Reflective Practice (RP) is widely regarded as a cornerstone of psychotherapy training, supervision, and continuing professional development. Yet, despite its prominence across psychotherapeutic traditions, it remains conceptually vague and empirically contested. Recent critiques from basic psychological science (e.g., Lilienfeld & Basterfield, 2020) have argued that reflection may amplify cognitive bias and foster illusions of insight rather than improve clinical judgment. We argue that these criticisms carry weight precisely because the field has often failed to clearly define what RP is, how it functions, and under what conditions it becomes beneficial or harmful. Drawing on developmental models of therapist learning, we conceptualize RP as a multidimensional construct encompassing reflexivity as a capacity, reflective stance as an attitude, and reflection as activity. We propose that RP is most likely to support development when relationally scaffolded, informed by external feedback, and oriented toward testing and revising interpretations rather than confirming them. Reviewing developmental, quantitative, qualitative, and process-oriented evidence, we further argue that RP operates primarily as a probabilistic, context-dependent contributor to therapist development rather than as a discrete intervention with predictable outcomes. We conclude that RP is neither a panacea nor an illusion. Rather, when relationally scaffolded, theoretically informed, and oriented toward learning rather than certainty, it may provide a central mechanism through which therapists learn from clinical experience. Effective psychotherapy depends not only on therapeutic concepts and techniques but also on therapists’ ability to reflect on their clinical work, relationships, and decision-making. This paper conceptualizes Reflective Practice as a developmental process through which therapists may learn from experience, adapt to complex clinical situations, and develop their understanding and skills throughout their professional careers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Condé et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: