The Empty Chair and The Two-Chair Technique

Two chairs, two different tools. On one sits someone who isn’t there; on the other, two sides of the same person.

An empty chair represents someone who is currently absent: a parent, a former partner, a deceased person, or sometimes just an unresolved relationship experience without a specific face. The absent person takes shape on the projection surface of the empty chair and is addressed directly, in the present tense. The goal is to admit—to oneself and to others—what is truly going on inside.

The “Two-Chair Technique” sounds like the same tool but actually refers to something else. The second chair isn’t occupied by an outsider, but by a second side within the same person. This could be an ambivalence—whether to stay or go, to give in or to stand up for oneself. But it could just as easily be an inner critic that clashes with the wounded part of oneself, or a side that suppresses one’s own emotions.

The American Psychological Association Dictionary summarizes both under the term “empty chair” and notes that the technique is sometimes also called the “two-chair technique.” Anyone who equates the two is therefore following the broader interpretation. In any case, what matters for understanding is not so much the number of seats as the task at hand. This also applies to a Online Gestalt Therapy, where two seats in front of the camera are enough.

The idea originated in psychodrama, developed by Jacob L. Moreno. In his approach, other group members—known as “auxiliary egos”—took on the missing role. Fritz Perls changed precisely this aspect: He had the client play all the roles herself, including that of the other person. It was this change that made the method suitable for individual therapy.

Fritz and Laura Perls founded Gestalt therapy together with Paul Goodman. The empirical basis came later and from a different source: Leslie Greenberg and her colleagues operationalized chair work within the framework of Emotion-Focused Therapy (EFT).

The fact that someone changes places doesn't mean anything in and of itself. What matters is whether an internal process is set in motion, and that process looks different in each case.

When the other person is absent

A conversation with an imaginary person usually begins with a genuine connection to a feeling. The client no longer talks about grief, anger, or disappointment, but speaks from within those emotions. This often reveals a need that went unmet at the time: „I needed you to protect me“.

The real shift comes afterward: As soon as this first wave subsides, the therapist asks the client to briefly switch to the other seat and, for a moment, become the other person—adopting that person’s posture and tone of voice. From that vantage point, the client responds to what she herself has just said. This can be repeated several times, back and forth, until something shifts. Only then does the client’s perspective on the other person change. Sometimes the other person seems less threatening; sometimes it becomes clearer that they were responsible. The result is a calmer inner distance—not necessarily reconciliation.

One thing is absolutely essential—and is rarely mentioned: What is responded to from the other person’s perspective is the client’s inner perception, not knowledge of what the other person actually thinks, meant, or would say. In cases of grief, after experiences of violence, and in family conflicts, this distinction determines whether the work helps or causes harm. It clarifies one’s own experience. It is no substitute for a conversation, and it proves nothing about anyone else.

In the case of internal conflict

Here, two aspects of the same person are in conflict. One criticizes, demands, and controls; the other feels hurt, ashamed, and overwhelmed. Fritz Perls described this pair as the “top dog” and the “underdog.” The process begins with the pole that is currently closer emotionally; the switch is made only once the first big wave has subsided. But then it really happens: The client takes on the other role and speaks from that place in her own voice as that part of herself. This back-and-forth can repeat several times, sometimes even in the middle of a sentence, as soon as there is a shift in tone of voice.

The first step is simply getting to know these two perspectives, and often, just by taking a closer look, things start to change. The second step is to briefly hold both perspectives side by side within yourself. The work isn’t successful if one side wins out, but rather when both become clearer: the wounded part gains a stronger voice, while the critical part softens or reveals what it was actually trying to protect.

If no overarching "both-and" emerges, that is not a failure. In that case, both sides may continue to coexist: „I love one thing about you and I hate another—in the same person. I can handle the tension.“

Chair work became well-known through Gestalt therapy, but it has long since ceased to be exclusive to that approach. Today, it can be found in emotion-focused therapy, schema therapy, compassion-focused approaches, communication psychology, and certain trauma-oriented methods.

In Counseling and Coaching

This approach has also gained a foothold in coaching, where it is often used when a decision needs to be made or when there are difficulties in collaboration. Some guidelines suggest adopting a third-party perspective—that of an observer—from which comments can be made about both sides when the conversation stalls. To my knowledge, there are no statistics on how often this occurs in each case.

Chair work is not a harmless approach for every situation. Precisely because it does not discuss emotions but rather activates them, it requires an appropriate indication, informed consent, and a practitioner who can recognize when a client is becoming overwhelmed early on and help them regain composure. In an acute crisis, other priorities take precedence: safety, relief, and, if in doubt, assessing the threat.

I consider the commonly used list of exclusion criteria to be too broad. Dissociation ranges from mild detachment to severe disruption; a history of self-harm is not the same as an acute risk; and even psychotic experiences can take varied forms. What matters is not the diagnosis, but the individual’s current resilience and suitability for the task. Depending on the situation, the task may be postponed, adjusted, or allowed to proceed as is. And anyone who realizes in the middle of it that it’s becoming too much is allowed to stop. This should be made clear in advance, not only when a crisis arises.

There is a third place that is missing from most depictions: the space of the whole personality, beyond the two poles. In Hartmann-Kotek’s system, the first form already requires two seats, and the second requires three, once he is included in the count. In cases of an unstable inner structure, he takes on greater significance than the poles themselves: the governing center is strengthened first, before work is done with the opposites.

A common misconception is that the effect lies in the furniture itself. In fact, the framework is what makes it work: the relationship, the pace, the preparation, the follow-through, and the therapist’s ability to hold the process when it becomes too much. The body can signal resistance early on—often before the words to describe it exist.

There are also limits in terms of content, and these are more precise than is often stated. The model of the unfinished business Works well for unresolved feelings toward an important significant other: anger toward a parent, grief over a deceased loved one, that one thing you never said back then. In cases of trauma caused by external perpetrators or combat situations, this approach is less suitable, because such cases are less often about unresolved relationships and more often about safety, fragmentation, and physical memory. This is a limitation of a specific application, not of the method itself: chairs are also used in an adapted form in trauma treatment, and the body of research on this topic is growing.

And the technique is not the method. Gestalt therapy does not consist of changing seats, but rather of an attitude: perception, contact, presence, and relationship. The empty chair is not a magic trick. Used correctly, it can be very effective; used incorrectly, it can be overwhelming.