In-session client resistance is any behavior that indicates overt or covert opposition to the counselor, the counseling process or the counselor’s agenda. It can be seen as a process of interaction between client and counselor, and it is generally associated with negative counseling outcomes. Besides, working alliance is one of the important components of counseling relationship and is stably associated with positive counseling outcomes. To overcome client resistance and enhance working alliance is important for advancing counseling process and achieving positive counseling outcomes. The current study is based on the perspective of counseling process research, aims to examine the effects of counselor directiveness and client trait reactance on in-session client resistance, and also to examine the effects of the aforementioned 3 variables on working alliance which is from the view-point of client. With the permission of 38 clients and 19 counselors, 38 ongoing counseling sessions from 3 Chinese college counseling centers were recorded. These audio tapes were coded by 4 objective raters to obtain the indexes of in-session client resistance and counselor directiveness. The Client Resistance Code (CRC) was individually coded by 2 objective raters, and the Therapist Behavior Code-Revised (TBC-R) was by other 2. Before formally coding, these 4 raters were respectively trained nearly 20 hours. After training, the Cohen’s Kappa of CRC and TBC-R were both greater than .90. Two self-reported questionnaires, which were the Psychological Reactance Scale (PRS) and the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Form, Client Form (WAI-SC), were administrated in all 38 clients. PRS was filled out before the recorded session, and WAI-SC was after. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis and bias-corrected nonparametric percentile Bootstrap method were applied to the data statistics. Examinations of the effects on in-session client resistance indicate that counselor directiveness has significantly positive effects (β=.53, t=3.74, p＜.01), and the effect size is high (Cohen’s f2=.39). But client trait reactance has no statistically significant effects; neither does the interaction of counselor directiveness and client trait reactance. Examinations of the effects on working alliance indicate that client resistance has marginally significantly negative effects (β=－.31, t=－1.97, p=.06), and the effect size is moderate (Cohen’s f2=.11). But client trait reactance and counselor directiveness have no statistically significant effects; neither does the interaction of counselor directiveness and client resistance. Examinations of the mediation effects of counselor directiveness and client resistance on working alliance indicate that they both have no statistically significant effects, the bias-corrected Bootstrap 95% CIs are (－.12, .07) and (－.11, .01) respectively, both including 0. But in a relative comparison, the mediation effect of client resistance is higher than counselor directiveness. The mediation effect of client resistance accounts for 62% in the full effect (i.e. ab/c), 12% in the possible maximum value of mediation effect (i.e. κ2). But the mediation effect of counselor directiveness accounts for 17% in the full effect (i.e. ab/c), 4% in the possible maximum value of mediation effect (i.e. κ2). In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that: ⑴the more counselor directiveness, the more in-session client resistance; ⑵client resistance is harmful to working alliance; ⑶client resistance maybe plays as a mediation role during the process of counselor directiveness impacts working alliance.