUE
The subjective feature of the split, what the
client is presently experiencing, will probably
account for its rising as a vivid figure in the
perceptual field of the therapist. The client's
voice may suggest a certain urgency, his body an
agitation; some increased intensity of feeling is
portrayed by the way in which the person talks
about his experiences. A difference is observed,
some aspect of the client comes alive for the
therapist and it is this present cue which prompts
the therapist's intervention.
Having recognized an initial split, the thera-
pist is ready to set up a dialogue between the
parts. What is it about this type of dialogue that
makes it so useful? The process of having a
person talk to themselves usually livens things
up a little just by its difference, but this is not
sufficient. Some particular things need to be ob-
served and done to aid the integration process.
First and foremost, the therapist needs to be
able to continually identify what the person is
doing in each chair. Perls (1969) has popularized
the notion of Top Dog and Underdog and shown
how the bullying authoritarian part of the per-
sonality engages in an endless dialogue with the
manipulative excusing part of the personality.
Although this is a useful description of some of
the two chair process, it does not clearly aid our
understanding of what happens in the rest of the
dialogue nor how resolution comes about.
Research and observation of the process of the
two chair dialogue has shown that the two chairs
in the dialogue can be profitably characterized as
the 'Experiencing chair' and the 'Other chair'
(Greenberg, 1976; Greenberg, in press). These
chairs have similarities to Underdog and Top
Dog respectively, but can be used to describe the
unfolding of the dialogue in productive therapeu-
tic process as the person moves to resolution.
The 'Experiencing chair' is the experiencing part
of the person much like the organism or self in
other experiential therapies. When the dialogue
is progressing well, this part rapidly moves away
from whining and excusing and engages in a
process of inner exploration and experiencing.
This chair has been shown in our research to
engage in the dialogue at deeper levels of experi-
encing on the Experiencing scale (Klein et al.
1969) than does the other chair. It also uses more
focused and expressive voice (Rice, 1967) than
does the 'Other chair.'
The 'Other chair' in contrast is filled with
internal objects, with the person's attributions
319
and with other people and things. The client
initially uses a more external or lecturing voice
and engages at low levels of experiencing.
Clients speak from the 'Other chair' as though
they are their internal objects and representations
of the world in the face of which the organism or
the self in the 'Experiencing chair' reacts or
feels. The description of the dialogue in terms of
the 'Experiencing chair' and the 'Other chair'
appears to be a useful one and has led to the
following observations from split episodes
which reached some form of resolution. Resolu-
tion performances appear to be characterized by
a shift at some point in the dialogue in the 'Other
chair' to higher levels of experience and more
focused-expressive voice much as though the
client in the 'Other chair' becomes less critical,
softer, and more understanding or accepting of
the self.
These observations suggest that the therapeu-
tic task is to promote experiencing in the one
chair and criticisms and projections in the other
chair. In addition, they point to the fact that
being alert to any change in tone and quality in
the way the person relates to themselves from the
'Other chair' can greatly enhance the probability
of facilitating split resolutions.
Given that the therapist recognizes the 'exper-
iencing part' and the 'Other part' the following
underlying principles of this operation convey
the nature of some of the moment by moment
interventions that can be used to help carry this
type of two chair dialogue forward toward reso-
lution. The five principles are: 1) Maintaining
the Contact boundary- maintaining clear separa-
tion and contact between the parts. 2) Responsi-
bility-directing clients to use their abilities to
respond as the agent of their experience. 3)
Attending-directing the client's attention to par-
ticular aspects of their present functioning. 4)
Heightening-highlighting aspects of present
experience by increasing the level of affective
arousal. 5) Expressing-making actual and par-
ticular that which is intellectual or abstract.
These principles are elaborated below and are
exemplified by a number of specific therapist
behaviours which embody these principles and
indicate how they are used. A specific therapist
behaviour may satisfy more than one principle at
a time although it will have a primary thrust
governed by one principle. These principles
viewed together define a basic structure or
configuration of the therapist operation.
320 LESLIE GREENBERG
1. Maintaining the Contact Boundary.
The aim of the experiment is to achieve clear
separation of the parts, and clear contact, en-
counter between the parts. This is the primary
goal, to have both parts clearly separated and
making contact with one another. The therapist
intervenes when the dialogue is halted in order to
maintain a flow of contact and works continu-
ously to separate out emerging polar aspects of
the client's on-going experience. This continual
separation serves to deepen the process by pro-
gressively refining the nature of the conflict.
When a split arises the counsellor can encourage
the formation of a contact boundary between the
parts by working with the person at:
a) Getting a 'sense' of the part.
C "It seems like I have two parts, active and pas-
sive."
T "Tell me some of the things you like to do as
the active part."
In this intervention the therapist suggests that the
person speak as one part to get a sense of it.
C "There's a nameless mass of people out there who
don't care. It's full of people who don't care."
T "Be them, take a little time and get a sense of
being them."
In this intervention the therapist attempts to sepa-
rate out two sides, self and world, by asking the
person to be the one side in the other chair.
b) Contacting.
C "I don't like the way that part of me does things."
T "Now say this to your other part. Here she is.
Say this to her."
In this intervention the therapist suggests that the
part in the 'Other chair' speak directly to herself.
C (to the Experiencing chair) "I think you should
stop complaining - accept your situation.''
T "So, sit in this chair and now tell her how you
feel."
In this intervention the therapist intervenes in the
dialogue to give the part in the 'Experiencing
chair' an opportunity to respond.
The guiding principle of this experiment is 2. Responsibility
reflected in this process of separating out the
parts and setting up contact, The Gestalt notion of avoidance is important
c)Defining differences: The experiment involves in this context. Avoidance, the phobia of experi-
clearly defining differences or boundaries, be- ence and the blocking of awareness, is the activ-
tween the two parts in dialogue. The lack of clear ity of not taking responsibility. This activity is
boundaries can constitute a state of confluence.
(Perls, 1951) An important technical issue in this
experiment is that often in dialogue, the bound-
ary between the parts collapses and both sides
agree with each other even though an integration
has not been achieved, e.g., a client who is
depressed engages in the following dialogue:
PI "You don't have to sit around being bored. You don't
really not have any energy. Your body produces en-
ergy the same as anyone else's body produces energy.
Where does it go?"
T "What does she say?"
P2 "That's a good question. Where does it go?"
T ' 'What do you feel about what she says to you?''
P2 "She's right. I should have energy when I don't have
energy."
T " I hear this other side talking. Come back here.''
PI "Yeah, I don't see why you don't have energy.''
T "So, make your demands on her."
P2 " I just want that part of me to go away. Go away!''
Here we see confluence, the non-awareness of a
boundary between the two parts, when P2, the
'Experiencing chair,' loses touch with self and
in effect becomes an extension of the 'Other
chair,' PI. The therapist twice attempts to get
P2's response but when this fails P2's statement
is labelled as belonging to the other side and PI
is clearly kept as the agent of dissatisfaction.
This is one of the ways of dealing with this situa-
tion of confluence. Another way is to suggest
the person as P2 try on the opposite role, instead
of agreeing, to state differences, and make a
case for being energyless, i.e., to respond as the
energy less part and to identify with the feelings,
etc., embodied in the experiencing. This recog-
nition of the collapsing of the parts and the
reestablishment of separation is essential for the
experiment to have any hope of success.
Another way in which defining differences can
be useful is in helping to clarify the conflict. One
of the most obvious characteristics of two parts
in conflict, especially when they are stuck at an
impasse, is that they do not wish to come to-
gether because they do not accept their differ-
ences. At this point the parts can be asked to
define their differences or dislikes of each other
and this often serves to clarify the impasse.
 RESOLVING SPLITS: TWO CHAIR TECHNIQUE
brought to the person's attention, usually with a
question like: "Are you aware of avoiding any-
thing?" or "What are you avoiding?" The per-
son is invited to become aware of avoiding, to
risk experiencing what is being avoided, and to
take responsibility for avoiding. A client could
respond to this intervention by recognizing a
feeling in the dialogue such as anger, sadness,
meanness or vulnerability or by recognizing
some behaviour such as not looking at the other
part or avoiding saying something.
The following are specific ways in which tak-
ing responsibility is encouraged in this experi-
ment.
a) Owning: In the dialogue, the therapist inter-
venes to get the person to speak in thefirstperson
singular, to own what she/he is saying in the
dialogue rather than distance it. A therapist be-
haviour embodying this principle would be an
instruction to the experiencing part to say, "I feel
discouraged," rather than, "It is discouraging."
The therapist encourages clients to take respon-
sibility for their disowned feelings and need to
say what they feel and want from the 'Experienc-
ing chair' and to make their demands on them-
selves from the 'Other chair' rather than talking
about and analyzing their motivations.
b) Being congruent: The person is encouraged
to be congruent in each role, to express its true
nature; if the 'Other chair' is punishing or bully-
ing, then the person is asked to punish or bully
themselves. If, however, the person in the 'Ex-
periencing chair' feels frightened or weak, the
person is asked to take responsibility for this
response by expressing his feelings rather than
externalizing or blaming the other part. This
leads to a balance and a shifting between "I
statements" and "You statements" in each role,
with the therapist directing the dialogue so as to
ensure that the person is responding in a manner
congruent with their present experience in that
particular role.
The therapist emphasizes the inner experienc-
ing of the client in the 'Experiencing chair' and
suggests that statements which follow an inap-
propriate external track be changed into state-
ments which are tracking the client's internal
experience (Gendlin, 1968), e.g.,
Cl "You're dominating me. You enjoy making me feel
stupid." (said from a position of vulnerability, i.e.,
external tracking.)
T '' What' s it like for you? Tell her your experience.''
Cl "I feel small and rejected.'' (internal tracking)
321
The therapist encourages the person to experi-
ence their feelings as being inside themselves
rather than automatically projecting them out-
ward, attributing them to the other part or to the
world, e.g.,
Cl '' You're pushing me away from you.''
T "Come over here and push her away.''
Here the client is talking about actions of the
other part and the therapist instructs the person to
be the agent of the action and do what she is
talking about.
c. Identifying: Clients are asked to identify with
all parts of their experience. They are asked to be
their shakiness or the knot in their stomachs, or
to identify with the fuzziness or the mist affect-
ing their clarity. A person is asked to actually
become what they are taking about and talk from
the experience, e.g., "I am my voice, I am small
and trembling." A person may also be asked to
physicalize certain feelings, such as being
weighed down or closed in, to make these actual
and concrete and to specify physical sensations
accompanying the actions.
The therapist picks up conflict between the
parts and ensures that each part takes responsibil-
ity for its side in the conflict by identifying
clearly with what it wants or what it feels. Iden-
tifying is applied particularly in the context of
needs and resistances. People are asked to iden-
tify not only with their needs but also with their
resistances, to experience fully the wall or bar-
rier as a part of themselves. The therapist asks
people to be their wall or trap or glass cage and
enclose or cage themselves to turn the resistance
into activity.
3. Attending
The therapist rejects the role of 'changer' and
simply encourages clients to become aware of
what they are feeling or doing in the present
moment. Often clients are engaged in certain
behaviours or processes in the present that are
fairly obvious but of which they themselves are
not aware. Attending in these situations deals
essentially with the deployment of the client's
attention. The therapist draws the client's focal
attention to particular aspects of their experience
by asking if they are aware of what they are
doing or encourages a client to 'stay with' a
certain aspect of what she/he is feeling and not
move away from it. There are two aspects to
attending:
322 LESLIE GREENBERG
a) Changing perspective: Here, the therapist's
goal is to bring to awareness some activity of
which the person is not presently aware. When
there is a clear discrepancy between what clients
are saying and how they are saying it, or when
the client's words are not grounded in their obvi-
ous organismic experience, then the therapist
intervenes and asks the client to change perspec-
tive and attend to that which is not presently in
awareness. A specific therapist behaviour em-
bodying this might be an inquiry into whether the
person is aware of what he is doing with his
hands, eyes, posture, voice, etc. The types of
behaviour that attention might be drawn to are a
deadness of voice quality, a wringing of hands or
a drooped head. These are all present behaviours
which appear to be going on outside the aware-
ness of the person and attending to them puts
them more fully in touch with their present ex-
periencing.
b) Focusing: The second aspect of attending is
characterized by an internal focus rather than
dealing with visible behaviours. These two as-
pects, external and internal, are not clearly
dichotomous but the latter stresses focusing on
what is occurring within the boundary of the skin
and allowing it to develop in whatever way it
does. A specific therapist behaviour might be an
instruction to 'stay with' a certain feeling or
sensation occurring in the present. The material
focused on might be a feeling of sadness, a
sensation of shakiness or pressure or even less
explicitly, the person might be asked what they
are experiencing or to close their eyes, go into
their bodies and 'check out what's happening
there!'
4. Heightening
The therapist's aim is to raise the level of
awareness of moment by moment experiencing,
aiding the client to form clear and vivid Gestalts
of whatever may arise. As Perls says, this ap-
proach is like that of an artist attempting to high-
light certain aspects of his material in order to
bring out its essential nature. The therapist ap-
proaches the client from this viewpoint and
works with him to heighten the essential aspects
of his conflict in the present. The following
methods will serve to heighten the ongoing ex-
perience of the client.
a) Exaggeration and Repetition: The client may
be asked to exaggerate or repeat any aspect of the
two chair interaction, e.g., a physical behaviour
such as the pointing of a finger or a verbal utter-
ance, such as, "I hate you" or "I'm hurting."
Spontaneous motor expression found in minia-
ture are exaggerated repeatedly to encourage ex-
pression while certain selected phrases are re-
peated to heighten contact and raise awareness.
b) Dramatizing: Dramatizing serves to raise
one's level of involvement and awareness. The
therapist can suggest that a person act out or
dramatize the different parts of a polarity, such as
role playing being a 'whiz kid' or a 'dummy,' a
'buddha' or a 'businessman' or a 'harlot' or a
'nun.' These could be used to heighten the ex-
perience and the features of a split involving
issues of intelligence, spirituality or sexuality.
The important point here is that the roles are not
imposed by the therapist but come from the per-
son's internal frame of reference. A client can
also play the role of some idiosyncratic aspect of
their split, like whipping themselves or being a
witch or a judge, in order to make this experi-
ence more vivid.
Confluence within the ongoing dialogue can
be heightened, using role playing, in an attempt
to promote differentiation and contact. An
example of a top dog/underdog dialogue (Perls,
1969) is given below to illustrate this use of
heightening confluence in order to frustrate the
person's manipulation of themselves and evoke
self-support.
T.D. You're worthless. You should be more confident,
more capable.
U.D. You're right. I am worthless.
T Say this to some people in the group. Play the role
of worthless.
C I'm worthless, etc. (moves on)
T Right, introduce yourself as the most unworthy
person in the world.
C But, I'm not worthless, damn it!
T OK, come back and tell this to your other part.
Here role playing leads to the spontaneous
emergence of a vivid figure, the opposite tend-
ency in the 'Experiencing chair,' the sense of
worth.
c) Feedback: In order to heighten awareness,
the therapist can make explicit something which
is implicit in the dialogue or symbolize some-
thing which the therapist perceives or is experi-
encing. Feedback is always offered as an obser-
vation, not an interpretation. The therapist
makes clear that this feedback is based on his
own experience, hunch, or understanding, and
that the client should accept it only if it 'fits.'
 RESOLVING SPLITS: TWO CHAIR TECHNIQUE 323

Making this explicit is often done by feeding a Cl "Firstly, you loused up your marriage. Secondly, you
sentence, offering a succinct statement sum- can't seem to let anyone get close. With Mike now you
still keep him away in little ways."
marizing or catching the essence of a client's T "What ways? Tell her."
statement which may then be added to the Cl "Well, when he calls you don't let on how you're
dialogue, i.e., suggesting that the client in the really feeling, etc."
experiencing chair try on " I feel lonely," or " Get C2 "Well, I'm afraid I'll get hurt again."
away from me," or "I want to be appreciated," b) Style: Expression in either chair can be ob-
when this was previously only implicit in. the served with an emphasis on clarifying the style of
dialogue or is the therapist's hunch about what is expression and changing it into content. The
going on. client's style in the dialogue, the particulars of
how the client is doing something, can be
brought to awareness and then fed back into the
dialogue. This whole experiment can be con-
5. Expressing strued as an analysis of expression, of how
clients engage with themselves. When clients
The aim here is one of bringing to expression become involved in the dialogue they have the
certain aspects of experience by means of doing. opportunity to discover the style or form of their
A differentiation that occurs by doing something expression, the way in which they engage with
is often far more lasting and integrated than a themselves. Are they 'whining,' 'bullying,'
differentiation that occurs by talking about some- 'sharp and thrusting like a rapier,' or 'like a
thing. In addition, as Wittgenstein (1953) points puppy dog?' The therapist directs the clients to-
out, feelings are not things inside which impel wards becoming aware of the ways in which they
behaviour and that a more accurate image is that are relating to their other part, e.g., when a client
anger is 'the slamming of the door' and sadness in the 'Other chair' is saying, "you don't know
is 'the crying.' Expressing therefore is an inher- this, you don't know that, etc." the therapist
ent aspect of the process of experiencing and is might perceive the 'how' as condescending and
used here to promote experiencing. Expression would then suggest that the person be conde-
of both the particular content (what) and the scending and look down on himself. In this way,
process (how) involved in the dialogue are pur- different facets of the client's modes of relating
sued. Expression is achieved by two major inter- and expressing are teased out. Here, differentia-
ventions. tion occurs through the expression of different
a) Particularity: Expressing the particular con- facets of the role as they emerge.
tents of the internal dialogue or of an experience
brings detail and concreteness to the process.
Relevant expression of particulars promotes Conclusion
primary direct experience as opposed to the sec-
ond level experiencing which follows abstrac- 'Two chair' operations conducted according
tion or 'talking about' experiencing. The proce- to the principles presented above have been
dure of setting up a dialogue, of role playing the found to facilitate an increase in the Depth of
different parts, etc., is all in the direction of Experiencing, an index of productive psycho-
direct expression and particularity. An interven- therapy (Klein et al., 1969) and to lead to resolu-
tion that the therapist might engage in to achieve tions of splits with populations seeking counsel-
content expression in the dialogue, would be to ing and with student volunteers. (Greenberg,
give an instruction "tell the experiencing part all 1976; Greenberg & Clarke, 1979).
the things it should do or the ways it should be This detailed description of splits and methods
better." of facilitating resolutions appears to be useful for
Expressing (telling) leads to both a direct ac- both research and training purposes. Specifica-
tive contact between the parts and an increased tion of these types of therapist behaviours are a
probability of deepening the dialogue by bring- step toward measuring their presence or absence
ing up specific material which will cue a reaction and investigating their effect. Identification of
in the experiencing part, e.g., the component skills in addition allows for im-
Cl "You're just no good, you're afailure." proved training and supervision of this complex
T "Be more specific. How has she failed?" intervention.
324 LESLIE GREENBERG

REFERENCES Experiencing Scale. Wisconsin: Wisconsin Psychiatric In-

FAGAN, J. Critical Incidents in the Empty Chair. The Coun- stitute, 1969.
selling Psychologist, 1974,4,33-42. PERLS, F. Gestalt Therapy Verbatim. Lafayette, CA: Real
GENDLIN, E. The experiential response. In E. Hammer People Press, 1969.
(Ed.), Use of interpretation in treatment. New York: PERLS, F. Four lectures. In J. Fagan & I. Shepherd (Eds.),
Grune & Stratton, 1968. Gestalt Therapy Now. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior
GREENBERG, L. A Task Analytic Approach to the Study of Books, 1970.
Psychotherapeutic Events. Unpublished doctoral disser- PERLS, F. The Gestalt Approach: Eyewitness to Therapy.
tation. York University, Downsview, Ontario, 1976. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books, 1973.
GREENBERG, L. An intensive analysis of the two-chair PERLS, F., HEFFERLINE, R. & GOODMAN, P. Gestalt
dialogue. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research andPractice, Therapy. New York: Julian Press, 1951.
, in press. POLANYI, M. Personal Knowledge. University of New York:
GREENBERG, L. & CLARKE, K. Differential effects of the Harper & Row, 1958.
two-chair experiment and empathic reflections at a con- RANK, O. Will Therapy and Truth and Reality. Alfred A.
flict marker. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1979, Knopf, N.Y., 1945.
26, 1-8. RICE, L. Client voice quality and expressive style as indices
JUNG, G. G. The Collected Works ofC. G. Jung. Eds. G. of productive psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting
Adler, M. Fordham and H. Read. Bellingen Foundation, Psych. 1967,31,557-63.
N.Y.,,1966. WITTGENSTEIN, L. Philosophical Investigation. New York,
KLEIN, M., MATHIEU, P., GENDLIN, E. & KEISLER, D. The N.Y.:Macmillan,1953.