The Ethical Paradox in Counseling: Why “Don’t Impose Your Values” Doesn’t Hold There is a line in the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics that most counselors are trained to take seriously: counselors are not to impose their values on clients. It shows up explicitly in ACA Code A.4.b. Personal Values, which states that counselors are to be aware of their own values and avoid imposing those values on clients (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014). At a surface level, this makes sense. It aligns with the broader ethical commitments of the profession—respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, and honoring the dignity of the client. However, the longer I have worked within the field—both clinically and academically—the more I have found myself questioning whether this standard is actually coherent. Not because the intent is wrong, but because the assumption underneath it does not hold. The idea that a counselor can operate without bringing values into the room is not just difficult; it is impossible. To be clear, I am not arguing against the ACA Code of Ethics as a whole. In fact, the vast majority of the code reflects necessary and appropriate boundaries for responsible practice. Requirements around confidentiality (ACA, 2014, Section B), competence (C.2.a), and avoiding harm are not controversial. They represent a baseline moral framework that protects clients and preserves the credibility of the profession. Without them, counseling would not function as a trustworthy discipline. The issue is not that the code exists. The issue is that the code itself is a value system, and yet it includes a directive that assumes value-neutrality is possible. Every aspect of counseling practice is shaped by underlying values. When a counselor helps a client identify “growth,” they are implicitly defining what growth means. When they conceptualize a behavior as maladaptive, they are applying a standard of what counts as healthy or unhealthy. Even the emphasis on client autonomy—often treated as a neutral principle—is itself a value rooted in a particular philosophical and cultural tradition. It is not universally prioritized across all societies or worldviews. This is where the tension begins to surface. The profession instructs counselors not to impose their values, but it simultaneously requires them to operate within an ethical framework that is built on specific values. The ACA Code is not merely a procedural document; it reflects assumptions about human nature, well-being, identity, and moral responsibility. Those assumptions shape how counselors are trained, how they interpret client concerns, and how they intervene. The same dynamic can be observed in the American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. The APA emphasizes respect for people’s rights and dignity, including autonomy and self-determination (APA, 2017, Principle E). Again, this is not problematic in itself. However, it demonstrates that both major ethical frameworks in mental health are grounded in particular value commitments. These commitments are not neutral; they are normative. What complicates this further is the way these ethical codes evolve over time. Both the ACA and APA revise their codes periodically. While some changes reflect advances in research or clarification of practice standards, many revisions also track with broader cultural shifts. As societal perspectives on issues such as identity, sexuality, and morality change, those shifts are often reflected in subsequent updates to ethical guidelines. This does not necessarily invalidate the codes, but it does highlight that they are historically situated documents rather than timeless moral absolutes. In practice, this means that counselors are not simply avoiding value imposition; they are operating within a professionally sanctioned value system that has developed within a particular cultural context. That system inevitably influences the counseling process. It shapes what is affirmed, what is challenged, and what is framed as a legitimate therapeutic goal. This creates a paradox. Counselors are instructed not to impose their personal values, yet they are required to implement a professional code that carries its own set of values. The distinction between “personal values” and “professional values” is often assumed to resolve this tension, but in reality, it simply relocates it. Professional values are still values, and they still influence clients through the structure of the therapeutic relationship. From a logical standpoint, it becomes difficult to maintain the claim that value imposition can be entirely avoided. At best, what can be avoided is coercive or unexamined imposition. Counselors can refrain from pressuring clients to adopt specific beliefs, and they can remain attentive to the client’s autonomy and perspective. However, they cannot remove the influence of the value framework that shapes their clinical reasoning and interventions. This is where I believe the profession would benefit from greater clarity. Rather than framing ethical practice as the absence of value imposition, it may be more accurate to frame it as the responsible management of values within the therapeutic relationship. This would involve acknowledging that values are always present—on the part of the counselor, the client, and the profession—and focusing instead on how those values are engaged. Such an approach would place greater emphasis on self-awareness. Counselors would need to understand not only that they have values, but how those values influence their interpretations and decisions in session. It would also require a commitment to non-coercion, ensuring that clients are not pressured into adopting the counselor’s framework. At the same time, it would allow for a more honest recognition that counseling is not, and has never been, a value-neutral endeavor. For counselors who operate from an explicitly articulated worldview—whether religious, philosophical, or otherwise—this issue becomes even more pronounced. In those cases, the tension between personal convictions and professional expectations is not abstract; it is something that must be navigated in real time. The expectation of value neutrality can feel particularly strained when the profession itself is clearly operating from its own set of normative commitments. None of this requires abandoning ethical codes. The ACA and APA frameworks continue to provide essential guidance for protecting clients and maintaining professional standards. However, it does suggest that the language we use to describe ethical practice may need to be reconsidered. The directive to “not impose values” may function well as a caution against coercion, but it does not accurately describe the reality of counseling work. A more precise formulation might acknowledge that counselors inevitably bring values into the room and that ethical practice involves engaging those values with humility, awareness, and restraint. This shifts the focus from attempting to eliminate values—which cannot be done—to managing their influence responsibly. Ultimately, the question is not whether values are present in counseling. They are. The more relevant question is how those values are understood and handled within the therapeutic process. Avoiding that question by appealing to neutrality may simplify the language of ethics, but it does not reflect the complexity of actual practice. References American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. Author. American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Author.

Advocacy versus Activism in Counseling: An Evidence-Based Examination of Ethical Boundaries and Professional Competence Professional counseling has experienced a dramatic paradigm shift toward social justice advocacy over the past two decades, yet significant tensions remain regarding ethical boundaries, therapeutic effectiveness, and ideological diversity. The American Counseling Association formalized advocacy as a core professional competency in 2003, positioning counselors as change agents who work both with clients individually and on behalf of clients systemically. However, research reveals substantial ethical concerns about value imposition, therapeutic alliance disruption, and a notable absence of political diversity within the profession that may compromise service to ideologically diverse clients. This evidence-based review synthesizes peer-reviewed research on how advocacy differs from activism, the empirical foundation for advocacy competencies, documented ethical risks when counselors move from empowerment to political action, and the robust research demonstrating that therapeutic alliance—potentially threatened by ideological mismatches—accounts for approximately 8% of variance in treatment outcomes. The counseling profession faces an unresolved challenge: how to maintain commitment to social justice while serving diverse client populations with varied political and ideological values, ensuring client autonomy remains paramount. The Professional Evolution Toward Advocacy as a Core Competency The ACA Advocacy Competencies, originally developed in 2003 and updated in 2018, represent a formalized framework distinguishing between levels and types of advocacy work. These competencies organize advocacy interventions using a 2x3 matrix that distinguishes between "acting with" clients versus "acting on behalf of" clients across three ecological levels: client/student, community/school, and public arena (Toporek et al., 2009). The framework encompasses six distinct domains: empowerment, client advocacy, community collaboration, systems advocacy, collective action, and social/political advocacy. Toporek et al. (2009) emphasized that "counselors have always been change agents and advocates...They have recognized that their clients and students often needed more than what face-to-face counseling could provide" (p. 260). The updated 2020 competencies clarified that effective advocacy occurs "in partnership with the client, client groups, or populations" to facilitate empowerment, distinguishing collaborative advocacy from paternalistic intervention. Ratts and Hutchins (2009) operationalized these competencies at the client/student level, providing specific guidance for implementing empowerment and advocacy interventions. Lewis et al. (2011) further explored how these competencies translate into leadership roles, noting the "fusion of scholarship and activism represents an opportunity to reflect on ways in which counselors and psychologists can begin to address the multilevel context faced by clients and client communities" (p. 5). Social Justice Counseling as the "Fifth Force" and the Activist Turn Ratts (2009) proposed conceptualizing social justice as a "fifth force" in counseling, complementary to psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral, existential-humanistic, and multicultural paradigms. This framework fundamentally shifts the locus of client problems from purely internal to environmental/systemic, expands counselor role and identity to include advocate and activist, and requires new skill sets encompassing advocacy and activism competencies. The theoretical foundation posits that counselors should view client problems through a bio-psycho-social framework that acknowledges systemic oppression and environmental barriers. Ratts (2009) argued this perspective represents a paradigm shift: "Social justice counseling encourages helping professionals to broaden their perspectives by viewing client problems from a bio-psycho-social framework" (p. 160). However, this classification remains contested within the profession, with some scholars viewing social justice as a "recurring wave" rather than a distinct theoretical force. Kiselica and Robinson (2001) provided historical context for advocacy counseling dating back to Frank Parsons, emphasizing that advocacy counseling, social action, and social justice work involve helping clients challenge institutional and social barriers that impede academic, career, or personal-social development. Their foundational work highlighted the personal attributes required for advocacy including courage, persistence, and tolerance for ambiguity. The Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (MSJCC), endorsed by ACA in 2015, formalized the integration of social justice with multicultural competence (Ratts et al., 2016). These updated competencies addressed limitations of the original 1992 Multicultural Counseling Competencies by incorporating advocacy and addressing both privileged and marginalized counselor-client combinations across four quadrants. Singh et al. (2020) described how the MSJCC can be viewed through a human rights framework, tracing evolution from original multicultural competencies to contemporary social justice advocacy that emphasizes addressing power, privilege, and oppression. Implicit Distinctions Between Advocacy and Activism in the Literature While the counseling literature extensively addresses advocacy, explicit distinctions between "advocacy" and "activism" remain limited and the terms are often used interchangeably. However, patterns emerge across sources suggesting advocacy typically refers to working within existing systems, professional role responsibilities, interventions on behalf of specific clients or populations, and actions aligned with professional ethical codes. The ACA Advocacy Competencies framework itself creates an implicit continuum from traditional counseling-based advocacy to more activist-oriented interventions. The progression from empowerment to client advocacy to community collaboration to systems advocacy to collective action to social/political advocacy represents increasingly macro-level, politically engaged interventions. Ratts (2011) introduced the Multicultural and Advocacy Dimensions model to illustrate the complementary nature between multicultural competencies and advocacy competencies. Singh et al. (2020) emphasized moving "from awareness to action," highlighting that the MSJCC framework requires counselors to apply knowledge through concrete advocacy interventions that address systemic barriers. Value Imposition and the Erosion of Client Autonomy Research on ethical concerns reveals significant tensions between advocacy-oriented practice and core ethical principles, particularly client autonomy and avoiding value imposition. Corey et al. (2019) defined value imposition as counselors directly attempting to influence clients to adopt their values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, either actively or passively. Some counseling theorists maintain such value impositions are at worst coercive and at best paternalistic but in any event are always nonobservant of a client's autonomy. The ACA Code of Ethics (2014) Standard A.4.b explicitly addresses this concern: "Counselors are aware of—and avoid imposing—their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Counselors respect the diversity of clients, trainees, and research participants and seek training in areas in which they are at risk of imposing their values onto clients" (p. 6). The Code identifies autonomy as a fundamental ethical principle, defined as "fostering the right to control the direction of one's life." Ryan et al. (2011) found convergence across therapeutic approaches around the principle that clients' autonomy should be respected and collaborative engagement fostered to encourage therapeutic alliance and improve treatment outcomes. Their application of Self-Determination Theory to counseling demonstrated that supporting autonomy remains a consistent ethical priority across treatment modalities. Kocet and Herlihy (2014) addressed what counselors should do when personal values conflict with client goals or behaviors, presenting a decision-making model that balances value bracketing with value integration. They emphasized that counselors should not refer clients based solely on the counselor's personally held values while also maintaining professional authenticity. Kelly and Strupp (1992) found that psychotherapists' personal values influence treatment decisions, perceptions of clients, and treatment outcomes, including a "values conversion" phenomenon where clients adopt values similar to their therapist over the course of treatment, even when therapists are not intentionally attempting to alter clients' values. Therapeutic Boundaries and the Risk of Alliance Ruptures Professional boundary maintenance emerges as a critical ethical concern when counselors engage in advocacy or activism. Gutheil and Gabbard (1993) introduced the foundational distinction between boundary crossings and boundary violations, differentiating harmful crossings that exploit clients from potentially helpful departures from traditional therapeutic frameworks. Nandakumar et al. (2012) emphasized that the therapeutic relationship is established solely for the purpose of therapy and whenever this relationship deviates from its basic goal of treatment, it constitutes a boundary violation. Pope and Vasquez (2007) developed a nine-step framework for deciding whether to cross boundaries, emphasizing that boundary decisions must be grounded in a sound approach to ethics. Barnett et al. (2007) clarified that context, therapeutic relationship factors, and client welfare must guide boundary decisions, noting that not all boundary crossings are unethical and some may be clinically indicated and beneficial to clients. Winter et al. (2025) examined tensions arising when counseling psychologists engage in public policy advocacy, finding that practitioner psychologists are not always equipped in their initial training with the knowledge and skills needed to go beyond individual work to engage in these broader macro-level endeavors. Their research revealed significant questions about whether counseling psychologists consider public policy work within their core scope of practice. The ACA Advocacy Competencies themselves acknowledge potential ethical limitations, emphasizing that counselors must assess any ethical limitations they might have as a professional when engaging in advocacy. The competencies distinguish between advocacy in collaboration with clients versus advocacy on behalf of clients, raising questions about when interventions without direct client involvement are ethically appropriate. The Therapeutic Alliance as a Robust Predictor of Outcomes Extensive meta-analytic research establishes the therapeutic alliance as one of the most consistent predictors of treatment success across theoretical orientations. Flückiger et al. (2018) synthesized 295 independent studies covering more than 30,000 patients, finding an overall alliance-outcome correlation of r = .278 (95% CI [.256, .299], equivalent to d = .579), accounting for approximately 8% of variance in treatment outcomes. This effect size remained remarkably consistent with the earlier meta-analysis by Horvath et al. (2011), which reported r = .275 based on 190 independent data sources covering more than 14,000 treatments. The alliance is conceptualized as three interconnected elements: agreement on treatment goals, agreement on therapeutic tasks, and development of an emotional bond. Horvath and Greenberg (1989) developed the Working Alliance Inventory based on this tripartite model, demonstrating adequate reliability and correlation with counselor and client self-reported outcome measures. Martin et al. (2000) examined 79 studies and found alliance-outcome correlation of r = .22, concluding that the overall relation of therapeutic alliance with outcome is moderate but consistent, regardless of many of the variables posited to influence this relationship. Del Re et al. (2012) found that therapist variability in forming alliance appears more important than patient variability for improved outcomes, suggesting that counselors' ability to establish and maintain strong alliances across diverse clients is a critical clinical skill. Wampold (2015) identified alliance as a critical common factor across all psychotherapies, noting that research evidence supports the importance of the alliance as an important aspect of psychotherapy. Alliance ruptures represent inevitable deteriorations in the therapeutic relationship that significantly impact outcomes. Eubanks et al. (2018) conducted meta-analysis of 11 studies involving 1,314 patients, finding that rupture resolution was significantly associated with better outcomes. Safran et al. (2011) found that successful resolution of ruptures correlated with good outcome and treatment retention, while poorer alliances marked by unresolved ruptures predicted premature termination. Kolden et al. (2018) found that therapist congruence and genuineness demonstrated an effect size of r = .23 (95% CI [.13, .32]) across 21 studies, emphasizing that respectful transparency characterizes the interpersonal component of effective therapy. Asnaani et al. (2014) noted that across theoretical orientations and in all treatment modalities, therapy alliance remains a critical component to determine favorable outcome from therapy, particularly across cultural and racial backgrounds. Political Diversity as the Missing Dimension in Multicultural Competence Research reveals a striking paradox: while the counseling profession champions multicultural competence and diversity, political and ideological diversity is dramatically underrepresented and often excluded from diversity discourse. Redding (2001) documented this lack of political diversity in psychology through empirical data showing that 74% of University of Virginia psychology faculty and graduate students were Democrats with only 5% Republicans. His content analysis found that 97% of political articles in American Psychologist from 1990-1999 advanced liberal themes, with 96% in Journal of Social Issues demonstrating similar patterns. Redding (2001) argued that the lack of political diversity biases research on social policy issues, damages psychology's credibility with policymakers and the public, impedes serving conservative clients, and results in de facto discrimination against conservative students and scholars. He noted that studies have shown a mismatch in therapist-client sociopolitical values may bias clinical judgment, even more so than differences in race, gender, or socioeconomic status. Inbar and Lammers (2012) surveyed 800 social and personality psychologists, finding only 6% identified as conservative overall with a ratio of 14:1 liberal to conservative. Among graduate students and postdocs, only 2% identified as conservative, suggesting continued decline in political diversity. Their research revealed that conservatives significantly underestimated the proportion of conservatives among colleagues, feared negative consequences of revealing political beliefs, and these fears were justified—liberal respondents indicated they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. Duarte et al. (2015) provided comprehensive evidence that academic psychology once had considerable political diversity but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years. They argued this lack of diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike. Their analysis found that 82% of conservatives in one survey responded affirmatively when asked if there exists a hostile climate toward their political beliefs. This documented isolation has real consequences for professional wellbeing and client care. Too many Christian counselors feel isolated in their professional contexts—and isolation leads to burnout. Remnant Counselor Collective is a community where Christian counselors connect and support one another, preventing burnout and helping them flourish: Join the community here. Norton and Tan (2019) documented relationships between licensed mental health counselors' political ideology and counseling theory preference, finding that most participants reported liberal political ideologies, with self-identified conservatives predicting preference for CBT and liberals predicting preference for psychodynamic theory. Notably absent from the literature is peer-reviewed empirical research specifically examining how political or ideological differences between therapist and client affect therapeutic relationship or outcomes—representing a significant gap given the robust research on alliance-outcome relationships. The MSJCC framework (Ratts et al., 2016) addresses intersectional identities and both privileged and marginalized counselor-client combinations but does not explicitly address political identity or ideological diversity as dimensions of cultural competence. This omission is particularly striking given the framework's emphasis on addressing power, privilege, and oppression. Navigating the Tension Between Advocacy Mandates and Therapeutic Effectiveness The counseling profession faces a fundamental tension that remains unresolved in both research and practice. Formalized competency frameworks, accreditation standards, and influential scholarship position advocacy and social justice activism as core professional responsibilities. The ACA Code of Ethics (2014) explicitly states that "when appropriate, counselors advocate at individual, group, institutional, and societal levels" (Standard A.7.a). Social justice as the "fifth force" has reshaped counselor identity and role conceptualization, moving the profession toward activist orientation addressing systemic oppression and political change. Conversely, robust empirical evidence demonstrates that therapeutic alliance—characterized by collaborative goal-setting, task agreement, and emotional bonding—predicts approximately 8% of variance in treatment outcomes across all therapeutic modalities (Flückiger et al., 2018). Core ethical principles of autonomy, avoiding value imposition, and maintaining appropriate boundaries remain foundational to effective practice. Research documenting dramatic lack of political diversity in the profession (Duarte et al., 2015; Inbar & Lammers, 2012), combined with evidence that therapist values influence every clinical decision (Kelly & Strupp, 1992) and that value mismatches can bias clinical judgment as much as racial or socioeconomic differences (Redding, 2001), raises profound questions about whether advocacy-oriented approaches adequately serve ideologically diverse clients. Several critical gaps demand urgent attention. First, the absence of empirical research examining how political or ideological differences between therapist and client affect therapeutic alliance and outcomes represents a glaring omission given the extensive research on other diversity dimensions. Second, the counseling literature provides limited explicit distinction between advocacy (working within systems, professional role-aligned) and activism (transforming systems, potentially disruptive), leaving practitioners without clear guidance on ethical boundaries. Third, the profession has not adequately addressed how social justice frameworks that embed particular political interpretations of social issues can be reconciled with serving clients across the political spectrum while honoring their autonomy and self-determination. The synthesis of this research suggests that effective counseling requires nuanced navigation between competing imperatives. The ACA Advocacy Competencies' distinction between "acting with" clients (empowerment, enhancing client agency) versus "acting on behalf of" clients (systemic advocacy that may occur without direct client involvement) provides one potential framework (Toporek et al., 2009). Empowerment-focused interventions that enhance client capacity for self-advocacy while respecting their values, goals, and autonomy align with both advocacy mandates and therapeutic effectiveness research. In contrast, counselor-driven activism in the public arena, particularly when it advances specific political positions or occurs without explicit client consent, risks value imposition, boundary violations, and alliance ruptures that undermine treatment effectiveness. The counseling profession must expand its conceptualization of diversity to include political and ideological pluralism, not merely as abstract principle but as essential to serving all clients effectively. Multicultural competence frameworks should explicitly address how counselors can maintain therapeutic effectiveness with clients whose political worldviews differ from their own, ensuring that social justice commitments do not inadvertently create barriers for some clients while attempting to remove barriers for others. The evidence demands that advocacy remain grounded in collaboration with clients, respect for their autonomy and self-determination, and vigilant awareness of how counselor values influence every aspect of the therapeutic relationship—the very foundation upon which all other interventions depend. AI Disclosure This manuscript was developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools. AI was used in the research, writing, and editing process. All citations have been verified for accuracy. References American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. https://www.counseling.org/resources/aca-code-of-ethics.pdf Asnaani, A., Kaczkurkin, A. N., Alpert, E., McLean, C. P., Simpson, H. B., & Foa, E. B. (2014). The effect of treatment on quality of life and functioning in OCD. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55(7), 1621-1629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.05.011 Barnett, J. E., Lazarus, A. A., Vasquez, M. J., Moorehead-Slaughter, O., & Johnson, W. B. (2007). Boundary issues and multiple relationships: Fantasy and reality. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(4), 401-410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.4.401 Corey, G., Corey, M. S., Corey, C., & Callanan, P. (2019). Issues and ethics in the helping professions (10th ed.). Cengage Learning. Del Re, A. C., Flückiger, C., Horvath, A. O., Symonds, D., & Wampold, B. E. (2012). Therapist effects in the therapeutic alliance-outcome relationship: A restricted-maximum likelihood meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(7), 642-649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.07.002 Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, Article e130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430 Eubanks, C. F., Muran, J. C., & Safran, J. D. (2018). Alliance rupture repair: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 508-519. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000185 Flückiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wampold, B. E., & Horvath, A. O. (2018). The alliance in adult psychotherapy: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 316-340. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000172 Gutheil, T. G., & Gabbard, G. O. (1993). The concept of boundaries in clinical practice: Theoretical and risk-management dimensions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150(2), 188-196. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.150.2.188 Horvath, A. O., Del Re, A. C., Flückiger, C., & Symonds, D. (2011). Alliance in individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022186 Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. S. (1989). Development and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(2), 223-233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.36.2.223 Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 496-503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612448792 Kelly, T. A., & Strupp, H. H. (1992). Patient and therapist values in psychotherapy: Perceived changes, assimilation, similarity, and outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(1), 34-40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.60.1.34 Kiselica, M. S., & Robinson, M. (2001). Bringing advocacy counseling to life: The history, issues, and human dramas of social justice work in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79(4), 387-397. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01985.x Kocet, M. M., & Herlihy, B. J. (2014). Addressing value-based conflicts within the counseling relationship: A decision-making model. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(2), 180-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00146.x Kolden, G. G., Wang, C. C., Austin, S. B., Chang, Y., & Klein, M. H. (2018). Congruence/genuineness: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 424-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000162 Lewis, J. A., Lewis, M. D., Daniels, J. A., & D'Andrea, M. J. (2011). Community counseling: A multicultural-social justice perspective (4th ed.). Brooks/Cole. Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(3), 438-450. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.3.438 Nandakumar, A., Vidyasagar, M., Sudarshan, C. Y., Parthasarathy, R., Kumar, A., & Rajmohan, V. (2012). Boundary violations in patient-doctor relationship. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 9(1), 21-25. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2012.005 Norton, A. L., & Tan, T. X. (2019). The relationship between licensed mental health counselors' political ideology and counseling theory preference. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 89(1), 86-94. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000339 Pope, K. S., & Vasquez, M. J. (2007). Ethics in psychotherapy and counseling: A practical guide (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Ratts, M. J. (2009). Social justice counseling: Toward the development of a fifth force among counseling paradigms. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 48(2), 160-172. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1939.2009.tb00076.x Ratts, M. J. (2011). Multiculturalism and social justice: Two sides of the same coin. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 39(1), 24-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2011.tb00137.x Ratts, M. J., & Hutchins, A. M. (2009). ACA Advocacy Competencies: Social justice advocacy at the client/student level. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(3), 269-275. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2009.tb00106.x Ratts, M. J., Singh, A. A., Nassar-McMillan, S., Butler, S. K., & McCullough, J. R. (2016). Multicultural and social justice counseling competencies: Guidelines for the counseling profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 44(1), 28-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmcd.12035 Redding, R. E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist, 56(3), 205-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.205 Ryan, R. M., Lynch, M. F., Vansteenkiste, M., & Deci, E. L. (2011). Motivation and autonomy in counseling, psychotherapy, and behavior change: A look at theory and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(2), 193-260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000009359313 Safran, J. D., Muran, J. C., & Eubanks-Carter, C. (2011). Repairing alliance ruptures. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022140 Singh, A. A., Appling, B., & Trepal, H. (2020). Using the multicultural and social justice counseling competencies to decolonize counseling practice: The important roles of theory, power, and action. Journal of Counseling & Development, 98(3), 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12321 Toporek, R. L., & Daniels, J. (2020). ACA Advocacy Competencies (Updated 2018). American Counseling Association. Toporek, R. L., Lewis, J. A., & Crethar, H. C. (2009). Promoting systemic change through the ACA Advocacy Competencies. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(3), 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2009.tb00105.x Wampold, B. E. (2015). How important are the common factors in psychotherapy? An update. World Psychiatry, 14(3), 270-277. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20238 Winter, L. A., Wood, M. V., & Shriberg, D. (2025). Practitioner psychologists as policy advocates, or policy as outside of our scope? Experiences and views of training in school and counseling psychology. School Psychology International, 46(2), 153-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343241305385