Psychotherapy Volume 30/Spring 1993/Number 1

ELEMENTS OF THE SOCRATIC METHOD:I. SYSTEMATIC QUESTIONING

JAMES C. OVERHOLSERCase Western Reserve University

The Socratic method includes threeprimary elements: systematicquestioning, inductive reasoning, anduniversal definitions. Although manypsychotherapists allude to the Socraticmethod, most refer only to thequestioning style and few describe theprocess in adequate detail. The presentreport describes the use of systematicquestioning in terms of its format,content, and process. Finally, an attemptis made to provide an intermediate levelof structure so as to facilitate a shapingprocess during the interview.

The Socratic method can be a useful techniquein many forms of psychotherapy (Overholser,1987; 1988). Aaron Beck (Beck & Emery, 1985;Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979) and AlbertEllis (1962) have alluded to the Socratic methodas part of their cognitive therapy approaches.However, few authors have delineated the struc-tural or procedural components of the Socraticmethod in adequate detail. This impedes the abil-ity of others to learn to apply the Socratic methodin a reliable manner. The basic components ofthe Socratic method are systematic questioning,inductive reasoning, and universal definitions(Johnson & Matross, 1975; Overholser, 1988;1991). Systematic questioning is the most widelyused component and will be described in detailin this paper as it is used in psychotherapy ses-

I am indebted to Dalia Adams, Hilary Einhorn Katz, KimLehneit, and Patti Watson for comments made on an earlierversion of this manuscript.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressedto James C. Overholser, Department of Psychology, CaseWestern Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106.

sions. The other two components will be de-scribed in future papers.

Originally, the Socratic form of inquiry (called"the elenchus") followed a cross-examination for-mat (Seiple, 1985). Repetitive questioning wasused to force people to admit their ignorance(Nelson, 1980) and thus rely on logic instead ofpride or faith when deciding which beliefs arevalid (Schmid, 1983; Seeskin, 1987). Althoughdie Socratic inquiry can help people becomemore open minded (Schmid, 1983), it often re-sulted in public humiliation (Chessick, 1982;Santas, 1979). As used today, the Socratic formof inquiry is viewed as a cooperative exploration(Klein, 1986). Tactfully helping clients recog-nize areas where they do not know the answerscan arouse a desire to learn (Robinson, 1971).The questioning process should motivate clientsto discover how to find the answers to their prob-lems (Seeskin, 1987).

Systematic questioning involves the use of agraded series of questions designed to facilitateindependent thinking in clients. The questions in-volve the active and collaborative involvementof both therapist and client. Also, a progressiveseries of questions can be used to shape the cli-ent's thought processes. The Socratic method ofquestioning will be described according to its for-mat, content, and process of questioning.

Question FormatQuestions can follow many different formats.

Bloom (1956) and Sanders (1966) have describedseven different types of questions: memory, trans-lation, interpretation, application, analysis, synthe-sis, and evaluation. An appreciation of questionformats is important because the form of a questioncan influence its effect. Clients can be led to en-gage in different kinds of thinking by asking differ-ent types of questions. The question formats de-scribed below are arranged in order from simple tocomplex. However, the question formats are not

James C. Overholser

entirely distinct because complex questions includeelements from simple questions.

Memory questions require clients to recall orrecognize information necessary to answer thequestion. Examples of memory questions include"When did the problem first begin?"; "When wasthe last time it happened?"; "What did you dowhen it happened?". Thus, memory questionstypically focus on the client's ability to rememberspecific facts and details. However, in order tofacilitate learning, facts should serve as a meansto an end instead of an end in itself. This isbecause specific facts and details are forgottenmore quickly than general principles. Memorizedknowledge does not necessarily represent a highlevel of understanding. Questions should focuson using information instead of simply remem-bering it (Sanders, 1966). Good questions elicitreasons instead of facts (Blank & White, 1986).Also, questions seeking factual information areoften threatening because the client's answer canbe wrong (Dillon, 1990). Nonetheless, occa-sional use of memory questions can facilitate thesystematic questioning process by gathering ba-sic information on which to build.

Translation questions require clients to changethe information or ideas into a different but paral-lel form. Examples of translation questions in-clude: "What does it mean to you?"; "How canwe make sense out of this?"; "What would yourmother say about this?". Translation questionscan help identify gaps in the client's understand-ing and ensure proper understanding. Translationquestions can be useful with therapeutic analo-gies and inductive reasoning, both important as-pects of the Socratic method (Overholser, 1991).

Interpretation questions help clients discoverrelationships among facts, generalizations, defi-nitions, values, and skills. Clients learn morewhen they discover relationships on their owninstead of simply having relationships explainedto them (Legrenzi, 1971; McDaniel & Schlager,1990). Interpretation questions may provide twoideas and ask the client to identify the relation-ship between them. Examples include: "Do yourmarital problems seem similar in any way to yourproblems at work?"; "How are these two situa-tions similar?"; "How do they differ?". Alterna-tively, the interpretation question may provideone idea and a relationship and ask the clientto identify a second idea that follows from theevidence. For example, "I wonder if we can learnanything from your first marriage that would help

us here". The emphasis is on relating new prob-lems to information already possessed (Sanders,1966). Also, interpretation questions can be usedto help clients learn to interpret symbolism frominductive analogies, asking the client "What doesit mean to you?"; "What can we learn from it?".

Application questions ask clients to apply in-formation or skills to a specific problem situa-tion. This requires the identification, selectionand implementation of appropriate skills. Exam-ples of application questions include: "What haveyou tried to correct this problem?"; "What elsecould you do to correct this problem?"; "Howwill you go about making these changes?" Appli-cation questions include a minimum of directionsin order to force clients to identify the specificsteps involved. Thus, application questions pro-vide practice in the independent use of knowl-edge and skills, encouraging clients to focus onareas that have been discussed previously andnow need to be applied. Questions are used tobring information already possessed by clientsinto their conscious awareness (Chisholm, 1979)to help them apply the information to specificsituations (Overholser, 1991).

Analysis questions ask clients to solve a prob-lem by breaking it into its parts. Analysis ques-tions focus on developing the conscious aware-ness of thought processes used for reachinglogical conclusions. Thus, analysis questionshelp clients learn to follow the principles of de-ductive logic when reasoning from cause to ef-fect. Analysis questions stress the fact that con-clusions must be based on adequate evidence(Sanders, 1966), thus promoting objectivity andlogical thinking. The use of systematic ques-tioning can help clients notice inadequate evi-dence or logical inconsistencies in their beliefs(Overholser, 1991). Examples of analysis ques-tions include: "What do you think is causing theproblem?"; "What evidence do you have forthis?"; "How could you tell if you are right orwrong?"; Are there situations that make the prob-lem better?"; "Are there things that make itworse?".

Synthesis questions encourage clients to solveproblems through the use of creative/divergentthinking. The therapist should not have a pre-planned answer in mind and expect the clientto generate the same answer. Instead, questionsshould suggest many different possible solutions.For example, "What other ways could you lookat this situation?" does not limit the range of pos-

68

Systematic Questioning

sible answers. Also, clients can be helped toidentify all relevant sources of information sothey can be synthesized into a unified whole.Thus, synthesis questions often use inductive rea-soning to connect diverse elements into a mean-ingful pattern (Tomm, 1987). Finally, synthesisquestions play an important role when using uni-versal definitions, such as asking a medical stu-dent who remains ambivalent about his careerchoice: "What does becoming a doctor mean toyou?".

Evaluation questions ask clients to make avalue judgment according to specified standards.This decision-making process involves first iden-tifying appropriate standards and then determin-ing how closely the idea or behavior meets thesestandards. Controversial issues often can be cri-tiqued through questions. Examples of evaluationquestions focusing on establishing standards in-clude: "What do you look for in a marriage?";"What does it mean to you to be a success?".Evaluation questions comparing the actual per-formance to the client's standards include: "Howwould you rate your marriage?"; "How do youfeel about yourself as a person?". Evaluationquestions can help clients clarify and integratetheir thoughts and feelings, an important goal ofthe Socratic method (Haden, 1984).

In summary, the Socratic method uses a mix-ture of formats throughout the systematic ques-tioning process. A mixture of question formatspromotes conceptually integrated understanding(Farrar, 1986). However, the Socratic method ismore likely to rely on analysis, synthesis, andevaluation questions because they elicit higherlevel cognitive processes. Socratic questions typ-ically attempt to go beyond information gatheringin order to emphasize the integration and synthe-sis of different sources of information (Over-holser, 1991). Good Socratic questions allow atremendous amount of latitude in the range ofacceptable answers that are possible. In order forclients to avoid feeling interrogated by the inves-tigational process, the therapist should avoid ask-ing questions for which the therapist alreadyknows the answer. Such a tendency makes forgame-playing in the session, with the client ex-pected to read the mind of the therapist. Whenmemory questions are used, they usually are partof a broad interviewing style. Also, it should benoted that not all questions need to be phrasedas questions. Many questions can be rephrasedas reflections, clarifications, or direct statements

(Dillon, 1990; Long, Paradise, & Long, 1981)thereby reducing the interrogational aspects ofthe interview.

Question ContentThe content of most Socratic questions is de-

signed to foster independent, rational problem-solving in clients. Overholser (1987) has sug-gested that the Socratic method can be integratedwith the problem-solving approach developed byD'Zurilla & Goldfried (1971). This integrationuses systematic questioning to help clients simul-taneously learn and apply the stages of problem-solving: problem definition, generation of copingalternatives, decision making, and implementa-tion (see Table 1).

The problem definition stage uses a series ofquestions to help clients operationally define aspecific problem area. Evaluation questions canbe used to help identify the emotional and judg-mental aspects of the problem. For example, ask-ing "What do you see the problem to be?"; "Whatmakes that a problem?"; "How bad does it get?"can help clients identify what conditions are un-acceptable. Also, future oriented evaluation ques-tions (e.g., "What do you hope to accomplish?")can help cultivate and solidify the client's goals(Tomm, 1987). Goals should be described in spe-cific, concrete, and realistic terms (D'Zurilla,1986). Then, memory questions can help ensurean accurate and thorough assessment of the prob-lem area. Emotional and interpersonal problemsoften appear overwhelming to clients, making itdifficult to think and act in a rational manner. Byforcing clients to answer questions regarding thefrequency, intensity, and duration of the problem,an overwhelming problem can seem more man-ageable. Useful questions include: "How oftendoes the problem occur?"; "When it happens,how long does it last?"; "Are there ever timeswhen the problem goes away completely?". Also,analysis questions can be used to identify the ante-cedents and consequences temporally sur-rounding the problem so clients can begin to iden-tify possible causes and potential solutions.Analysis questions can help clients become moreobjective in their description of problems as theylearn to distinguish facts from beliefs (Bloom,1956).

The generation of alternatives stage involvesusing a series of questions to help clients thinkof new and creative ways of coping with the iden-tified problem. Synthesis questions are used to

69

James C. Overholser

TABLE 1. Question Formats as Used with Different Problem-solving Content

Question Format

Question Content Memory Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation

Problem definitionGenerate alternativesDecision-makingVerification

PlanningAppraisal

Note. + indicates question format plays a minor role with that content+ + indicates question format plays a moderate role with that content+ + + indicates question format plays a major role with that content

encourage divergent thinking and to help clientsformulate a plan of action (Bloom, 1956). Criti-cal thinking is postponed until a later stage inorder to help clients overcome critical tendenciesthat may limit perceivable options. Applicationquestions can be used to help clients learn aboutthe management of a specific problem area. Use-ful questions include: "Have you ever noticed aproblem like this before?"; "How did you dealwith it then?"; "Would the same solution workagain?"; "Any other ideas of what might help?".the goal at this stage is to increase the quantityand variety of options (D'Zurilla, 1986), assum-ing quality will follow. The use of open-endedquestions helps clients generate many useful cop-ing options not limited by the therapist's frameof reference. Unexpected answers may be veryappropriate and extremely useful (Blank &White, 1986).

In the decision-making stage, questions areused to help clients identify the advantages anddisadvantages of each coping option. Analysisquestions are used to promote critical thinking soclients can evaluate the probable short-term andlong-term consequences of each alternative in asystematic manner. Evaluation questions areused to examine each option in terms of the sub-jective value of its most likely outcome. Finally,application questions are used to estimate theamount of time, energy, and emotions requiredto implement the option. By examining the po-tential risks and benefits of each option, clientsshould be able to identify the best coping alterna-tive or combination of alternatives. This processcan help clients learn how to maximize the bene-fits and minimize the costs in their decision mak-ing. Thus, although clients may lack certain

knowledge, they can make good decisions ifquestioned properly (Seeskin, 1987). Usefulquestions at this stage include: "What do youthink needs to be done?"; "How well do youthink it will work?"; "What could you gain bybehaving that way?"; "What could you lose?";"What would be the worst thing that could hap-pen?"; "How likely is it that would happen?".

Finally, the implementation stage involvesasking clients to implement the chosen alterna-tive and appraise its effects. The first aspect ofthe implementation stage involves using applica-tion questions to help clients plan the specificcourse of action that was selected in the decision-making stage. Application questions are designedto put a plan of action into effect (Bloom, 1956).Socratic questions may include implied directions(Garner, 1978), designed to promote a change ofbehavior. Questions facilitating the implementa-tion of the chosen strategy include: "So, what doyou plan to do?"; "Have you thought about whenand where you will do it?"; "How well do youthink it will go?"; "Is there anything we can doto improve your chances of doing well?".

After clients have implemented the response,evaluation and analysis questions can be used toappraise the outcome and help clients learn fromtheir successes and failures. Clients can identifyapproaches that are either likely or unlikely to besuccessful should the problem recur. Questionsdesigned to appraise the strategy after it has beenimplemented include: "Are you satisfied withhow things turned out?"; "Why do you thinkthings went like they did?"; "What can we learnfrom this experience?"; "What do you wish youhad done differently?"; "Next time the problemoccurs, how will you deal with it?".

70

Systematic Questioning

In summary, a series of questions can be usedto guide the problem-solving process. The So-cratic method emphasizes a self-control approach(Chessick, 1982). Thus, the therapist serves as aguide, facilitating a self-discovery process. Theclient is seen as the expert, knowing the problem-situation first-hand. In this way, two goals areaccomplished simultaneously: the specific prob-lem is solved and the client begins to learn theproblem-solving process (Sklare, Portes, &Splete, 1985). It is important for the therapist toplace the responsibility on clients to solve theirown problems (Long, Paradise, & Long, 1981).Both the decision and responsibility for actionrest with clients because only they will experi-ence the consequences of their behavior.

Questioning Process

The effective use of systematic questioning re-quires an awareness of the process involved (Ha-den, 1984). Because the Socratic method uses aseries of questions, a temporal sequence devel-ops. The therapist alternates among several differ-ent interviewing styles as the session pro-gresses. Five elements of the questioning processhave been identified: the leading question, theexplication, the defense, a sequential progression,and the use of short sequences (see the Appendixfor a detailed example).

The leading question contains an implied as-sumption, often serving as a spotlight to focusthe client's attention onto a specific area. How-ever, the phrasing of the question should not pushclients toward one response over another (Bern-stein & Bernstein, 1985; Kahn & Cannell, 1957).For example, it may be useful to ask "Do youthink talking about this with your spouse wouldhelp the two of you learn to deal with this prob-lem, or would it just stir up more of an argu-ment?". This kind of question provides adequatestructure without unnecessarily biasing the cli-ent's response. Instead of requesting factual in-formation, the leading question may ask clientsto think about certain issues and express theirviews. Evaluation questions can help clients ex-press their views and defend or abandon theseviews when probed (Seeskin, 1987). Socraticquestions frequently offer two alternatives so asto minimize using excessively biased questions(Santas, 1979). For example, it can be useful toask "Is that a good sign or a bad sign?" to directclients onto issues of critical evaluation.

It is important to use an intermediate level ofstructure when formulating the leading question.Either too much or too little structure will proveineffective. The therapist should provide structureonly to the extent necessary because if questionsare overly directive, clients may begin to pas-sively wait for the therapist to lead the session(Long, Paradise, & Long, 1981). Skillful ques-tions force the client to think instead of simplyanswer. Patience is required of both parties inorder to persist with a line of questioning whenthe answer does not seem readily apparent (Over-holser, 1992).

The explication occurs when the client has notunderstood the leading question. It can be im-portant to make all assumptions explicit in orderto test them (Haden, 1984). For example, clientsare likely to respond "I don't know" if asked"What else could you have done?". The ques-tioning process must not stop at this point, butthe therapist must be prepared to re-evaluate theimplications of the original leading question. Forexample, asking "Could you have done anythingelse?" forces the client to evaluate the basic as-sumption underlying the leading question. Theexplication openly asks the assumption that hadbeen implied in the leading question. However,it is important that the explication not occur veryoften because it implies the therapist has mis-judged the client's level of understanding anddisrupts the therapeutic relationship (Kahn &Cannell, 1957). Clients may feel threatened ifrepeatedly unable to follow the line of ques-tioning (Kahn & Cannell, 1957). Thus, the thera-pist should use the client's responses to adjustthe questioning process to the client's abilities(Farrar, 1986).

The defense follows an explication, asking cli-ents to defend their view. A simplification se-quence can be used to reformulate the originalquestion at a more basic level (Blank & White,1986). Repeating or rephrasing the original ques-tion, in light of the previous explication, can en-courage clients to go beyond the "I don't know"response. The defense forces clients to critiquetheir logic and helps promote insight into the rea-soning they used to answer the question. Some-times asking "Why do you think so?" can helpclarify their assumptions (Ennis, 1982). Al-though "Why" questions may increase the cli-ent's defensiveness when seeking justification orexplanation of one's behavior (Long, Paradise, &Long, 1981), "Why" questions can be effective if

71

James C. Overholser

they help the client to reason through a problemto its solution (Sanders, 1966). The Socraticmethod attempts to help clients evaluate their rea-soning (Chessick, 1982). Although the tenaciousquestioning can be useful in forcing clients topursue a persistent line of thought, clients mayfeel threatened or interrogated. The therapistmust help the client think through the issues with-out appearing to doubt or distrust the client. So-cratic questions can ask "What reason do youhave for believing this?" without expressingdoubts in the client's honesty or intelligence(Chisholm, 1979).

A sequential progression occurs when a secondleading question is used to carry the discussioncloser to the intended goal. Insight comesthrough a slow and methodological progression(Nelson, 1980). A shaping process is used to per-sistently refine the client's understanding, ap-preciation, and integration of complex issueswhile avoiding questions that are too difficult forthe client to comprehend (Long, Paradise, &Long, 1981). In some ways, the process is simi-lar to helping a child assemble a puzzle. If youhand the child a piece but the child cannot findthe proper place, you do not keep handing thechild the same piece. Instead, you can give thechild a few other pieces. As the picture starts todevelop, the child can easily place the originaldifficult piece. Thus, early questions should beused to lay the foundation for more complexquestions. For example: "How do you think yourparents will react?"; "Why do you think thatwould happen?"; "If you are right, what will youdo next?"; "So, what does this tell you abouthandling this type of problem?".

Finally, systematic questioning should be usedin short sequences, alternating between Socraticand non-Socratic dialogue. Despite the advan-tages of the systematic questioning process, itshould not be overused. Questions can limitspontaneity by restricting the client's communi-cation to responses to specific questions (Engel& Morgan, 1973). The overuse of questions willlimit the client's self-exploration (Long, Para-dise, & Long, 1981). The Socratic style oftenneeds to be suspended or discontinued in orderto explain and discuss the issues from a non-Socratic style. This can help reduce the interroga-tional nature of an interview that relies solely onpersistent questioning. Frequent use of commentsand discussion can protect the therapeutic rela-tionship (Blank & White, 1986). Finally, only

one question should be asked at a time, lettingclients tell their own story (Johnson, 1981).

Conclusions

Systematic questioning involves a complex in-terplay of question format, content, and processissues. The format of Socratic questions empha-sizes higher level cognitive processes. Instead ofasking clients to remember facts and details, So-cratic questions are more likely to encourage theanalysis, synthesis, and evaluation of differentsources of information. The content of Socraticquestions focuses on developing independentproblem-solving skills in the client. The processof systematic questioning emphasizes a collab-orative interaction between therapist and client(Overholser, 1992).

The Socratic method is not without its limita-tions. Systematic questioning should not be usedwhen the client is unlikely to benefit from a cog-nitive exploratory process. Young children aretoo concrete to appreciate the complexities of theSocratic method. Likewise, patients sufferingfrom psychosis, dementia or other organic brainsyndromes may lack the abstract abilities to bene-fit. Finally, because of the emphasis on verbalinteractions, the Socratic method may be ineffec-tive with hearing impaired individuals and clientswhose primary language is different from that ofthe therapist. Many complications can arise wheninterviewing clients from a different culturalbackground (Fletcher, 1980). Thus, systematicquestioning should be used with caution.

Socratic questioning can be used to facilitateself-initiated discovery, helping clients realizethe answers they already possess (Navia, 1985).Self-discovery is important because explicit in-structions are often counterproductive (Claiborn& Dixon, 1982). The Socratic method can pro-mote autonomy (Overholser, 1987) and reduceresistance (Overholser, 1991). The questioningprocess can be used to help clients identify anddevelop skills they lack (Blank & White, 1986).Clients can learn to identify and self-correct il-logical reasoning (Seeskin, 1987) and learn tofind answers independently.

Appendix: Socratic QuestioningProcess Example

Patient: "I feel like such a failure when Imake even small mistakes."

72

Systematic Questioning

Therapist: "What does failure mean to you?"P: If I make mistakes, it means I can't do as

well as everyone expects of me; I'm incom-petent and worthless.

T: Making mistakes means you're incompetentand worthless?

P: Yes. If I make mistakes, I'm not doing agood job. I need to feel I can handle my jobwithout needing other people to always helpme out.

T: What happens when you react like that?P: It tells me that I need to push myself if I

ever hope to get any better.T: What would happen if instead of criticizing

your shortcomings, you praised the progressyou have made?

P: I'd stop trying to improve myself. I'd settlefor where I'm at and would get fat and lazy.I have so many things I need to work on, Ineed to keep pushing myself.

T: Let's look at this from a different angle. Sayyou were taking one of your craft classes.Would praise or criticism make you dobetter?

P: I'd like hearing the praise but I wouldn'tnecessarily believe it.

T: What determines whether or not you believethe praise?

P: If I hear it too often I won't believe it.T: What if the instructor didn't praise every-

thing you did, but every so often you didsomething that really worked out well andhe said you did a great job, it looked won-derful. How would you react?

P: I'd like hearing the praise. It would makeme feel good about myself and what Icould do.

T: Would you stop trying to improve yourself?P: No, I think it would help me enjoy learn-

ing more.T: What if you took a different class with a

different instructor, one who could alwaysfind something to criticize?

P: I'd hate it. I might learn some things, but Iwouldn't like the class.

T: What if the instructor said you made manymistakes and need to work harder to evenget up to average level. Would you be likelyto agree?

P: No, I know I can at least do average.T: What would you think of the instructor?P: I'd hate him. I'd wonder if I could ever

make him happy.

T: What if you were the instructor, how wouldyou deal with students?

P: I think I'd probably criticize their work.T: Which style would you want to have?P: The one that praises their work.T: Why that one?P: It has a positive effect on the students; it's

more constructive, helping them to learnand enjoy learning.

T: What if you had a few "craft-clods" in class,people who have no artistic abilities whatso-ever. How would you deal with them?

P: I would tell them how good they've donebut point out ways they can improve theirwork.

T: So, even with people who don't do verywell, you could still find some good thingsto say about their work?

P: Well, I'd try. I'd try to find some things Iliked so I could give them some positivefeedback along with the suggestions on howto do a better job.

T: Why do you sugar-coat it?P: I don't know.T: What happens if you don't sugar-coat it?P: I guess if I get too critical, they won't like

me.T: How would it affect their mood?P: They'd be angry at me and depressed with

themselves.T: How would it affect their motivation in

class.P: I think they would enjoy it less and probably

not try as hard.T: But if you praise someone for doing a good

job even though it's not perfect, won't theysettle for a poor performance?

P: No, I think it helps people enjoy whatthey're doing and work harder at it.

T: Do these same things happen when you arecritical or supportive of yourself?

P: Yes, I guess so.T: So, what does this tell us about criticizing

yourself?P: I guess if I focus on the positive things in

myself, it might be more constructive with-out causing me to settle for where I'm at?

T: So, how can we get you to be the goodinstructor toward yourself?

References

BECK, A. T. & EMERY, G. (1985). Anxiety disorders andphobias: A cognitive perspective. New York: Basic.

73

James C. Overholser

BECK, A. T., RUSH, A. J., SHAW, B. & EMERY, G. (1979).

Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford.BERNSTEIN, L. & BERNSTEIN, R. (1985). Interviewing: A

guide for health professionals (4th ed.). Norwalk, CT: Ap-pleton-Century-Crofts.

BLANK, M. & WHITE, S. (1986). Questions: A powerful butmisused form of classroom exchange. Topics in LanguageDisorders, 6, 1-12.

BLOOM, B. (19S6). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Theclassification of educational goals. New York: Longmans,Green, & Co.

CHESSICK, R. (1982). Socrates: First psychotherapist. Ameri-can Journal of Psychoanalysis, 42, 71-83.

CMSHOLM, R. (1979). Socratic method and the theory ofknowledge. Ratio, 21, 97-108.

CLABORN, C. & DIXON, D. (1982). The acquisition of con-ceptual skills: An exploratory study. Counselor Educationand Supervision, 21, 274-281.

DILLON, J. T. (1990). The practice of questioning. NewYork: Routledge.

D'ZURIHA, T. (1986). Problem-solving therapy: A socialcompetence approach to clinical intervention. New York:Springer.

D'ZURILLA, T. & GOLDFRIED, M. (1971). Problem solvingand behavior modification. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-ogy, 78, 107-126.

ELLIS, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. Sec-aucus, NJ: Citadel.

ENOEL, G. & MORGAN, W. (1973). Interviewing the patient.Philadelphia: Saunders.

ENNIS, R. (1982). Identifying implicit assumptions. Synthese,51, 61-86.

FARRAR, M. (1986). Teacher questions: The complexity ofthe cognitively simple. Instructional Science, 15, 89-107.

FLETCHER, C. (1980). Listening and talking to patients: IV.Some special problems. British Medical Journal, 2S1,1056-1057.

GARNER, R. (1978). Chisholm on Socratic interrogation. Phi-losophia, 7, 441-460.

HADEN, J. (1984). Socratic ignorance. In E. Kelly (Ed.), Newessays on Socrates (pp. 17-28). Lanham, MD: UniversityPress of America.

JOHNSON, W. R. (1981). Basic interviewing skills. In C. E.Walker (Ed.), Clinical practice of psychology (pp. 83-128). New York: Pergamon.

JOHNSON, D. & MATROSS, R. (1975). Attitude modificationmethods. In F. Kanfer and A. Goldstein (Eds.), Helpingpeople change: A textbook of methods (pp. 51-88). NewYork: Pergamon.

KAHN, R. & CANNELL, C. (1957). The dynamics of inter-viewing: Theory, technique, and cases. New York: JohnWiley.

KLEIN, S. (1986). Socratic dialogue in the Meno. SouthernJournal of Philosophy, 24, 351-363.

LEGRENZI, P. (1971). Discovery as a means to understanding.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 417-422.

LONG, L., PARADISE, L. & LONG, T. (1981). Questioning:

Skills for the helping process. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.MCDANIEL, M. & SCHLAGER, M. (1990). Discovery learning

and transfer of problem-solving skills. Cognition and In-struction, 7, 129-159.

NAVIA, L. (1985). Socrates: The man and his philosophy.Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

IfeLSON, L. (1980). The Socratic method. Thinking, 2,34-38.OVERHOLSER, J. C. (1987). Facilitating autonomy in passive-

dependent persons: An integrative model. Journal of Con-temporary Psychotherapy, 17, 250-269.

OVBRHOLSER, 1. C. (1988). Clinical utility of the Socraticmethod. In C. Stout (Ed.), Annals of clinical research(pp. 1-7). Des Piaines, IL: Forest Institute.

OVERHOLSER, I. C. (1991). The Socratic method as a tech-nique in psychotherapy supervision. Professional Psychol-ogy: Research and Practice, 22, 68-74.

OVERHOLSER, J. C. (1992). Socrates in the classroom. CollegeTeaching, 40, 14-19.

ROBINSON, R. (1971). Elenchus. In G. Vlastos (Ed.), Thephilosophy of Socrates: A collection of critical essays (pp.78-93). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

SANDERS, N. (1966). Classroom questions: What kinds?. NY:Harper & Row.

SANTAS, G. (1979). Socrates: Philosophy in Plato's earlydialogues. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

SCHMID, W. T. (1983). Socratic moderation and self-knowl-edge. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 21, 339-348.

SEESKJN, K. (1987). Dialogue and discovery: A study in So-cratic method. Albany: SUNY Press.

SEVLE, G. (1985). The Socratic method of inquiry. Dialogue,M, 16-22.

SKLAKE, G., PORTES, P. & SPLETE, H. (1985). Developingquestioning effectiveness in counseling. Counselor Educa-tion and Supervision, 25, 12-20.

TOMM, K. (1987). Interventive interviewing: Part II. Reflex-ive questioning as a means to enable self-healing. FamilyProcess, 26, 167-183.

74