Joyce Mills on StoryPlay®, Metaphor and the Enduring Legacy of Milton Erickson

Lawrence Rubin: I've personally experienced you Joyce as an incredibly energetic, playful, creative and imaginative person who also happens to be a therapist. You describe yourself as a clinician who combines metaphors, storytelling and indirect play with the principles of indigenous teachings into your work. So, I'm wondering if we can start by you describing how the person of Joyce Mills has informed the clinician who the world knows as Dr. Mills. 
Joyce Mills: I'm really the same. I think what you see is what you get, and I don't put on different personas for presentations or in my personal life. I see life as a metaphor. I see everything as metaphor and I'm very spiritual. So, I look to see what I am learning from each experience and it doesn't even have to be a big experience. It could be a bird sitting on a window sill or a woodpecker–something small. I really like to see everything that way. It helps me see with the eyes of the eagle instead of the eyes of a mouse. You know, the mouse scrutinizes, what is important and right in front of him because sometimes you have to look closely at a situation. But
to really get our solutions we need to have the eyes of an eagle, to see in all directions
to really get our solutions we need to have the eyes of an eagle, to see in all directions. And I really live in that creative world, like Winnie-the-Pooh or Fred Rogers [Mister Rogers]. I'm very happy I wasn’t born now because I probably would have been labeled and put on some medication.

Ericksonian Roots

LR: An indigo child perhaps.
JM: Definitely. And I love to make things out of nothing.
LR: Can you give me an example?
JM: You know, it's kind of like in the Pooh movie when he said, “I do nothing, and something happens.” When I get bogged down with a client it's usually because I'm too cognitive—I’m getting away from the heart and soul of who I am.
LR: So, when you say for example that you see bird on a window sill, what might that inspire in you and how might that become part of what you do therapeutically?
JM: Well, what I might say to the bird is, “I wonder what you've come to tell me today.” I was working with an adopted biracial boy several years ago who was really shut down. In our session, he was starting to get very angry, which was fine. Not that he was throwing or yelling, but it was difficult for him to talk. So suddenly, right outside my window here in Phoenix, there was a Myna bird that was sitting on a bush. It immediately got my attention because Myna birds talk and the boy was struggling to talk, and I said, “Oh my gosh, look at this! I wonder what he's coming to say.”

I told this boy that I was a little weird because I talk to things, and so I said, “it seems to me like he might have some kind of a message just for you at this time.” And you know, he kind of smiled, turned and kept watching it. And then he turned back around to me and started talking. I had given him an indirect suggestion because I'm very Ericksonian.

Words have tremendous power.
Words have tremendous power. I had planted a seed for ongoing learning as opposed to a quick solution. In that moment with the boy and the bird, you could hear that my voice changed on purpose. As in Ericksonian hypnosis, it becomes normal to shift my voice because when you're in a relationship with the person and their unconscious as opposed to trying to change them, that communication and that relationship are much deeper than simply conscious words.
LR: I noticed that when you started to tell the story about this particular boy, your voice dropped, your tone softened, almost trance-like, and I felt myself relaxing a little bit and opening to the story.
JM: Well, that's the purpose.
LR: So, you were talking to my unconscious too?
JM: Roxanne Erickson, Dr. Erickson's daughter called it conversational trance. It's very relational, so it's very different than in a child-centered model where you're just reflecting back the client’s words. And I'm certainly not minimizing the importance of that, but it takes it a step further because you're not just listening but you're now utilizing what's happening in the moment.
LR: It's almost like whatever words are coming out of your mouth is one level of communication, but the meaning beneath the words is touching a deeper part of the child or the teen that you're working with.
JM: Yes, absolutely.
LR: Two levels of communication going on.
JM: Oh yes, two levels and sometimes three. Dr. Erickson was known for that—
the conscious mind can listen but it's the unconscious mind that is going to absorb and then utilize what it's given
the conscious mind can listen but it's the unconscious mind that is going to absorb and then utilize what it's given.
LR: You've mentioned several times, and I know from your writings, that you were Ericksonian-trained. Can you say a few words about the influence of Milton Erickson and his work by speaking to the conscious part of our audience?
JM: Dr. Erickson's work is monumental to our field but is very much overlooked and used in a very minimal way. We've talked about solution focus, creativity and entering the world of the of the child through a client-centered approach. That is all Erickson! Did you know that he was paralyzed with polio? He had [an incredible] sense of determination to bypass what looked like limitations even though he was in pain. And it wasn't that he was just going to think positive; he was very action-oriented, and he observed everything. And he was able to digest the observation and let it go into his unconscious to be caught, to let it come out in a way where it could create positive change. And I know different authors or people who have studied with him have all garnered different areas of Dr. Erickson's work—some call it strategic or solution-focused or NLP—neurolinguistic programming. But, if you look at almost all the work, there is an influence of Dr. Erickson.
LR: Even something as seemingly concrete and conscious as cognitive behavior therapy, Joyce, has an Ericksonian influence or foundation?
JM: Well, I believe it does because he did give certain living metaphors or cognitive assignments. But he knew the unconscious would absorb it in a much different way. I worked in Hawaii with angry adjudicated teenage boys who had to go through cognitively-oriented anger management training. The cognitive exercises worked only on the surface. For example, when you give a stick to a person and ask them to sand it down—which is analogous to a cognitive homework exercise, you wonder how they are going to use it. That's very different than saying, “I want you to take this stick and sand it down because that's the way life is—rough on the outside. Then you ask them to make five decisions on how they are going to use it tomorrow in their everyday life.
LR: Okay. Let's say I'm an angry teenager saying that the other boys just don't like me. I think everybody hates me.
JM: I'd be listening, and asking “how would you like things to be?”
LR: [in role of teenager] I'd like people to like me and not be so mean, but I just expect everybody is always going to be mean to me. I would like people to be nice to me.
JM: So, you'd like them to be nice to you?
LR: I would.
JM: Yeah. And I wonder if you ever remember anybody at any time who gave you some ice cream or was nice to you or smiled at you. Maybe not now, but maybe from a while ago.
LR: Sure. I remember I had a friend last year for a little bit. He shared his lunch with me.
JM: So how was that for you when he shared his lunch?
LR: I liked it, but you know, then this thought came in my head. What if he really doesn't like me? What if he sees something that's bad about me?
JM: I wonder where you've ever heard that thought before?
LR: Sometimes my brother. Sometimes my dad.
JM: Let's say I'll call you Peter, okay? I don't know about you Peter, but it's interesting. When I want to go to a restaurant, I look at the menu and I try to choose what I want. And now even as we're talking, I'm remembering going into an ice cream store and how I needed to taste different tastes because I knew that I didn't want certain tastes. There are certain things I really don't like. And then there are other things that taste so good, and it's interesting how I really know, as we all really know, what we like, but sometimes those other tastes get in there because someone tells us it's good for us. But in reality, we really know what tastes good and what doesn’t.
LR: I like when people are nice to me.
JM: Yes, and it sounds like you really know Peter, and what a gift that is to know how you want to be treated.
LR: [out of role] It's very affirming, very positive. You didn't harp or dwell on or change the irrational thought but instead honored the thought and then spoke to a deeper part of me.
JM: And there's another part of that Larry, that has to do with recognizing the sensory systems. Some people are very visual, some people are very auditory, and some people are very kinesthetic. When Peter said, “I hear my brother and father telling me this stuff”, that's like a negative hypnosis. He is not consciously processing it—he just thinks it's happening. It is an irrational thought outside of his consciousness. So, when we recognize that someone has an out-of-conscious auditory processing system, we help them to recognize that. So, if someone has that ongoing negative criticism it's like secondhand smoke—you don't see it, but it can kill you.

If a child has witnessed domestic violence, then he or she might unplug the visual channel in their sensory system so that while they are obviously consciously seeing the violence, they are not processing the experience so they may feel safe. 

LR: And that's what you refer to in your writings as sensory synchronicity between the therapist and the client. The therapist must process the client’s experiences with all of his or her senses by attending to the way that the client is communicating—either auditorily, visually or kinesthetically, which is where the different play materials come in. If a child is kinesthetic and likes moving, then you may use a physical or tactile activity or story. You are working with their strength.
JM: I'm always going to go through their strength. Right now what's popular is to become a trauma-informed therapist because trauma sells. Well, I'm not for that. I'm for resiliency-informed therapy to heal trauma.
It's the strength that heals the trauma, not reliving the trauma.
It's the strength that heals the trauma, not reliving the trauma. All the brain research is on trauma and I applaud it, it's wonderful. How could I even say anything else? However, there needs to be equal research on the power of the brain to create resiliency, because we know from case after case after case that, people heal beyond our expectations. And why does that happen? I'm interested in what is it within us that we rise above what's before us?

StoryPlay®

LR: Resilience! Is this what your model is about? 
JM: I think so. StoryPlay® is a resiliency-focused indirective model of play therapy as opposed to directive and non-directive interventions. There are the six roots of StoryPlay® with the taproot being the teachings and principles of Dr. Milton Erickson.
LR: The main root of the tree.
JM: Yes, that's the main root because of his dedication to enter the world of the client. He always said that there's no such thing as resistance. Resistance is on the part of the therapist unwilling to get into the world of the client. It's not the client's job to get into the world of the therapist. That was a big controversy in his years because people studied resistance from all different disciplines.

The second root of StoryPlay® is trans-cultural wisdom and healing philosophy. I had written in my training manuals about Native American and Hawaiian rituals and stories because I spent a lot of years learning directly from these cultures and from these incredibly wise people. If you sat with them, you would think you were in a training. But it's not. It's all conversational and rooted in ritual ceremonies along with very strong principles of healing and spirituality.

The third root of StoryPlay® is real life, myth stories and metaphors. This is important because

stories are everywhere
stories are everywhere. They're in the wind, they're in the sun, they're in the supermarket. If you know stories, you see through the eyes of stories, you just have to be open. Not to try to take something, but to open yourself to receive. What is it that I need to learn from this? And it may not be something that’s comfortable, but it may be a very big teaching such as from mythology, the make-believe stories, and the stories from cultures that really inspire us.

The fourth root of StoryPlay® is play therapy. The theories and principles of play therapy are rooted in the desire to help children and

you don't have to have a playroom, you are the playroom
you don't have to have a playroom, you are the playroom. So, for example, if you're working in an area of disaster, anything that you can use, can create a world of play. 
LR: Can you give me an example.
JM: I lived in Hawaii through the worst natural disaster to hit that island this century which was Hurricane Iniki. The whole island was wiped out—food, water, electricity. I started a program called “Natural Healing” with the community. Most things were broken down, so we gathered pieces of wood and objects like refrigerator doors and tin roofs that were blown off and created earthcrafts. We would use glue and paint—whatever we had. We took old tin juice cans and inner tube tires and cut them in the shape of a circle. We made drums. Stones become playroom-type miniatures, it was all up to the child's imagination. This incredible creativity and the use of the natural world were the fifth and sixth roots (creativity and the natural world) of StoryPlay®.
LR: My very first interview with Psychotherapy.net was with Eliana Gil who has done a considerable amount of work with traumatized and abused children using art and other expressive media. How would you say that StoryPlay® is different in working with traumatized kids?
JM: I can't really compare because she's got her gifts that are so strong. One of the things Dr. Erickson would do when he was training people was to ask if there was a behaviorist in the room. He would then give a demonstration and the behaviorist would say, “Dr. Erickson, what I saw was this.” And they described it in a behaviorist manner and he would say “that's right.” And then a humanistic psychologist would join in and say, “oh, is this what you did? I think this it was humanistic.” And Dr. Erickson would say “that's right.” So, it didn't really matter to Dr. Erickson what people called themselves and what they did. What mattered was kind of like what Fred Rogers said which is to validate the person's perception. It's just a different way we may approach it, that's all.

Fear and Faith

LR: Talking about different models and methods, I think of Narrative Therapy. Practitioners of that model say that the person is not the problem, the problem is the problem. But it sounds like StoryPlay® is based on the notion that the problem is the clinician’s inability to see beyond the problem to see the solution that it presents.
JM: I have this saying that fear is the messenger, but faith is the message.
LR: What's the message?
JM: Fear gets our attention, right? It grabs us. But
faith is the message that I will find a way out of this
faith is the message that I will find a way out of this. It's an action. I teach about the butterfly. Inside the chrysalis is where the magic happens. The caterpillar has a complete breakdown, becomes gooey and soupy, but it's only at the point of the breakdown that these special cells called imaginal discs release, which is what catalyzes the metamorphosis from caterpillar to the gooey soup to the beautiful butterfly. And I think we all have that time when we feel like we are in a chrysalis stage and don't know what's going to happen. And it is faith that something good can happen that leads to our metamorphosis.
LR: What's interesting is that you talk about the difference between fear and faith which seems to parallel the relationship between trauma and resiliency. Trauma is a constant fearful reliving—an open wound, while faith is the belief that the wound will heal, the fear will diminish and something healthier will emerge. It makes me a little sad for therapists out there who are not in touch with their own imaginativeness, playfulness and indigenous stories and mythology. A whole generation of therapists seems to be lost to technique-driven, evidence-based pursuits.
JM: Yeah. They want to fill their dance card with techniques.
LR: Fill their dance card with techniques?
JM: Technique is not substance, it's not process. Certainly, StoryPlay® has techniques that I call story crafts because they connect to the story which indirectly evokes something within the person. If we open that channel for other people, they're going to find what they need. The program we created in Hawaii following hurricane Iniki was very successful. It was funded by the Office of Prevention Child and Family Services. From that program, I was invited to be on a team after 9/11 to work with the community of firefighters, frontline workers, and police, to develop a program for the children and families hardest hit of 9/11 which was through Rutgers and SAMHSA. It was about using creativity, community relationships, whatever materials we could find to build stories of healing and resiliency and of course faith that healing would happen, like the butterfly.

A Place for Spirituality

LR: In StoryPlay®, it's not just about you and a child in a playroom using techniques, it's about looking for resilience wherever it needs to be found. You're almost like a resilience archeologist trusting that the treasures are there, and then supporting your client to take you by the hand and walk through the painful moments in search of strength and healing. But you're really searching within them. 
JM: Can I quote that?
LR: You quote me, I'll quote you.
JM: I don't just do this for work. I live this, and the exciting thing is that StoryPlay® is like a pebble—you throw it in a lake, it ripples. It's the process that helps people find what they need. The other thing is that StoryPlay® is like a circle with four quadrants—mental, emotional, physical and spiritual. And those quadrants resemble a clinical intake in which you are asking the client how they are taking care of themselves in each of these four areas. Spirituality is an intricate part of the program.
I do not believe that any healing can take place without some recognition of a person's connection to their own spirituality
I do not believe that any healing can take place without some recognition of a person's connection to their own spirituality.
LR: Spirituality seems to be the final frontier with evidence-based clinicians. Can you give me an example of a clinical encounter you had with a traumatized child in which spirituality became a part of the work?
JM: Sure! I was working with a 13-year-old boy who others thought was on the spectrum. He was very distant from others, not connected to very much and was very withdrawn. I mentioned to him how interesting it was that seasons changed and how people didn’t really notice those changes. I said, “It's a special place to be out into nature, isn't it? You can hear so many things. We think, oh, it's always green or it's always cold.” Then I asked him, “what's your favorite season?” Suddenly he said, “you know, nobody knows but I play the guitar.” I said, “You do? You play the guitar? Wow. So, did you always know how to play the guitar?” And he said, “Well, I didn't take lessons. I taught myself.” I said, “Oh. you know, some people believe that when a baby is born, they come into this world with all these special gifts, and sometimes they don't find them until they're a little bit older. So maybe this is a gift that you came into this world with.” And then he said, could I bring my guitar next time?” So, he brought his guitar played John Lennon’s “Imagine.”
LR: Your encounter with this boy was deeply spiritual. You started with a simple observation of the seasons, of change and the importance of being open to seeing beauty and possibility and this boy opened himself to you.
JM: Yes, it doesn't have to be religion. It's what we came in with.

Closing Thoughts

LR: Joyce, I need a little help here. I struggle with my counseling graduate students, trying constantly to infuse creativity and imaginativeness into their work. How do you teach counseling students, counselors and therapists to be creative, imaginative and playful if they've arrived at the doorstep of adulthood and it's not something that they've ever valued or felt they needed, and they are now entering a to a field that doesn't openly embrace it?
JM:
My own work is playful but it's deep
My own work is playful but it's deep. Let's say you're my client or let's say I'm with the students and say, “We have two hours today and as we're together in these two hours, what is it that you hope for?” Now there are multiple levels in there. One of them of course is to awaken intention. Why are you here? And the other is the implied message of what they are hoping for. If I encourage them towards creativity, I might ask, “what does creativity mean to you?” I might do a talking circle or pass around a talking stick or some sweet grass. I might then say, “we're sitting in this circle and I hope that we can talk about what you are hoping for in our time together.” I am modeling creativity, teaching it indirectly.
LR: Currently, the east coast of the United States is being battered by Hurricane Florence. I know that you survived and thrived through hurricane Iniki. What advice would you give to clinicians working with children, teens, families, adults and communities in the wake of Hurricane Florence?
JM: After Iniki, we met in the broken-down neighborhood center with whatever materials we had or could find in the rubble, but not to talk! It wasn't directly a debriefing team. We didn’t ask people to draw a picture of where they were during the worst time of the storm. I would always start by talking about comfort helpers, like a favorite teddy bear or a blanket or something they really liked that helped them feel good. In a circle, we would share what made our hearts feel happy. We really wanted to stabilize them, so they could be fortified to go into the storm because you don't want people to battered again. That's how you create more PTSD. The focus was always on PTSH, posttraumatic stress healing. Transforming posttraumatic disorder to posttraumatic stress healing.

We had food and music playing. We created community programs with some of the elders and clergy. They were invited to share what they knew and even the way they cooked. It was right before Christmas, so we gathered all the debris that we could find and the artwork that these kids created out of these broken pieces were incredible. It was about transforming, and they all talked about it so naturally. We created an environment that was a sanctuary, a place to go but not to continue working on the trauma. A place just to just be and to be stronger.

LR: You were feeding them in many ways.
JM: Yes. Feeding them.
LR: Without answering my question about advice to those who will be helping in the aftermath of hurricane Florence, I think you answered my question—indirectly! How fitting.

Joyce, your license is on inactive status and while you are no longer doing therapy, you are now dedicated to training. You are in a state of wonderful metamorphosis. 

JM: Yes, training and writing. I'm very excited.

Countertransference is not a Flesh-Eating Disease

Among my varied clinical and clinically-related roles, I supervise master’s level counseling interns who are training in a variety of settings, from alternative schools to psychiatric hospitals. In our group supervision classes, we discuss a range of theoretical and applied concepts related to clinical practice. Frequently, countertransference takes center stage. Perhaps this is due to the nascency of their clinical skills, unpreparedness for or inexperience with self-reflection, lack of personal and interpersonal maturity, or all the above. In our meetings, we are never short on content for conversation or the inevitably painful role-play exercises that I inflict upon them. All in the name of their growth, of course.

Like what you are reading? For more stimulating stories, thought-provoking articles and new video announcements, sign up for our monthly newsletter.

With few exceptions, my counseling interns have somehow latched onto the notion that countertransference is a flesh-eating disease; proof positive of psychological frailty inevitably resulting in psychic degradation, the inability to evolve into effective clinicians, and who knows, maybe contagion. I believe that these apocalyptic notions stem in part from the origin of the study of countertransference in psychoanalysis, with its emphasis on forbidden and deeply concealed libidinal urges, unresolved parent-child conflicts and other dark intrapsychic forces ever seeking sunlight and the opportunity to wreak havoc in the therapeutic sphere.

Try as I might to dispel this notion by deploying the most powerful tools in my arsenal of empathy, they cling tightly to the fear that countertransference is the enemy within, seeking to undermine, subvert and slowly erode their fortitude and confidence. And try as I might to demonstrate the opportunities countertransference presents for self-awareness, personal and clinical growth as well as healing, they recoil at the sound of the word! Maybe, I should just call it Steve.

Two examples might help explain what I and my student-interns have been experiencing. A student-intern who was a new mother to a 9 month-old was working in an alternative high school. She was assigned, ironically enough, a seventeen-year-old student who had given birth just months before. See where I am going here? My student was angry at this young woman who had abdicated her parental responsibilities to her own mother, refused to engage in attachment-related exercises, and had become increasingly depressed and withdrawn. My student seemed, at least temporarily, incapable of empathizing because she could not fathom how someone could neglect an infant when concurrently, she was in the process of building a deep bond with her own infant. When I suggested that her negative reaction to her client was rooted in countertransference, she initially recoiled and withdrew, but with encouragement and class support, opened herself just enough to consider how she was triggered by her client. Subsequent on-site and in-class supervision helped her to reconnect with the client.

Another counseling intern had taken on a new college-age student who had experienced several years of depression, family rejection, a profound sense of hopelessness, and who had a history of rejecting therapeutic intervention. When his own clinical supervisor made specific recommendations for how to work with this client my student resisted, arguing that the supervisor was not being sufficiently empathic, had disregarded his own ideas, and he planned to speak to the client about issues that the supervisor felt were premature. My student grew increasingly angry at his supervisor, more deeply intent on doing what he thought was necessary and walling himself off from the supervisor. This was the first rupture in the relationship between this student and the supervisor whom he had previously seen as supportive. As the class supervision unfolded, I suggested to the student and the group that this particular client could be triggering something in him related to past relationships or even experiences in his own life. As with the intern mentioned above, this young man felt embarrassed and disappointed in himself that he was perhaps being influenced by countertransference. I should have called it Steve.

As the conversation unfolded, this intern volunteered that just a year before, he too had experienced a severe depressive episode and felt misunderstood by friends and family who offered suggestions that he found destructive. “If only I had been a better clinician, I would’ve seen that coming”, he lamented. Well-intentioned as he was, this posture was unrealistic, and fortunately subsequent supervision and counseling helped this particular intern to continue along his own path to healing and professional growth.

***

In both of these supervisory moments, the interns better understood what countertransference was and was not. If our interns are always taking universal precautions to guard against the psychological equivalent of a flesh-eating disease, then caution and defense will win out over opportunity for both personal and professional growth. Sometimes, past and present painful and/or unresolved experiences and relationships scream out from within for attention, even for debriding if you will. Only in this way can clinicians, at any point in their evolution, build healthy psychological immune systems. 

Might Physical Activity be an Effective Antidepressant?

The well-known recommendation to exercise in order to relieve and /or improve a wide variety of health problems may sometimes seem exaggerated. One might ask whether going to the gym or chopping wood will truly improve sleep, cognition, fragile bones, cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, and decrease vulnerability to developing diabetes, obesity, heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. That is a lot to ask of a daily bout of physical activity. However, many studies over the past several decades have confirmed these positive relationships. Exercise is not going to prevent us from eventually exiting this world but engaging in physical activity may make us healthier while we are still in it.

Relieving depression should be added to the long list of benefits of physical activity-depressed patients may benefit as much from routine exercise as they do by taking antidepressants. Several years ago, an extensive review on the effects of an exercise program on clinical depression strongly indicated that physical activity may effectively reduce stress, anxiety, and depressed mood.

Like what you are reading? For more stimulating stories, thought-provoking articles and new video announcements, sign up for our monthly newsletter.

A woman came to me for weight loss counseling because she had gained about 27 pounds while being treated with an antidepressant. With the consent of her therapist, she decided to stop taking the drug and instead signed up for a four-month exercise program with a personal trainer. After several weeks she not only lost weight but her depression went into remission. Her personal experience reflects that described in many studies in which depressed patients enrolled in programs of frequent physical activity such as walking, resistance training or a combination of both show improvement in their mood. Indeed, in another study, patients receiving medication (sertraline), exercise and the medication, or just exercise had the same rates of remission.

However, if exercise is to be treated like any other therapeutic intervention, do we know the most effective program? Should the exercise be mild or intense? Is it better to exercise outside in the fresh air and sunlight or does it not matter? Might yoga or other group exercise be more beneficial than solitary workouts or a walk because exercise classes diminish social isolation? Is there some way of identifying patients at the onset of their depression who might benefit from exercise rather than antidepressants therapy? How long should it take for an exercise program to produce a lessening of depressive symptoms? Many antidepressants take several weeks before they seem to have an effect. Should the patient wait the same amount of time to see if exercise relieves their symptoms?

These are questions that can be answered fairly easily with additional studies. What is more difficult is how to translate these findings to the real world. To begin with, who is going to treat these patients? Therapists are rarely, if ever, trained as exercise physiologists. And exercise physiologists may not have any training or experience working with depressed clients. Do these professionals even communicate with each other? A therapist may be able to refer a patient to a physical therapist for an initial consultation as to what kind of exercise the patient can do without injury or pain. But how should the patient follow up? Where will she exercise? Does he have to join a gym or a local Y to exercise? Who will determine the type of exercise program? What oversight is available to make sure the exercise program is carried out effectively and without injury or pain from overused muscles? Who will help /motivate the depressed patient to participate over several weeks rather than dropping out? And finally, even if exercise can be as effective as medication for depression, who will pay for it? Now visits to a therapist and medication may be paid for in their entirety, or at least in part, by health insurance. Therapeutic visits with an exercise physiologist rather than a prescription for an antidepressant is probably not covered under billing codes for mental illness and thus may be an out-of-pocket expense.

And yet, exercise should not be overlooked or discarded as an effective way of managing depression. Its value in increasing general health, sleep efficacy, and increased physical fitness in addition to relieving the symptoms of depression without the side effects of drugs cannot be overstated or overestimated. Isn’t it about time to figure out how to apply this knowledge?  

David Jobes on Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality

Hospitalization Rarely Works

Lawrence Rubin: Thanks so much for making time today for this important interview Dr. Jobes. Let’s just dive right in: What you think are the greatest challenges for clinicians working with suicidal clients?
 
David Jobes:
we’ve got a mindset that a suicidal person belongs in the hospital
I think the greatest challenges are the ones of our culture and of our mindset about what’s most helpful to suicidal people. I think we’ve got a mindset that a suicidal person belongs in the hospital and that you help a suicidal person by treating the mental disorder. I’m a clinician/researcher so I lead with my clinical eye, but I am very much interested in things that’ve been proven to work.

I don’t think randomized control trials (RCTs) are the only way to go–I think there are many true kinds of validity. But I am partial to RCTs because they give more clarity about the causal impact of things. And there are a lot of well-intended interventions that are surprisingly unhelpful if not actually harmful.

there’s evidence that hospitalization is actually harmful for suicidal people
To that end, I think we’re now seeing a period where the use of hospitalization is under the microscope. There’s evidence that hospitalization is actually harmful for suicidal people. There’s a psychiatrist in Melbourne, Australia who talks about nosocomial suicides, which are those caused by the hospitalization. Marsha Linehan, the developer of Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) has for many years been very critical of hospitalization. I began my career in inpatient care and so while I’m not anti-hospitalization per se, I am when the treatment focus is exclusively on the mental disorder, and kind of skips the bullseye which is the suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

If you look at the literature, most of the hospitalization centers around well-focused pharmacological interventions and very brief stays of a few days. And the clinicians are not really asking important questions about the patient’s suicidality. These might include: Do you have suicidal thoughts? Can you tell me about those thoughts? Can we embrace a stabilization plan? And, there are different flavors of stabilization plans which have been proven to be more effective than no-harm contracts. We can ask questions such as: Can we talk about your access to lethal means? Can you think about the use of a lifeline and other resources? And after discharge, can the community do some psychological education that’s suicide specific and then can we institute some kind of follow up?

You know, I was thinking about this before our interview that, when I take my dog to the vet, I get a follow-up phone call the next day about how she’s doing. We don’t necessarily get that from mental health care. My dog gets a nice follow up phone call and I’m delighted to respond to those calls. But there’s evidence that different kinds of follow up, like a phone call, or a letter, or a postcard, or even texting can be helpful in changing behaviors.

we tend to think that medication is more helpful than it actually is for suicide risk. The evidence is at best, mixed
So, that’s one of my soapboxes! I’m really trying to get the focus on hospitalization shifted to suicide-specific considerations. And then in a related way, we tend to think that medication is more helpful than it actually is for suicide risk. The evidence is at best, mixed. We actually have existing treatments that are psychological in nature that most mental health people don’t know about or use routinely. 
LR: If hospitalization is a quick in-and-out and doesn’t focus on a plan upon release and follow up, then it can be as destructive as whatever the suicidal person brings in with them? 
DJ:
hospitalizing a teenager for a second time creates a more lethal trajectory of their suicidal thinking
I know for a fact that many clinicians, from the trainings that I do, are paralyzed by fear of litigation–malpractice and wrongful death tort litigation. This creates a defensive kind of approach to practice–a better safe than sorry approach. But patients get discharged very quickly from hospitals and there’s evidence that the post-discharge period is very high-risk of suicide. There’s actually a paper that was published in the Journal of Affective Disorders last year at the University of Michigan stating that hospitalizing a teenager for a second time creates a more lethal trajectory of their suicidal thinking. And it’s not that hospitalization, per se, is a bad thing. It’s just that we’re not focusing on suicidal thoughts and behaviors.
LR: So, suicidal patients are out of the hospital after this immersive experience where they have 24-hour care by a team of caring professionals. And then, boom, gone. And if there’s not some really positive powerful bridge, then they may be at even higher risk.
DJ: Well, I would even gently challenge the notion of a team of caring professionals. I think what the literature shows is that patients end up spending a lot of time watching TV in the day room, and they go to a couple psychoeducational groups that they don’t find especially helpful. And the only treatment that really exists is pharmacological. And a lot of the medicines, as you know, don’t really have a full therapeutic effect until weeks after initiation.

What we associate with hospitalization actually is not typically the case. There are of course exceptions. I don’t mean to upset people with the idea that every hospitalization experience is iatrogenic or negative. But I think there’s a fair amount of evidence that it’s not really meeting the needs of suicidal people or their families.

Clinical Conundrums

LR: How do clinicians cull through this massive literature in order to find their way to the most effective treatment?
DJ:
we have a disconnect between proving an intervention works in a randomized control trial, and then actually disseminating and implementing that treatment
That’s a great question and challenge because we have a disconnect between proving an intervention works in a randomized control trial, and then actually disseminating and implementing that treatment. One model is Marsha Linehan’s DBT and the reason that DBT is so famous is that they’ve figured out the dissemination and implementation challenge.

It’s a very labor-intensive team treatment that clinicians can’t do on their own and it’s not for everybody. But if you want to learn about it, you can go to the Behavioral Tech website where there are training programs. The two empirically-supported cognitive therapy programs have effective treatments and associated books, especially for suicide attempters, but they don’t have training programs. And that’s a conundrum. You can’t really learn to do cognitive therapy for suicide prevention that was developed by Greg Brown and Aaron Beck at Penn or brief cognitive behavioral therapy (BCBT) developed by David Rudd and Craig Bryan, at the University of Utah, because these researchers haven’t taken their positive research findings to the next level. and developed a training component that clinicians can utilize.

On the other hand, research supported treatments like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and some other really well-known therapies including cognitive behavioral therapy that are not suicide-specific. But paradoxically, there are training organizations that make it possible to learn these non-suicide-specific evidence-based interventions. In order to scale up a proven treatment and disseminate it to clinicians so they may learn it, you’ve got to have money to get to the corners of the world that you really want to have use this intervention.

So, for example, in our CAMS (Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality) model and other well-disseminated models, there are books but also deep-dive online roleplay training components. Clinicians hate roleplay training even though it changes their behavior and is shown to be effective in terms of doing something different. And then a really critical element is the use of consultation calls to coach a clinician through a new treatment that they’re trying to learn.

We are in the business of training a lot of people all over the world and our CAMS model is gaining some traction, but a lot of what clinicians prefer in terms of training is not necessarily what’s going to change their behavior with suicidal clients, and that’s a real conundrum the field faces. 
LR: So, the challenge is bridging the gap between the research that proves treatment efficacy and disseminating it in a way that makes it likely that clinicians will effectively utilize it.
DJ: Right, and that’s a tough sell because a lot of us like to do what we know to do. I’m a middle-aged man, an old dog who doesn’t like new tricks, so I kind of get that. But in the case of suicide, it’s life and death. And you know, if the fallback is hospitalization or use of medication without support and there’s even the possibility that those might not be helpful, it’s incumbent upon us to do things that are effective.

clinicians need to be thoughtful about access to lethal means and having lethal means discussions with their suicidal clients
.And that doesn’t necessarily mean that clinicians working with suicidal clients have to learn adherence to intervention, but they do need to be thoughtful about safety planning and stabilization planning. Clinicians need to be thoughtful about access to lethal means and having lethal means discussions with their suicidal clients. These are examples of low-hanging fruit types of questions that any practitioner can embrace. There’s a task force that I was on that developed recommended standards of care for suicidal patients. And that’s available through the Suicide Intervention Resource Center and the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention. If clinicians just look up these organizations, they’ll see the low-hanging fruit that have an evidence-base and are relatively easy to incorporate into a standard practice.

The CAMS Program

LR: As a prelude to discussing your CAMS program, I’m interested to know how you developed an interest in suicide? Some clinicians stay away from suicide like the plague. Others run to it. You seem to have invested so much energy and resources in this topic over the years.
DJ: It was something I sort of bumped into. I was trying to get into a PhD clinical program and I wound up in a master’s program at American University here in Washington. My psychopathology professor was Lanny Burman, a leading figure in the field. I was really fascinated by his work in suicide, so he got me involved. I did my master’s thesis with him and I was of the cohort that got to meet the founders of my field–Ed Schneidman, Bob Litman, Norman Farberow and Jerome Moto.

I never felt comfortable having somebody promise they wouldn’t kill themselves
I was so blessed to meet the people that created my field, so I just stayed with it and I found out that it was my passion. Even when I was working early on in inpatient care or as a clinician, I never felt comfortable having somebody promise they wouldn’t kill themselves. That never made sense to me.] Early on, I started having some misgivings about the standard practices for suicidal cases and the seeds were planted to try to create something different that made more sense. 
LR: This leads me to your CAMS program which may not be familiar to psychotherapists in our audience who work with suicidal clients. Can you describe for those folks who might be interested in learning about and using it?
DJ: CAMS stands for Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality. It’s not the typical intervention but instead a framework, a philosophy of care. The cornerstones of CAMS are that we’re empathic of suicidal states, collaborative with the suicidal patient, honest and transparent about the rules and laws about discussing suicide with a licensed provider who has statutes to follow, and that it is suicide specific.

The essential component of CAMS is the Suicide Status form–a multipurpose assessment, treatment planning, tracking and clinical-outcome tool. It consists of assessment, treatment and stabilization planning. Its major focus is keeping a suicidal person out of the hospital, which is a novel notion. But to do so, we have to develop a thoughtful stabilization plan. That means securing lethal means and developing a list of problem-solving skills or coping strategies and resources should a suicidal person get into an acute suicidal dark moment. And then a signature feature of CAMS, which I kind of chuckle at every time I say it because it seems so obvious, is that we ask a suicidal person “what makes you want to kill yourself?”

In CAMS, we call these reasons for wanting to kill yourself “drivers.” What suicidal people say when they are genuinely asked “what puts your life in peril?” are overwhelmingly treatable problems. They say things like: my wife is leaving me, I can’t live without her; I’m going underwater with my mortgage on my house and I’m going to lose it; I can’t get a job. Or they may be experiencing trauma from combat in Iraq. People have idiosyncratic problems that we have treatments for all day long.

We make the argument with suicidal clients that they’ve got everything to gain and nothing to lose by engaging in treatment. We typically see a positive response in six to eight sessions. But if you give us 12 sessions, we can probably reach a lot of what they’re struggling with and maybe give them a different way of coping with their situation than taking their life. 
LR: The buy in.
DJ:
I also tell clients that they can always kill themselves later, which is true
I also tell clients that they can always kill themselves later, which is true. But there’s a reality, which is that as a practitioner here in Washington, DC, there are laws about clear and imminent danger, so you need to know the implications of being suicidal. We’re very transparent and clear about following the law with our clients but that we don’t have to fight over whether they can kill themselves or not. And for a lot of suicidal people, that is comforting and validating. It doesn’t feel shaming. So, there are a lot of aspects of this that sort of capture the imagination of the suicidal person.
LR: So, CAMS is s not a technique but a program that allows clinicians to use techniques from their own particular model, which you refer to as the non-denominationality.
DJ: Exactly. What we typically see is a strong therapeutic alliance because we’re not adversaries and not fighting with whether they can or can’t kill themselves. I let them know that “I’m going to follow the law, but I’d like to collaborate with you.” We literally take a side-by-side seating for certain assessment and treatment planning activities and give the patient a copy of their documents including their suicide status form and stabilization plan.

So, the tone we’re trying to set is to not be shaming, to not be invalidating, to never wag our fingers, to understand that for a person who suffers, this is a viable way of dealing with their situation. And to get our foot in the door to say, “why wouldn’t you try this out? I mean, we all get to be dead forever and I’m not debating whether you can or can’t kill yourself, but I am saying that the problems that you’re describing are treatable problems.”

And the agnostic aspect of it is that the therapist can be psychoanalytic, behavioral or humanistic, we don’t really tell people how to treat. What we’re asking of the provider is that they treat the problems that the patient says puts their life in peril. 
LR: How much of the actual implementation of therapeutic techniques would be occurring during the eight, nine, or 12 weeks? Or, do you use whatever technical skills you have that are theoretically driven during the implementation of CAMS? And then do you refer to a clinician after the CAMS period is over? What’s the timing like?
DJ:
The idea is that if you’re suicidal, we’re going to tackle that and focus on that, and talk really about nothing else except the things that put your life at risk
We’re pretty much like a dog with a bone. The idea is that if you’re suicidal, we’re going to tackle that and focus on that, and talk really about nothing else except the things that put your life at risk. And so, that’s where I think the persistence bubble sometimes rubs certain patients the wrong way. While it’s meant to be a flexible and adaptive model in which we’re not telling clinicians how to treat, we remain focused exclusively on the suicide drivers even when clients don’t want to talk about suicide but instead something like the economy. Because unless it makes you want to kill yourself, we’re not going to really focus on that because we’re trying to take suicide off the table. And that persistence, I think, pays off. A big part of this is that we aren’t looking for somebody to eliminate any vestige of a suicidal thought. But when we wrap up CAMS, they’re managing those thoughts and feelings, and they’ve got a repertoire for coping differently rather than going to suicide as their first response.

And that’s held up well in the clinical trials as our operational criterion for resolution. And then all along the way what the CAMS model has extensive documentation, which is sort of the armor for litigation. People have tried to pursue malpractice lawsuits against CAMS providers, and to my knowledge, there’s never been a successful lawsuit because of the documentation. There’s no evidence of negligence around assessment or treatment planning or the clients falling through the cracks. So, that’s served very different functions in that the patient is a coauthor of their treatment planning. They see what their treatment plan is. They’re an active participant in developing their treatment plan. And we’re working with Microsoft to develop an electronic version of the Suicide Status Form (SSF) that mimics what we do by hand on our hardcopy because, of course, we have to work with electronic medical records. And we’ve got a prototype that will be fully developed in the spring that we’re testing at two medical centers to see if it interfaces with electronic records. So, we’re still working on it, and we still have clinical trials, and we’re learning about it as we go.
LR: What’s the evidence that CAMS is effective?
DJ: The big thing in science is correlational studies that are replicated. We have eight correlational published studies that have been replicated with basically the same findings. But that doesn’t really ring the bell. It’s randomized controlled trials that look at a causal impact. So, there are three published randomized controlled trials all supporting the intervention. There are two unpublished trials that are in review that have very supportive data. And there are three trials that are currently underway.

So, there’s a lot of replicated data showing that CAMS quickly reduces suicidal ideation, overall symptom distress, increases hope and decreases hopelessness. Patients like it and clinicians find it valuable. So, the data is actually quite robust. But as a clinician, it makes sense. At a lot of the trainings I’ve done over the years, people say, “you know, this just makes so much sense.” “You know, I’ve kind of been doing CAMS without realizing it.” And so, that’s always the greatest validation when a thoughtful clinician that says that CAMS worked with a particular client. So, it’s not just the research, it’s also clinical utility, a lot of which has been shaped by feedback from clinicians. 

Countertransference and Paralysis

LR: You write about countertransference with suicidal patients and how clinicians have referred to the experience of malice and hate along with fear and impotence. Can you say a little bit about some of the countertransference experiences that you’ve noticed and how clinicians who work with suicidal clients can effectively deal with these experiences?
DJ: I was dynamically trained and worked with a luminary in the field, John Maltsberger, who was at Harvard, and wrote the definitive and seminal work in countertransference back in 1974. It was a very famous paper about countertransferential hate and the suicidal patient. He didn’t waffle around and instead said that clinicians can hate these patients. And, what I think about that upon reflection is that you know they are threatening. For a lot of providers, it’s really scary to work with somebody who’s at the precipice and thinking about ending their life. It can be scary and anxiety provoking and a lot of providers are afraid of being sued if there’s a fatal outcome.

there’s a kind of head-in-the-sand mentality among clinicians around suicidality
But I also think there’s some data that backs up the idea that there’s a kind of head-in-the-sand mentality among clinicians around suicidality. They may think, I’m gonna kick this patient over to the real doctors who are the psychiatrists who see a lot more suicidal people than psychologists, social workers and counselors–it’s too much for me if I’m just a psychologist or just a counselor, and it’s over my head or I’m not competent. And my feeling is the ubiquity of the presentation requires some level of competence.

To me, it’s like an internist or a family primary care doctor saying, you know, I’ll give you a thorough exam, but I don’t do the heart thing. I mean, trust me on my competence, but I don’t really know about hearts. Because suicide and suicide presentations are very common, I don’t really see how a thoughtful and responsible clinician who aspires to be ethical and competent can say, “I don’t do this.” But the fear is significant. And it’s out there, and I get why people are afraid. It’s not like I relish these tough cases, but I feel like there’s a need to at least be knowledgeable about what’s effective and what we can do, which is actually a lot. 
LR: You mentioned the notion of paralysis that clinicians often experience along with anxiety surrounding work with suicidal clients. What do you mean by this paralysis, how does it manifest, and how can we help clinicians out there who experience it?
DJ: I think it’s a straightforward situation where the reality of malpractice tort litigation is important to understand. People think it happens a lot more than it does and that they’re a sitting duck if there’s a completed suicide. It’s a legal action where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that there was negligence in subsequent treatment and/or follow through. Both sides then hire experts. It’s a very unpleasant process, and I’ve been involved on both sides. But the reality is that if you’re doing thoughtful work and it’s well-documented, most plaintiff’s attorneys won’t take on the case because the documentation is so critical for these cases. And so, the plaintiff’s attorneys pretty much only take the cases on contingency, so they don’t get the big payoffs until they win or settle.

It doesn’t make the clinician bulletproof, but it decreases the likelihood of being successfully sued for malpractice for wrongful death. And then the other part, which is more up my alley, is the idea that there actually are treatments proven to work that have excellent evidence but are not widely used. These include dialectical behavior therapy and two forms of cognitive therapy that contain suicide-specific interventions. Each of these are highly effective and proof of their use, along with documentation, would greatly reduce the possibility of being found guilty of malpractice. 

Empathic Fortitude

LR: You said earlier that your back had been hurt by years of running and martial arts. I’m curious- do you see a connection between the strength that you have needed over your life to progress through martial arts and the strength that is needed to work with suicidal clients?
What I’m wondering is how have you brought your black belt qualities into this anxiety-eliciting and litigious clinical arena? 
DJ: I guess I don’t think of it that way. I guess there’s a courageous aspect to working with suicide, but I also think there’s just a commonsense-ness to it. When we see a suicidal person as a threat versus being empathic of the struggle, we’re already creating an adversarial dynamic. One of the things that I guess I have found in my experience is that when you tell a suicidal person DC mental health laws and rules regarding my obligation, I can simply say “this is what the law says.”

And when I say to somebody, “I can’t ultimately stop you from killing yourself and of course, this is something that you can do but I would hope that you don’t”, I essentially give them the playbook and put my cards on the table face up and let go of my illusion of control and power over this suicidal person. What I have found paradoxically is that it gives me much more credibility, influence and persuasive ability to offer this person a chance to find their way out of suicidal hell.

So, I appreciate the reference to courage but I think it takes a certain kind of empathic fortitude. I wrote a chapter with Maltsberger years ago that talked about empathic dread versus empathic fortitude. I thought of these dramatic kinds of notions of how out of empathic dread we would avoid working with suicidal clients or countertransference would take over. We’d get rid of these patients by hospitalizing them or transferring to another provider.

So, I do believe that there is a need for empathic fortitude I suppose. But at the same time, when you give the patient the playbook and say, “this is the deal; if you’re going to kill yourself today, I’ve got to call the police. I don’t want to do that, but I will.” You’re working with motivation. You’re working with paradox. You’re looking at counter-projection. And when you do it properly and thoughtfully and with a genuine heart and concern, most suicidal people in your office are relieved.
LR: I understand.
DJ: And they are suddenly less at risk. And, so I guess I discovered that empathic fortitude or courage helps, but being forthright and honest about the situation as it is decreases the tension in the therapeutic relationship dyad and can actually create motivation in the client.

Tailoring Suicide Treatment

LR: As I was watching your CAMS video, you referred to some clients having a love affair with suicide. What do you mean by this and how can a clinician identify it and address it?
DJ:
clients who have been suicidal for a long time are at the point where being suicidal becomes a way of life–it becomes ego syntonic and comforting
What I mean by that is clients who have been suicidal for a long time are at the point where being suicidal becomes a way of life–it becomes ego syntonic and comforting. It’s like surrounding yourself in a warm blanket and snuggling in. I don’t mean that pejoratively or cynically, I mean it descriptively. And we’ve all seen clients like this for whom it’s comforting because they can control their crazy life by having something to hold onto. It’s become a part of who they are and becomes deeply internalized as a comforting thought.

That’s very different than people for whom it’s ego dystonic. They’re fighting the thoughts and they’re anxious. It feels like a hot potato they want to get rid of it, but they don’t know who to throw it to. And those are very distinctly different kinds of suicidal people. Our intervention responds to those people in different ways. And the thing I really want to emphasize is that not all suicidal people are the same. We’ve got relatively good data now of ways to stratify different kinds of suicidal states, and we’re getting into the research now where we can match different treatments to different states.
LR: Can you say a little bit more about this stratification of suicidal patients?
DJ: Yes, this is like the heart of the research we’re doing right now, which is looking at people who are upstream ideators. They’re relatively new to thinking about suicide. It’s kind of a hot potato, ego dystonic kind of experience. They don’t like being suicidal. It makes them anxious or it’s frightening. Or, people who are a little bit further downstream who are kind of on a teeter-totter of thinking, “well, you know, I don’t want to kill myself because I hate what that would do to my kids. But, I would love to flip off my girlfriend.” There’s an ambivalence in place that’s well documented in literature. And then there’s the final group that we’ve got reliable data on, who are chronically suicidal with multiple attempts, who are highly dysregulated and have this ego syntonic relationship with suicide.

The first two groups are pretty treatable quickly. That’s what we’ve seen in our trials. The suicidal types who are mostly attached to living, or the ambivalent types respond quickly to CAMS and other treatments. It’s not that the latter group don’t respond, it just takes more than six to eight sessions. In that latter group there are multiple attempters, or borderline personality disordered clients, or chronically suicidal people with a lot of dysregulation. This group is sort of the sweet spot for DBT. We’re doing trials right now looking at differences between CAMS and DBT for different kinds of suicidal states. We’ve got some promising, exciting data about those different states and then matching different treatments to different states.
LR: In my ethics class a few weeks back, I was discussing informed consent and its various components. The CAMS consent is very different from the traditional ones endorsed by the ACA or APA.  
DJ: Well, I teach ethics and I’m married to a lawyer, so I think a lot about medical, legal, and ethical considerations. And of course, in ethics, informed consent is a huge consideration which has been a dynamic area in the field of ethics in more recent years. What I say to a suicidal person is some version of "you can always kill yourself, and that’s always an option to you, but you’ve got everything to gain and nothing to lose by engaging in treatment.

if you are going to kill yourself in the next 24 hours, I may be compelled to hospitalize you, even against your will
But there are laws that say that if you are going to kill yourself in the next 24 hours, I may be compelled to hospitalize you, even against your will. And I don’t want to do that, I’d rather not go there. I’d rather not fight with you about this. So, wouldn’t it be comforting to know if you do kill yourself, that you’ve done everything in your power and within your control to make this life livable? I’m suggesting that this treatment would be in your best interest and may help you decide whether your life is indeed livable. You can always kill yourself later. But, if you’re going to kill yourself while you’re in the treatment, I’ll have to stop you.”

When I say that in a training, a lot of clinicians are shocked, but then I ask them to take the role of a suicidal person. When they put themselves in the place of a suicidal person, they say “wow, that’s actually really comforting and validating and reassuring. It makes me curious about why you’re saying this to me and what your real agenda is.” And I’m very clear with suicidal clients that my agenda is to find a way to save their life and to make it worth living.

What’s fascinating about it is that everything I said is 100 percent true–it’s the playbook. And to me, it’s the cards faceup on the table. I think it is life and death, and when we give up the illusion of power, we have much more influence and credibility with the client.

The Setback Session

LR: In the training video you demonstrate what I thought was a masterful example of a setback session as you call it. What do you mean by a setback session and can clinicians expect to have those and if so, how can they be constructive or useful moving forward?
DJ: We shot that training video in two days without a script. A clinical psychologist who had been in graduate school and worked in my lab picked a patient he had worked with during his internship and channeled him. And he was not a very easy patient as you probably saw. I want very strongly as a trainer for everything to go perfectly and never make mistakes. However, I am not a miracle worker so feel it is very important to model a setback.

So, when we shot this scene, we were kind of nervous because the client got upset with me and I got upset back. I usually try to be calm, cool, and collected but I kind of lost my cool. I was, however, able to regroup, recover and reassert the model. Contrary to our fears, that setback video, which was session nine, is wildly popular with the thousands of people that have done this training.

I had a guy come to me last week at a training and say, “I really liked the setback session. It was real, I could see myself, you know, in you. And I appreciate your honesty.” So, contrary to our fear that it would be me acting out or my countertransference getting the best of me, it was an example of not doing it perfectly, but then using it as an opportunity to regroup and to reassert the model. And in the final session when we get the outcome disposition, I ask the client what was the turning point, and he said, “well it was that session where I came in here, you know, ready to tear your head off and you got mad at me, but then we kind of coalesced around what didn’t happen. And that was the pivot point.” I don’t like getting upset but, you know, it was a real thing that we shot, and it’s turned out to be really a popular part of the training. 
LR: So, while it was not a real client in the training video, the setback session was helpful to clinicians?
DJ: In my trainings, a lot of people ask if he was a real client because it’s so intense and it’s so realistic. And when we do our roleplay trainings, we’ll go into a group of 50 or 70 clinicians and say, “who wants to play a client?” And then we will demonstrate sections of the CAMS intervention with somebody who comes out of the audience, where obviously it’s not pre-canned or scripted.

I think that’s why people like our training, because we practice what we preach and sometimes people play impossible cases and kind of act out a little bit. So, those are tricky. But for the most part, it’s pretty convincing if I’m demonstrating to you something that isn’t perfectly scripted out. And that’s how we do our training, all of our trainers will basically recruit somebody from the audience to play somebody they’re working with. And it’s a very convincing way to say yeah, you know, we’re taking the risk here to be successful or to fail at the model, but we’re going to assert the model and then you can see what you think, as a provider, that if this is something that you want to try to do. 

Suicide in the Rearview Mirror

LR: You had mentioned earlier that successful outcome is determined by three successive sessions in which the suicide risk on the Suicide Status Form is low. When does a client really turn the corner on suicide so that a clinician can have a greater assurance that they will not end their life.
DJ: That’s a great question because it’s always idiosyncratic. I’ll give you a case example that really kind of nails it. It was a soldier who was in the army and deployed in Iraq–an extremely unstable, traumatized service member. I watched his early videos which was one of our clinical trials. I would lie in bed awake at night thinking “this man’s going to kill himself and he may take out a few people in his unit along the way.”

He was a scary guy. But he got traction and we identified his drivers and we determined that he really needed to leave the military. We started working on his VA benefits, but he was having legal troubles and he had PTSD that we were able to treat as part of the CAMS model. What he later described to me was a perfect metaphor. He said, “when I first came in here, I was in the Humvee and driving towards suicide with no other place to go.” Later, he said, “I was driving towards suicide and kind of pulled up alongside of it, and then I passed it, and now it’s in my rearview mirror. I can still see it, but I’m driving away from it. And now I’m going to turn the corner and leave it behind.” And that, to me, just nailed it and captured what we’re looking for in our resolution session. It’s not somebody who doesn’t see it in the rearview mirror, but who’s determined to leave it behind and turn the corner.

that is what we’re after: somebody who says “killing myself is not the number one way to get my needs met
Metaphorically and literally, that is what we’re after: somebody who says “killing myself is not the number one way to get my needs met. I’ve got these coping strategies. I’ve got this support now that I didn’t have. I’ve got treatment for things that made me want to kill myself that are now approved. And I don’t have to do this most desperate thing a person can do, which is end my biological existence forever. I can press on and pursue a life worth living because I’ve seen that this is not my only option.” 

Closing Reflections

LR: I’ll ask you a question that you can choose to answer or not answer.
DJ: I’ll certainly answer.
LR: Has suicide impacted you personally in your life?
DJ: Oh yeah, I have had many suicidal patients. I had a patient as an intern at the VA Medical Center where I interned who I gave a Rorschach to who killed himself the next week which was devastating. I spent two hours with this man and he laid down in front of a bus in front of the hospital. I mean, it has hugely impacted me. I’ve had colleagues that’ve taken their lives. I haven’t had a psychotherapy case, but I don’t think I’m immune.

So, absolutely it’s touched me and touched people that I care about. And we’ve had three suicides in two different clinical trials. That’s devastating because we’re watching videos of these patients that we’re trying to save. And one in particular last fall was extremely painful. But we’re not going to not do this because the overwhelming flipside to that is that we’re in the lifesaving business. We get cards and letters from clients, and clinicians thanking us. There are hundreds of examples of both clinicians and patients who’ve said, you know, “this saved my life.”

And the reward of that far, far washes away the pain of the individual losses and tragedies that I
I’ve personally experienced, or that my team’s experienced. It is not everybody’s cup of tea, I get that. But my lab is a big group of students, and we are excited about our work and it’s not a morbid topic for us because we’re in the lifesaving business. And what we do translates into people finding a different way to live.

One of my favorite cases was a woman in Oklahoma who’d been suicidal for 20 years in. She got 43 sessions of CAMS, which is a lot of care from a really adherent provider. And when she reached the resolution session after 20 years of being suicidal, she gave the clinician a card and said something to the effect of, “thank you for believing in me. Thank you for persevering. I now think before I act. I’ve changed how I feel about myself and about suicide because CAMS spoiled the milk I used to drink.”
LR: CAMS spoiled the milk I used to drink. What did that mean for you?
DJ: I just love that because this was a way of life for her that’s now been taken away, but in the best possible sense because it means that she’s a mother to her children. She’s a grandmother to her grandchildren, and she is in the world and finding her way. She’s not perfect, but after 20 years of being attached to suicide, she decided to leave it behind.

That’s just an “N of 1.” But when I get that kind of feedback, it makes all the pain, or the fear, or the anxiety sort of wash away because what we’re doing is so helpful and redemptive in the best possible sense.
LR: You know, empirically-oriented clinicians look at an N of 1 and say, okay, great, go out and find me another 17 and we’ll consider it. But when you had an N of 1 such as this woman who was so impactful, that has so much meaning.
DJ: I embrace both the nomothetic and the idiographic, and I am a clinician-researcher versus a research clinician. So, the N of 1 idiographic approach and those testimonials mean a great deal to me. But I also believe in the power of data. And both I think are valid windows into what’s true in the world of clinical practice, and in this case, what is central to the business of trying to save lives.
LR: One final question I would ask is for our readers who are new to the field. What advice would you offer to those who might be interested in working in the area of suicide treatment?
DJ: That’s a great final question. I would say, to the best of your ability, you shouldn’t try to avoid these patients. You don’t have to become a specialist. But there are proven interventions and techniques that you can learn about from the National Action Alliance or from the Suicide Prevention Resource Center that are not a bridge too far. You can learn about stabilization planning. You can learn about how to ask about suicidal risk. You can learn about lethal means safety.

I would also say to them, you can learn about care and contact and follow up, and about the National Lifeline. And every clinician should be conversant with those ideas. And then there’s dialectical behavior therapy, two forms of cognitive therapy, CAMS, and several other interventions that have been proven to work in randomized control trials that need replication. There are treatments that are effective. And I always talk about all the treatments, not just my own, because I believe in the power of data.

there’s more than one way to be in the lifesaving business
I believe in things that are effective and that no one holds a corner on truth. And so, I’m always talking about the other treatments in some ways as much, or more so than my own treatment because I don’t think that there’s one way to do anything. There’s more than one way to be in the lifesaving business.
LR: Thanks, so much David.
DJ: You bet.

Surviving Attacks in Psychotherapy – An Occupational Hazard

The sound of gravel being ripped from my drive is that of an angry 25-year-old man leaving his session with me. He is furious, and though he sat through the final minutes of the session with his emotions firmly in check, they spilled out as soon as he left.

He is angry with me because I have tried to find out why he walked out of therapy with me three months ago with no warning, and why he wants to come back now. He is here because it is a requirement of his psychoanalytic training, and though he gets some satisfaction from working with me, I don’t think he would be here if he wasn’t required to be. He is frustrated by my asking about the premature break earlier in the year.

Like what you are reading? For more stimulating stories, thought-provoking articles and new video announcements, sign up for our monthly newsletter.

We are caught in a difficult transference. His acting out, his anger with me, his resistance and refusal to want to find out more about what’s going on make things difficult. But it’s not going away. By coming back now he has drawn further attention to it. He could have stayed away, and then no questions would have been asked. Not by me! But he’s come back because he must for his training.

I find my practice can run very smoothly (a superstitious side of me prevents me from saying more), but every so often an issue will flare up and the atmosphere is changed. Often clients who are in training prove the most difficult, particularly when they are ambivalent about being in therapy. I think of these experiences as attacks on psychotherapy. Evidence that an attack has been launched is demonstrated by particular behaviors, and frequently these are behaviors that manifest themselves in terms of boundary or therapeutic frame issues.

In this example, someone breaks off therapy and then expects to come back with no reference being made to their previous actions. The challenge then is how to find a way of working and thinking these things through with the client without becoming caught up in the attacking behavior. And without, as D.W. Winnicott put it, the psychotherapist retaliating and attacking back.

When these kind of aggressive and attacking experiences are enacted in psychotherapy, the psychotherapist is tested. The psychotherapist must find a way to keep working with the experience. And as they try to, the client finds more ways of provoking the therapist to retaliate. But retaliation might be fatal to the therapy. It might prove that the client is as unlovable as they already think themselves to be. It might lead to the end of the work. It might prove very hard on the psychotherapist’s sense of their own professional identity.

So, in the sessions that follow I have to find ways, despite the provocations, of developing the therapeutic relationship, trying to develop the relationship so that the client may come to lower their defenses so that in time, the client may become interested in the complicated dynamics that are at work. If this can happen, and the therapy can survive the attack, then the client may develop the sense that this therapeutic relationship is not like other murky, unfair and repressive relationships that they have or had, perhaps with their father. They may come to see that in their therapeutic work with me, they are outside of that original destructive parental paradigm. The negative paternal transference might be resolved. This could then be the beginning of profound change.

The attack, however it comes, could be a gateway to change. A gateway out of the stuck world of unhappy relating that the client has lived in. This may be what the client has come to therapy to resolve, although they probably don’t know that yet. The only problem is that the attack is real and happening right now. And the client’s way of finding opportunities to provoke the therapist into an uncharacteristic act of rejection are very hard to predict and can be very hard to work with and survive.

In the case of this particular client, it took some time for his anxiety and his aggressive and attacking behaviours and defenses to be contained within the therapy so that we could think about them together. This seemed to coincide with a more measured approach to his driving.

I have gained from my experiences of surviving these kinds of attacks without retaliating- they are always very hard work. They are an occupational hazard.   

Working with Teens: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

“I never set out to work with teens.” For many years after I started my private practice, people would ask, “what is your specialty?” and I would demure. I thought it was pretentious to say I’m a “specialist.” I didn’t feel like a “specialist.” I also thought it would be boring if I specialized. I wanted to mix it up (a little ADHD?). But I soon found myself gravitating to adolescents and young adults, and them to me. Given my years of training in family therapy, it started to feel natural that I would work with this population, those not-quite-children but not-quite-adult people who most therapists feared. And then I had two teen girls of my own; one now 20. What better breeding ground for insight could there be, I thought. Boy, or should I say girl, was I wrong!

Girls Will Be Girls

A therapist can no more easily treat herself and her family than a doctor can heal herself. As far as I can tell, my own family problems stem back generations. Mark Wolynn’s recent book called, It Didn’t Start with You: How Inherited Family Trauma Shapes Who We Are and How to End the Cycle lends some credence to this assertion. Jewish-check, anxiety-check, narcissism-check, mental illness-check. And the list goes on!

“I sought to correct all that with my girls. Clearly, I overreached.” Not only did it not help to hold myself to exacting, unrealistic and perfectionistic standards; it was in fact, impossible. Fast forward to last weekend, my girls now 20 and 17, fistfighting (I kid you not) over a sweatshirt.

My sense of failure runs deep but I am thankful that I was blessed with pure luck with these two. My insights are largely useless. My husband, however, excels at mediation (he’s a lawyer after all), and he has filled in the missing pieces on numerous occasions. We make a good team. Nevertheless, my girls have taught me a number of key things:

1. Each kid is different.
2. They teach you.
3. The “0-60” phenomenon of the teen brain is alive and well.
4. Use humor.
5. Be strong. If you are emotionally weak, they will have no one to push against, leading to a failure to launch.
6. No matter the age and stage, be patient. As soon as you master it, it changes.

Mary and her Parents

There are some cases that make me feel like a complete idiot. Take the case of Mary. She never wanted to be there. My first tenet of teen therapy is that they have to own it. It’s their life. If I am doing all the work, something is wrong. It took me a long time to realize this one. It’s great to get them when they’re young enough to change but old enough to understand, which I’d put at 17– a beautiful age! Raring to go to college yet clinging at will to parents, kids this age are a pleasure to help. Change comes fast and furiously and if you’re lucky you’ll get hugs in there too! They go off bolstered by the therapy, and they don’t come back. On the other hand, if they are there against their will it’s a different story. We know this. No therapy is going to work by force.

Mary had a history of acting out and strict, somewhat eccentric parents who did not understand her difficulties (see “Far from the Tree” by Andrew Solomon). With this mismatch, things got off to a miserable start. She was returning from a multi-thousand-dollar wilderness program of questionable long-term repute. “Please fix her from here,” her parents dumped on me. And so I did, sort of. She continued awful acting out, rages, mood-swings, and long before I knew it there was a team of professionals all over the case. No problem. We continued to integrate her back to home. But the back-to-family part never happened. You see, the parents were the problem. This is hardly uncommon. Now they were avoiding me. They were done. I tried to explain to no avail that their participation would be key. More avoidance. So, we continued weekly until the girl simply said “this entire enterprise is futile. I give up.” What a sad case indeed when parents induce helplessness in their teens. Where will all her energy go, I wondered sadly. The case had fizzled out before my eyes. After questioning my abilities, I concluded that this was case was doomed from the start. Her only channel was anger and that wasn’t a channel I was on. Thankfully there was group therapy to warm the soul and I gladly referred her to the care of another clinician.

Group Therapy with Teens

Witness however, Cecilia. Her case was the best! Coming from a childhood of unspeakable trauma, she was rescued by a relative and set on another course. When she came to group therapy, she was literally an outcast from school, home and family. The group embraced her. She lit up each week. In my group there are no restrictions except on gossiping and phone use. I actually pretend that I am the most casual and chill person on earth so that they talk as freely as possible. It’s like when you’re driving your kids to the mall and they’re in the back seat, with no eye contact, finally telling you the most important thing they ever shared. That is my posture in the group. The more I lay back, the more they seem to talk. These kids have no other avenue to ask questions about sex, drugs, birth control, family, siblings, mental illness, physical issues, sexism, racism and relationships. They even accept academic support from me. I become like a big sister in the group, and it works. Cecilia grew to become her class president. She vented for a solid two years about her childhood. She was made to feel normal. She heard from other kids of all backgrounds. They all became “normal” together- normalized by the group process. Who doesn’t have a crazy mother/father/sibling/uncle/friend/teacher? My god, they were normal! Just the celebration of that became the group creed. We welcomed newcomers with near joy. Parents waiting outside would never have believed it. Their angst-filled, moody, belligerent offspring had finally shed their shells. I almost never told anyone my secret. Do you want to know the secret to teen group therapy? Pretend you’re not there, do not wince at disgusting revelations about sex, and by all means allow cursing of all stripes and colors.

As the “core group” began to solidify I worried if I was being effective and compulsively tried to “deepen” the conversation. As I began to relax, they were able to tell me that they liked the group just the way it was. Just talking, venting, sharing and taking turns. It soon became clear that my need to control and get it right and my own insecurities still plaguing me after all these years of experience were beside the point. The group had sustained itself. Nevertheless, the interventions I made aimed to reinforce the shared group values and purpose, the universal nature of the teenager experience and the shepherding of the inner self to the surface despite fear. I also increasingly pushed the more reticent members to link up their past with their present, thus gaining insight for the first time. Finally, I was “motherly” in that I could see from where I sat that life would ultimately deal them their share of traumas, yet I knew they could withstand it by holding that space for them, quieting down my own thoughts. By testing their judgment or lack thereof with their peers, they gained the self-knowledge to withstand pain rather than avoid it.

Teens and Divorce

Parents have often asked me what the best/worst age for a child to be at the time of divorce. There are many answers to this. First off, it depends not only on the age at divorce but rather on how the parents handle the divorce that really matters. Second, all ages suck, period, end of story. But divorce in the teen years royally sucks. Social/emotional development is significantly impacted. What the research says is not pretty: not only does the effect of divorce on teens have a huge impact for years, but also, it lasts forever and ever. The researcher Judith Wallerstein has asserted that unlike a parent’s death which has a beginning, middle and end, divorce just goes on and on. Once again, the teen brain, volatile as it is, is not prepared and will surely rebound with rage, defiance, profound risk behavior, testing limits and all the things you tried as a teen but on steroids (social media strikes again). So, buckle your seatbelts on this one and seek help early and often.

“One of my teen clients of divorce casually sent a nude photo to a boy in 10th grade”. The next day, it traveled around the school with the speed of rumor and she found herself in the hospital dealing with a new diagnosis- humiliation. With one parent working round the clock and the other nowhere to be found, she did what anyone in that situation would do, she went underground. The numbing, cutting and sheer embarrassment got worse. She started cutting school too. Each setback snowballed mercilessly. We had to get her back to herself. The therapy consisted of gradually starting her activities again, putting it behind her and structured-only phone use. To this day, she calls me every year on my birthday and says, “if it wasn’t for you, I’d be dead.” She is now a successful hairdresser hoping to open her very own shop. Her parents’ divorce was the hardest step from teen to adult, but she got by because she persisted, used her strengths and had a passion.

Older teens feel lost, insecure and socially stigmatized after divorce. The post-divorce financial uncertainty adds to the overall stress. College plans can change. One divorce created a situation with the parents telling their twins in my office, “surprise, we can no longer pay…” Plus, shuttling between two homes can be disorienting, to say the least (or in the case of my own parents’ divorce, jetting between two coasts). Parents often dwell on how and when to tell their children that they are getting divorced, rather than the aftermath. Just like birth plans, divorce plans go awry. Better to sort it out for the long-haul than have it scripted in the short.

I try to help the teens in therapy by “joining” with their rage. Damn straight your parents suck. They are the ones who should be here! Once I do that, and establish trust, rapport and confidentiality, it is easy to win their hearts and minds. I provide gentle support and strategies for coping and self-care while reminding parents that part of the confusion is normal teen angst. If parents make the common error of ascribing all behavior to the divorce, then guilt steps in and over-compensates in many forms including the of throwing money at the child, which rarely helps.

More times than not, my job is to mitigate confusion. You cannot believe what’s in these kids’ heads. For younger kids, they go right to the most concrete –will my room be pink at Mom’s house still? Can I have two stuffed animals-one for each house? If my parents separate, will I ever see dad again? Are my grandparents still going to be my grandparents? For teenagers and young adults, it can be far more morose, as it was for me with my own parents’ divorce. “Why why why?” is one refrain. The other is a lurking sense of doom some might call dysthymia. As soon as I labeled that for myself as an adult, I started to get help, including antidepressants. The clinicians’ definition of the word would be a “low-grade depression.” I call it, the lowering of expectations, always second-guessing myself. Demystifying the wild ideas kids and teens formulate goes a long way toward alleviating crippling anxiety and dread. It’s hard enough to grow up without constant stress in this world, let alone have your parents fighting all the time. One family was fighting so badly about the kids’ shoes at each house that I offered to go to Payless and buy them a second set of sneakers.

I now run a successful teen support group for kids between the ages of 13-19. I remember how my losses haunted me at that stage, but I never had the words to feel and let go–I was constantly grasping for meaning or truth that didn’t exist. I tortured myself to figure something out about my family. But all that I got in return were meaningless intellectual insights that couldn’t sustain me. Nevertheless, I did rebound. I got many degrees and certificates, had scores of talented friends and married the love of my life. Economic times have since hit us hard, but our fortitude is paramount. “I model this resilience to my patients through gentle wit, disclosing when necessary that I “get it.”” Then reminding them there is no one path; there is no perfect; there is only you, open to the ups and downs, or as my yoga teacher would say, “meeting each moment as a friend.”

It All Adds Up

A perfect case to illustrate when all cylinders are firing in teen therapy is Megan. This teen came in with what I call the “break up story.” Megan, like many other girls with whom I have worked, was a ruminator. So, the task is how to utilize all the teen’s strengths just to make it to another day. Why? The phone (you didn’t think I would forget the social media part, did you?). Because I was an “early adopter” of the internet age and even worked in the field of online production and community building in its heyday, I have always taken a favorable view of technology. That said, if my daughter doesn’t unwrap her phone from her head soon I’m going to throw it into the Hudson River. It is her permanent appendage. There is no doubt in my mind that she would benefit from a screen break. But instead of being that mom who limited screen time, I was actually the mom who was the first on the block to get the kids a phone. That did not make me popular among the neighborhood parents. I prefer to know where they are. On the other hand, I have friends who have their adult kids on “find my friends” which would literally put me in a full-time state of panic. There must be balance.

Megan started cutting in 9th grade because she already had a family history of poor emotional regulation combined with an awkward style and no real avenues for getting her feelings straight. Her father was absent and alcoholic. Her mother was a determined and high functioning administrator who was always on the brink of a breakdown, and who could blame her? Therefore, Megan was accustomed to caretaking not care-receiving, which she desperately needed. In therapy, she was able to use her intellect and motivation for good. I encouraged her to think of things in a less catastrophic/dramatic, black and white and exaggerated way. “My boyfriend friended his ex on Twitter” she would say. “So what!” I would chime. “I’m stalking him. I see he’s online at 3am. I saw him with her. She liked his status.” It goes on. Yes, this goes to his character of questionable trustworthiness. But does it REALLY matter? Growing up in the 70’s and 80’s has made me a bit cynical to what real love is (memories of Kramer versus Kramer dance through my brain). I try to get them from point A- everything matters, to point B- nothing matters. “The therapeutic technique most attuned to this might be called Freud-light”. What is getting in your way of allowing this process to work? What is coming up as a trigger/resistance? What can we work through/process/vent/feel/release/analyze or simply let go of to move forward? Nevertheless, the point is the phone doesn’t matter! What matters is can he be at the right place at the right time, can he talk and communicate, can you be friends first and foremost, do you even know him, can he get off his phone…? Megan started putting herself first. She got into the college of her choice. A big girl with body-image issues, she bought herself the shiniest red prom dress I have ever seen and danced right through to morning!

What’s my Theory?

Lest you think that I’m just flying by the seat of my pants, there is plenty of theory to support my approaches. I rely on several methods and philosophies, yet I’m not married to one. I lean toward mind/body (Van Der Kolk, Levine), existential, person-centered (Rogers) and family systems (Haley, Minuchin, Bowen), and group (Yalom.) Much of my work is based on the idea that anyone can relieve anxiety by allowing it to flow through you. Just like going to the gym, anxiety is a habit of mind that if practiced will be reinforced. It’s the faulty circuit of fight or flight. It’s the mammalian brain. The goal (CBT and DBT) is to allow yourself to practice a better way of coping. A way with ease and equanimity; a way with kindness and support. A middle way, a way that allows you to press the pause button while you cool off. Getting flooded by one’s emotions is useless, so learning CBT (“I’m a mess and everything is a mess” to “I made a mistake; humans make mistakes and learn from them” makes good sense.” With DBT, “let me calm down for a second–getting worked up is totally unproductive. I’m just going to breathe and let it pass,” you will most likely get results. What I have not done more of until recent years is appreciate the role of trauma in that it can completely derail or retard the above process to the point of paralysis.

Lessons Learned

Therapists may turn away from working with teens because of their volatility and the resultant risks involved in their care. They flake out of appointments, come late, walk out, don’t return calls, and show up high and hungover. Their parents are often difficult, defensive and in denial. Sessions have to be coordinated with who can drive when, a logistical nightmare from volleyball to work to therapy and back all after a parent has put in a full day’s work. In short, it’s a pain in the butt. Nevertheless, teens are fast learners, quick to laugh out loud, they can cry their hearts out one week and the next week show up like nothing happened. They leave you with all the debris while they move on. My kids started doing this in daycare. Sobbing when I left, then an hour later, having the time of their lives. You simply can’t take it all personally. This takes a concentrated effort on the part of you, the therapist and mom, to feel as deeply and sensitively as they do, and then drop the whole damn thing. Only time can teach you that.

What it has taken me my whole adult life to learn is that there is no absolute answer. There is no one truth. There is no lasting stability. There is only you, open to the shattering of reality, embracing the change; knowing that change is the only constant. My history of loss/resilience/loss makes my therapy genuine. My genuine interest in teens, my blessed gifts from my parents, and my profound belief in being curious is what helps the therapy. It’s the turbulence, the roller-coaster, the deep pain and sorrow, and even the helpless confusion that instructs me how to remain flexible, less anxious, more prepared and physically more resilient (Yoga!). I still crave stability, but I have learned to create it for myself both inside and outside of the therapy office.

Paying It Forward: A Fulfilling Reframe

In one of my recent blog posts, I wondered aloud why the cobbler’s children have no shoes, and by association, the therapist’s kids don’t heed their parent’s sagacious advice. This bit of wondering was the epilogue to the latest chapter in our family’s chronicle, “children, can’t live with them, can’t live without them.” My subsequent blog was on the therapeutic use of metaphor as a means of making sense, when none seems apparent.

I don’t believe that I told you that every living creature that draws breath in our home was born elsewhere. This includes cats, dogs and our two precious children. Yes, they are both adopted. When I was more actively practicing as a psychotherapist, I sought out and perhaps was sought by families immersed in the drama of adoption which I consider to be sacred clinical ground. And I do strongly believe that adoption is in so many ways a drama whose seeds are sown in loss. Nancy Newton Verrier went as far as to refer to adoption and both its antecedents and consequences as a primal wound.

Mind you, not all adoptions are fomented in or are the result of trauma or leave deep and unyielding wounds. In fact, the flipside of adoption-related loss is being found or finding ways to connect either with birth parents or adoptive families…like in ours. And psychotherapists who work in the field of adoption would do well to appreciate the sheer joy, fulfillment, and connection experienced by multitudes of adoptees, adoptive parents, and families.

Like what you are reading? For more stimulating stories, thought-provoking articles and new video announcements, sign up for our monthly newsletter.

However, the very real and oftentimes enduring legacy of disrupted attachment, loss, trauma and a lifetime search for connection do indeed swirl around and roil within the lives of those impacted by adoption. Just as the joys of adoption have been identified by clinicians and researchers in the field, so too have they chronicled the very real challenges, pains and manifestations of the adoption narrative in the lives of those involved in the process.

So, with that said, and as I typically do, I refer to a recent experience that my wife and I have been trying to reconcile as both of our adult children are now “out there” in the world, free perhaps of our immediate gravitational pull, and trying to either find or make a place in their own worlds that makes sense to them. Perhaps in this telling, adoptive parents, adoptees, and psychotherapists who work with these individuals will benefit.

If you promise not to tell anyone, I will reveal a confidence known only to my wife and myself. And that is: we secretly take credit for the wonderful characteristics that our children display and blame the rest on genetics. Nature versus nurture working for us. Yeah, baby, or should I say "yeah adult adoptees." It has been a most useful reframe for us during those painful moments when our kids’ behaviors have made no sense and my wife and I look at each other and say, “where the hell did that come from, must be genetics.” On the other hand, when our children shine, my wife and I are the first to belly up to the self-congratulatory bar and bedrink ourselves into comas of self-satisfaction-patting ourselves and each on the back for a damn good job of nurturing. I am fully mindful that some of you analytically-oriented clinicians out there might label this at best cognitive distortion or denial, and at worst, “folie a deux.” I, however, like to consider it as a self-serving reframe. Don’t we use these every day in our therapy practices if not in our own lives? I paraphrase Jeff Goldblum’s “Big Chill” characterization of a radio shrink who dryly asserted (as only he can and still does), “I can’t get by a single day without at least one good reframe.”

So, my wife and I received a phone call today from our son who recently, and seemingly abruptly, relocated two thirds the way across the country to live with new friends and their family. With distress, he told us that a member of that extended family was in dire need of support, so he was going to drive yet further into the wilderness to render the equivalent of missionary salvation services. This revelation came while we were still trying to make sense of how and why our daughter has herself seemingly adopted her own new extended family.

Desperate to make sense of these life choices that our children were making, which are so distant from the plans we had for them (which is probably the rub), my wife and I again turned to each other and rather than blame genetics, the adoption narrative, or the experience of loss for our children’s decisions, we invoked Article 1 of our adoptive parents’ constitution: when in doubt, reframe! And like magic, it worked. Because, in that moment, we were able to fully acknowledge and embrace the beauty of the adoption narrative which we chose to center around saving and being saved. Our children were simply yet powerfully paying it forward.
 

Family Therapy and Yoga: A Connection?

Family therapy and yoga; what interesting companions. Through both, one seeks to move towards a union or connection – with self, others or the wider world.

Working for over 30 years as a family therapist in public schools, with thousands of families and students on a myriad of issues, I have promoted positivity as a means of achieving mental health. Many families are referred to me due to their child’s current and/or past difficulties functioning in the classroom, although I know that they usually also struggle in the home. Many of the parents do not make the connection that their child is a member of a family, just as they are members of a school community. Their view is often that “this is a school problem,” unaware of the connection between the child’s behavior in school and at home. They don’t see the connection, and there is that nagging word again! Connection. Helping these families, and particularly the parents, to shift their perception so that they may make the connection is the challenge.

In a similar vein, people often participate in my yoga class to gain physical, mental and at times spiritual flexibility. Or they may come for a sense of connection to something larger than themselves, both within and outside of the yoga space. Just as in the family therapy context, many of my yoga students do not make the connection that what they do in the room, so to speak, is directly connected to what they do outside of it. And just as with my school counseling clients, I try to guide them to focus on their total positive wellbeing.

Like what you are reading? For more stimulating stories, thought-provoking articles and new video announcements, sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Whether in therapy or yoga, people are seeking a shift, a change and a positive connection with something or someone. Or maybe, it’s simply yet powerfully the therapist or yogi with whom they want to connect. Maybe it is their spouse or child. The common thread is that all are seeking positive mental, physical and/or spiritual health.

Typically, I do not get to choose who enters the journey of therapy or yoga. and I rarely know the impact, influence or outcome. I do know that I trust the process, which is easy to do when all is going smoothly. But it during the challenging times when the real work takes place. The process of building connections, whether with self, others or the larger world is just that, a process. One step at a time, one intervention at a time, one breath at a time.

I recall working with an extremely angry 16-year-old who was resistant to change, connection or being in therapy. She grew up in poverty, witnessed domestic violence and lived with her grandmother as a result. Her reactions to peer conflict were swift and impulsive and like those she experienced in her family of origin- she’d yell and hit, no questions asked. While I attempted to build a relationship by connecting with her intellect and desire to graduate, she rarely came by my office unless in crisis. On one of those days as I waited to begin my mindfulness class, she ran to me in tears over a friend’s domestic crisis much like those she had experienced earlier in life. Particularly susceptible in the moment, she agreed to join my yoga class where I took her through some grounding, breathing and movement exercises into a final guided meditation Seizing the moment, I was able to connect with her and begin her on a path towards connection her with herself, the moment, and the possibility of positive change within herself. She left happy and connected. Who knew how long the impact would last? However, when I visited her class later that semester, she voluntarily stood up and recalled that moment aloud, proudly explaining its positive impact to her classmates. A connection was made. 

David Barlow on Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders

Lawrence Rubin: Before we begin, Dr. Barlow, I'd like to congratulate you on being honored by the American Psychological Association with its Gold Medal Award for Lifetime Achievement in the Practice of Psychology. It's well deserved, and I applaud you. We often hear lifetime Award recipients say, "I'm not dead yet. I don’t need a Lifetime Award. I still have work ahead." So, is there any irony in receiving the Lifetime Award, over and above the gratitude that you have?
David Barlow: Well, you do have in the back of your head the notion that maybe they're trying to tell you something. But actually you know, I'm just about at the 50th anniversary of getting my Ph.D., so I certainly have been very blessed with a long and thoroughly enjoyable career. As I've said several times in talks of late, in all those years, I can never ever remember being bored for even an hour. 

Early Anxiety Research

LR: Your most recent work involves the development and testing of the Unified Protocol for the Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders, which primarily addresses anxiety and related disorders. And since anxiety is perhaps what you're most well-known for, I thought we could begin our conversation with anxiety and your work at Boston University’s Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders (CARD). You have dedicated your long career to the study and treatment of anxiety. What drew you in this direction and what's been enlightening and sustaining for you along the way?
DB: When I came on the scene in graduate school, I had the opportunity one summer to work in Boston with Joe Cautela, and also the South African psychiatrist Joseph Wolpe. People were very intrigued by what he was doing. He had developed an approach called systematic desensitization, the theoretical rationale for which turned out to be incorrect, but nevertheless it drove some of his work. What he did was take somebody with a phobia and have them gradually imagine being closer and closer to the phobic object or situation while in a very relaxed state. And he did it very gradually, because in those days we all thought, whether we were behavioral or psychoanalytic, that too much anxiety all at once was a very dangerous state of affairs that might lead to a psychotic break of some kind. So, this procedure turned out to be successful and people did seem to recover from their phobias. But of course in hindsight, it was not nearly as successful as it seemed to be at the time. That's often the case with new approaches. They seem more impressive at first than they turn out to be later.

Nevertheless, in those days, when we had very little in the way of more structured interventions, it was something people were intrigued with. And I trained with him, and so it was very natural when I went on to then do my doctoral work that I began to do my research on that technique and on its anxiety-reducing and phobic-behavior-reducing properties.

LR: So, you were entranced by Cautela’s and Wolpe's work. You saw it as a successful effort to address anxiety in a practical and effective way. What kept you in the anxiety game? For those therapists out there who search for specialties or search for an area that really grabs them, what was it about anxiety – it's ideology and its treatment – that really caught you and kept you?
DB: Well, I think there were several things.
First of all, anxiety is ubiquitous
First of all, anxiety is ubiquitous, as we now know. Everybody experiences anxiety. But in those days, we knew very little about it. We had not yet recognized that experiencing a panic attack was in some way unique and different from the more general background anxiety we all face. We had not yet really delineated the differences between anxiety and the day-to-day stress we all find ourselves under when we're challenged by one thing or another. So, it was very vague. People had not operationalized, as we say now in the game, the concepts of anxiety.

There was also very little connection with what we now call emotion science. In the old days, there used to be courses in motivation and emotion, but by the late '60s and early '70s, they began to fade away. And there was a long period of time when the basic field of studying emotion and motivation was under-emphasized and was often not taught in schools. So, it was such a common problem that we knew so little about. When we began to scratch the surface of it with Wolpe's early procedures which directly targeted the emotional symptoms of anxiety, we began to find out there was something there, but it did not work for the reasons Wolpe thought it did. He had a fancy kind of physiological theory about why it might work that was disproven rather quickly. And it was not as generally applicable as it would seem. And so, what was it about that procedure that at least benefited some people some of the time? Those are the kind of questions that we began to ask.

And, of course, to accomplish that, the other thing we did in the late '70s was to begin to study this in a real systematic way. I did my dissertation, as did many of my colleagues in those days, on female college sophomore who were afraid of snakes. And so did everybody else including my colleague Jerry Davidson. Why did we do that? Well, because it was so easy to find young women who were afraid of snakes. We'd just need to measure their fear. How afraid were they on a scale of zero to 10, and how close could they get to a snake in a cage? And we could then try different aspects of the treatment and look at the effects.

It wasn't too many years before we found out that that was all well and good, but it had very little to do with the kinds of patients we were seeing in real life, it did not transfer to the clinic, and to really find out something more important and more substantive, we had to begin working with patients. So, we established one of the first specialty clinics for people with anxiety disorders.

In those days, in clinical psychology and psychiatry, unlike medicine, we did not have specialty clinics that focused on a specific problem. Psychotherapy was kind of a general approach to a variety of problems people might have. But because we developed and then publicized this focus, we created a real niche. And it wasn't long before people were flocking to the clinic when we began to talk about what it was we were treating and began educating the public, often through the media, on what anxiety was, that panic was as a separate phenomenon, and the sorts of things we were beginning to do for it. And so, we had no shortage of patients, and that turned out to be a big reason for expanding research into the causes and treatment of these emotional disorders – much bigger than we thought it would be – in terms of playing into our training and research goals. 

LR: So, you saw a real need, not so much in the general, non-clinical population where anxiety was a day-to-day experience, but in clients who were struggling with anxiety at a level significantly higher and different than the average person, and that need caught your attention and just never let go.
DB: That's exactly right. And we found out that the simple, straightforward procedures like systematic desensitization, which were effective with less severe forms of emotional disturbance, often did not work with the more complex patients. Something was working, but we were not really sure exactly what was resulting in the positive changes we were seeing. What were we doing? What were the specific mechanisms or procedures we were using that seemed to be having an effect? And that started our program of research on really developing comprehensive treatments that had more general positive effects.
LR: So, you've always been interested in developing a real pragmatic, useful, and effective way to address, in this instance, an anxiety problem that's very, very common, that really didn't exist before beyond psychoanalysis, which had its own notions of anxiety as an overflow from unstable defenses.
DB: Yeah. We certainly shared with psychoanalysis that desire to come upon a set of principles that would be effective for anxiety disorders more generally. We also, in a separate but related line of research, began focusing on the nature of anxiety. You know, what was it that actually contributed to the development of really severe anxiety in people? What kind of personality characteristics? What kind of situational characteristics? What kind of early learning experiences contributed to this? Psychoanalysis, of course, had its hypotheses and theories, and then there were other theories coming out of attachment theory and the basic learning approaches in the laboratory. And we began another line of research which focused on, "How do these things all relate to each other? How do they come together?" And that was a very interesting parallel line of research.

Also, when the DSM came out, it had some similarities with previous versions, and also with the International Classification Disease schema that separated out the anxiety disorders. There were phobic neuroses — social phobia, and generalized kinds of neurotic symptoms. And so, people would separate out these things. And often it was not based on a reliable way of identifying disorders or problems. It was relatively vague. Two clinicians looking at the same patient couldn't agree on what was said. So, we began another project to attempt to delineate the different presentations of anxiety and determine "how do they differ?" but also, "what do they have in common?" And over the decades, you know, in the '80s, we all focused on how they differed, and this resulted in a greater and greater number of disorders and treatments to address them. And then, in the late '80s and '90s, I began to think many of these things are very similar, and many of the treatments that we'd developed for these individual disorders such as panic disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder or phobias, they really were very similar in many ways.

Maybe there were some common kinds of approaches underlying all of them that were really responsible for success.
Maybe there were some common kinds of approaches underlying all of them that were really responsible for success.

The Unified Protocol

LR: David, there is a symphonic piece by Bedrich Smetana called The Moldau which starts slowly and softly by depicting a small little rivulet at the top of a mountain, and then as that rivulet flows down, it joins others, and the music builds and builds. And by the end of it, there's a magnificent crescendo of this massive flowing river. As you're talking, my sense is that the Unified Protocol is something that wasn't born fully made. It's something that evolved from all your work and all your observations. And it just made sense that it should evolve, because your research determined that there are common factors underlying many anxiety disorders, and, therefore, why not look at a common set of treatments and treatment components to address those underlying common factors?

So, on the heels of that, can you describe the Unified Protocol for the Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders for those of our readers who probably have never heard of it? They've heard of CBT, they've heard of behavior therapy, but not the Unified Protocol

DB: Sure. I'd be happy to. And let me say, I think that's a very apt description about things coming together and forming a symphony, in some ways. But it's also important to add that it's not done yet. I think every month, every several months, the community of people doing clinical research and the community of people doing clinical work are getting their heads together and coming up with new issues that need to be added to this river to make it more comprehensive. But as it stands now we conceptualize what we are doing rather differently than we used to. We now approach these problems from the point of view of the overarching personality dimensions that are shared by these people.
Whether they have generalized anxiety disorder or depression or panic disorder or social anxiety disorder- they all share a personality trait or temperament called neuroticism
Whether they have generalized anxiety disorder or depression or panic disorder or social anxiety disorder- they all share a personality trait or temperament called neuroticism. Now clearly they had some other things going on that, in fact, define their disorders but we think that the basic overarching concept that actually has to be addressed is the neurotic temperament.And that neurotic temperament, as most everybody knows, has to do with a tendency to experience frequent out-of-control negative emotion and to be very reactive to that emotional experience because it seems out of one's control, it seems beyond one's ability to cope. And so, the Unified Protocol addresses this in what are now five core modules.

The first one would be making people more aware of their emotional life. People in the personality area and psychodynamic area talk of alexithymia or the difficulty in really recognizing or experiencing intense emotion. And so,

one of the things we do is help people to experience their emotion more fully
one of the things we do is help people to experience their emotion more fully. We have exercises to do that. We call them mindful awareness exercises, but they're a means to an end.

A second component would be helping them to recognize what kinds of attributions and appraisals they're making about their emotions. Not about the situation that provokes their emotions, but about the emotions themselves. And there's a lot that's very much like Beckian cognitive therapy in that approach.

Then, a third module helps people to focus on some of the somatic components of their emotional responses, of which they are often unaware. And so, we provoke, we examine, we evaluate the kinds of somatic symptoms that, for these people, signal the beginnings of intense emotion. For some, it's rapid breathing, kind of a hyperventilation. For others, it might be heart rate increases or decreases. Others may just have some feelings or sensations of unreality, some dissociation. And so, there's a variety of these somatic sensations that become important.

And then, we work on a fourth component, the tendency to avoid all emotional experience. And the avoidance obviously has long been recognized as a major part of all of the anxiety disorders, but the focus has been on the situations that are avoided, like a social situation or a crowded shopping mall for somebody with agoraphobia, or certain triggers or obsessions in somebody with OCD. But what we're focusing on is the avoidance of the emotion itself, which we think is what all these people have in common. And so, we work on identifying all the various subtle kinds of strategies our patients use to avoid experiencing any kind of intense emotion which, because of their temperament they feel, if it occurs, is out of their control and dangerous.

And then in a fifth module, finally, we put all these together into what we call emotion exposure exercises, where we have them experience intense emotions, often in context. We work with them in a collaborative fashion to provoke these emotions, and have them begin to experience these emotions in what ultimately would be a non-threatening way, as something that is a natural part of all of our existence, all of our behavior, and not something to be avoided at all costs.

if one does practice a greater awareness and acceptance of these kinds of emotional experiences, then they will repair naturally
And if one does practice a greater awareness and acceptance of these kinds of emotional experiences, then, in the lingo of the emotion theorists, they will repair naturally. They will diminish more quickly. 
LR: So, these are five core modules based on the underlying factors in the neurotic temperament that give rise to the various anxiety disorders, and then the actual specific techniques flow from these five core modules.
DB: That's correct. That's how we go about it now.

Whither the Dodo Effect

LR: There are numerous interventions for anxiety and related disorders, from psychoanalysis to somatic therapies, but there are those like John Norcross, Bruce Wampold and Michael Lambert who have proven through their research that all treatments are equally successful. And I don't know if that sends hackles down your back. But my question is, what is it about anxiety that lends itself so well to CBT? And conversely, what is it about the marriage of CBT and anxiety that's such a perfect union compared to these other treatments which these other folks say work just about the same?
DB: First of all, we do not agree with my good colleagues and friends John Norcross and Bruce Wampold that all treatments work the same. We think that's a gross oversimplification of the research literature. We think that there's irrefutable evidence that some psychological procedures and interventions work better than others– they're not all CBT by the way. I think we're getting away from schools of therapy. As we're beginning to identify actual components of mechanisms of action of various therapies, we're finding that all therapies, to some degree, may have, more or less, some of these components.

However, if we look around the world at the various health care policy making organizations that make these decisions, such as the National Health Service in the U.K., the Veterans Administration Health Care system, and others – there are people who just look at whether there are some treatments that are better than others and should be first-line treatments, and they find that there are and then write them in the clinic practice guidelines. And these are continually being updated and revised based on the evidence, and they are not limited to CBT, by any means.

Having said that, it's very clear that the so called "common factors" of all therapies are very active in themselves and very important. Nobody would disagree, certainly not the CBT folks, that alliance and things like client/patient expectancies contribute to outcomes in therapy. What we would say, and I think what a lot of people in the psychotherapy field are now beginning to say, is that,

given that we know some of these "common factors" are important, maybe it's time we did some research on how we could make them even more powerful
given that we know some of these "common factors" are important, maybe it's time we did some research on how we could make them even more powerful.

Rather than simply doing one's psychotherapy and waiting for the expectancies to develop, we know that the social psychologists have spent a lot of time determining how we could really enhance expectancies. How could we shape expectancies among patients and clients and whomever we're working with so that they will be maximally effective? We think that those are important. They do contribute. They're not the sole determining factor; they're not the only factor. But they should, to the extent that they are useful, be enhanced. 

LR: Are you seeing the field moving in a way that utilizes CBT to enhance some of these common factors? Or could other therapeutic approaches also build on expectancy, alliance and rupture repair and those other relational variables? Or is it CBT that has the greatest promise for building on those factors?
DB: Well, if we look at, let's say, the anxiety disorders – and really I'm talking about the emotional disorders now, the depression and the various dissociative disorders and trauma-related disorders – we know there are some very powerful psychological procedures that, if used properly, are just as powerful as medications and have more enduring effects. One of them would be organizing, in a therapeutically beneficial way, exposure to anxiety- and panic-provoking cues. Without that kind of exposure, nothing we know of any substance is going to happen.

Now, if you look at the varieties of psychotherapy, you'll see that CBT focuses rather explicitly on that in the treatment of anxiety disorders, and it's proven time and time again to be powerful. But other approaches also tend to incorporate basic exposure, whether it's through narrative exposure or another approach. But to the extent that these therapies are different it may be that some of the CBT approaches have structured the exposure exercises in a more efficient and parsimonious kind of way. Another important mechanism that has been demonstrated time and again in both clinical and basic laboratories is altering the individual's attributions and appraisals of their own emotional experience and the context in which it occurs. And we all know cognitive therapy does that, but there are also other therapies that approach that in some ways.

So, we think there are some fundamental psychological strategies that are responsible for improvement in anxiety disorders. And these strategies can be enhanced by, let's say, focusing on expectancies and the alliance. So, for example, patients are going to be less cooperative with what, at times, is a difficult kind of exposure exercise if they have a therapist they don’t like telling them to do it. I mean, it's just as simple as that. Or requesting that they do it or working through it with them in some way. And similarly, if they have very little hope that these procedures are going to do anything worthwhile, then we know they probably won't.

LR: Based on our conversation, it's interesting that the notion of a “unified protocol” suggests more than just CBT, because you really are taking into account the research on common factors and relationship, and integrating those into a unified approach, recognizing that without a good relationship, without an attempt to directly address alliance and repairing ruptures, that none of these techniques, whether they be CBT-oriented or otherwise, will be effective. So, the unification of the protocol seems to now be grabbing on to these other common factors, and even more inclusively than I originally thought when I read your book on the Unified Protocol.
DB: Well, I think that's fair. Again, our emphasis would be that it's the psychological factors that are most central, and that the so called "common factors" of alliance and expectancy then contribute to the efficacy of those. You're just not going to have one without the other. Many people now see much of the future of behavioral health care, given the overwhelming needs in the population – even in our country, let alone underdeveloped countries – as focusing on different ways of delivering services. It's like tele-health, web-based interactive therapies, all the new apps that are able to reach so many more people.

A New Care Continuum

LR: Do you see those newer forms of service delivery, whether it's tele-health or apps, being a useful adjunct or component of the Unified Protocol as it evolves?
DB: I think they’re a useful component of all protocols to the extent that they're structured.
They are considered by many to be a new, more efficient way of reaching many, many more people than we would ever reach by individual doctor-level kind of therapy, small office therapy, one-on-one kind of therapy.
We need to develop some ways to be more efficient
We need to develop some ways to be more efficient.

Again, what I'm saying is, right now, it seems to be the case that when you approach the severe cases, you still need to have the therapist involved. But for the bottom half of the distribution of severity, it looks like this may be a much more efficient way to help people deal with their problems initially. So, it's a stepped care kind of approach. So, initiall we can implement self-help procedures, followed by maybe therapist-assisted procedures, and only for those who don’t benefit from those would you step up to the full therapeutic thing. 

LR: So, you don’t think that therapy through apps and telehealth are a threat to service delivery, but part of the growing continuum of connecting with clients based on severity and accessibility; that
these other delivery mechanisms can be part of a continuum of care rather than something that's sort of inimical to face-to-face care
these other delivery mechanisms can be part of a continuum of care rather than something that's sort of inimical to face-to-face care.
DB: I think not only can it be a part, but I think that it will be a part, given the overwhelming needs of people in society for the kinds of programs we have for them.
LR: On that note, how can the Unified Protocol be adapted to everyday practice, the line worker in the trenches in a community mental health center or a private practitioner who may not have the time or take the time to become familiar with or train in it?
DB: One of our hopes is that the Unified Protocol, containing as it does kind of five core modules, will be much more easily disseminated to our frontline clinicians working in the trenches. As we continue to distil these five protocols clinicians will see that they are not too awfully different from what almost most of them are already doing. The protocol would help them organize their approach in a more structured way and offer some quick and hopefully easily utilized assessment devices to incorporate into their practice. It saves them from learning one treatment for panic disorder, another treatment for OCD, a different treatment for depression.

A Few Remaining Issues

LR: Changing direction just a bit; kids seem to be epidemiologically at a much higher risk level for anxiety disorders. What are your recommendations with regard to applying the Unified Protocol or components of it with them?
DB: Certainly the
kids with internalizing disorders are at risk to develop more severe anxiety disorders later in life
kids with internalizing disorders are at risk to develop more severe anxiety disorders later in life even if they have mild kinds of internalizing symptoms. So, one of our colleagues, Jill Ehrenreich at the University of Miami, has developed the Unified Protocol for children and adolescents. There are slightly different versions for kids four to 10 or 11, versus adolescents, maybe 12 to 17/18, but they have the same principles.
LR: You suggest in your Unified Protocol training video that patients can continue medication throughout the protocol. Can you say a few words about the place of medication in the administration of the Unified Protocol?
DB: Well, the approach we learned to take decades ago is that it's obviously difficult to discontinue people from medication, and we find that, with these protocols, there's no need to. They wouldn't come to us unless they were continuing to suffer from their disorder. So, clearly medication, while perhaps benefiting them a little bit, has not mitigated the disorder to the extent that they don’t need any help. And we find that we can administer the protocol, and we simply tell them that they can keep taking their medication if they like.
We find that 40 to 50 percent begin cutting back on or discontinuing their medications anyway
We find that 40 to 50 percent, as the treatment progresses and they find they're getting better, begin cutting back on or discontinuing their medications anyway. For those people who do not feel that they can totally discontinue their medications but would like to, we can add on a few extra sessions to help them do that and we are also working with their internist or their prescriber. And then, for the minority of people who really seem to be very much addicted, as is often the case with the high-potency benzodiazepines, we have a few extra modules that are in a separate program that we recommend.
LR: Okay. So, you're not averse to medication. You respect the client's relationship with medication, and your program is not forcing clients/patients to make choices between talk therapy and medication therapy.
DB: That's exactly right.
LR: Let's say that you have a time machine and you're propelled into the future by 25 years, and it's the next generation of researchers and clinicians who have taken up your mantle on the Unified Prot

Superiority and Contempt

The following is an excerpt taken from Shame: Free Yourself, Find Joy, and Build True Self-Esteem, by Joseph Burgo, published by St. Martin’s Press © 2018 and reprinted with permission of the publisher.

Failure Happens

When therapists present their cases in professional papers to their colleagues, or in books like this one intended for a larger audience, they usually describe their success stories, putting their work forward in its best light. “Therapy often falls short, of course, and more often than we like to admit”. Sometimes we fail to form an emotional connection with our clients, or the limits in our understanding prevent us from helping them. Sometimes we make significant mistakes. And sometimes a client’s defenses actively thwart the insights and emotional support we offer them.

     I think the case I describe in this chapter reflects all those failures. At the same time it illustrates the challenges involved in working with clients who massively deny shame. I never found Caleb endearing in the way I did Anna (chapter 11). His arrogance and contempt were off-putting at times, and he rejected his own vulnerability so decisively that I struggled to connect with him on a deeper level. As a result I sometimes intervened too early or made interpretations that were too assertive, probably colored by my own wish to counteract his devaluation of me. At that point in my career I didn’t understand how core shame drives the narcissistic defenses.

        I was trained in the object relations school of psychoanalytic thought, which locates the root of most mental health problems in the early maternal-infant relationship. It focuses primarily on how it feels to be utterly helpless and dependent upon another person for everything you need. “Good enough” caregivers inspire confidence that, when you need other people, you can depend upon them to give you what you need, at least most of the time. When that early experience of need and dependency goes badly awry, however, according to object relations theory you will develop defenses against the awareness of such need.

     Denial: I don’t need anyone.

     Projection: You’re the needy one, not me.

     You may take flight into a grandiose fantasy of having everything you need within yourself or try to possess and assert control over those you depend upon so you don’t have to feel helpless.

     In my work today I focus less on defenses against need and more on the defenses against shame that lie at the heart of narcissism. The narcissistic defense reflects a complete denial that the person has any reason to feel shame. It does not arise from a self-aware choice but from the unconscious and lifelong rejection of a self that is felt to be defective, ugly, inferior, and unworthy of love. The haughty, I’m-better-than-you personality that the narcissist presents to the world masks profound shame, concealing it from himself and from everyone else. Unlike the shame experienced by clients whom I discussed in earlier chapters, Caleb’s shame was almost entirely invisible.

Introducing Caleb

Caleb, who was in his late twenties, was a therapist in training, working at a community mental health clinic whose interns I occasionally supervised. While personal therapy was not a requirement of his degree program or his internship, the clinic strongly recommended that its students enter therapy. For fledgling therapists, their first encounters with clients usually stir up so many strong feelings, tapping into their own emotional struggles, that therapy ought to be a requirement for anyone entering the field. Before he worked with me, Caleb had never seen a therapist. When the director of the clinic suggested he enter therapy, he resisted for many months and agreed only when she insisted.

     In a personal communication before Caleb called, the director told me “he was universally disliked by other interns at the clinic”. During staff meetings and group supervision he condescended to his peers, criticized their work, and continually tried to demonstrate superior insight. In group and individual supervision interns trained in psychodynamic psychotherapy present line-by-line accounts of their sessions, which they have usually transcribed from memory rather than audio recordings. When other interns in his group read their notes, Caleb often highlighted what he thought they had missed and showed them what he thought they should have said—and not in a way that felt particularly helpful. He competed with the group supervisor for prominence. After numerous complaints from other interns as well as his group supervisor, the director gave him a list of several therapists he might contact.

     No therapist wants to believe he was chosen for his lack of experience, of course; it has taken me decades (and some lessons in humility) to see that Caleb probably chose me because I was the youngest therapist on that list, without the professional stature of the others. I was only seven or eight years his senior. A highly competitive young man, he probably would have chosen a therapist whose level of experience he could more easily challenge and whom he had a good chance of defeating. From the beginning of our work together, “Caleb’s desire to render me useless, with nothing of value to offer, felt clear”.

     Most of us form quick impressions based on our first encounters with a stranger; therapists are no different, even if we’re more conscious of the observations we make and what we deduce from them. The clinic director’s description of Caleb had already colored my expectations. When I opened the door to my waiting room that first day, he was reading a magazine, a copy of The New Republic I kept there with some other reading material for my clients. He didn’t immediately glance up as I opened the door, as other clients typically do. With his gaze fixed on the page, he hesitated a few seconds, as if finishing that particular paragraph were of paramount importance. When he finally looked up, he smiled faintly.

     “Dr. Burgo,” he said, rising from the chair. In some ineffable way, the way he said my name felt condescending or ironic.

First Encounter

     Tall and well built, with broad shoulders, Caleb wore khaki pants, a starched white shirt, and a tie with deep blue lines against a vivid red background. His closely cropped blond hair gave him a vaguely military look, accentuated by his erect posture. (He had served in the army, I learned later in that session.) He cut an imposing, and subtly intimidating, figure.

     When he shook the hand I offered him, he barely took hold, gripping and soon letting go. He walked past me into my office, glanced around him in a leisurely way, as if assessing my furniture and wall art, then settled into the client chair opposite mine. He placed his right ankle over his left knee and gave me a look of mild expectation.

     “So tell me about why you’re here,” I said.

With a sober expression Caleb nodded. “Of course. Dr. Lewis suggested some personal therapy would help in my work.”

     “What about you? Do you think it will be helpful?”

     “I’m willing to give it a try.” Again the faint smile.

     Like Dean (a patient described in an earlier chapter), Caleb hadn’t come for therapy of his own volition, at least not entirely. I had similar doubts regarding the success of our work together.

     I asked about his family background. He willingly answered my questions but with minimal detail, in terse summary fashion, and almost as if he were doing me a favor. This impression became clear only much later. At the moment, “inexperienced in dealing with the subtle devaluation of clients like Caleb, I felt mildly ill at ease, not quite able to connect with him”.

     Caleb had grown up in the rural South, part of a large dysfunctional clan he described with clear disdain. Drug addicts and losers living on disability benefits—aunts and uncles, cousins, siblings—most of them unemployed and unemployable. Teen pregnancies, spousal abuse, and serial divorce were the norm. He was one of five children from his mother’s several marriages and had always felt like an outsider. Unlike everyone else in his family, he did well in school and took part in the ROTC program as a teenager. He spent four years in the military and later went to college on scholarship.

     The armed services provide stability and routine for many enlistees who come from chaotic family backgrounds. Sometimes it saves their lives. It also helps them to build pride through achievement, recognition, and a sense of belonging to a group whose values they respect and adopt. I believe the army had rescued Caleb from the horrible dysfunction of his family, but based on the few details he gave me, I gathered that he’d never made it a home the way many recruits do. He’d felt like an outsider in the army, too, never quite able to feel that he belonged. He made no close friends and formed no lasting bonds.

     “What about romantic relationships?” I asked.

     The military, college, and now graduate school had left him little time for such involvements, he told me, at least until recently. His current girlfriend, Katia, had been born in El Salvador and came to the United States with her parents when she was a small child. “She works as a property manager but goes to school at nights,” he said. “She won’t be satisfied to stay where she is. She’s ambitious. We wouldn’t be together if she weren’t.”

     Caleb’s words inspired a number of impressions I could sort out only later, after the session had ended. He seemed embarrassed that Katia was of Hispanic descent and worked at a job he clearly viewed as beneath her. He was quick to justify it as temporary, to align himself with a partner who shared his ambitions. As I grew accustomed to Caleb’s contempt and superiority, I began to feel sorry for Katia. He clearly viewed her as inferior; I suspected that those ambitions for her future were his and not hers.

Origins of Shame

     “How did you decide to become a therapist?” I asked. It seemed an unlikely choice of profession.

     “I’ve always wanted to help people,” he said. “Nobody ever helped me find a way. I had to do it all on my own, as crazy as it was. If I can make the struggle easier for other people, that’s got to be good.” He intended to work with inner-city kids eventually, he told me; he’d already begun to outline the type of program he wanted to establish. He couldn’t see himself fitting into the existing social services network operated by federal, state, and local government, which he dismissed with vague contempt. Funded by “forward-thinking philanthropies,” he wanted to found a private network of community centers integrating individual and group therapy in their offerings.

     I’m sure Caleb consciously believed what he said; on another level “a kind of grandiosity fueled this vision of his future”. Just as he fought against being “just one” of the interns at the clinic, he could never envision himself as a mere “cog in the wheel,” as he once put it. He couldn’t accept being part of an existing system and therefore planned to found his own network.

     “You see yourself as a leader and not a follower,” I said.

     “Exactly.”

     “Has it always been that way?”

     “What do you mean?”

     “How did that go in the army? I’ve never served, but I gather there’s an emphasis on hierarchy and following orders. What was that like for you as a new recruit?”

     “I understood my duty. I did what I was told.”

     “Any problems with authority?

     Caleb visibly stiffened. He didn’t like the question. “No.”

     At that point, based on what I’d heard from the clinic director and reinforced by what Caleb had told me himself, I made my first intervention. In retrospect it was probably premature. I no doubt wanted to demonstrate that I had something to offer and assert the authority I unconsciously felt him subverting.

     “It sounds to me like you have a hard time being young and inexperienced. Given your childhood, being small and dependent can’t have been easy. I wonder if you wanted to grow up all at once so you wouldn’t have to feel small.”

     Even if accurate, this wasn’t a particularly good interpretation. In the school of thought in which I trained, therapists are encouraged to provide insight before clients grasp it themselves, to shed light on the unconscious aspects of their communications that we hear and they don’t. Given that Caleb was a therapist in training, I also assumed that need and dependency issues would be familiar to him, a part of his own theoretical toolbox.

     “Interesting,” he said, with an interest that felt feigned. “How would I know if that’s true?”

     The question took me aback. “What do you mean?”

     “You say I don’t like feeling small and needy. That doesn’t fit with my experience of myself. But you may have greater insight than me. So how do I know if you’re right and I’m just missing something?”

     “If it doesn’t feel true, then it’s not helpful. It’s your experience and it’s ultimately up to you to decide. I can only tell you what I think might be true.”

     “But you have more experience than I do and you might see things that I don’t. Maybe I’m just being defensive.”

     “Possibly.”

     “So how can I tell if I am?”

     This particular interaction encapsulates my work with Caleb throughout the several months we worked together. When I made an observation, he often would wonder aloud how he was to know whether it was accurate. Sometimes he would offer an alternative hypothesis: “Couldn’t that just as easily be true?” he’d say. On one level he seemed cooperative and engaged, conceding that my experience as a therapist might enable me to observe things he couldn’t see; at the same time “he usually insisted that my interventions didn’t “feel true,”” sometimes offering an alternative hypothesis as if we were cotherapists.

Attempted Inroads

     Eventually I began remarking on the nature of those interactions. In psychodynamic psychotherapy the relationship between therapist and client sometimes becomes a focus: clients bring their emotional issues and styles of relating into the consulting room, interacting with their therapists in ways that shed useful light on their other relationships. Caleb’s view of himself as visionary leader, his condescension toward the other interns, his competition with his supervisor, and the way he reacted to my interventions felt all of a piece.

     “I think it’s hard for you to let yourself be a client,” I said more than once. “You’d rather be my peer than turn to me for help.”

     “I suppose that’s possible.” Caleb never contradicted me directly but instead raised doubts in a reasonable tone. “How would I know for sure that I’m doing that?” He appeared cooperative, willing to consider anything I might have to say, even if he never accepted any of it. His attitude toward me felt vaguely patronizing, as if I were his inferior and not terribly bright. The person who relies on narcissistic defenses against unconscious shame often offloads or projects his shame into other people around him, forcing them to feel it.

     “That sounds familiar,” he once said in response to my comment. “We were reading [Melanie] Klein’s paper on that subject in class last week. I think it’s “Envy and Gratitude.” She says something very similar to one of her own clients.”

     Caleb frequently shifted the focus from personal to intellectual. If I pointed out the subtle ways he dismissed and devalued me, he’d relate it to some theoretical paper he’d read. If I suggested that he found it humiliating to admit he needed help, he’d say how interesting he found the idea, then relate it to one of his own clients from the clinic. Over the years many of my clients have been therapists, and now and then they bring to our session their feelings of anguish or concern about their own clients. Caleb regularly discussed his clients in our sessions but never with any implicit bid for help. He recounted his fascinating insights and told me how much his clients felt helped by him.

     “Seems like you want to show me what a good therapist you are, rather than turning to me as your own therapist.”

     “Don’t other therapists you see talk about their cases? Dr. Lewis told me personal therapy would be a good place to talk about these things.”

     Such interactions made me feel useless and ineffective. “Nothing I said seemed helpful. I had no doubt that Caleb was devaluing and competing with me”, but I couldn’t find a way to help him see it. Because I was aware that he made me feel competitive in return, I was more cautious than I might have been in confronting him.

     He talked about one particular case more than the others. Celine, a young and apparently beautiful actress, formerly featured on a soap opera that filmed in New York, had recently moved to Los Angeles after being written out of the plotline. She was currently working part time as a cocktail waitress and chose the clinic for therapy because it charged clients on a sliding scale according to what they could afford. As the on-call therapist that week, Caleb had spoken to her on the phone and accepted her as a client.

     When he discussed Celine during our sessions, he seemed enchanted by her. Smart, well educated, lively, open and willing to do the hard work of psychotherapy. She readily accepted his insights and made good use of them during the time between their sessions. She often told Caleb how much she appreciated his help and considered herself fortunate to have wound up with such an excellent therapist, even if he was still in training. According to Caleb, she considered him brilliant.

     On the one hand this description of his sessions with Celine continued the pattern of one-upsmanship in our work together: He was brilliant and insightful, I was ineffective. On the other, I worried that this client was unconsciously playing to his narcissism because of her own needs and issues. For complex reasons some clients idealize their therapist during the early phases of treatment; they may feel a kind of elation at having found a savior. Especially for beginners in the profession eager to feel proficient, the experience of being worshipped by a client can be quite seductive. For Caleb it seemed like a kind of drug, confirming his idealized view of himself.

     I couldn’t speak with authority about Celine’s issues, of course, but in addition to his competitive feelings I did try to address Caleb’s wish to be idealized. I mentioned the anxiety and inevitable confusion that comes with being a fledgling therapist and how good it can feel to work with a client who reveres you. I talked about idealization as the flip side of hatred, a description I’d heard from my own supervisors. Caleb found this idea deeply interesting.

     “Klein writes about that,” he told me. “Splitting and idealization as a means of coping with ambivalence. Of course, that assumes she’s actually idealizing me.”
What I didn’t yet understand in my career was the role of unconscious shame in fueling this wish to be idealized. Hidden feelings of defect, ugliness, and inferiority may drive you into the arms of someone willing to agree that you are perfect.

An Abrupt Ending

     “It should come as no surprise that Caleb abruptly terminated his therapy without notice”. He left a phone message on my machine, telling me how much he appreciated my efforts but that he’d decided to seek help from someone “more senior.” He wished me the best of luck in my career.

     Because we worked in the same profession and he was an intern at a clinic where I occasionally supervised, I heard about Caleb from time to time. According to the clinic director, he waited months to mention that he had stopped treatment, and when it finally came out, he refused to pursue further therapy. He continued to be an irritant to staff and the other interns. Everyone looked forward to his departure from the clinic at the conclusion of his internship.

     Toward the end of his tenure one of his clients (I had no doubt it was Celine) filed an ethics charge against him for unprofessional behavior. According to the affidavit she filed with the board, Caleb had suggested they discontinue treatment and pursue a romantic relationship. He left the clinic not long after that, and I never heard from or about him again.

     Although some predatory therapists deliberately exploit their position of influence to take sexual advantage of their clients, others unwittingly succumb to the kind of idealization Caleb found so intoxicating. Based on their own emotional issues and needs, some clients unconsciously attempt to seduce their therapists; others idealize the person who helps them because of a deep longing to be rescued. When an idealizing client encounters a therapist in flight from shame, the results can be traumatic for the client and professionally ruinous for the therapist.