IX Coach

Empty Chair vs. Two Chair Technique: How They Differ, and How They Relate

empty chair vs two chair technique

Both are chair-based dialogue methods from Gestalt therapy. The empty chair usually addresses an absent or imagined other, often unfinished business with someone. The two chair usually stages a conflict between two parts of yourself, such as a self-critical voice and the part it criticizes.

The empty chair technique and the two chair technique are both chair-based dialogue methods from Gestalt therapy. In the empty chair, a person speaks to an absent or imagined other, or to a part of themselves, placed in the empty chair. In the two chair, a person moves between two chairs and speaks for each side of an inner conflict, most often a self-critical part and the part it criticizes. In the sources checked for this article, the empty chair appears in work on unfinished business with someone, and the two chair appears in work on self-criticism. Below is where each comes from, where they overlap, and what the evidence for each actually shows.

Where the empty chair comes from

The empty chair belongs to the Gestalt therapy tradition. Gestalt therapy was set out in Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality by Frederick Perls, Ralph Hefferline and Paul Goodman, a book already being reviewed in 1953. A 2011 chapter on the Gestalt empty-chair and two-chair techniques, in a SAGE counselling textbook, presents both as Gestalt techniques. The sources checked for this article do not establish who first used the empty chair, so this article does not attribute it to one person.

The technique later appears in other experiential work. A 1995 study by Sandra Paivio and Leslie Greenberg, in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, examined the efficacy of experiential therapy using empty-chair dialogue to resolve unfinished business. A 2004 chapter by Robert Elliott, Jeanne Watson, Rhonda Goldman and Leslie Greenberg, in the book Learning Emotion-Focused Therapy, covers empty-chair work for unfinished interpersonal issues.

Where the two chair comes from

The two chair technique shares the same Gestalt roots, and in the sources checked it appears in emotion-focused therapy. A 2006 chapter by Leslie Greenberg and Jeanne Watson, in the book Emotion-Focused Therapy for Depression, covers two-chair dialogue in work with hopelessness. A 2017 chapter by Jeanne Watson and Leslie Greenberg, in the book Emotion-Focused Therapy for Generalized Anxiety, covers two-chair dialogues for changing negative treatment of the self. The chapter titles are the basis for these descriptions. This article did not retrieve the full text of any of these chapters.

Where they overlap

Both techniques turn an inner or relational conflict into a conversation rather than a verdict. Both ask a person to speak aloud to something that had until then stayed in thought, and to notice what the speaking does. Both also depend on noticing what is felt while speaking, which is close to the felt-sense attention that focusing practices work with. And both work with material a person may have been keeping at a distance, so each asks for some care in how that material is held. In that sense each is a way of making an unfinished situation sayable, with a structure around it, rather than something to be argued through in the head.

Explore: focusing felt sense

Where they genuinely differ

The first difference is what the chair stands for. In the empty chair, the chair usually stands for someone outside the person, often someone with whom something was left unsaid, or for a part that is addressed as if it were separate. In the two chair, the two chairs usually stand for two sides of the same conflict, and the person speaks from each in turn. The 2011 pilot described below applies two-chair dialogue to self-criticism, although its abstract does not spell out which side sits in which chair.

The second difference is what each has been studied for. The empty chair appears in outcome research under the umbrella of experiential therapy for unfinished business. The two chair appears in a pilot study of an emotion-focused two-chair intervention for self-criticism. The third difference is the setting each sits in. In the sources checked, both techniques are used inside a larger therapy model, so a result for the chair is hard to separate from the approach around it.

Empty chair and two chair side by side, as described in the sources checked
Empty chairTwo chair
Typical targetAn absent or imagined other, or a part addressed as separateTwo sides of one inner conflict, often a self-critical part and the part it criticizes
Typical use in the sources checkedUnfinished business with a specific person or relationshipSelf-criticism, negative treatment of the self, and hopelessness in depression
Where it appears in the sources checkedGestalt tradition; experiential therapy (1995 study; 2004 chapter)Gestalt tradition; emotion-focused therapy (2006 and 2017 chapters; 2011 pilot)
Research located for this articleA 1995 efficacy study of experiential therapy using empty-chair dialogue; full results not retrievedA pilot with nine self-critical clients (2011); the abstract does not mention a control group

Based on titles, abstracts and metadata checked on 2026-10-14. Full texts were not retrieved for every source.

What the evidence actually says

We did not locate a controlled trial that compares the empty chair with the two chair head to head. The searches run for this article did not turn one up.

The 1995 Paivio and Greenberg study is an efficacy study of experiential therapy using empty-chair dialogue. This article retrieved its title and publication details but not its design or results, so it does not say more than that the technique was tested in that study. A later study by Paivio and Nieuwenhuis (2001), in the Journal of Traumatic Stress, tested a 20-week emotion-focused therapy for adult survivors of childhood abuse. It used a quasi-experimental design with 32 adults, who were assigned either to therapy or to a delayed-therapy condition. The abstract reports significant improvements in the therapy group, improvement in the delayed group after therapy, and effects maintained at about nine months. That study tested the broader therapy rather than the chair technique alone.

Shahar and colleagues (2011) studied nine self-critical clients in a pilot of emotion-focused two-chair dialogue. The abstract reports increases in self-compassion and self-reassurance, decreases in self-criticism, depression and anxiety, medium to large effect sizes, and gains maintained over a six-month follow-up. A pilot of nine people, whose abstract does not mention a control group, is a preliminary signal. It is not a finding that the technique helps most people.

Put plainly, the two chair has a small pilot with encouraging results. The empty chair has an efficacy study whose details this article did not retrieve, and the broader therapy around both has a quasi-experimental study. Neither technique has been shown here to work better than the other, and the 1995 empty-chair study's results were not retrieved for this article.

Choosing between them, honestly

As a general tendency, not a finding from the sources checked, the empty chair fits a situation where something is unfinished with a specific person, such as a goodbye that never happened or a grievance that was never voiced. The two chair tends to fit a situation where an inner voice keeps undermining you and you want to hear what the criticized part has to say. If the main thread is the inner critic, the two chair may be the more direct starting point. If the main thread is a relationship that still weighs on you, the empty chair may be closer to what you are looking for. These are tendencies, not verdicts, and some people use both at different points.

A caution applies to both. These methods deliberately move toward material a person has been avoiding, and that can be intense. Difficult experiences can come up with either, and a qualified clinician is the right person to turn to when they do, particularly when the material involves harm from someone, or dissociation. If you are having thoughts of harming yourself, contact local emergency services or a crisis line, such as 988 in the US.

How to evaluate any guide, book, or tool for this work

Ask which technique is being taught, and whether the guide can say where it comes from. Ask what it recommends when the work becomes overwhelming, and when to bring in a clinician. Ask whether it separates the chair exercise from the wider therapy model it sits inside, since most of the research in this area tests that wider model. And ask whether it distinguishes a single pilot or efficacy study from the general tradition of practice, so that a tradition is not presented as a trial result. A useful test is whether a guide can say which chair method they use, which therapy model it sits inside, and what the evidence for that model does and does not cover.

Where IX Coach fits

IX Coach is an AI coaching platform designed to help people notice what is going on inside them in a given moment and reflect on it, including the parts of themselves that pull in different directions. It is intended as a reflective companion for everyday inner work. It is not therapy, it is not a trained Gestalt or emotion-focused therapist, and it is not a teacher or lineage in either tradition. It is not a crisis service and does not detect a crisis; if what comes up feels heavy, a qualified clinician is the right person to talk to.

Research

Practice this with IX Coach

Try this practice

Keep reading