Gary Greenberg on the DSM and Its Woes

The Book of Constructs

Deb Kory: Gary Greenberg, you are a psychotherapist and a writer, author of Manufacturing Depression: The Secret History of a Modern Disease and, most recently, The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry, from which we’re featuring an excerpt to go along with this interview. You’ve written for Mother Jones, Harper's, Rolling Stone, The New Yorker, The Nation, and McSweeney's to name a few. In these books you've taken on the mental health industry, psychiatry, pharmaceutical companies, and the culture they have created. Let's start with your most recent book, The Book of Woe. Why did you decide take on the DSM?
Gary Greenberg: Well, I actually didn't decide. I was happily ignoring the whole thing and knew what any person scanning The New York Times would have known until I got a phone call from Wired magazine asking me if there was something about the DSM that might be worth their while. At the time I was sort of aware that there was this rebellion at the top within the American Psychiatric Association—that the guys who had done the DSM-III and the DSM-IV were really unhappy about the DSM 5—and so I started looking into it and realized that their complaints were really about the nature of psychiatric diagnosis. That interested me and I told the magazine I would write the article. I've been thinking and living in this whole set of questions for many years, and it didn't seem all that remarkable to me, but the reaction I got from people who I thought would have also seen it as old hat was pretty strong, so the decision that I made wasn't to go out after the story, but having gone after the story I decided to feed the curiosity of the people who responded to it. In particular because everybody grouches about the DSM.
DK: It’s kind of a monstrosity. Unwieldy on so many levels.
GG: Nobody likes the DSM, including, for the most part, the psychiatrists who author it—but also therapists, clinicians, researchers and academics too.
Nobody likes the DSM, including the psychiatrists who author it.
And when you look into what people object to, a lot of their objections are—I don't want to sound haughty—but they're uninformed. There's an understandable, and for the most part accurate, instinctual objection to the whole idea of it. So I thought it would be interesting to do with the DSM something like what I did with Manufacturing Depression, which was to explore it as an instance of a problematic mental health culture.
DK: It seems like sort of the same book written from a different angle, where you're deconstructing the way that we think about mental health and disease, and taking on two of its principle constructs: depression and diagnosis. One of the things I've heard you say is that the DSM is a book of constructs, not of real entities. Can you explain what you mean by that?
GG: Whether it’s correct or not, in medicine real entities are those that have a biological basis, where you can find the causes and the boundaries of a disease through biochemical means, whether that's by culturing tissue, or looking under a microscope, or doing a blood test, or whatever it is you do. The problem with mental illness, or with psychological suffering in general, is that it's very difficult to come up with those biochemical assays. In fact, I shouldn't say, “very difficult,” but rather, “at this point, impossible.”
DK: Because?
GG: Mostly because the brain is so seemingly infinitely complex and the tools that we have for understanding it are comparatively crude. And if you pay attention to neuroscience, the field changes dramatically all the time. It's a moving target.

So you don't really have the basis for understanding mental illness in terms of real entities in that respect. On the other hand, for many different reasons, there is a strong need to have those entities. From the political and ideological having to do with the authority of medicine, right to the most practical having to do with how society decides to ration its health care resources, and everything in between. The way that psychiatry has bridged that gap is by using the rhetoric of science to create a DSM without ever being able to say that those scientific sounding categories are truly scientific. In other words, you can create the construct and then build all sorts of science around it.
DK: From inside it makes perfect sense.
GG: Right. But so does schizophrenia. And this is a problem with all ideologies. If you accept their basic premise, then everything else makes sense. In scientific methodology this is known as the validity problem. None of the categories in the DSM are valid, and that becomes a problem particularly because once you use that rhetoric it is inevitable, inescapable, that the categories will become reified, meaning that people will take them as real, and they'll use them as real, and they will become the basis for all sorts of political, economic, and individual decisions based on their reality.

One of the things that you find when you talk to the people who make the DSM is they're all really smart—well most of them are really smart people—and they're quite capable of understanding and appreciating the problem that we're talking about. But they have trouble taking account of the fact that the reification is a problem for everyone, not just for the professionals.
DK: Say more about that.
GG: In other words, they're happy to say to you, “Yeah, I understand that. We all know these are just constructs,” as if their knowing it is enough. But what that really means is that they don't want everybody else to know.
DK: Because it confers power on them?
GG: Right. It's the problem of the noble lie. Actually, I think that the best example isn't really the noble lie as Plato saw it, because that's a more complex topic. It’s more like what the Grand Inquisitor presents to Ivan Karamazov [from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamozov], which is that, “We in the Grand Inquisitors coterie, we know this stuff and nobody else needs to know, and in fact we're using our knowledge to help people.” That's exactly the pitch that the Grand Inquisitor uses to justify what he's doing to Ivan Karamazov.
DK: That power dynamic does a lot of harm.
GG: Of course. Power unquestioned is always a problem, and the problem is always damaging to the people that don't have it.
DK: If I were to draw your work together thematically, it seems to be challenging power in its various manifestations. You’re also a journalist and have obviously written widely on a variety of topics, but because you're a psychotherapist, you’ve taken on its institutions of power.
GG:
Power unquestioned is always a problem, and the problem is always damaging to the people who don't have it.
I think that's an interesting point. I think that's true. I don't think any of that is particularly conscious. I imagine that’s why I chose these professions—they both try to unearth power relations in one way or another, and claim, anyway, that that's the truth that they're uncovering.
DK: But they reify that power at the same time that they are claiming to unearth it.
GG: In what way?
DK: I'm thinking more of psychologists and psychotherapists than journalists, though the claim could be made for them too. There is a power dynamic in the therapy relationship that I think we are often unwilling to recognize. They come to us, they pay us, they have all kinds of transference reactions to us that we help them “work through” while we choose to reveal those aspects of our internal experience we think might be helpful to them. Having gone through the medical system I think psychiatrists are much more clear about their power in relationship to “patients,” whereas many psychotherapists are not. You take on psychiatry a fair amount but haven’t necessarily gone after psychotherapists.
GG: Well, the only direct approach I make to that question is my critique of cognitive-behavioral therapy.
DK: Talk about that.
GG: Do I have to?

The Problem of Piety

DK: Well, you don’t have to but I think it might be interesting to our audience.
GG: Cognitive-behavioral therapy is an ideology of optimism that is used by therapists to induct people into a more genial understanding of their lives and their circumstances. It's in some ways the diabolical twin brother of Freudian psychoanalysis, in that it trades on optimism rather than pessimism. CBT believes in the perfectibility of the human as opposed to the depravity of the human. It posits, without saying so, a benevolent universe, which is the opposite of what Freud thought.
DK: Is it their certainty that you have a problem with? You seem to wrestle with the notion of certainty a fair amount in your writing.
GG: Well, piety is a problem. Ask the people at Charlie Hebdo. If power is the general preoccupation of my books, piousness is the specific preoccupation. Unquestioned belief. For all of his problems at the granular level, at the macro level Freud was the master of ambivalence and uncertainty, and I think that there is a connection to be drawn between understanding life as infinitely uncertain—at least mental life—and the tragic sensibility.
I think that cognitive-behavioral therapy tries to overlook, or ignore, or erase the tragic dimension of human life.
I think that cognitive-behavioral therapy tries to overlook, or ignore, or erase the tragic dimension of human life. So, to get back to your original question, why do I go easy on psychotherapy? Well, this is one way that I don’t go easy on it and, as you and I both know, CBT is the dominant theme of psychotherapy in this country right now.
DK: Along with “evidence-based” therapies.
GG: It links in with the evidence based therapy thing, which bleeds over into my second criticism of psychotherapy, which is that we're way too tied in to medicine. Regardless of what we individually, or even as institutions, believe about psychiatric drugs, that's not the issue. The issue is how do we get paid and how do we get our status and authority in society? When I pick up the phone and I call somebody and then say, “Hey, this is Dr. Greenberg,” I get a different response than I would if I called up and said, “Hey, this is Gary Greenberg.” I'm not averse to using that power, but I'm implicated in a whole web that I shouldn't be. That critique shows up in both of my books, where I repeatedly question the whole business of psychotherapy.
DK: These days almost everyone talks about therapy as a business.
GG: Well, you've got to make a living.
DK: True enough. But it’s disheartening to me, nonetheless.
GG: We're all doing it. You make your accommodation with it however you can. The problem, when it comes to the DSM and to the medical-model aspect of our practice is that it is so at odds with what we purport to do. If you start your therapy by giving a person a diagnosis that you don't believe in, there's no way that you can't see that as a contradiction of the terms of psychotherapy, because it's dishonest.

The Rhetoric of Disease

DK: That’s interesting. I recently had someone come in claiming to be bipolar, and I pulled out my DSM for the first time in quite awhile because, in my mind, bipolar is not something to dawdle around. It has a high suicide rate, and is one of those diagnoses we are taught is genetic and kind of untreatable without medication. How do you deal with something like schizophrenia or bipolar or autism where there's clearly a mental disorder of some sort happening, there’s a pretty compelling case for genetic transmission, etc. Is there some utility in using the DSM for something like bipolar disorder?
GG: Well, I don't know about the DSM, but I do know about the larger rhetoric of mental illness. The DSM is just the most obvious example. I believe that as symptoms get more severe, and as impairments get more severe, the justification for using the rhetoric becomes greater, because it is a rhetoric that is quite effective. For instance, the rhetoric would say, “Schizophrenia is a biological brain-based illness that is just the luck of the draw. Maybe you had some stressors, but you definitely had this serious predisposition and your brain's all fucked up and now you're going to have to manage this all your life. And the best way to manage it is with Geodon.” Or you can go farther with that. You can say to somebody, “You have to take responsibility for you who you are, just like I do. And who you are happens to be somebody with this vulnerability, and that means keeping yourself in situations that aren't likely to kindle your psychosis. It means recognizing the prodromal nature of it. It means taking medications when it seems to be necessary to keep you and the people around you safe.”

That whole rhetoric is very helpful. I believe at some point it makes sense. And I even would go farther and say that there are some psychiatric illnesses, mood disorders, certainly the autism spectrum, that really are the luck of the draw, in the same sense that type 1 juvenile diabetes is. So the best we're going to do is help you cope. And I think that the rhetoric is useful there.

The problem is that that's the model for everybody, and we have no way of determining who it is that we should consider that way and who we shouldn't. It's like not knowing the difference between who's got type 1 diabetes and who should just eat less sugar, and just treating them all the same way. That's a problem. And it's not a problem that's been intentionally created by psychiatrists. I'm not a Scientologist. I don't believe that that's what's happened here. But I do think that because of its blindness to its power—and I do hold psychiatry more responsible than the rest of us because you and I are just living off of their crumbs when it comes to this stuff—psychiatrists have failed to make those distinctions, have failed to start with the assumption that only a small minority of people who are suffering with mental illness, even severe mental illness, have that classic disease structure. Now it’s reasonable to say, “Let’s err on the side of caution.” We’re talking about serious stuff here, and it's a useful model.
DK: So you sometimes use it with your clients?
GG: I just had a patient go into the hospital because she was sure that laser beams were doing something to her bones. She was a howling, psychotic mess. She's in the hospital and I'm really hoping that one of the psychiatric drugs that they throw at her will work, because her brain's on fire. It’s a useful way to look at it in this instance.
DK: So you pull it out of your toolbox when you need it.
GG: Yes, but do we know when we should and when we shouldn't? Absolutely not. But to get back to your patient who came in with the bipolar diagnosis, you took out the DSM and then what? You never finished the story. Did you then get them to tell their history of manic episodes?
DK: I did. We went through all of the assessment and then I said, “Okay, according to this book”—I mean I literally said this—“you qualify, but I need to qualify that this book is also a load of B.S.”
GG: Yes! Now was this bipolar 1 or bipolar 2?
DK: It's still not clear.
GG: So my guess is, if somebody shows up in your office and they're basically okay, and they tell you they just got diagnosed with bipolar and you're thinking, “What?!” chances are that person is going to qualify for the bipolar 2 diagnosis.
DK: Right, with the less intense mania.
GG: It only requires hypo-manic episodes. And so what you have there is the diagnostic creep that I just outlined.
All of a sudden there's all these people that—sure, they’re not happy, but they are not psychotic—telling me that they're bipolar and they're on Depakote and they're on Abilify. And I'm thinking, “What in the world is going on out there?”
That diagnosis just arrived in 1994. I don't know how long you've been in practice, but I've been in practice for a long time and I remember when these people started showing up in my office with their diagnoses and their anti-psychotics and their stabilizing drugs. All of a sudden there's all these people that—sure, they’re not happy, but they are not psychotic—telling me that they're bipolar and they're on Depakote and they're on Abilify. And I'm thinking, “What in the world is going on out there?” I think there's cases where that's a totally useful and justified approach, and I think there's cases where it isn't, and that's where all the trouble lies.

The Serotonin Myth

DK: In your book, Manufacturing Depression, you say that serotonin came along and seemed to make people happier and so the drug companies had to find an illness that would make people need it, right?
GG: It's not quite that conspiratorial. In the case of depression and antidepressants and neurotransmitters, it’s like strands of a braid that came together advantageously for some patients, and many doctors, and most of all for the pharmaceutical industry, which was brilliant, clever, and lucky.

I guess that's a little cynical. I have to be fair, the cynicism in the pharmaceutical industry didn't really start until the mid-1990s, by which time scientists knew that this whole serotonin deficiency theory of depression was bullshit. They knew that it was wrong, and then they did tone down the rhetoric to some extent in their advertising. The consumer advertising started right around the same time that scientifically the serotonin myth fell apart, the late 90s, but you wouldn't know that to look at the ads. That, to me, was their most egregious move.
DK: They didn't correct for it, they just took advantage of it.
GG: Exactly. They knew that if you could sell it as that kind of disease, it was so overdetermined that it would succeed and they could not resist it. You would have to be some kind of Boddhisattva of advertising to resist that temptation.
DK: A lot of people, myself included, only recently came across this information that it's really not about serotonin deficiency. We literally have no idea why they work, and for whom they work.
GG: Right. Now you say you just came across that. You're an intelligent, well-educated person with a PhD, right?
DK: Yes, but I’ve also benefited from antidepressants, so I had a little bit of denial in the game around it. I’m one of those people with a seeming genetic predisposition for depression for whom SSRI’s just helped, with no bad side effects. I thought I understood why they were helping, but it turns out no one knows yet what they do.
GG: There's two ways to look at that question of why. One of them is, do we know neurochemically what's going on and what, if any, deleterious consequences there are? And the answer to that question is no.
DK: Well, we know a little bit.
GG: We know that you're increasing the activity at certain receptor sites, including some of the serotonin receptor sites, although these drugs aren't as precise as they are sold as. And we know that serotonin appears to be associated with increase in neurogenesis. And we know that at really high doses you can see the axonal growth that appears to be the direct result of increased serotonin activity. So there's all these things that we know, but why that changes a person's mood…
DK: There's no causal correlation.
GG: Right. In order to know that you would have to have an account of how the brain produces consciousness, and good luck with that, because that's just not going to happen. So what you're left with is to say, “Okay, well this drug makes me feel better.”
The cynicism in the pharmaceutical industry didn't really start until the mid-1990s, by which time scientists knew that this whole serotonin deficiency theory of depression was bullshit.
And I don't mean that necessarily in the same way that smoking a joint or whatever makes you feel better. It just makes you feel better, and it works, and it doesn't hurt my life in any other way, and I'm going to take it. To me, anyway, the only problem I have with that approach is the same as with any drug. It's like, “Okay, well, am I hurting myself in any way?” It's the same question I have about vaporizing nicotine. Obviously, the reason that that's become controversial isn't because we know that it's bad for you.
DK: It's because we don't know that it isn't bad.
GG: No, I think it's because we are an anti-drug society, and it just makes it really clear what's going on in smoking cigarettes. People don't smoke cigarettes to get cancer. They smoke cigarettes to get high, and the vaporizer just eliminates the middleman and delivers to people the drug that they want. And in our society, unless you're on antidepressants, or happen to be addicted to caffeine or alcohol, you can't just openly say, “I'm going to do this in order to change my consciousness.”

So I think that the controversy arises because of that, and then it is also true that we don't really know the long-term effects of using nicotine—although we know enough to know that it is not carcinogenic.
DK: And we don't know the long-term effects of taking an antidepressant.
GG: Right.
DK: So how do you deal with people who come in and seem to suffer from depression—have a family history of it and display severe depressive symptoms—who then respond really well to antidepressants?
GG: The way you do with anything that you're wondering about. You just take it as it is. You support it. “Okay. So, tell me about it.” Of course, people aren't stupid, and they tend to expect, particularly from me because of my relatively high profile, that I will disapprove. So I have to spend a little time reminding them that I really don't disapprove. If they actually read what I wrote, as opposed to listening to what people say about it, they would know that. You have to start by letting them know that, for the most part anyway, it's cool with me if this is what you decide to do. But one of the hallmarks of being mature and self-possessed is recognizing that you can't have it both ways. If you want to be on drugs, you've got be on drugs, and live with whatever that means to you and with whatever the implications are. And among the things that it means to be on antidepressants, particularly long-term, is struggling with the question of what's you and what's the drug. People have these severe doubts about their functioning and about their success. There's a whole version of the imposter syndrome that goes along with being on long term antidepressants.

Does Depression Exist?

DK: Do you think depression exists? Is it real?
GG: What does that mean?
DK: Is it an actual illness? You say that it is manufactured.
GG: No, I’m saying that I’m sure there are situations, brains, people who certainly qualify. Let's say that the ability to feel depression as it's described in the DSM is heterogeneous—in other words, there are many ways to get there, both existentially and biochemically. I'm sure that's true. And let's say that some subgroup of people who qualify for the diagnosis—which is insanely broad—
DK: It covers a large swath of American culture.
GG: —nine symptoms, five of which qualify you; there's 125 different combinations to be depressed, just for starters. But let’s say some subgroup of the people that qualify are suffering from some identifiable biological fuck up, some hiccup somewhere. Or maybe more than one. And it wouldn't matter what their circumstances were, once the depression was kindled, they're screwed. Again, I don't know who they are. Nobody knows who those people are. In the meantime, the presumption is that everybody is. And that's the problem.
DK: There's not a model for the remaining majority.
GG: Yes. And I also think that the question of, “Is it an illness? Is it real?” is, in some respects, a red herring. Because why are you asking the question? What is the importance of that question?
DK: Hmmm. That’s a good question.
GG: Why does it matter to know that it is or it isn't?
DK: I guess I’m interested in how much of our internal lives are constructed by social structures and beliefs. I listened to an amazing podcast called "Invisibilia" recently, an episode entitled “How to Become Batman” where a blind guy, blind since birth, learned to “see” by using echolocation, a clicking sound with his mouth, and because his mom let him run wild and didn’t treat him like he was blind. Let him ride bikes, climb trees, fall and get hurt, all of that. Apparently his visual cortex has actually created something like sight for him. It made me think about how we are both blinded and liberated by our beliefs. So if we had an entirely different model and way of seeing depression, it could transform the world.
GG: So the reason that you're asking the question is because you see certain shortcomings, at least potential shortcomings, to understanding it as an illness.
DK: Oh, for sure, at the very least.
GG: The advantage of seeing it as an illness is that certain social resources become available to you if you see it that way. Drugs, medical care, sympathy, understanding, none of which is to be sneezed at.
It's notable that one of the major ways of getting social resources in our society is to be sick.
It's notable that one of the major ways of getting social resources in our society is to be sick.

But there are also disadvantages, as you just pointed out. If you see yourself as sick then you act sick, and if you're sick you're less empowered, maybe you're less active, maybe you take less responsibility for yourself. You cited an extraordinary example, but you're certainly not going to do that if what you decided to do is to live the life of a blind person. So, yes, there's something liberatory about it which is much more likely to be achieved if we understand illness as a contingence category as opposed to an absolute category. As something human-made as opposed to something scientific and medical.
DK: I’ve written extensively about psychologists’ complicity in torture at Guantanamo and other CIA black sites, and in researching what led to it, I found that the profession of psychology emerged out of war, has been funded in large part by the military in terms of training programs and research grants, and is thus inexorably linked to the American war machine. I haven’t had a chance to delve into the role that scientism plays in all of this—and I understand scientism to be viewing science as a religion, basically—but one of my speculations was that this desire for the profession to be perceived as a hard science, to be seen essentially as a “man among men,” was a big part of the problem. You wrote some about this in your article in Harper's, where you take on positive psychology guru Martin Seligman, whose own research is deeply embedded with the military and who coached the very psychologists who created the program at Guantanamo in his theory of learned helplessness. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about the role of scientism in the militarization of psychology or if you see any connections between what you're critiquing in your work and what's happened with the psychology profession becoming kind of an arm of the military.
GG: Well, I think to start with, there's lots of psychologists like yourself who are appalled at that outcome, so it's pretty clear that it's not a necessary outcome. There are even psychologists who don't buy Marty Seligman's self-serving excuses for his own implication in these things. That conference that I wrote about in Harper’s took place in 2009 and the issue was still alive at the time, and Seligman had some very greasy responses to those questions.
DK: Yes, he claimed to have had no clue what they were intending, which wasn't very credible given where and when he delivered his lectures and the meetings he was involved with.
GG: But there are people who don't buy it and who are critical when these discoveries are made. But, having said that, I think your point is well taken. There is a kind of wish among all the medical health disciplines to be on the inside rather than on the outside. And whether you're on the inside by virtue of having a professional license or by virtue of having the authority to declare people mentally ill, or to get services for kids through special education, or to help the military figure out how to make soldiers resilient, I think this desire to be considered an insider can be problematic. And that in itself is complicated because sometimes it's simply wanting to make a living, or to make a decent living. Obviously, if we didn't have our professional licenses then we probably wouldn't make as much money as we do. If we didn't have our ability to bill insurance companies or, in my case, help people get reimbursed, then we would make less money. So some of it is just about that, but a lot of it is about wanting to be in the mainstream, because, like I said earlier, you can't have it both ways. If you're not in the mainstream, there are some severe prices to be paid.

A Foot in Each World

DK: Do you feel like an outsider in this profession?
GG: I have one foot in each world. Yes, I feel like an outsider in the sense that there's lots of things that I don't do that I would do if I wanted to be on the inside, like joining insurance panels and stuff like that. I probably feel better about that than I ought to though because it's not that important. It does restrict my access in some ways, but mostly what it does is restrict my income.
DK: Right, it can be a tough choice to side-step the whole insurance industry.
GG: Yes. But I'm clearly an insider in the sense that I described before. I pick up the phone and say, “This is Dr. Greenberg,” then I get somewhere on the phone tree.
DK: Do you do that with a smirk?
GG: No. I do it totally straightforwardly, because I'm just trying to be effective and that is the way you're effective. These questions can come down to a kind of moral anorexia—a sort of refusal to take in the goodies that are out there because we all know they're tainted. I think that in some ways you've got to be fair to yourself and to others and say that the life lived entirely outside is very, very difficult and in some ways less effective. There are people who I have helped not by virtue of my education, or my training, or my insider-ness, or my license. It is something inherent to those that have allowed me to help them, but my availability to them, even if it's not about money, just the fact that I'm out there and legally practice my trade, just the fact that I'm available to them is what made it possible for me to help them.

The Writer as Therapist or the Therapist as Writer?

DK: I also was a journalist before becoming a psychotherapist, and I tend to come at things with a critical point of view, and I often have the experience of being critical of the “profession,” of training programs, of the way that we organize—and don’t organize—around issues of justice, etc. But at the same time, I simply love the work, itself, with clients and some of my very best friends are therapists. I feel like I’ve got a real love-hate relationship with the profession that I haven’t fully worked out yet.

One of the reasons I’m so interested in your work is that you seem to be able to traverse both worlds—to be a writer, and to write honestly and critically and self-revealingly about the profession while still very much being in it. Do you see the writer in you and the psychotherapist in you as fundamentally complementary? Do they ever come at odds? Do you ever not write about things because you're worried about your clients?
GG: In both of the books that we've been talking about, I write a little bit about my actual practice, but I hate doing it. I would not be disappointed if I never did it again. I don't know if that's a principled stand—I just don't like doing it. I think it's really hard. I don't know if you ever saw the TV series “In Treatment.”
DK: Yes, I loved it. It rankled me, but I loved it.
GG: That was the most realistic handling of psychotherapy ever, that I've seen, in the mass media—and it was boring. Nothing happens.
The person that I am as a therapist is not someone that I want to write about.
I mean, it's okay with me, I was interested in it, but I don't think it did well because it's just day-to-day what goes on in therapy. It's really hard to write about. There are some people who can pull it off nicely, like Irvin Yalom, but for me anyway, the person that I am as a therapist is not someone that I want to write about.
DK: What do you mean?
GG: If someone comes into my office for therapy, I feel like it's a total breach to write about them, even if I ask for permission. Even if I disguise them. That's how I feel about it, having done it now a few times. The Book of Woe went through a very, very extensive legal review and the case material was altered to the point that it was no longer factual. It was really fiction, and if I'm going to write fiction I should write fiction. I really believe that. I don't know that a reporter has any obligation, or even ability, to be objective, but to intentionally make shit up? If you’re going to make it up, make it up. If you're not going to make it up, don't. And if you can't write about it without making it up, don't write about it.
DK: Do you feel like you have to sort of forget about your therapist self when you're writing? Are you split off in some way?
GG: I guess so. I never really thought about that. No, I would say it’s the other way around. I have to forget about my writer self when I'm doing therapy. I can't really think about myself as a writer when I'm working with people. Once in a while something so fascinating occurs, so remarkable that you picture yourself writing about it, but in general therapy is something that I go and I do, and it's a performance—and I don't mean that in a cynical way—it's a thing that I do. But the writing draws on all of me in a way that the therapy doesn't.
DK: So do you feel you are more of a writer than a therapist?
GG: I guess so. I never really thought about it before. There's something that I do as a therapist—there's a way that you use yourself, and all of you has to be available to yourself. But you also as a therapist have to bracket certain things.
You have to look at the fact that you want to write about somebody, and that has to be just as subject to scrutiny as your desire to have sex with your patient.
You have to look at the fact that you want to write about somebody, and that has to be just as subject to scrutiny as your desire to have sex with your patient. It's like, “Okay, yeah, that's something that I feel, and I've got to figure it out, and I've got to deal with it here.” But I can't take it for granted any more than I can take it for granted if I had a sexual impulse, or some strong negative reaction to somebody. Whereas with writing, that's a whole different kind of discipline, where you have to take whatever it is and transform it into words.
DK: You aren't thinking, “What if Sheila reads this?” when you write?
GG: No. I probably should, but I think if I did I wouldn't be able to maintain both disciplines, because people actually do read my writing.
DK: And they come in to talk about it sometimes?
GG: Oh yeah. Sometimes they do. I've got a relatively wide readership, but I'm certainly not a famous writer, and therefore most of the people that I work with may not even know that I have a writing career.
DK: So you don't bring it in.
GG: No. I don't bring it in at all. My books aren't in my office. I don't mention it.
DK: Do you feel like it would be an intrusion?
GG: Yeah, of course. I don't talk about the argument I just had with my son either. Actually, there are situations in which I might talk about writing, but it very much depends. I see people who are artists or writers, and with those people I do sometimes bring it in.
DK: That’s interesting. I'm struggling with my identities in a way that it sounds like you haven't and don’t. You just write, and you're not tormented about it.
GG: Well, I was doing therapy for many years before I got into writing.
DK: Well this has been a fascinating interview. Thank you so much for your time.
GG: Thank you.

Lynn Ponton on the Challenges and Joys of Working with Teens

A Delicate Balance

Rachel Zoffness: Lynn Ponton, you are a practicing psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who has been working with teens for over thirty years, and are author of the books, The Romance of Risk: Why Teenagers Do the Things They Do and The Sex Lives of Teenagers: Revealing the Secret World of Adolescent Boys and Girls. Let’s start with some of the salient issues that come up when you’re working with children and teenagers. I find that confidentiality when working with kids and teens is often a tricky subject because teenagers have rights as clients and they want to maintain their privacy, which is critical to the alliance. But at the same time parents want to know what’s going on with their children. How do you maintain this delicate balance?
Lynn Ponton: I think it begins with the first session, and even before, when you talk with the parents on the phone—you have to alert them about how you run your therapy practice and your work with kids. I almost always say that I try to encourage privacy with the teens so that they feel open to talk with me, and I will tell their child during the first session that I’m going to try to keep things confidential, but that there will be some exceptions, and I let parents know that right away on the phone. In general, I meet the teen with the parents before I even start and I alert everybody to the parameters and the boundaries around confidentiality.
RZ: So that both the teenager and the parent are on the same page and know exactly where you stand.
LP: Exactly. The kinds of things I would need to share with parents, which I’m clear about right from that first session, would be drug use that was risky or risky behavior that would result in serious self-harm. And sometimes other things—abuse when it’s disclosed has to be shared with the parents for a variety of reasons, and because I’m a mandated reporter.

It’s often hard for a teenager to tell their parents these things directly, so I’ll offer to meet with them and their parents and we’ll work together to help them disclose this material. Collaboration with the young person assures them that even if they do tell me something, it’s not going to be reported over the telephone to their parents. They’re not going to find out about it by surprise. Instead, we’re going to collaborate together as a team to make sure that parents know this.

Of course there are times when this doesn’t always work perfectly. Having worked with kids for more than 35 years, there have been exceptions where I’ve found out quickly that a teenager is suicidal and I have to let the parents know. Maybe we have to work toward a hospitalization period or something like that, but I try as much as I can to have the teenager be part of this process and be involved with it.

Cutting

RZ: You mentioned a very hot button and interesting topic, cutting, which to me seems to have become almost a contagious and trendy behavior among teenagers. What’s your thought about that?
LP: Well, self-mutilation in all of its forms is something that therapists have to learn to feel comfortable with working with teenagers. It’s a big part of our work to connect with them, to know about it, to seem comfortable with it and not put off by it when we hear about it in a session. I first saw it about 30 years ago and wrote a paper on it in the ‘80s, which talked about self-mutilation as a communication. As you point out, it’s a contagious risk-taking behavior. In a group of teenagers, one will do it and the others will copy. They’ll think, “I’ll try it and see what I can learn from it.” That’s how that process really starts. In the ‘80s there were big concerns about self-mutilation because of sharing of implements and a lack of understanding around HIV risk, so we had to be very careful about that until we better understood it.

I think it’s often scariest for parents. So how do you work with teens around the cutting for parents? How do you help a teenager who is cutting really find other ways to cope with some of their feelings and to develop identity in a healthier way? In general I try to educate teens about cutting. I often employ them to get involved in it, to look online, look up articles about cutting. We’ll have conversations about it so that it’s really an educational process with them.

Some teens don’t want to engage in that process.
They may tell you they’re cutting, but they don’t want to learn about it, they want to do it.
They may tell you they’re cutting, but they don’t want to learn about it, they want to do it. This is something private that they’re going to do to help themselves feel better, so I’ll respect that, but I’ll still engage in conversations with them about it. I want to make sure that if they are cutting that it is safe in other ways. There’s significant risk of scarring, of infection—there’s a whole lot of risks that are associated with it.

Many teens cut because they say they feel better afterwards. A number of papers point to the beta endorphin release with cutting—the focus then becomes the physical cut and not the emotional pain that they’re feeling. So it accomplishes a lot for teenagers, but it is an unhealthy coping strategy and risk-taking behavior that you have to work with teens to limit. There are many different ways to do that.
RZ: The way you talk about cutting, it sounds like it might serve an important function for the teenagers who are doing it. What would you say to people who say that it’s just an attention-seeking strategy?
LP: Your question is well placed because I think a lot of times therapists who work with teenagers are faced either by teachers or parents or even other therapists who say, “I don’t want to work with those teens. They’re engaged in a lot of attention-seeking behaviors. How do you handle that?”

I think many behaviors in life are attention-seeking, and often we’re seeking greater attention from ourselves, that we pay attention to our own pain. Teens usually cut because they’re in pain and they don’t necessarily understand their own emotional pain but when they cut, it allows them to at least understand that it’s a painful thing that they’re dealing with. So, yes, it is attention-seeking, and adults will often be drawn in to it. Teachers at school are shocked when they find out about it and they’re worried other kids will cut.

But I think there are a lot of other factors that play in to cutting besides seeking attention. I’m also interested in questions about molestation with cutting. Were they ever hurt? Did they ever suffer abuse? Are they using that in the context of cutting? Has it become very ingrained, so it’s a behavior that they use as a coping strategy that they may have done thousands of times and they find themselves unable to stop? How does it fit in with their family?

Does their family know much about it?
There are many, many reasons why young people cut, and attention-seeking is only one of them.
One of the cases that I worked on for a long time, a girl cut because her father was a surgeon. He talked about cutting all the time, a different kind of cutting, but she imitated him in a kind of identification with her father. It took a long time to unravel, as it wasn’t obvious at the beginning of her treatment. There are many, many reasons why young people cut, and attention-seeking is only one of them. And it’s not often the major one. You have to address the complexity of the behavior and also the feelings that go with them.

Five Perspectives

RZ: I think some professionals are concerned that giving too much time and attention to cutting might be positively reinforcing. So it seems to me that as a clinician addressing it you want to find a balance between over-reacting and under-reacting.
LP: I think that’s more of a strict cognitive behavioral model way of looking at it, and it gets to the question of models and how they affect our work. Cutting is a behavior, but it’s attached to many other perspectives that we look at when we’re engaged in therapy. I try to look at things from at least five perspectives.

One is the more dynamic-relational, where you engage and are looking at aspects of the relationship—how it affects you, the parents, the cutting behavior, all of that. How disclosure plays a role in that. Attachment. Therapeutic alliance. Then there’s the behavioral model. A lot of therapists don’t use that model, but I think it helps to focus on the behavior. I often have kids keep a timesheet or a workbook on their cutting behavior and have them draw their feelings at the time that they’re cutting in addition to recording the number of times they cut. It’s a kind of cutting journal that we look at from a behavioral perspective. We also look at their thoughts that are occurring at the time that they’re cutting, so we can target really negative thoughts.

Then there is the family system. Cutting is usually very much connected with parents in some way or another—they’re worried about the parent’s reactions; they’re worried about feelings they have that they feel the parents can’t help them with. A lot of our kids have trouble with self-soothing, so they’ll cut to self-soothe. The parents might like to learn how to help soothe their teen, or help their teen gain self-soothing mechanisms, but they don’t even know the cutting is going on so they can’t focus on that area with them. Or they, themselves, may be unable to self-soothe and not know that it’s an important skill that you need for raising teenagers.

Carl Whitaker always said, "You lose the parents, you lose the family, you lose the case."
And then there’s the aspect of meaning for the teenager. What does cutting mean to them? Do they think about suicide? Some cutting is related to suicide. Self-harm that is related to suicide is very important to pay attention to, not just for our board tests but in our office with our kids.

Lastly there’s the biological perspective. With some kids that I work with, they carry biological conditions which may lead to increased cutting behavior. Prader-Willi Syndrome is one of those that has some increased cutting and self-harm. You want to be thinking about underlying conditions that might contribute to this behavior.

All of those things are going through my mind, so I’m not thinking, “if I pay attention to this behavior I will reinforce it.” Instead I’m working on all of these levels if I can. I didn’t start with this in the first year or two of being a therapist working with kids, but the longer I’ve worked with kids, the more I’ve been able to see the complexity of so-called simple behaviors.
RZ: I really appreciate that more systemic approach to working with families because when you work with children and teenagers you’re never just working with a child. You’re always working with the family and the larger system.
LP: One of my greatest teachers was Carl Whittaker, a well-known family therapist I worked with as a young medical student therapist in Wisconsin. He always said, “you lose the parents, you lose the family, you lose the case, Lynn.” I kept that in mind and it’s really helped me with all of these cases.

Manualized Treatments

RZ: Apropos of what you just said, I was trained in manualized treatments and I do see a use for them. But a lot of therapists think they’re mumbo jumbo and that they don’t address and can’t respond to the spontaneity of what happens in treatment face to face with clients. How would you make a case for manualized treatments, if at all, or what would you say to people who don’t believe in them?
LP: Well, there are now manualized treatments in dynamic relational work. There are over 400 manualized treatments that I know of in working with children and adolescents from a behavioral modality. Family therapy, too, has manualized treatments. I don’t think there are any in the more existential perspective, because it kind of runs counter to manualization. In biological therapies they have always had manualized treatments for how you evaluate symptoms and work with things.

When I work with young therapists—and I supervise a lot of residents, fellows, psychologists, psychiatrists who are at all stages of training—I really encourage them to pick one or two manualized treatments and really learn them—go away for a day or a weekend, learn the strategy, practice it, and try to become familiar with it. Even if you’re going to be a strict psychoanalyst or family therapist, I think they’re valuable because they teach you how to focus on specific things, how to evaluate. Often manualized treatments have an evaluative component built in, so you have to look at your actions and evaluate how they’re working at the end. That’s a very important part of all therapy.
RZ: Measuring one’s progress?
LP: Exactly. That’s the key, I think, in mastering some of our work. Now, which ones would I recommend? I think one of the best ones to know about is the basic cognitive behavioral therapy approach as developed by Aaron Beck at Pennsylvania. He was my supervisor when I trained there as a resident, and it’s a very successful modality to use. It helps us understand the impact of negative thinking. Another supervisor of mine was Joe Weiss, who worked on Control Mastery theory—which is about negative thoughts and ideas and the power of unconscious beliefs. I admire Marsha Linehan a great deal and the Dialectical Behavioral Therapy model. I’ve had some wonderful conversations with her about her work with adolescents and I think she really grasps what it’s like to work with high-risk adolescents. I would encourage almost anyone to look at her book on working with high-risk adolescents. It’s a wonderful model and it adds much to the work we do with young people. A third area that I think people should look into is trauma. We work so much with trauma as child and adolescent therapists. There is a trauma focused interview that we can do with kids that I use all the time. It’s very useful in diagnosis and at looking at symptom category.

I think learning a little bit about any one of these models helps any child and adolescent therapist function in a more complete way.
RZ: So it sounds like what you would advocate for is an understanding and knowledge of these manualized treatments because it gives you, as a clinician, more tools in your tool belt to pull out for individual clients as they come to you with their individual differences.
LP: It’s one of the reasons the tool belt concept is helpful. But it also makes you feel more comfortable as a therapist, knowing that you have some grasp of these different ideas. Knowing that you’re not following one dogma, but are open to new ideas, because I think ultimately as therapists we end up constructing our own way of working. The theories that we use to support our work, the collection of tasks and techniques that we define and use—these form the basis of our work . It’s very valuable to look at other people’s constructions, integrate them into our own work and say, “hey, this is useful for me. It works with these patients. I can really take this and run with it.” I mentioned five perspectives that I’ve accrued over maybe 35, 40 years of work, but I anticipate over the next 40 years there are going to be others that will greatly benefit our work as child and adolescent therapists.
RZ: There are therapists and other mental health practitioners who would say that defining yourself as eclectic dilutes your work. Do you believe that that’s true? How do you define your theoretical orientation when asked?
LP: I remember that same question from 35 years ago in residency. I think having multiple perspectives strengthens our work, and there are multiple perspectives within each of these theories, so it’s not like people who belong to one model are necessarily doing some ossified therapy that was created by some individual or group of individuals. In my work, I want to stay open and patients open me up.

One reason I like adolescent work, even though I feel like I’m getting older, is that it keeps me young. It keeps me open to new ideas. My patients actually taught me how to text on my cell phone; my patients are coded in by their first name so that they can call me and have a relationship with me.
My patients actually taught me how to text on my cell phone.
I remember one of my other supervisors, Hilda Brook, who worked a lot with eating disorders, was working with teens into her 70s and early 80s in a wheelchair, and she had greater facility with them than even I have today in my 60s. We can continue to grow in our work with teens if we stay young in other ways.

Texting

RZ: You bring up a very important and hot button issue when working with teenagers, which is texting. And I think doing therapy with teenagers and kids today is a whole new world because teenagers and kids are used to communicating through their technology. What are the upsides and downsides of deciding to be a clinician who texts with your clients as you are?
LP: I think it’s important to be aware of some of the legal parameters around texting. Many of us work with large organizations, and it’s important to be aware of HIPAA regulations and such. HIPAA doesn’t regulate all therapists, only certain therapists who are involved with electronic billing, which you might be if you work in a large institution and you bill electronically. In that case you are HIPAA regulated and with regard to texting, HIPAA states that you cannot be sending clinical decisions through a texting modality or an unsupervised modality. You have to have some regulations around it.

When I worked at UCSF for 35 years, I was in a large system that was HIPAA regulated. My texts, which I did with teenagers for 10 years during that period, dealt with scheduling, and if they texted me about an issue that I was clinically concerned about, I’d have them come in so that we could then talk about it and then work on it in person.

But the texting connection I think is very, very important with teens and therapists. Not all therapists can do it for a variety of reasons. Not everyone feels comfortable with it and not all teens have phones. I’ve done a lot of work with homeless teens, who usually don’t have phones, so you have to figure out other ways to communicate with them.

But the bulk of teens out there today do have access to texting and they will communicate that way, often just to check in with you. They may just want to know you’re there and I think that sets up a relationship with them. I don’t always respond to those texts, but they know that I’m receiving and reading them.

But let’s say you’re not HIPAA regulated, so you can put anything on text. I would still say if you’ve got a big clinical concern with a teen—let’s say they text you, “I’m cutting, I think it’s out of control, I’m feeling really anxious”—I’m going to call them immediately rather than text, and most likely try to get them in to see me if I can. So it’s not that I’m sending long texts back and forth about that type of behavior. I’m really using it as a way to communicate to stay in touch.

Other ways that teens will keep me informed, they’ll often text me, “Saw an article you should be reading, doc,” or “thought you’d like this.” Those things are important because it is a reciprocal relationship. I’m largely involved in educating young people, but they help me a lot, too, and I get a lot from them.
RZ: For therapists in private or group practice who don’t work for large organizations, is there a downside to texting? For example, what if you lose your phone?
LP: I think that gets back to just have their first name, maybe an initial afterwards, but no way that they could really be identified. And if they’re very sensitive texts you can also erase them, although we all know that things are out in the cloud forever. So be aware that that information is out there.

This is also one of the things that you should discuss in the first session. I often discuss with my patients my availability, how they can get a hold of me, so they know that I will have their first name on the cell phone, and their phone number, and that I’m fairly easily accessible. I believe one of the reasons I’ve been so successful with teenagers and their parents is because I have very good accessibility. I take my cell phone all over the world when I travel. I do have somebody on call to cover, but I’m available in that way. But let’s say that cell phone is lost, and I’ve never lost my cell phone, though I fear it all the time, Rachel. I’m looking around for it and I worry about memory loss and loss of cell phone. But if it’s lost I think you have to alert the patients, especially those that you’re texting with, that there is a risk and the cell phone was lost. Most of them are not that concerned about it because their whole name is not out there. There’s not a lot of information out there. But I think it’s important to do that. But I also know from forensic cases that you can actually remove data from a distance off of a cell phone, which might actually be required if you work for a university or large organization.

Sexting

RZ: Technology and internet use seems to be a primary source of conflict between parents and kids. Do you see this a lot in your practice? And how do you go about addressing it both with the parents and with the children?
LP: Very young kids, 9, 10, 11, 12 are using the internet or videogames or other media for large periods of time, and parents are often seeing symptoms—kids are struggling with school, their concentration is impaired, and they’re not engaged in other activities or relationships.
Some boys are being prosecuted for texting sexual photos and parents of boys are very concerned about this.
I think that that’s a very important area to be aware of. Parents need education around the signs to be looking out for when kids are struggling. We need to think about their media profiles, how much time are they on TV, how much time they are playing videogames, how much time are they on internet, and what different modalities they’re involved with.

When families come in, I’ll have both the kid and the parents keep a journal and write their feelings down about what’s happening when there’s a confrontation at home regarding this behavior. And all of that comes back into the session. I often will use the family modality to meet at that point and we’ll talk about what’s going on in that type of interaction.

The other area that comes up frequently with teenagers is sexting—texting sexual material. During the past five years I would estimate I’ve had 50 teenagers referred to me who have been involved in sexting activities.

In general, the girls are involved in sexting pictures, nude photos of themselves that have caused some great difficulty. These are often selfies where the girls will hold the camera out in front of themselves, often in their bedroom or bathroom, sometimes partially clothed, sometimes not, and then they’ll text the photo to a friend or friends, and then it gets texted everywhere. That type of interaction is very important to pay attention to and I’ll generally work with the teenage girl alone and talk with her about what happened. The feelings around sexual development are very private and tender, and it’s deeply shocking that this is suddenly exposed to a large group of people. I work with the family around this behavior, too, and sometimes will meet with parents alone to help them understand why this behavior might have taken place.

I would say a smaller number of the sexting cases, roughly 20%, are boys texting nude photos of themselves, but they’re mostly texting nude photos of girls. There are also laws involved with this and I’ve been involved with the FBI and other law enforcement officials around how to handle these cases. There’s awareness in high schools now that they have to report these cases when they discover that boys are texting sexual photos of girls. Some boys are being prosecuted for texting sexual photos and parents of boys are very concerned about this.
RZ: How do you handle those cases when they come in?
LP: First be aware of the legal ramifications. Second, encourage them to get legal advice, because we as therapists can’t provide all of that. Third, I often will meet with the boy individually and try to get a sense of what happened and work with them around that. Many boys are shocked that this has happened. They may have thought they were doing what the other guys at school were doing, that it was cool, they were getting more status. But I’ve also seen boys who’ve had long-standing problems and the texting of the sexual photos is connected to other sexual difficulties that they’ve been struggling with. They may have been molested. They may have molested another person. So to be aware of that, to be open to hearing about that is very important.

Parents of boys are often very angry about this process. They feel that the boy is at a disadvantage because though he sexted the photos, it was the girl who originally sent the photos out so it should be her responsibility. Helping the parents see that we have to take a deeper look at what’s going on with their son under these circumstances is really, really important and not easy to do. You have to stay open to their feelings about their boys being scapegoated, but at the same time point out this is something we have to pay attention to.

The intersection of online work and sexuality is really a key area to focus on, to get as much help as you can as a therapist. Sometimes if I have a question, even today I’ll go to another therapist that I think has more expertise in this area and get supervision.
RZ: Are there particular resources for therapists who want to learn more about how they can be better clinicians when addressing something like sexting?
LP: Yes. I’m not going to toot my own horn about this, but I’ve written an article that’s online about sexting and working with clinicians that I think is very helpful. It has a literature review of a couple of cases and ten guidelines for parents and therapists around this area. There are not recent and current books because it’s a fairly new topic, but I think it’s something we’re going to see more of in textbooks and articles. A lot of young psychologists’ dissertations have been done on sexting, and those are valuable if you can get a copy and read them.

Learn to Like Kids

RZ: What advice do you have for beginning clinicians treating kids and teens?
LP: The most important thing about doing this work is that you have to be knowledgeable about your own childhood and adolescence. You have to have thought about it, its impact on your own development, the issues that you might bring to the work, questions and preconceptions about it, etc. I encourage almost all therapists to have their own experience in therapy and to explore some of these issues.

Second, what helps the most in this work is really loving children and adolescents. Having a strong love for that age group or working toward it. Let’s say you don’t love it, you’re kind of afraid of it, maybe you’re going to work toward a passion in that area. You’re going to learn why you’re afraid of that age group and you’re going to try it out and get supervision with somebody who is really very good at it. It is a group that is fun to work with, is very challenging, and can really be a growth opportunity for you as a therapist. But I’d say try to develop a passion for it. Learn to like kids. Learn a lot about child and adolescent development. I think either being a parent or playing a role with your nieces and your nephews and other kids is really important.

Third, you’ve got to be able to work with parents. When I was younger and starting out one of my mistakes was that I thought I knew what it was like to be a parent long before I was a parent, and I was often angry with how parents treated kids. By now I’ve gone through decades, I’ve had my own kids and I see it differently. I see myself as a valuable resource to parents and I have great empathy for them.

Sometimes I have to do very difficult things with parents.
Once I had to climb through a glass window when a young mother was holding her new baby and was psychotic and trying to do something to the baby.
Once I had to climb through a glass window when a young mother was holding her new baby and was psychotic and trying to do something to the baby. The police were there and there was obviously a lot involved with this, but we had to save the baby and rip the baby out of the mother’s arms. So there are things that you often have to do in this work that are not very easy with parents and I think I’ve learned how to do those with concern and empathy as I’ve grown older and become an older therapist. But at the beginning I would say stay open to the work with parents. Keep your eyes open. Realize you don’t know everything.

Fourth, Don’t just accept a dogma. Try to integrate and construct your own idea of how to do the work. I talked earlier about the five perspectives I use but think about those that work best for you, yourself, as a therapist, and with the patients you’re working with.

Lastly I’d focus on the first session and developing a good alliance with kids relatively quickly. That first session is really important—how you connect to your passion, staying open, not being judgmental. Watching tapes of other therapists do first sessions can be really helpful, or being in a study group where you share information about your sessions with kids. Or even observing preschool teachers, who are often very good with kids, welcome kids into the classroom, integrate them, and get them playing and involved in activities. All of that adds to our abilities in that area.
RZ: What do you think has helped you become a better clinician?
LP: Years of experience have helped a lot. Reading widely has helped a lot. Having my own children has helped a lot. I have four—two step sons and two daughters—and I’ve learned from all of them. It’s not been easy.

Supervising younger therapists has also been really helpful, because I’ve listened to their problems and I really try to figure out what they’re going through, which keeps me more in touch with what it’s like to start this work. This is not easy work. There’s a lot to learn. We make a lot of mistakes in it, but we do a lot of good.

Maybe the last thing I’d say about it is I’ve been so impressed over all the years of working with adolescents how many return. They bring their own kids back for treatment. That keeps me in it more than anything—having the kids come back with their own children, and seeing that they’ve shared things I said to them. This is not everybody, of course, because I’ve had over the course of my career two adolescents who killed themselves. I’ve gone through a lot of difficult experiences, as have my patients, but I am impressed with this type of work and how much we can help kids if we stick with it.

It’s wonderful work that makes you feel very good about your life’s work at the end of it. I don’t see myself at the end of it, but I have talked with others, like James Anthony, a role model of mine who was a wonderful child therapist who worked with Anna Freud. When I was a very young student I had the opportunity of working with him in London. He loved the work and he still continues to teach me things—and he’s in his late ‘90s. He talks about having patients come back and treating the grandchildren of the children he saw. That is an amazing thing. It’s a chance to be very connected with others in life really.

Suicide

RZ: It sounds incredibly powerful to have had such a positive impact on someone as a teenager that they want to bring their own teenagers to you once they have had children. It also sounds incredibly powerful to have lost an adolescent client to suicide and I’m wondering if you feel comfortable talking about that a little bit.
LP: It’s a reason that a lot of therapists seek out supervision.
RZ: It’s admittedly my worst fear.
LP: I think it is for all of us. It’s not just the legal aspects of it. We all carry liability insurance and we’re worried about that part of it—but it’s also just the connection. I will say that I really remember these patients and their treatment very, very well because of going through this and thinking about it a lot. The first was a young man who killed himself when I was the director of the adolescent unit at UCSF.
RZ: How old was he?
LP: He was 19 and he had very severe bipolar disorder. He stopped his medicines when I went on vacation and then went into the woods and shot himself. I had arranged for somebody to cover me during this period of time. It was a short vacation, but still enough for this to happen. I’ve thought about it a great deal, of course. It’s changed the way I take vacations. I still take them, but I’m very alert, thinking about coverage and concern about these teenagers and children when I leave.

I spent several months working with his family. They had anticipated it more than I had and that surprised me. I went to the service and worked with them in a collaborative mode, which I did not charge them for, and they were very grateful. I’ve stayed in touch with them in some ways, though that happened I’d say roughly about 30 years ago now.

The other suicide was about 20 years ago and was a patient I’d worked with for years. She had a chronic psychotic condition. She was a very bright young woman and I had spent a lot of time with her. She had promised me that she would not harm herself until she was 30 years old, and then she killed herself not long after her 30th birthday. So she stayed alive working with me for years I think to try to get better, and we tried everything. Family therapy, medications—and it was clear that she was going to be living with a chronic psychotic illness that was incredibly painful for her.

I still think about her all the time. I think she helped me in many ways to understand that sometimes we work with individuals who are suffering so much that from their perspective, their life is really not worth living.
Sometimes we work with individuals who are suffering so much that from their perspective, their life is really not worth living.
We can discuss that with them, we can work to help them, many different things can be done, but there are limits to the work that we do. She left me a number of drawings she drew and painted. I think a lot about her family. I worked in much the same way that I described with the earlier boy. I met with her family and had contact with them for a long period of time. I still think about her all the time.
RZ: I bet. I think this is particularly important to talk about for young therapists who are, as you mentioned before, maybe put off entirely by cutting because they’re so scared of it, or don’t want to work with suicidal clients because they’re so afraid of losing a patient. It’s really valuable for me as a young therapist to hear you talk about having gone through this worst fear with a couple of your clients and not only did you get through it, but it made you a stronger clinician ultimately.
LP: I think ultimately it did. Of course, a big part of this was questioning what I had done with them and if I had made the right decisions.
RZ: Of course.
LP: Had I done something wrong?
RZ: That’s natural.
LP: I think any therapist who has had a patient suicide question their work. Families question their interactions with their children after suicide. We all think about it. I work with many teenagers, especially here in the Bay Area, who have had friends suicide, and the young teens question what they could have done to help their friend. It’s not only us as a group of therapists who question ourselves, but it’s really the world that comes forward to question itself around suicides.
RZ: It seems like that’s the first question people ask friends, family, and therapists alike: What could I have done? Could I have done something different or better? And I think that is a real challenge.
LP: It’s natural and appropriate to ask those questions and explore them, but it’s also important to really understand that there are limits in life to what we can do. It’s important in this line of work to talk about this aspect of it.
RZ: That’s a very realistic and compassionate perspective. Thank you for your time and for your wisdom.
LP: And thank you for your good questions, Rachel.

Francine Shapiro on the Evolution of EMDR Therapy

When a Cup Isn't Just a Cup

Ruth Wetherford: Francine Shapiro, you are the originator of EMDR therapy, the founder and executive director of the EMDR Institute, and author of numerous books, articles, and other interviews about this process. I want to begin by asking you a basic question: What is EMDR therapy?
Francine Shapiro: Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, or EMDR, is a form of therapy that focuses on memory and the brain. Every different form of therapy has a different model, a different way of conceptualizing cases and different procedures. For instance, in cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), pathology is based on inappropriate beliefs and behaviors. In psychodynamic therapy, it’s intra-psychic conflicts. In EMDR therapy, pathology is based on unprocessed memories that are stored intact—so if someone has some irrational beliefs or negative behavior, that’s not the cause but rather the symptom.

For example, let’s say we’re humiliated or bullied in grade school, and instead of the brain digesting it and making sense of it and letting it go, it actually gets stored in the brain with the emotions and the physical sensations and the beliefs that were there at the time. One of the functions of the information processing system of the brain is to make sense of the world, so if something happens 30 years later as an adult that is similar in any way, it has to link up with the memory networks to be made of sense of. In other words, if I’ve never seen a cup before, I don’t know what it is or what to do with it. The perceptions that we have about something in the present link up with the memory networks, and if it connects with that unprocessed memory, it gets triggered, and the emotions, physical sensations, and beliefs—“I’m terrible, I’m not good enough, I can’t succeed”—get triggered as well.

People may have no idea why they continually feel anxiety in social situations or when they talk to somebody at work, because the situation is linking them to an unprocessed memory, and those feelings are coming up automatically.
People may have no idea why they continually feel anxiety in social situations or when they talk to somebody at work, because the situation is linking them to an unprocessed memory, and those feelings are coming up automatically. We really are at the mercy of our memory networks, and if an experience hasn’t been processed, we’re just buffeted hither and yon by all of these negative emotions and feelings. With EMDR therapy, we identify what those earlier experiences are and we process them. We bring that information processing system back online. And what happens during an EMDR therapy session is that very rapid associations and connections or insights are made, and the emotions, physical sensations, beliefs—all of those shift to a level of learning and resilience, so we simply aren’t triggered that way any longer.
RW: You’re making the point that the mind and body connection cannot be separated. The cognitions, feelings, and other thought activities of our minds are so integrated with our bodies. This is not new, of course, but it does seem to be getting a lot more attention lately. In a recent interview with Bessel van der Kolk on Psychotherapy.net, he describes having done the only NIMH funded study on EMDR, and as of 2014, the results were more positive than any published study of those who developed PTSD in reaction to a traumatic event as adults. He goes on to talk about the impact of trauma on the somatosensory self, that it changes the insula, the self-awareness systems—which is exactly what you’re saying.

But EMDR therapy is also very easily integrated into other kinds of therapies. In fact, I saw that you won the Sigmund Freud award from the City of Vienna.
FS: People who have been trained as psychodynamic therapists say that EMDR lets them use what they know. They use EMDR therapy to help identify the earlier memories that cause maladaptive defenses and intra-psychic conflicts, and it helps people process those memories and experiences. It’s the same with those who practice cognitive behavioral therapy. EMDR therapy is used to process the memories that are causing dysfunctional behavior and irrational cognitions.

It’s a remarkably efficient treatment. There are three studies that have indicated that for single trauma victims there’s an 84 to 100% remission of PTSD within about five hours of treatment.
RW: That’s great.
FS: A study with EMDR therapy in combat veterans found that after only 12 sessions, 78% no longer had PTSD. Of course, the amount of treatment time it takes depends upon the number of memories that have to be processed, but you don’t have to process each and every event because memory is connected. Instead, you choose one that represents a whole group, and then you have a generalization effect. It rapidly shifts.
RW: This is the phase that has so much in common with all approaches to trauma. Learning self-soothing skills is consistent with all mindfulness meditation and stress reduction methods. It gives people a sense of confidence that they’re not going to be lost when they leave the session. It’s remarkable how fast the dysfunctional beliefs can shift from “it was my fault that I was abused” to “I didn’t deserve that.” It doesn’t happen all in one session, but—
FS: Well, it can.

The 8 Stages of EMDR

RW: Perhaps you could tell us a bit more about the stages of EMDR therapy?
FS: EMDR therapy is an eight-phase approach. During the first phase, the clinician takes an appropriate history of the client, finding out what the current problems and symptoms are, how long they’ve been going on, what the systems issues and the relationship issues are, etc. Then we begin to identify what earlier memories are causing many of these problems.

If you’re coming in with relationship issues like, “I always overreact to criticism,” we try to see what’s causing the overreaction. What earlier memories might there be that are pushing it? Does the sound of your husband’s voice remind you of your father’s voice before he hit you? We have specific techniques to identify these problematic memories.

The second phase involves preparation. We teach a variety of self-control techniques so that people learn to shift from negative feelings to positive ones.
You don’t have to process each and every event because memory is connected. Instead, you choose one that represents a whole group, and then you have a generalization effect.
These techniques can be very useful for everyone, but ultimately we’re trying to lessen the need for them. That is, if I’m always buffeted by these unprocessed memories, and I’m constantly needing to shift out of negative feelings into positive feelings, what I really want to do is process these memories so I’m not getting triggered by them any longer. A preparation technique will allow the person to feel in control so that when we start the processing, if a disturbance comes up, and they feel like they want to stop, we just stop. We use the technique to shift back into feeling good, and then when they’re ready, we go back and continue the processing.

The amount of preparation depends on how debilitated the client is to be begin with. Some people have never had good experiences—they had a terrible childhood, were beaten, ignored, neglected; they didn’t have anyone in their life that they could turn to or count on. These folks can be extremely debilitated emotionally, so we may need to spend more time preparing them. For most people it doesn’t take very long at all, maybe a session or so.
RW: That’s true, it can.
FS: For an individual trauma, it might take two or three sessions. And you simply want the client to be in the best possible state, not only during the processing but also in between sessions.
RW: So they can shift into and out of the self-paced imagery?
FS: Exactly. It’s not homework, as you would get with cognitive behavioral therapies for trauma. But let’s say it’s going to take three sessions to finish an individual trauma—you can do that morning and afternoon, or you can do it three consecutive days. In other words, the treatment can be done in days or weeks, rather than months or years.
The treatment can be done in days or weeks, rather than months or years.
And because all of the therapy is done with the clinician, they don’t have to go out and confront negative feelings and experiences on their own in order to try to make things change.
RW: So the history, identifying the memories, and preparation are the first phases. What happens next?
FS: Then we move into processing. We identify a memory that has been causing the symptoms and then we identify different aspects of it—the image, the negative thoughts associated with it, where they’re feeling it in their body, what the emotion is, etc. And once we access the memory in a certain way, we start the processing, which involves stimulating the brain’s own information processing system that allows the different connections to be made.

One of the procedures in the processing involves a form of dual attention stimulation—meaning the client follows the clinician’s fingers with their eyes as they move rapidly back or forth, or it can be tones or taps. It seems to stimulate the brain’s information processing system, and the client then has different, rapidly moving associations. They may have new thoughts about the memory, or other memories may emerge, or new insights can come up. It allows the brain to do the digesting by making all of the appropriate links that it hadn’t been able to make before.

Eye Movement

RW: After the preparation phase, I usually introduce the eye movement component. First I do the protocol, the target image. Many people don’t want it to be a memory—they’re coming in with some anxiety that they’re dealing with right now, and they don’t necessarily make the connection to memories. So I might start with a target image like, “when my husband’s face gets angry and frowny, I go into a panic.” Then I write down the negative self-beliefs after and rate their anxiety on a scale of intensity from zero to ten. I see where that anxiety is felt in the body. While they’re doing this protocol, they’re identifying what they’re feeling, what their beliefs are—“I’m a bad person. I’ll be a failure. I’ll be humiliated. I’ll be punished.”

And then I draw a line across the tablet and say, “What beliefs would you like to have?” This is straight out of your protocol. It’s often surprising to people, but once they get it, they can really elaborate. “I’d like to feel confident that I can handle this moment.” “I’d like to feel certain that I can stay calm and reasonable”—that sort of thing.

It’s a powerful moment when I move my ottoman over in front of the person and hold my hand up after customizing it for them. The rapidity of the motion back and forth, how wide the sweep is—these are custom tailored for each person, and then they go into that image—they’re seeing the husband’s face, angry and escalating, and they can actually feel their beliefs: “I’m getting ready to be demolished.” It is phenomenal. It’s very different.
FS:
It’s been demonstrated in about 16 randomized controlled trials now that the eye movement also rapidly causes the vividness to shift and emotion to decrease.
It’s been demonstrated in about 16 randomized controlled trials now that the eye movement also rapidly causes the vividness to shift and emotion to decrease. So they may start out with a disturbance, but it very rapidly decreases and shifts to that new understanding—from “that’s how my father used to look at me” to “that was wrong of him” to “It wasn’t my fault” to “it was his fault.” It’s getting liberated from how they felt as a child so that they can see the present more clearly.
RW: It’s so true.
FS: Of course there might be a need for couples counseling, but in many instances, these overreactions are caused by early childhood events stored as unprocessed memories.
RW: We all know that when our sympathetic nervous system gets aroused, clear thinking goes out the window.
FS: Right, exactly.
RW: The point here is that when you’re doing the eye movement part of it, after having prepared the self-soothing and the cognitive component of the beliefs and the desired beliefs, the shift is so remarkable.

The person may have four or five associations: “I see my parents fighting. I see myself hiding behind the door. I feel terrified. I feel like I should stop their fighting. It’s my fault.” The therapist picks out one of those, which I think is an area of the art of the therapist, knowing which one to pick that will lead to the next set of associations. But when it’s very, very accepting, no judgment, no anxiety on the part of the therapist, that calmness is often rewarded. After the next set of repetitions, the person says, “I do not have to rescue. It’s not my fault.” They’ll say it. You never have to say it. They get to it themselves.
FS: Very often the therapist can stay completely out of the way and foster and support the client nonverbally. We’re conveying acceptance because we do accept it. We are conveying unconditional regard because that’s part of the therapy process, so the clients don’t have to be afraid of their own emotions. They don’t have to be afraid, and they can reveal as much as they want.

With other forms of therapy, you have to describe the memories in detail. With EMDR therapy, that’s not necessary. The client says as much or as little as they want to.
With other forms of therapy, you have to describe the memories in detail. With EMDR therapy, that’s not necessary. The client says as much or as little as they want to. As a matter of fact, in many instances, you can do it content free, and the client just gives you enough information to know that it’s changed. So rape victims, molestation victims, who may feel so much shame and guilt that they don’t want to talk about it initially—they don’t have to. You don’t have to force the client to do or say anything that they don’t want to.
RW: Your point about the calm, accepting, unconditional regard is a component you’ve emphasized in the trainings, but I don’t know that it comes across to some people who think EMDR is technique-y.
FS: There are specific procedures about when you continue the associations and when you return to the target, but the beauty of it is to allow that internal, intrinsic healing mechanism to take over and to make the appropriate associations and not take a clinical stance that you know more than the client, that you are the one that has to give the answers. In most instances, the connections are all there for the client and when they’re not, we have specific EMDR therapy procedures to kick start it again. It’s not about clinicians imposing themselves on the client, but rather allowing the appropriate healing to take place.
RW: So what is the next stage?
FS: Assessment is the third phase, where you’re identifying the memory and the different components of it, and then you move into a phase that we call Desensitization, which is allowing the insights and connections to be made until they’re a zero on the Subjective Units of Disturbance Scale (SUDS). It could start off at an eight or nine, but it’s down to a zero.

Then we move to a phase we call Installation, which has to do with concentrating on that desired positive belief the client wants and seeing if we can strengthen it so that it feels completely true to the client.

Then we move to the Body Scan phase, where we have the person think of that memory, think of the positive belief, and scan to see if there’s any disturbance in the body; and if there is, we process it.
We process the memory, evaluate, reevaluate, reassess, and see what else needs to be done until we've basically addressed all of the issues, and the client is feeling empowered.
For instance, a molestation victim who is feeling good and powerful scans her body and notices that there is a strange sensation in her back, and we focus on that. It turns out that’s where she was held down when she was raped. So we process that.

At the end of the session, the Closure phase brings the clients back to the full state of equilibrium. We remind them of their self-control techniques and the in-between-session processing they can continue to do. We also suggest that if a disturbance comes up, to just write down what happened very briefly—“I walked into X situation and I got triggered”—so that they can be targets for next time.

Then the eighth phase at the next session is Reevaluation, where we bring back the memory and see how it feels. See if there’s anything else that needs to be addressed. For instance, I worked with a girl who had been molested by her grandfather, and by the end of the session she was saying, “He was really weak. I ran into the bathroom and he tried to get in, and I just kept telling him to go away, and he went away.”

At the next session when I saw her, she felt fine. She didn’t feel dirty. She didn’t feel shameful. She didn’t feel powerless. She had a good grip on it. But in asking her what else might be coming up, she said, “Well, I was thinking of my grandmother, that she didn’t believe me when I told her I was molested.” So that’s the new target. We identify what else needs to be processed, and that’s how the therapy continues.

We process the memory, evaluate, reevaluate, reassess, and see what else needs to be done until we've basically addressed all of the issues, and the client is feeling empowered. It’s not only that the major symptoms are gone, but they feel like a positive, healthy, resourceful human being and are now able to establish and maintain positive relationships in their life.

Death by a Thousand Cuts

RW: In my own practice, the vast majority of my clients don’t come in to do EMDR therapy. They are coming in with other problems in living—anxiety, depression, relationship problems, etc.—and then I introduce it to them. It’s looking at the current target image, the current source of the anxiety, that then leads to association with past memories of actual trauma. But another source of trauma is the reaction of the social environment to the trauma. Like in the example you just gave, the woman’s grandmother, in her disbelief, was another source of trauma in addition to the molestation.

This is a common consideration in most trauma therapies—that it’s not just the trauma, it’s everybody’s reaction to the trauma that makes it worse, so I think that’s such an important component. It’s all interconnected.
FS: PTSD has commonly been thought of as a response to major traumas—earthquakes, rape, molestation, combat, etc. But the research now is very clear that general life experiences can cause even more PTSD symptoms than major trauma. Childhood experiences, humiliations, divorce, conflicts in the home—these things can be a source of chronic PTSD.
RW: Death by a thousand cuts. All the micro traumas that get accumulated.
FS: It doesn’t even need to be accumulated. You can have individual childhood events, like an individual being pushed away, being left behind, being humiliated in grade school, having people laughing at them. Any of these things can get stored in the brain with terrible feelings and thoughts of, “I’m not good enough. I can’t succeed. I’m not powerful.”
PTSD has commonly been thought of as a response to major traumas—earthquakes, rape, molestation, combat, etc. But the research now is very clear that general life experiences can cause even more PTSD symptoms than major trauma.
They get locked in and run the person for the next 30 years. So it’s important for people to have some compassion for themselves and not just dismiss their anxiety or their depression or their insecurity just because they don’t know where it came from. Many of us simply don’t remember because it’s a long past childhood event, and we don’t recognize that the problems we’re having in relationships or at work are influenced by these earlier events.

Also there’s a lot of research now showing the negative impact parents can have on the lifelong health of their children. There was a study done at Kaiser Permanente that clearly showed that adverse childhood experiences were the leading causes not only of mental health problems in adults, but of physical health problems as well—cancer, lung problems, etc. So I think we need to be more aware of how these experiences are being stored in our brain and constantly pummeling us with negative feelings that impact not only our minds but our bodies. These problems are transferred easily to children because research has clearly shown that mothers who have posttraumatic stress disorder are more likely to mistreat their children—not purposely, but they simply react more harshly.

Research has also shown that highly disturbing experiences within two years before childbirth can prevent the mom from bonding with her child, which has extremely negative effects. Maternal depression is one of those factors that Kaiser Permanente identified as causing these lifelong negative effects for adults because depressed mothers may not be able to bond with their children. It’s not only major traumas that are the problem—all kinds of experiences can have long-lasting detrimental effect on individuals.
RW: That is certainly corroborated by all the new imagery and radiology advances that have been made in which various autonomic processes—not only the body but the brain—are shown to react during negative interactions with people. There is this whole cascade of activity—everything from cortisol to high blood pressure to galvanic skin response to a change of blood flow to the frontal cortex and the amygdala. We all have this sympathetic arousal over traumatic interactions.

What is the latest research on how neurological reprocessing of trauma actually works?
FS:
EMDR processing seems to link in to the same processes that occur during rapid eye movement sleep.
EMDR processing seems to link in to the same processes that occur during rapid eye movement sleep. REM sleep processes the events of the day in order to make sense of them, and it moves them from episodic memory to semantic memory, where you can remember what happened, but you no longer have those emotions and physical sensations locked into memory. Until that happens it’s stored in episodic memory, which seems to get triggered with PTSD.

People who have posttraumatic stress disorder often wake up in the middle of a nightmare. That’s the brain attempting to process the event, but it’s too disturbing, so they wake up in the middle of it. What EMDR therapy appears to do is to take the brain further than it’s able to go in its natural state. The eye movements tax working memory and stimulate REM processes, which allows the rapid shift in imagery, emotion, cognition and sensation.
RW: A possible physiological analogy would be how insulin produced by carbohydrates causes the pores of fat cells to open and take in fat, and it’s only when we have proteins that the cells open and the fat comes back out so that we can lose weight. Similarly, there’s some unlocking of synapses where the memories of the trauma are stored. The anxiety has to go down, but there’s something about the bilateral movement that not only allows the memory to be stored, but also then connect with current, more rational, more safe feelings that give people a sense of identity and agency. It connects together and desensitizes the memory, which loses its power, while the current situation gains power. The current sense of self gains power.
FS: What we say is that it arrives at an adaptive resolution. What’s useful from the event is incorporated and the learning takes place. What’s useless is let go, so the negative emotions and physical sensations and beliefs are basically all gone. But it’s different than the concept of “extinction” employed in cognitive behavioral therapies, where the person is asked to describe the memory in detail as if they’re reliving it, making sure they don’t think of anything else but just stay there with that memory. It allows desensitization to occur, but the original memory that’s being targeted doesn’t change; rather a new one is created. The theory is that the person has been disturbed because of avoidance behavior—they haven’t allowed themselves to stay with it because they believe they’ll go crazy, they’ll die. And as their therapist causes them to tell the story over and over again, they realize they won’t die, and that creates a new memory that competes with the old one—but the old one is still there.

With EMDR therapy, there’s a short exposure where you ask the person to think about it, have the eye movement for about 30 seconds or so, and then you specifically elicit associations. They often move right to another memory.
It appears that the original memory is transformed as these connections are made, and the new learning and the new insight is made, and then it’s stored in this changed form.
It appears that the original memory is transformed as these connections are made, and the new learning and the new insight is made, and then it’s stored in this changed form. They no longer feel terrible about themselves. The transformed memory is stored and the original form it began with no longer exists. We call that “reconsolidation,” not extinction. So with exposure therapy, the original memory is still there, but in EMDR therapy the original memory is no longer there in its old form. This may be responsible for certain differences that we’ve seen in treatment.

For instance, there was a study comparing exposure therapy and EMDR therapy for those who had complicated mourning—intense grief that wasn’t changing. When somebody dies suddenly, very often the person who is bereaved continues to have negative imagery, negative thoughts of the person dying, seeing them in pain, guilt about what they should’ve done, could’ve done, etc. When individuals were treated with EMDR therapy and with exposure therapy, the EMDR was more rapid with better outcomes. Interestingly, there was twice the positive recall of the deceased than after treatment with exposure therapy. The fact that the original memory was still intact might be the reason for that.

Another example is the EMDR therapy treatment of phantom limb pain, where accident victims and combat veterans, who lost limbs in a traumatic experience continue to feel pain in a limb that’s no longer there. What we’ve found from the articles that have been published so far is that by identifying the trauma in which the leg was damaged, for instance, and processing it with EMDR, at the end of the treatment, 80% of people either no longer had any pain or it was substantially reduced.
No other form of therapy has reported elimination of chronic phantom limb pain.
No other form of therapy has reported elimination of chronic phantom limb pain.

One last example. In a treatment of psychotic people who had suffered trauma, when treated with EMDR therapy that targeted the trauma, not only were the PTSD symptoms eliminated, but a majority of those who had started out with auditory hallucinations reported that they were completely gone at the end of treatment, which was only about six sessions. That had never been reported with CBT. So there’s a lot more to explore over the next decade or so.

Neurons That Fire Together…

RW: Particularly as we learn more about specifics of the neurophysiological underpinnings of each mind function, like the functions you were talking about just now—extinction and consolidation. This reminds me of the work of Norman Doidge, the Columbia psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who wrote the book about neuroplasticity, The Brain That Changes Itself. He believes that EMDR therapy is one of the greatest breakthroughs in psychology in his lifetime. He would say that there’s probably a neuroplastic underpinning to each one of these very dramatic changes. He talks about how when we are really listening to something, the auditory cortex will make acetylcholine. And when we have a sensation of pleasure or decreased anxiety, there’s a little bit of dopamine secreted, and it’s that combination of acetylcholine and dopamine that creates the brain’s dendritic growth factor, which causes the dendrites to grow a few microns per hour.

Over time these dendrites find each other, which is why a dog will salivate at the sound of a bell once he learns that he’ll be fed after the bell rings. The auditory cortex has absolutely nothing to do with saliva, but the bell creates salivation because those dendrites have found each other. In other words, neurons that fire together, wire together. During EMDR therapy, there must be a lot of firing going on—self-soothing and the reduction of anxiety is getting wired together with the old memories and the new sensations of agency and safety and new cognitions. They somehow get wired together, and that really does replace the old wiring. I believe at some point we’ll be able to confirm this on the molecular level.
FS: I think ultimately that’s where the field is going, but the field of neurophysiology is still in its infancy, so as of yet no one has ever seen a memory network. But there are more than a dozen studies showing how the brain functions both before and after EMDR therapy, and you can see many differences including growth of the hippocampus as well as changes in cortical and limbic activation after EMDR therapy. Why and how that happens will probably take another decade or so to discover, since imaging will need to become much more sensitive.
RW: I just read, I think in Wired magazine, that the new MRI machines can measure 10,000 times greater detail than the current ones, so they can actually see the electrochemical impulse go down the neurons. Isn’t that wild?
FS: Yes. We have a very exciting decade to look forward to.
RW: What about critics who believe that the research is weak because the dependent variables are all self-report? It makes me think about how innovations are accepted in any field, but particularly scientific fields. There are the early adopters, who are just a few, then the middle adopters as more people hear about it, and then there’s a tipping point where everybody jumps on and incorporates the new learning or the new innovation. It seems to me like you’ve been working on this now for 25-plus years. Where do you think we are in that curve of adoption?
FS: I think we’re in the latter stage now. Those critics you’re talking about were responding to research from 15 years ago. At this point, there are more than 25 randomized controlled trials that have demonstrated the positive effects of eye movements, and a recent meta-analysis has shown there’s a significant effect. In fact, one of EMDR’s original vehement critics has completely turned around and stated that it’s clear that the eye movements have been demonstrated to be effective. Critics who make derogatory statements are very much out of date.

The same is true about the research on EMDR’s effectiveness. There are now more than two dozen randomized controlled trials that have demonstrated the positive effects of EMDR therapy with all of the bells and whistles of good research, including standardized measures, interviews, etc. The World Health Organization (WHO) has even stated that trauma focused cognitive behavior therapy and EMDR therapy are the only psychotherapies recommended for the treatment of PTSD across the lifespan. That is for children, adolescents, and adults.

The Trauma of Everyday Life

RW: I want to return to this idea that is so prevalent in our society that if you didn’t have any major traumas, then you should be all right. In fact, that’s not the case at all, as you pointed out. There are so many life events that become traumatic based on cultural influences. There are so many traumatic and worsening aspects of our culture—the increase in poverty and unemployment as wealth is sequestered in smaller and smaller groups; the emphasis on extroversion and positive feelings over fear, anger and grief; the pathologizing of normal problems in living. All of these things are enormously traumatizing, but we don’t think of it as something that our culture needs to look at.
FS: That’s one of the reasons I wrote the self-help book, Getting Past Your Past—to bring attention to the many things that can be causing our negative reactions and symptoms in the present and explain what to do about it. There are so many events in life and so many things about our relationships that can cause anxiety, depression, insecurity and PTSD. It is explainable and it’s treatable.

We have a nonprofit organization that came into being after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. We got a call from a FBI agent, who said, “Can you please do something because the mental health professionals are dropping like flies.” There were no empirically validated treatments for trauma back then. We sent out clinicians to do free treatment for the frontline providers and victims, and the program evaluation showed that it had the same positive effects—about an 85% success rate within three sessions—as a randomized controlled study that was published that year. Since that time our Trauma Recovery/EMDR Humanitarian Assistance Programs, has been providing free treatment for victims of natural and manmade disasters throughout the world and low cost programs for inner city areas in the U.S.
RW: How many people do you have volunteering or doing low cost treatment?
FS: There are hundreds. We have responded to all the major disasters in the US such as Katrina, Sandy, the Boston Marathon Bombing and Newtown shootings. Trauma Recovery Networks have been established in about 30 cities throughout the country. And we’ve also sent teams out after the tsunamis and earthquakes around the world. EMDR Asia came into being a couple of years ago, so now they’re able to do the humanitarian work on the continent themselves.

But there are so many more that need help. People who have been hurt can hurt others. Child molesters, for instance, are often viewed as intractable. Many people don’t want to have anything to do with them. We basically keep them ostracized from society.
RW: Further traumatizing.
FS: But a director of a program incorporated six sessions of EMDR therapy for those molesters who seemed the most incorrigible. They themselves had been molested in childhood—which is often the case with those who molest children—and when their own molest was targeted and processed, they came in contact with how they felt at the time.
We can take people that seem intractable and transform them into positive human beings so they’re no longer hurting others.
They recognized that they hadn’t wanted it and empathy emerged for their own victims. They no longer felt sexually attracted to children. It was measured by something called a penile plethysmograph, which measured their arousal, and 90% no longer exhibited deviant arousal towards children. So we’re attempting to conduct more research in this area.

The bottom line is that we’re looking at the potential that no one needs to be left behind. We can take people that seem intractable and transform them into positive human beings so they’re no longer hurting others. We want to make sure that we’re able to get the treatment to all who need it, so that we stop the pain for future generations.
RW: For any clinicians who are reading this and are interested in getting EMDR training, what’s the best way for them to do so?
FS: It’s extremely important that clinicians who are interested in being trained go to a program certified by the EMDR International Association in the U.S or the EMDR Europe Association in Europe. There are people out there offering programs that are not up to snuff. Certified trainings are six days plus consultation. There are international standards that have been developed to make sure that clinicians know what they’re doing before they treat any clients. Non-profit agencies can arrange for low cost trainings from the Trauma Recovery/EMDR Humanitarian Assistance Programs.
RW: Any final comment you’d like to make before we sign off?
FS: I’m hoping that interviews such as this will really allow people to get a better understanding of EMDR therapy and its potential for healing. The unimaginable amount of suffering that’s going on out there does not have to continue. People can truly heal in a comparatively short period of time and move to a state of happiness, strength and resilience, with healthy relationships.
RW: Thank you so much, Francine, for a very good interview.
FS: Thank you.

The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma

The following is an excerpt from The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma by Bessel van der Kolk, MD. Reprinted by arrangement with Viking, a member of Penguin Group (USA) LLC, A Penguin Random House Company. Copyright © Bessel van der Kolk, MD, 2014.

****

Marilyn was a tall, athletic-looking woman in her mid-thirties who worked as an operating-room nurse in a nearby town. She told me that a few months earlier she’d started to play tennis at her sports club with a Boston fireman named Michael. She usually steered clear of men, she said, but she had gradually become comfortable enough with Michael to accept his invitations to go out for pizza after their matches. They’d talk about tennis, movies, their nephews and nieces—nothing too personal. Michael clearly enjoyed her company, but she told herself he didn’t really know her.

One Saturday evening in August, after tennis and pizza, she invited him to stay over at her apartment. She described feeling “uptight and unreal” as soon as they were alone together. She remembered asking him to go slow but had very little sense of what had happened after that. After a few glasses of wine and a rerun of “Law & Order,” they apparently fell asleep together on top of her bed. At around two in the morning, Michael turned over in his sleep. When Marilyn felt his body touch hers, she exploded—pounding him with her fists, scratching and biting, screaming, “You bastard, you bastard!” Michael, startled awake, grabbed his belongings and fled. After he left, Marilyn sat on her bed for hours, stunned by what had happened. She felt deeply humiliated and hated herself for what she had done, and now she’d come to me for help in dealing with her terror of men and her inexplicable rage attacks.

My work with veterans had prepared me to listen to painful stories like Marilyn’s without trying to jump in immediately to fix the problem. Therapy often starts with some inexplicable behavior: attacking a boyfriend in the middle of the night, feeling terrified when somebody looks you in the eye, finding yourself covered with blood after cutting yourself with a piece of glass, or deliberately vomiting up every meal. It takes time and patience to allow the reality behind such symptoms to reveal itself.

Terror and Numbness

As we talked, Marilyn told me that Michael was the first man she’d taken home in more than five years, but this was not the first time she’d lost control when a man spent the night with her. She repeated that she always felt uptight and spaced out when she was alone with a man, and there had been other times when she’d “come to” in her apartment, cowering in a corner, unable to remember clearly what had happened.

Marilyn also said she felt as if she was just “going through the motions” of having a life. Except for when she was at the club playing tennis or at work in the OR, she usually felt numb. A few years earlier she’d found that she could relieve her numbness by scratching herself with a razor blade, but she had become frightened when she found that she was cutting herself more and more deeply, and more and more often, to get relief. She had tried alcohol, too, but that reminded her of her dad and his out?of?control drinking, which made her feel disgusted with herself. So instead she played tennis fanatically, whenever she could. That gave her a feeling of being alive.

When I asked her about her past, Marilyn said she guessed that she “must have had” a happy childhood, but she could remember very little from before age twelve. She told me she’d been a timid adolescent, until she had a violent confrontation with her alcoholic father when she was sixteen and ran away from home. She worked her way through community college and went on to get a degree in nursing without any help from her parents. She felt ashamed that during this time she’d slept around, which she described as “looking for love in all the wrong places.”

As I often did with new patients, I asked her to draw a family portrait, and when I saw her drawing, I decided to go slowly. Clearly Marilyn was harboring some terrible memories, but she could not allow herself to recognize what her own picture revealed. She had drawn a wild and terrified child, trapped in some kind of cage and threatened not only by three nightmarish figures—one with no eyes—but also by a huge erect penis protruding into her space. And yet this woman said she “must have had” a happy childhood.

As the poet W. H. Auden wrote:
Truth, like love and sleep, resents
Approaches that are too intense.

I call this Auden’s rule, and in keeping with it I deliberately did not push Marilyn to tell me what she remembered. In fact, “I’ve learned that it’s not important for me to know every detail of a patient’s trauma. What is critical is that the patients themselves learn to tolerate feeling what they feel and knowing what they know.” This may take weeks or even years. I decided to start Marilyn’s treatment by inviting her to join an established therapy group where she could find support and acceptance before facing the engine of her distrust, shame, and rage.

As I expected, Marilyn arrived at the first group meeting looking terrified, much like the girl in her family portrait; she was withdrawn and did not reach out to anybody. I’d chosen this group for her because its members had always been helpful and accepting of new participants who were too scared to talk. They knew from their own experience that unlocking secrets is a gradual process. But this time they surprised me, asking so many intrusive questions about Marilyn’s love life that I recalled her drawing of the little girl under assault. It was almost as though Marilyn had unwittingly enlisted the group to repeat her traumatic past. I intervened to help her set some boundaries about what she’d talk about, and she began to settle in.

Three months later Marilyn told the group that she had stumbled and fallen a few times on the sidewalk between the subway and my office. She worried that her eyesight was beginning to fail: She’d also been missing a lot of tennis balls recently. I thought again about her drawing and the wild child with the huge, terrified eyes. Was this was some sort of “conversion reaction,” in which patients express their conflicts by losing function in some part of their body? Many soldiers in both world wars had suffered paralysis that couldn’t be traced to physical injuries, and I had seen cases of “hysterical blindness” in Mexico and India.

Still, as a physician, I wasn’t about to conclude without further assessment that this was “all in her head.” I referred her to colleagues at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and asked them to do a very thorough workup. Several weeks later the tests came back. Marilyn had lupus erythematosus of her retina, an autoimmune disease that was eroding her vision, and she would need immediate treatment. I was appalled: “Marilyn was the third person that year whom I’d suspected of having an incest history and who was then diagnosed with an autoimmune disease—a disease in which the body starts attacking itself.”

After making sure that Marilyn was getting the proper medical care, I consulted with two of my colleagues at Massachusetts General, psychiatrist Scott Wilson and Richard Kradin, who ran the immunology laboratory there. I told them Marilyn’s story, showed them the picture she’d drawn, and asked them to collaborate on a study. They generously volunteered their time and the considerable expense of a full immunology workup. We recruited twelve women with incest histories who were not taking any medications, plus twelve women who had never been traumatized and who also did not take meds—a surprisingly difficult control group to find. (Marilyn was not in the study; we generally do not ask our clinical patients to be part of our research efforts.)

When the study was completed and the data analyzed, Rich reported that the group of incest survivors had abnormalities in their CD45 RA?to?RO ratio, compared with their nontraumatized peers. CD45 cells are the “memory cells” of the immune system. Some of them, called RA cells, have been activated by past exposure to toxins; they quickly respond to environmental threats they have encountered before. The RO cells, in contrast, are kept in reserve for new challenges; they are turned on to deal with threats the body has not met previously. The RA?to?RO ratio is the balance between cells that recognize known toxins and cells that wait for new information to activate. In patients with histories of incest, the proportion of RA cells that are ready to pounce is larger than normal. This makes the immune system oversensitive to threat, so that it is prone to mount a defense when none is needed, even when this means attacking the body’s own cells.

Our study showed that, on a deep level, the bodies of incest victims have trouble distinguishing between danger and safety. This means that the imprint of past trauma does not consist only of distorted perceptions of information coming from the outside; the organism itself also has a problem knowing how to feel safe. The past is impressed not only on their minds, and in misinterpretations of innocuous events (as when Marilyn attacked Michael because he accidentally touched her in her sleep), but also on the very core of their beings: in the safety of their bodies.

Note: Find out about Bessel’s new in-depth, online Trauma Certificate Course

Bessel van der Kolk on Trauma, Development and Healing

Talking About it Doesn’t Put it Behind You

David Bullard: Bessel, you are the medical director and founder of the Trauma Center at Justice Resource Institute and professor of psychiatry at the Boston University School of Medicine. You have been one of the most influential and outspoken clinicians, educators and researchers contributing to our understanding of trauma and its treatment.
I don’t remember reading a professional book in several intense sittings like I just did with your new book, The Body Keeps The Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. It’s been praised by everyone from Jon Kabat-Zinn and Francine Shapiro to Jack Kornfield, Peter Levine and Judith Herman, who called it a “masterpiece that combines the boundless curiosity of the scientist, the erudition of the scholar, and the passion of the truth teller.” (Read an excerpt from the book accompanying this interview.)
Let me start with some basics: Could you say something about why talk therapy alone doesn’t work when treating trauma?
Bessel van der Kolk: From my vantage point as a researcher we know that the impact of trauma is upon the survival or animal part of the brain. That means that our automatic danger signals are disturbed, and we become hyper- or hypo-active: aroused or numbed out. We become like frightened animals. We cannot reason ourselves out of being frightened or upset.
Of course, talking can be very helpful in acknowledging the reality about what’s happened and how it’s affected you, but talking about it doesn’t put it behind you because it doesn’t go deep enough into the survival brain.
DB: Would you say that is one of the distinctions between your work and Edna Foa’s “prolonged exposure therapy”? In a New Yorker article on trauma, Foa talked about rewriting memories, rather than destroying them, and describes her work with a patient with PTSD who had been raped years before: “We asked her to tell the story of that New Year’s Eve (when the rape occurred) and repeat it many times….to distinguish between remembering what happened in the past and actually being back there…and when, finally, the woman did that she realized that the terror and her rape were not her fault.”That sounds like cognitive learning.
Bv: That’s a lovely example of the ability of talk to get a better perspective. But there is a mistaken notion that trauma is primarily about memory—the story of what has happened; and that is probably often true for the first few days after the traumatic event, but then a cascade of defenses precipitate a variety of reactions in mind and brain that are attempts to blunt the impact of the ongoing sense of threat, but which tend to set up their own plethora of problems. So, trying to find a chemical to abolish bad memories is an interesting academic enterprise, but it’s unlikely to help many patients. It’s a too-simplistic view in my opinion. Your whole mind, brain and sense of self is changed in response to trauma.
In the long term the largest problem of being traumatized is that it’s hard to feel that anything that’s going on around you really matters. It is difficult to love and take care of people and get involved in pleasure and engagements because your brain has been re-organized to deal with danger.
It is only partly an issue of consciousness. Much has to do with unconscious parts of the brain that keep interpreting the world as being dangerous and frightening and feeling helpless. You know you shouldn’t feel that way, but you do, and that makes you feel defective and ashamed.

EMDR and Body Awareness Approaches to Trauma Treatment

DB: You are a big proponent of body awareness approaches to trauma treatment—and for a fully lived life. For example, you’ve done research on yoga for trauma survivors and recommend yoga for patients. I saw recently that your Trauma Center offers trainings to yoga teachers in working with the trauma of their students. You also speak very highly of the body-oriented therapies of Peter Levine and Pat Ogden, and especially of EMDR. You devote a whole chapter to your learning EMDR and examples of your use of it.
Bv: We have done the only NIMH-funded study on EMDR. As of 2014, the results of that study were more positive than any published study of those who developed their PTSD in reaction to a traumatic event as an adult.
There are opinions and there are facts.
Traumatized people often become insensible to themselves. They find it difficult to sense pleasure and to feel engaged. These understandings force us to use methods to awaken the sensory modalities in the person.
The facts are that the EMDR study was spectacularly successful in adults, a bit less with childhood trauma–at least not in the short period of time (eight 90-minute sessions) in the research protocol. But our research found that the impact of trauma is in the somatosensory self, trauma changes the insula, the self-awareness systems. Traumatized people often become insensible to themselves. They find it difficult to sense pleasure and to feel engaged. These understandings force us to use methods to awaken the sensory modalities in the person.
DB: The following quote from your book beautifully addresses some of this:
“The neuroscience of selfhood and agency validates the kinds of somatic therapies that my friends Peter Levine and Pat Ogden have developed…. [In] essence their aim is threefold:

  • to draw out the sensory information that is blocked and frozen by trauma;
  • to help patients befriend (rather than suppress) the energies released by that inner experience;
  • to complete the self-preserving physical actions that were thwarted when they were trapped, restrained, or immobilized by terror. 

Our gut feelings signal what is safe, life sustaining, or threatening, even if we cannot quite explain why we feel a particular way. Our sensory interiority continuously sends us subtle messages about the needs of our organism. Gut feelings also help us to evaluate what is going on around us. They warn us that the guy who is approaching feels creepy, but they also convey that a room with western exposure surrounded by daylilies makes us feel serene. If you have a comfortable connection with your inner sensations—if you can trust them to give you accurate information—you will feel in charge of your body, your feelings, and your self” (p.96).

EMDR trainers now seem to be focusing more on sensory modalities than when I first was taught about EMDR, and they also use “resource installation” (Leeds) and more recently “dyadic resourcing” (Manfield). But if there has been an identified single trauma that doesn’t resolve after several sessions, they look for an older “feeder memory,” and get there by asking the patient to focus on body sensations to see if he or she has ever felt those sensations before. It often is a gateway to an earlier trauma.
Bv: A lot of different schools do that, where the body is a pronounced part of therapy. My own teacher, Elvin Semrad, in the early 1970s in Boston, was very somatically oriented; same thing for Milton Erikson and many schools of hypnotherapy. Most people I hang out with who work with traumatic stress are somatically oriented.

The Limits of CBT

DB: The popular media are often puzzlingly ignorant about the nature of trauma and its treatment. You are very well aware of this, but an otherwise interesting article in the May, 2014 issue of The New Yorker magazine stated that a study “published in Nature in 2010, offered the first clear suggestion that it might be possible to provide long-term treatment for people who suffer from PTSD and other anxiety disorders without drugs.” That article never even mentioned EMDR, which was listed in a 1998 task force report of the Clinical Division of the American Psychological Association as being one of three psychological therapies (together with exposure and stress inoculation therapy) empirically supported for the treatment of PTSD. How could they miss that?
Bv: Well, they often get things not quite right! It intrigues me how the public is much more fascinated with the potential of false memories in patients than in the gross distortions of our society’s memory of trauma.
Articles like the one you cited often relate to the study of memories in mice. It is a huge leap, of course, from rodents to human beings, which not only leads to misinformation about the nature of traumatic stress and its treatments, but also about the rather trenchant differences between humans and mice. Humans are profoundly social animals—everything we do and think is in relation to a larger tribe. Our brains are cultural organs. It probably has something to do with people’s temperaments; people who do rodent research are drawn to the simplicity of rodent brains. In order to work with humans you need to have a taste for culture, complexity and uncertainty. People would be astonished if a psychotherapist gave advice to rodent researchers on how to run their labs! But the popular press takes the liberty of making these misinformed leaps with the general public all the time.
DB: How best to treat trauma is a crucial question, of course. You saw CBS’ 60 Minutes television show that first aired in November, 2013, describing a Veterans Administration program treating war veterans using “cognitive processing therapy” and prolonged exposure treatment methods. Your understanding of and approach to treating trauma is very different. Can you address a couple of points that distinguish your views from those presented by that VA treatment program?
Bv: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (and “Trauma Focused CBT”), talk therapies, and prolonged exposure therapies can make some changes in people’s distress, but traumatic stress has little to do with cognition—it emanates from the emotional part of the brain that is rewired to constantly send out messages of dangers and distress, with the result that it becomes difficult to feel fully alive in the present. Blasting people with the memories of the trauma may lead to desensitization and numbing, but it does not lead to integration: an organic awareness that the event is over, and that you are fully alive in the present. The VA seems to be surprised by how many veterans drop out of prolonged exposure therapy. It would be helpful for them to find out why, but the likely answer is that it is re-traumatizing them.
DB: More recently, there was the profile of your work with trauma in the Sunday Magazine of the New York Times (May 22, 2014). The author shadowed you for a month, and it seemed to me that the article minimized the outcome of the clinical demonstration you did with an Iraqi war veteran at an Esalen Institute workshop.
Bv: The current Family Therapy Networker magazine just ran a piece about all the inaccuracies in that article, and the difficulties journalists have in getting the story straight. “Eugene” was the participant in the workshop, and he said “The takeaway when I read [the New York Times article] was that I was confused by the experience and that it didn’t help, which just isn’t true…When I spoke with the reporter, I said very positive things about the concrete ways that it helped me in terms of physical symptoms that disappeared, and also the fact that Dr. van der Kolk recommended people for me to work with afterward. He really spent some time finding a good recommendation for EMDR, and it really helps.” He wrote a letter to that effect and they wouldn’t publish it. I just got an email from him with a picture of my new book saying, “Thank you for helping me to regain the capacity for calmness and focus to be able to engage, and read books again.”
DB: The New York Times article also quoted sound bites from some other researchers, seemingly questioning your work, but later corrected some misinformation.
Bv: That’s another intriguing issue. There seems to be a tendency among therapists to become very religious about their own particular method—some seem to be more committed to their method than to the welfare of their patients. When patients don’t improve, they blame their resistance, and slam the people who point out that one size never fits all. The New York Times article also alluded to the Roman Catholic Church’s problems with clergy abuse and trying to defend itself by claiming that these plaintiffs suffered from “false memories,” and were the victims of “repressed memory therapy.” Testifying on behalf of pedophiles became a whole industry that seems to have entirely disappeared now that these trials are over.
DB: The newspaper did publish your brief (and, I thought, restrained!) rejoinder clarifying the issues presented, and you received an overwhelmingly supportive response in other letters to the editor and online comments. Here’s an excerpt from your letter to the New York Times:
Trauma is much more than a story about the past that explains why people are frightened, angry or out of control. Trauma is re-experienced in the present, not as a story, but as profoundly disturbing physical sensations and emotions that may not be consciously associated with memories of past trauma. Terror, rage and helplessness are manifested as bodily reactions, like a pounding heart, nausea, gut-wrenching sensations and characteristic body movements that signify collapse, rigidity or rage…. The challenge in recovering from trauma is to learn to tolerate feeling what you feel and knowing what you know without becoming overwhelmed. There are many ways to achieve this, but all involve establishing a sense of safety and the regulation of physiological arousal.
Bv: I also mentioned in the Networker article, “What happened …is a reflection of the incredible difficulties society has with staring trauma in the face and providing people with the facts of what happens, how bad it is, and how well treatments work.”

Talent and Compassion Aren’t Enough

DB: I appreciate your emphasis on research and fact-based discussions versus theoretical ones. Along those lines, George Silberschatz, a past-president of the international Society for Psychotherapy Research, said in a recent interview that the between-therapist effects were as large if not larger than the between-treatment effects in current psychotherapy research, and this is perhaps from non-specific treatment effects.
Bv: Well, talent and compassion are central elements of being an effective therapist, but learning to feel your feelings and be in charge of your self, and working with someone who knows how to deal with bodily sensations and impulses can make all the difference between visiting an understanding friend once a week, and actually healing your trauma.
DB: Could it relate to Stephen Porges’ description of the Polyvagal Theory and the social engagement system? The nonspecific treatment effects from psychotherapy research seem to be powerful about the therapist helping to create a safe environment.
Bv: I have been very much inspired by Porges’ work. The reason that Porges has become an important part of our world is his finding that trauma interferes with face-to-face communication. It is very important how you get regulated in the presence of other people. We need to learn very specific ways to activate the social engagement system. Sitting in your chair and chatting might not always be the most effective way of doing that.

Porges’ work was very helpful and clarifying about where in the brain trauma makes it difficult to feel comfort, to feel intimate and connected with other people. Knowing those things can help therapists to become more conscious about the specifics of their interactions, and should become part of the training of therapists. For example, I recently took a month-long intensive training course for Shakespearean actors to learn how the modulations of my voice, the configurations of my facial muscles, and the attitudes of my body affect my self-experience, and that of the people around me.
Porges’ work points to the importance of working with the reptilian brain—the brain stem, as well as the limbic system. We need to teach breathing and movement and work with the parts of the brain that are most impacted by trauma—areas that the conscious brain has no access to.
So I am dubious about the nonspecific relational impact of treatment on benefiting traumatized individuals. Seeing someone nonspecifically does not help the fear circuits and that collapsed sense of self. We need to learn very specific ways to activate the social engagement system. Sitting in your chair and chatting might not always be the most effective way of doing that.
DB: A colleague of yours from your Harvard days, neuroscientist Catherine Kerr, recently writing about mindfulness research, said:
The placebo effect is usually defined, somewhat tortuously, as the sum of the nonspecific effects that are not hypothesized to be the direct mechanism of treatment. For example, having a face-to-face conversation is not hypothesized as what makes psychotherapy work—you could have a face-to-face conversation with anybody. But for some reason, if you go every week to therapy, you are going to get better. But you could talk about the weather! When we perform these rituals with a desire to get better, we often do. We now know that a lot of the positive therapeutic benefit from psychotherapy and from various pain drugs may come from that initial context; it often has nothing to do with the specific treatment that is being offered. It is really just about the person approaching a situation with a sense of hope and being met by something that seems to hold out that hope (October 01, 2014, Tricycle Magazine).
And I think Allan Schore at UCLA would say that there is “unconscious right brain to unconscious right brain communication” going on, between therapists and patients, or between any of us in close relationships that might be what is otherwise thought to be “nonspecific” in therapy research. A deep ability to be present and connect empathically with patients is easier for some individual therapists than for others. Perhaps we are discussing a situation in therapy of “necessary, but not sufficient!”
Bv: I can’t really comment on all that—you’ll have to ask Catherine Kerr and Allan Schore. I have always been a bit puzzled about that “right brain to right brain” stuff. The research shows that the part of the brain most impacted by trauma is the left hemisphere, and I would imagine that every single part of the brain is necessary for effective functioning and feeling fully alive in the present.
DB: Well, I will be interviewing Schore next month, so we now have some good material to discuss!
Bv: I’ll look forward to reading that.

Neurofeedback & Yoga

DB: Is there anything in your own thinking that you feel has significantly changed in the last couple of years due to your continuing growth in the work and in all you are exposed to?
Bv: The biggest has been my exposure to neurofeedback (a type of biofeedback that focuses on brain waves, instead of peripheral phenomena like heart rate and skin conductance). In neurofeedback you change your brain’s electrical activity by playing computer games with your own brain waves. Learning how to interpret quantitative EEG’s helped me to visualize better how the brain processes information, and how disorganized the brain becomes in response to trauma. What made it necessary to look for other, non-interpersonally-based therapies was the realization, followed by research that dramatically illustrated how being traumatized may interfere with the ability to engage with other human beings to feel curious, open and alive.
Learning how to interpret quantitative EEGs allowed me to actually visualize what parts of the brain are distorted by traumatic experiences, and this can help us target specific brain areas where there is abnormal activity and where the problem actually is.
The trauma is not the story of what happened long ago; the long-term trauma is that you are robbed of feeling fully alive and in charge of your self.
For example, for the part of the brain supposed to be in charge, after trauma it will have excessive activity, keeping people in a state of chronic arousal—making it difficult to sleep, hard to engage and to relax. We find neurofeedback can change the activity in parts of the brain to allow it to be more calm and self-observant.
In another example, the frontal lobes of traumatized people often have activity similar to that of kids with ADHD, which makes it difficult to attend with the subtlety that we need to lead nuanced lives.
DB: So would the neurofeedback be with or without exposure to a particular traumatic memory?
Bv: Again, traumatic stress results in not being able to fully engage in the present. The trauma is not the story of what happened long ago; the long-term trauma is that you are robbed of feeling fully alive and in charge of your self.
DB: You would say that also is a positive outcome from yoga and other body awareness exercises, activating and strengthening the parasympathetic nervous system?
Bv: In our NIH-funded yoga for PTSD study we saw people did considerably better after 8 weeks of yoga. It can make a contribution to help people be more present in the here and now. The whole brain gets reorganized. Some quotes from participants in that study included:

  • “My emotions feel more powerful. Maybe it’s just that I can recognize them now.”
  • “I can express my feelings more because I can recognize them more. I feel them in my body, recognize them, and address them.”

This research needs much more work, but it opens up new perspectives on how actions that involve noticing and befriending the sensations in our bodies can produce profound changes in both mind and brain that can lead to healing from trauma. When we understand these things about the brain, how it works, we learn more about how to adjust our treatments.

DB: I’ve heard you say that you do not identify as belonging to any one particular school of therapy; that you do not even identify as an EMDR therapist even though you often utilize it.
Bv: Well, that would be like a carpenter saying he was a “hammer carpenter.” We need many different tools that will work for different patients and different problems.

Meaningless Pseudo-Diagnoses

DB: Can you talk a bit about your battles to get deeper and more sophisticated understandings of trauma treatment into the professional arena? Your book recounts the research you did that identified a traumatized population quite distinct from the combat soldiers and accident victims for whom the PTSD diagnosis had been created.
Bv: Yes, well, in the early 1990’s our PTSD work group for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders voted nineteen to two to create a new diagnosis for victims of interpersonal trauma: “Disorders of Extreme Stress, Not Otherwise Specified” (DESNOS), or “Complex PTSD” for short. But when the DSM-IV was published in May 1994 the diagnosis did not appear in the final product.
Fifteen years later, in 2009, we lobbied to have “Developmental Trauma Disorder” listed in the DSM-5. We marshaled a lot of support, such as that from the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, who serve 6.1 million people annually, with a combined budget of $29.5 billion.

Everybody who holds forth should have a practice, otherwise you get seduced by your ideas and don’t get confronted with the limits of your ideas in clinical practice.
Their letter of support concluded: “We urge the American Psychiatric Association to add developmental trauma to its list of priority areas to clarify and better characterize its course and clinical sequelae and to emphasize the strong need to address developmental trauma in the assessment of patients.”
It was turned down also, and a lot of criticism of DSM-5’s approach has since been levied and they have lost credibility from a variety of professional sources.
DB: You recently published the results of an international survey of clinicians on the clinical significance of a Developmental Trauma Disorder diagnosis. Can you tell us why it might be so beneficial to have such a diagnosis?
Bv: Because it would help us to start focusing on helping kids feel safe and in control , rather than labeling them with meaningless pseudo-diagnoses like oppositional defiant disorder, impulse control disorder, self-injury disorder, etc.
DB: A significant part of your career at the Trauma Center has been working with traumatized children. There is a lot in your book relevant to work with children.
Bv: Yes, with Joseph Spinazzola and Julian Ford, we are involved in studies through the Complex Trauma Treatment Network of the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, which now is comprised of 164 institutions in almost all States.
DB: You are doing so much traveling with international teaching, you are involved in ongoing research, and you have quite a large staff at the Trauma Center in Boston to manage.
Bv: About 40 people are working at the trauma center now.
DB: Are you still personally able to do one-on-one clinical work or only have a supervisory role?
Bv: Everybody who holds forth should have a practice, otherwise you get seduced by your ideas and don’t get confronted with the limits of your ideas in clinical practice.

Posttraumatic Growth and Aliveness

DB: I’ve always liked the subtitle of Peter Levine’s book Waking the Tiger: Through Trauma Into Aliveness. Others are talking about “posttraumatic growth.”
Bv: That’s what the New York Times article should have been about. The guy they described so poorly actually recouped his life. People get better by befriending themselves. People can leave the trauma behind if they learn to feel safe in their bodies—they can feel the pleasure to know what they know and feel what they feel. The brain does change because of trauma and now we have tools to help people be quiet and present versus hijacked by the past. The question is: Will these tools become available to most people?
DB: You are certainly doing your part, Bessel, by being so very active and productive. I counted 35 workshops out-of-town on your calendar for 2014, in addition to your teaching at the various medical schools in Boston, at the Trauma Center and a new certification program. Right now you are about to embark on a 10-day bo

Scott Miller on Why Most Therapists Are Just Average (and How We Can Improve)

Escape from Babel

Tony Rousmaniere: Many people know you as a Common Factors researcher, but recently you’ve transitioned away from that. Could you explain both what Common Factors is and your transition away from it?
Scott Miller: Sure. As old-fashioned as it sounds, I’m interested in the truth—what it is that really matters in the effectiveness of treatment. Early on in my career, I learned and promoted and helped develop a very specific model of treatment, solution-focused therapy. We had some researchers come in near the end of my tenure at the Family Therapy Center in Milwaukee who found that, while what we were doing was effective, it wasn’t any more effective than anything else. Now, for somebody who had been running around claiming that doing solution-focused work would make you more effective in a shorter period of time, that was a huge shock.
All models are equivalent. Pick one that appeals to you and your client.


It was at that point that I started to cast about looking for an alternate explanation for the findings, which concluded that virtually everything clinicians did, however it was named, seemed to work despite the differences. That led back to the Common Factors—the theory that there are components shared by the various psychotherapy methodologies and that those shared components account more for positive therapy outcomes than any components that are unique to an approach. It was something that one of my college professors, Mike Lambert, had talked about, but that I had dismissed as not very sexy or interesting. I thought, how could that possibly be true?

It was at that time that I ran into a couple of people that I worked with for some time, Mark Hubble and Barry Duncan, and we had written several books about this. If you read Escape from Babel, which we coauthored, the argument wasn’t that Common Factors were a way of doing therapy, but rather a frame for people—therapists speaking different languages—to share and meet with each other. They were a common ground.

But by 1999, it was very clear to me that Common Factors were being turned into a model by folks, including members of our own team, and viewed as a way to do therapy. But you can’t do a Common Factors model of therapy—it’s illogical. The Common Factors are based on all models. This caused a large amount of consternation and difficulty, numerous discussions, and eventually I suggested to the team that the way therapists work didn’t make much of a difference.

What was critical was whether it worked with a particular client and a particular therapist at a particular time. Mike Lambert was already moving in this direction and said, “Let’s just measure them. Let’s find out. Who cares what model you use? Let’s make sure that the client is engaged by it and that it’s helping them.” So we began measuring, and what became clear very quickly was that some therapists were better at it than others.

So, since about 2004, Mark Hubble and others at the International Center for Clinical Excellence (ICCE) have been researching the practice patterns of top performing therapists. It’s not that I don’t believe, and in fact know, that the Common Factors are what accounts for effective psychotherapy. It’s just that an explanation is not the same as a strategy for effecting change. And the Common Factors can never be used as such. All models are equivalent. Pick one that appeals to you and your client.

The Siren Song

TR: So Common Factors are a way of studying the effects of psychotherapy, but not a way of actually implementing it.
SM: Well, by definition, you can’t do a Common Factors model because then it’s a specific factor. I’m not saying the Common Factors don’t matter—what I’m saying is that they are a therapeutic dead end. They will not help you do therapy. You still have to have a method for doing the therapy, and the Common Factors are not a method. Why?
What I say is, pick one of the 400 that appeals to you and then measure and see: Does your client like it, too? If not, then it’s time for you to change, not your client.
All treatment approaches return equal efficacy when the data is aggregated and methods compared in a randomized controlled trial. So you still need some kind of way to operationalize the Common Factors.

Since we have 400 or so different models of therapy, why invent a new one? It seems to be because in our field, each person has to have it their own way. The promise of a new model is a siren song in our profession that we have a hard time not turning our ship towards. What I say is, pick one of the 400 that appeals to you and then measure and see: Does your client like it, too? If not, then it’s time for you to change, not your client.
TR: You have an article out in Psychotherapy where you mentioned three keys for therapists to improve their work. Your major focus now seems to be how therapists improve their work with each client. Can you describe those three keys?
SM: The first one is knowing your baseline. You can’t get any better at an activity until you actually know how good you are at it now. We therapists think we know, but it turns out that data indicates that we generally, as a group, inflate our effectiveness by as much as 65%. So you really have to know just how effective you are in the aggregate. That means you’re going to have to use some kind of outcome tool to measure the effectiveness of your work with clients over time.
We generally, as a group, inflate our effectiveness by as much as 65%.


The second step is to get deliberate feedback. So once you know how effective you are, then it’s time to get some coaching, get some feedback, and you can do that in two ways. Number one, you can use the very same measures that you used to determine your effectiveness to get feedback from your clients on a case-by-case basis. Meaning that you can actually see when you’re helping and when you’re not, and use that to alter the course of the services provided to that individual client.

The second kind of feedback to get is from somebody whose work you admire, who has a slightly broader skill base than you do, and have them look at your work and comment specifically about those particular cases where your work falls short. In other words, you begin to look for patterns in your data about when it is you’re not particularly helpful to people, and seek out somebody who can provide you with coaching. It’s like in golf, once you know what your handicap is you can hire a coach who can look at your game and make fine tweaks. It’s not about revamping your whole style, or about learning an entirely new method of treatment, but pushing your skills and abilities to the next level of performance.

The third piece is deliberate practice. The key word in that expression is “deliberate.” All of us practice. We go to work. But it turns out the number of hours spent on a job is not a good predictor. In fact, it’s a poor predictor of treatment effectiveness. So what you have to do is identify the edge of your current realm of reliable performance. In other words, where’s the next spot where you don’t do your work quite as well? And then develop a plan, acquire the skills, practice those skills and then put them into place. Then measure again to see, have you made any improvement?

I can’t take credit for coming up with these three steps. We’ve simply borrowed them lock, stock, and barrel from the performance literature, and in particular, Anders Ericsson’s work, which has been applied in fields like the training of pilots, chess masters, computer programmers, surgeons, etc. If we have any sort of claim to fame, it’s that we’ve begun applying these to psychotherapy for the first time.
TR: One of my first reactions to this is, aren’t some people just born better therapists?
SM: Well Ericsson notes that the search for genetic factors responsible for the performance of eminent individuals has been surprisingly unsuccessful. In sports we often think, “Oh, there must be some genetic component involved here,” or “he just has the gift of music.” But it turns out that virtually everyone that researchers looked at where the “gift” is implied, even with Mozart—he had been playing the piano for 17 years before he wrote anything that was unique, which happened at about age 21. He’d been playing since he was 4. His father had been doing music scales with him since he was in the crib. So once you remove the practice component, you just don’t find any evidence for genetic factors—with very few exceptions.

For example, in boxing it appears that people with a slightly longer reach have a slight advantage. But we also know that if baseball pitchers don’t start pitching at a particular age, their arms will not make the adjustment required to throw the ball as fast and accurately as professional pitchers do.

There was another study that looked at social skills. You often will hear, in addition to the genetic claims, that, “Good therapists just have great social skills.” Well, they’ve measured that. It turns out not to be the case, and the reason is that these kinds of ideas are too high or general a level of abstraction. The real difference between the best and the rest is that they possess more deep, domain-specific knowledge. They have a highly contextualized knowledge base that is much thicker than average performers, and much more accessible to them and responsive to contextual clues.

Deep Contextual Knowledge

TR: Could you give a specific example of what a deep contextual knowledge would look like in a therapy room?
SM: Well the classic one—and I say it to make fun of it—is suicide contracting. Or the suicide prevention interview.
Somebody comes in and says, “I’m going to commit suicide.” And we respond with, “Do you have a plan? Have you ever attempted this before?” Blah, blah, blah. That’s decontextualized knowledge. You could ask those questions to a stick.
Somebody comes in and says, “I’m going to commit suicide.” And we respond with, “Do you have a plan? Have you ever attempted this before?” Blah, blah, blah. That’s decontextualized knowledge. You could ask those questions to a stick.

What a top performer does is ask those questions very differently, nuanced by the client’s presentation, in ways that the rest of us can’t see. Because of their more complex and well-organized knowledge, they can actually see patterns in what clients present that the rest of us would miss and respond to in a much more generic fashion. Is this making sense?
TR: Absolutely.
SM: So the real question is how to help clinicians develop that highly contextualized knowledge. Because once you have it, not only can you retrieve that knowledge at the appropriate moment, but it turns out you can make unique combinations and use them in novel ways that would never occur to the rest of us, or would only occur to the rest of us by chance.
TR: This also doesn’t suggest that treatment manuals are necessarily the best way to train therapists.
SM: We know that following a treatment manual doesn’t result in better outcomes and it doesn’t decrease variability among clinicians using the same manual. So you still get a spread of outcomes, even when everybody is doing the same treatment.

At the same time, I think it’s critical that therapists learn a way of working, and, in the beginning at least, they hew to that approach. Why? Well, if you begin to introduce variation in your performance early on, you will not have the same ability to extend your performance in the future.

Let me give you an example. The first time I had a guitar lesson, I was taking classical guitar with this really interesting teacher. We spent the entire first lesson on how he wanted me to hold the neck of the guitar with my left hand—and I’m right handed. He said, “If you try to vary your hand grip from the outset, you’ll never have the same reach and ability to vary reliably when you need to in the future. So start with a common foundation, and then when we need to introduce variations later, we will.” My sense is that therapists instead begin in a highly complex, nuanced way and introduce variations into their style randomly and without much thought.
TR: So it would be better to begin with a frame or structure that provides a stable base, and then develop the deep contextualized knowledge later on.
SM: And to vary your work in ways that allow you to measure the impact of your variation against what you usually do. This is the key. Otherwise, what you have is a bag of tricks. You can do them all, but there’s no cohesiveness to it, and you can’t explain why you vary at certain times rather than others.
TR: Starting with a manual isn’t necessarily a bad idea then.
SM: Absolutely not. In fact, I would suggest grabbing a manual and going to a place where they are teaching a specific approach that will allow you to practice and also watch others in a two-way mirror. Once you have that foundation down, you can introduce your own variations.
TR: I hear therapists say, “I have 20 years experience,” or “I have 30 years experience.” Does this research find that experience, itself, makes someone better?
SM: No, it doesn’t. We know that not only in therapy, but in a variety of activities. If you think about it, you’ll understand why. While you’re doing your work, you don’t have time enough to correct your mistakes thoughtfully.
The difference between the best and the rest is what they do before they meet a client and after they’ve met them, not what they’re doing when they’re with them.
So what we found, which I think is quite shocking, is that the difference between the best and the rest is what they do before they meet a client and after they’ve met them, not what they’re doing when they’re with them.  Let me give you an example from a field that is similar—figure skating. If you watch a championship figure skater perform a gold medal winning performance, you can describe what they did, but it won’t tell you how to do it yourself. Do you follow me?
TR: Yeah.
SM: In order to be able to accomplish that performance, that figure skater must do something before they go on the ice, and after they leave the ice. It’s that time that leads to superior performance. You can go out and try to turn triple axels during the performances as much as you want. That experience will not make you better. You have to plan, practice, perform, and then reflect. Most of us don’t see all of the effort that goes into that great performance. We just appreciate how good it is.
TR: But one of the tricky differences is that we’re trying to help each client. And if we’re practicing new skills, invariably we’re going to make mistakes. And that’s emotionally harder because you’re making a mistake with a real person sitting across from you.
SM: Well, number one, we’re all already making these mistakes. And the ones that I’m referring to are generally small and not fatal. So your performance doesn’t improve by isolating gross mistakes, or gross skills. Your performance improves when your usual skills begin to break down—meaning they don’t deliver—and remembering those, thinking about them after the session, and making a plan for what to do instead. That’s where improvement takes place.

When I hear people mention this kind of objection, I think they’re thinking that the errors are far grosser than what I’m talking about. Once therapists assess their baseline, most are going to find out—to their, perhaps, surprise—that they’re average in terms of their outcome, or slightly less than average. So if we’re average, then it’s not about bringing your game up to the average level. It’s about extending it to the next. That requires a focus on small process errors.

Let me give you another example. We have a pianist come and perform at one of our conferences. She is eight years old and she is really unbelievably able as a concert pianist. She plays a very difficult piece. I ask her if she made any mistakes. She says, “Of course, I made a lot.” I tell her I didn’t hear any, to which she says, “Well, that’s because you’re no good at this.”

I then say, “What do you mean? And what do you do about your mistakes?”

She says, “Look. I made lots of mistakes, but you cannot get better at playing the piano while you’re performing.” This is an 8-year-old.

I say, “So what do you do?”

She says, “Well, I hear these small errors. I remember them. My coach in the audience remembers them, and then that’s what I isolate for periods of practice between performances.”

Most of Us Are Average

TR: How many therapists really practice between sessions? I mean, that’s pretty rare, isn’t it?
SM: Most of us are average.
TR: Right.
SM: And 50% of us are below average, right?
The best performers spend significantly more time reading books and articles….and reviewing basic therapeutic texts.
So very few people do it, and this is the real mystery of expertise and excellence. Why do some go this extra mile? There’s no financial pay-off. I think this will change in the future, but at the present time, you don’t get paid one dime more if you’re average, crappy, or really good. The fees are set by the service provided.
TR: That is a great problem with our field and I hope that does change in the future.
SM: I think that we’re seeing movement in that direction. I think that our field will become like other fields, where outcome of the process is what leads to payment, rather than the delivery of it.
TR: So back to practicing. Therapists read books and go to workshops, but that’s kind of passive learning. What are your thoughts about that?
SM: That’s a component of practicing. A graduate student that I’ve been working with, Darryl Chow, who just finished his PhD at University of Perth in Australia, did his dissertation on this topic and found that the best performers spend significantly more time reading books and articles. We also know that the best performers spend more time reviewing basic therapeutic texts.

Therapists are often in search of the variation from their performance that will allow them to reach an individual client they’re struggling with. Top performers not only do that, but they’re also constantly going back to basics to make sure they’ve provided those. They spend time reading basic books that may be hugely boring but are nonetheless really helpful. Gerard Eagin’s The Skilled Helper, Corey Hammond’s book on therapeutic communication—these basic texts that remind us of things that we often forget in the flurry of cases we see every week.
TR: So reading counts. What about workshops?
SM:
We don’t know about workshops. I’m cynical about them, simply because they’re not set up in a way that respects any principles of the last 30 years of research on human learning.
We don’t know about workshops. I’m cynical about them, simply because they’re not set up in a way that respects any principles of the last 30 years of research on human learning. Six hours, chosen by the person who needs the continuing education, and there’s no testing of skills, acquisition of skills, no awareness of particular deficits in practice. Greg Neimeyer has done a fair bit of research on this and he finds no evidence that our current CE standards lead to improved performance. None.
TR: There’s a psychotherapy instructor I know, Jon Frederickson, who has his students go through psychotherapy drills, kind of like role-playing drills in a circle. Would that count as practice?
SM: It depends, but I like the sound of it. Not a scrimmage, where you do a whole game, but rather drilling people in very specific small skill sets again and again. That aligns with the principles of Ericsson’s researchers.

If you’re an experienced professional, your motivation for going to a CE event can be really varied. I know for me, I’m often just grateful to have a day off and hang out with friends. The particular content of the workshop, I’m ashamed to admit, is less important. The incentives are just all wrong.
TR: It goes back to your motivation question.
SM: I don’t think our field incentivizes that kind of stuff. In fact, you can be punished.
TR: Well, one incentive I discovered myself in my own private practice was my drop-out rate. That motivated me to get further training. Maybe other therapists don’t have the same problem I had, but I know that was a powerful motivation.
SM: Drop-out can be both a good and a bad thing. For example, our current system incentivizes therapists to have a butt in the seat every available, billable hour. What that means is that therapists may be incentivized—we have some data about this, too—to keep clients, whether they are changing or not. That’s what I mean when I say that the incentives are all screwed up. There are, every once in a while, motivated people like yourself who say, “Wait a second. There has to be something beyond this.” But that requires a degree of reflection that may be difficult for most of us, especially if we are well defended. For these folks, people drop out because they are in denial about their own problems, not because of anything they, themselves, might be doing.

You put those things together and it can be a fatal combination. We need to take a step back as payers for services and as consumers of services and think about the incentives in our current system. I know this sounds terribly economic, but I think it’s important for our field.
TR: That sounds sensible to me. What about watching psychotherapy videos by psychotherapy experts like the ones psychotherapy.net produces. Would that count as practice?
SM: Yes it would. Especially in the beginning, when you have identified a particular area or weakness in your skill set that you may need some help with. In essence, you’re spending more time swimming in it while reflecting, which is the key part.
TR: Do you have other examples of deliberate practice that you’ve heard of therapists engaging in?
SM: Well there’s the stop-start strategies that Darryl Chow has been talking about. And Chris Hall is doing a study at UNC that we’re involved with, where therapists will watch short segments of a video and then they have to respond in the moment in a way that is maximally empathic, collaborative, and non-distancing. So they’re training therapists to develop a certain degree of proficiency with fairly straightforward clients.

Then you begin to vary the emotional context, or the physical context, in which the service is delivered. So now the client’s not just saying, “Hey, I feel sad.” They’re threatening to drop out or to commit suicide. More difficult and challenging things. And then simply spending time outside of the office planning and discussing individual particular cases with peers or consultants is another strategy.

In Darryl Chow’s research, which I think is the most exciting stuff, he found that within the first eight years of practice, therapists with the best outcomes spend approximately seven times more hours than the bottom two-thirds of clinicians engaged in these kinds of activities. Seven times.
TR: Wow.
SM:
The key to this is really starting early and investing a little bit at a time. It’s sort of like how you’re advised to save for your retirement. Not in the last five years. Not in the first five years, but a little bit every year.
The good news is, now that we know this, we can start this process earlier. The bad news is, if you’ve been at this for awhile, it becomes impossible to catch up with the best. We just age out. We can’t do it. The key to this is really starting early and investing a little bit at a time. It’s sort of like how you’re advised to save for your retirement. Not in the last five years. Not in the first five years, but a little bit every year.
TR: One advantage that great athletes have is that their coaches gets to determine day by day what moves or what performances they’re going to practice. I run a training program here at University of Alaska, Fairbanks, at the University Center for Student Health and Counseling, and I don’t get to pick what clients come in day to day. It could be anxiety, depression, any number of different things, so I’ll do a training on, let’s say, working with anxiety, but the client that comes in will have depression. So what do you do about that?
SM: Well, in essence, we’re violating John Wooden’s primary rule, which is, we are allowing students to scrimmage before they drill. And I have to tell you, all students want to scrimmage, but what you need to do more of, before and during, is drilling. The kind of drilling that I think your colleague was talking about. Or you go back to, “Here’s how we hold the guitar.” And we play very simple songs and then we begin varying the drill with greater degrees of complexity once easier tasks are managed.
TR: So you’d recommend a longer period of training and practice and drills before seeing clients.
SM: I’d want to see that kind of mastery. Let me give you an example. Do you want the pilot to be proficient at flying in fair weather, as demonstrated on the simulator, before they fly a plane?
TR: Yes.
SM: You want them to be prepared for all the complications: “Wait a minute, it’s raining,” “Wait a minute, you’ve got problems with your rudder.” These are complex skills and, yes, we can teach people to manage them as one-offs, but then they never integrate it into a coherent package that makes it easier to retrieve from memory later on when they need that skill. If it’s viewed as a one-off—“With the anxiety client, I did this”—it’s not integrated into an organized structure for retrieval later on.
TR: So on a therapist’s resume, you’d want to see not just hours of direct service provided, but also hours spent practicing and learning.
SM: Or, better yet, somebody who has measured results, like yourself. All I need is an average pilot. I don’t need the best pilot in the world, because most of the time there’s not huge challenges. If you can document your results, and if you’re checking in with me, we’re going to catch most of the errors anyway. And then I want a therapist who has a professional development plan, that’s working on the aggregation of small improvements over a long period of time.
TR: So for tracking results, I know you recommend quantitative outcome measures, like the Outcome Rating Scale or the Outcome Questionnaire. But I have found that there are certain clients that quantitative measures just don’t seem valid for. It’s not a large percentage of clients, but there are some that underreport problems at first. So it can look like they’re deteriorating even while they’re improving. Can you recommend any kind of qualitative methods or other methods of trying to accurately assess outcome in addition to those measures?
SM: I don’t buy it. Personally, I just don’t see that stuff and I would offer a very different explanation for it. Let me give you an example.

We know that each time there is a deterioration in scores, the probability of client drop-out goes up, whether or not the therapist thinks that it’s a good sign that the client is “getting in touch with reality and finally admitting their issues,” or had inflated how they really were doing for the first visit. So the key task here is not to say, “There must be another measure,” but to figure out what skills are required for me to get a higher score.

Dig Into the One You Know

TR: That’s a new perspective. To look at what I can change about my performance, rather than a new measure to assess it.
SM: Now you see why I think our field is forever chasing its tail. Because instead of becoming fully connected to our performance, we are constantly looking for the trick that will make us great.
Instead of becoming fully connected to our performance, we are constantly looking for the trick that will make us great.
It’s like a singer looking for the song that will make them famous rather than learning how to sing. We’re forever going to workshops, and the level of the workshops are often so basic even when they’ve claimed to be advanced. The truth is, you can’t do an advanced workshop on psychotherapy for 100 people. You can’t do it. The content is too abstract and too general. You need to see a clinician’s performance and fine-tune it. So therapists go around and around, constantly picking up these techniques that they use in an unreliable fashion, and their outcomes don’t improve, but their confidence does.
TR: So instead of picking up a new modality every year, dig into the one you know, preferably with a real expert, and get individualized or maybe small group training and practice.
SM: I think that once you’ve achieved a level of proficiency, the only hope for improvement is to get feedback on your specific deficits. And yours will be different from mine.
TR: It sounds like you’d definitely be a fan of videotaping sessions and reviewing them and that kind of thing.
SM: Not alone—with an expert eye reviewing small segments. Otherwise the flood of information from video will have you second-guessing yourself, which can actually interrupt the way you work in an unhelpful way.
TR: What about live supervision?
SM: I’m not averse to it, but I think it’s a little bit like a GPS—it can correct your moves in the moment, but you become GPS-dependent and you don’t learn the territory. What’s required in learning is reflection. If you don’t reflect, you can’t learn. As my uncle used to say, “You got to study that thang.”

I actually had great opportunities with live supervision when I was at the Family Therapy Center and got corrected in the moment by two really masterful clinicians. But I also think that what really made a difference was sitting behind a mirror, without any financial worries, watching endless hours of psychotherapy being done, and then talking about it afterwards. “This was said. What could you have said? How come we said this? What do you need to do?” It was a heavenly experience and as a result, I came away with a very highly nuanced and contextualized way of delivering that particular model.

And today, when I’m doing my Scott Miller way of working and I notice that a particular client wasn’t engaged or interested at a particular moment, I think, “What could I have said differently?” It’s at that small micro level that improved outcome is likely to be found. As opposed to just gross generic level.

People go to workshops and say, “I’ve had some traumatized clients. Maybe I’ll learn that EMDR thing.”

“Really?” I think. “Do you know how effective you are in working with these clients already?”

“No, I don’t.”

“What makes you think you need to do EMDR?”

“Well, it just seems so interesting.”

And I think, “Oh, you’re doomed.” Not that there’s anything wrong with EMDR, but I have to tell you, I watched Francine Shapiro do it and it looks a lot different than some other people I’ve seen doing it.
TR: So the problem there is switching modalities rather than getting a lot better at the one you’re currently using.
SM: It’s looking for a trick rather than thinking through, what else could I have said? What else could I have done that I already know how to do? Or getting a little bit of tweaking from a trusted mentor.
TR: I know you present this information all over the world. Do you find therapists are open and receptive to these ideas?
SM: Yes. I think that there are some very real barriers that we need to address, but yes, I do.
TR: This has been a really fascinating conversation. Thank you for making the time.
SM: I like this stuff. I’m fascinated by it and I’m very hopeful about the direction we’re going research-wise, so thank you for giving me the opportunity.

George Silberschatz on Psychotherapy Research and Its Discontents

What is Empirically Known About Psychotherapy?

David Bullard: Let’s start with a little background information about your work. I first met you through the San Francisco Psychotherapy Research Group—can you talk about your involvement there?
George Silberschatz: Certainly. It was originally called the "Mt. Zion Psychotherapy Research Group,” founded by Joe Weiss who was joined by Hal Sampson, both psychoanalysts, in 1971. They were just starting to publish some research papers and were very active teachers at Mt. Zion Hospital when I began working with them in 1975. Their work together formed the basis of what is now known as Control Mastery Theory.
DB: You’ve been in private practice about thirty-five years and are a clinical professor at UCSF with a multitude of research papers on psychotherapy process and outcome.
GS: My book Transformative Relationships (Routledge, 2005) is on Control Mastery Theory, and my papers are almost evenly divided between research and clinical work, because they are so intertwined and I go from one to the other very easily.
DB: You are currently the president of the international Society for Psychotherapy Research, which includes chapters in North America, Europe, Latin America, and Australia. Would you talk a bit about the concepts “empirically-validated” and “empirically-supported therapies.” What are your thoughts about what is truly empirically known from psychotherapy research?
GS: Well, I have very mixed feelings about all of it because I don’t think it’s fundamentally based on scientific evidence.
I believe that the term “empirically-validated” is largely used when people are trying to market their specific brand of therapy.
I believe that the term “empirically-validated” is largely used when people are trying to market their specific brand of therapy. You know, “Our empirically-validated therapy is better than everything and everyone else, so if you need therapy, come see us!"

It seems a bit overdone and over-hyped. A lot of people have started saying “evidence-based therapy” instead of “empirically-based,” but what counts as evidence and how is the evidence portrayed? There’s a great deal of subjectivity in that process.
DB: In the early mention of “empirically-validated treatment,” researchers made another distinction between efficacy and effectiveness. Is there such a distinction in the real world versus laboratory research?
GS: It’s a big controversy. The term “efficacy” is used by people who believe that empirical evidence can only come from randomized clinical trials, i.e. in the lab. It has its roots in both medicine and pharmacology in the way drugs are tested and, basically, the proponents of this research paradigm feel that anything else isn’t empirical, isn’t evidence.
Manuals are essentially useless for practicing clinicians.
I wrote an article about this for the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology called “Are results of randomized controlled trials useful to psychotherapists?” It was basically a debate between myself and my co-author, Jackie Persons, who is a cognitive behavioral therapist. She took the position that people should only be practicing empirically validated therapies—by which she meant Random Control Trial-Based Therapies or RCTS—and that it might even be unethical to do anything other than that.
DB: Which implies following a manual that such studies usually use so that the treatment condition is uniform across therapists?
GS: It does often imply following a manual. They punted on this a little bit and said there was some wiggle room for therapists to stray from the manual, but what’s a manual? I took the position that manuals are essentially useless for practicing clinicians.
DB: That’s refreshing and helpful to hear.
GS: There’s a lot of variability among clinicians, you know? There are a lot of very thoughtful people who think like Jackie, but there are also people that see the limitations of that as a model, especially for psychotherapy.
There is no support for the idea of one therapy being better than another.


The current—and I would say balanced and intelligent—position of the American Psychological Association is that when you really look at the evidence carefully, as they’ve done, there is no support for the idea of one therapy being better than another. But a lot of the proponents of the Randomized Control Trial for psychotherapy use their results to say, “Our results show that our method is better than yours.” That’s led to a rash of people trying to do trials on their new model of therapy. Every time there’s a new therapy, somebody has to do a trial showing that their new therapy is as good or better than some other one. That hasn’t been very productive, in my opinion.

Psychotherapy Works

DB: Overall, what would you say has been shown? For example, Consumer Reports did their research on their readers’ reactions to psychotherapy in 1995.
GS: That was a very large survey of psychotherapy effectiveness. I think it had a very useful purpose because it was actually asking the people who were using the service what they thought of it. It was pretty impressive.
DB: So there have to be quite a substantial number of technical issues within the field of psychotherapy research that we won’t go into today, but I heard Daniel Kahneman, who won a Nobel Prize for Behavioral Economics research, state in a recent interview that the most relevant, reliable outcome measures for a person’s happiness should be based on the report of the person’s friends. In other words, their evaluation would be more valid than anyone else’s. What would you say is the most useful outcome measure for psychotherapy?
GS: Certainly not the therapist’s!
DB: No!
GS: It turns out to be a very complex problem. I respect Kahneman's work very much. He’s a brilliant man. But I’m not sure that I would necessarily agree with him that a friend or significant other in a person’s life would have the best perspective. This is something that has troubled psychotherapy researchers for a long time: How do you measure outcome? Whose perspective do you rely on? There are plenty of people who feel the therapist has the best position. There are other people who feel that the patient is in the best position. There are yet other people who—
DB: How about the patient’s mother?
GS: She may not be in the best position either! Because someone like a mother or a spouse may have a particular vested interest. But it’s a very thorny problem in psychotherapy research and I don’t think anyone’s come up with a definitive answer yet. I think we tend to use multiple perspectives now but that creates its own particular difficulties as well.
DB: You have studied both outcome and process-oriented research. Overall, hasn’t it been shown through meta analyses of lots and lots of studies that psychotherapy works for the vast majority of people who undertake it?
GS: Yes.
DB: And other studies of process show the elements that seemed to have the most impact within a psychotherapy relationship.
GS: Well, you’re quite right that there’s evidence available now that shows unequivocally that psychotherapy works. There should be no more questions about that in anyone’s mind.
Evidence available now shows unequivocally that psychotherapy works. There should be no more questions about that in anyone’s mind….The issue of what it is about therapy that is causing it to work is still up for a lot of debate.
It definitely does work. What that means, concretely, is that a person who is having any one of a variety of psychological, emotional or behavioral kinds of problems will do far better getting psychotherapy than not. The issue of what it is about therapy that is causing it to work is still up for a lot of debate. And, of course, every school of psychotherapy, every brand, has their own particular perspective on that.

One thing that people do generally agree upon is that the therapeutic relationship, the nature of that relationship that some people call the “therapeutic alliance,” is a critical factor. Other people say the relationship is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition, but what is it about the relationship? If you’re a clinician, and you’re about to meet a new patient, the research doesn’t really tell you what you might do to enhance that relationship. What are the things that are involved? What are the steps involved in creating these productive therapeutic relationships?
DB: Versus looking up in the manual to find out which antibiotic to give for which infection?
GS: Yes, but even with antibiotics, it turns out that a lot more of that is art and trial-and-error than we are led to believe. It’s not quite as cut-and-dried and as narrowly evidence-based. People try one thing and that may work on half the patients. But it doesn’t work on the other half, and then you have to start experimenting with tweaking it.
DB: I guess we’d like to pretend that we live in a world of certainty.
GS: Yes. There is something inherently reassuring about that. But it’s also quite elusive, in my opinion.
DB: I’m reminded of an old saying: “There is no Zen, only Zen teachers.” In a way, there is no “psychotherapy.” It’s only each unique interaction between two people (or three people if it’s couples therapy).
GS: I think that framing it this way goes back to a very old argument in psychology. The controversy about nomothetic versus idiographic principles. Ideographic being very individualized kind of principles, and nomothetic applying to large general populations. And in psychotherapy, my own view of it, both clinically and per research, is that it is very individualized.

So what’s going to work well for one person is not going to necessarily work well for another.
Therapy has to be tailored to the particular needs and goals of the patient we’re working with.
Therapy has to be tailored to the particular needs and goals of the patient we’re working with. But, having said that, I also think that there are some general principles, and here is a good example of one: If therapy is tailored to the needs of a particular person, all other things being equal, it will be more effective and more successful.
DB: Your background and your extensive work with Control-Mastery Theory, developed by Joe Weiss and Hal Sampson, is all about that.
GS: Yes. Very much so. It’s one of the things that really drew me to their work. It really takes into account the particulars of a person, the nature of their particular problems, what their particular history is, and how the therapy can address that in a very individualized way.

"We Forgot to Ask the Patient!"

DB: What’s your opinion on getting regular feedback from clients? The research that I’ve seen, both for individual therapy and couples therapy, seems to be clear that having clients give written feedback after every session improved either the alliance or the outcome. Should therapists be encouraged to incorporate that more into their clinical work?
GS: It’s a very good question, and it’s an area that is really taking off like wildfire right now, not just in psychotherapy, but in the field of healthcare generally. One of the biggest initiatives in many, many years, at the National Institutes of Health, is what they call “Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.” A lot of research in healthcare, for decades actually, was really just based on what lab tests showed, or what a physician concluded. Nobody bothered to get the patient’s perspective, and suddenly people are saying, “Oh, my God, we forgot to ask the patient!”

So now there’s this huge catch-up game going on in terms of trying to get the patient’s point of view. In psychotherapy research, we’ve certainly taken the patient’s view into account a lot, but what is newer in psychotherapy is this point that you’re raising about feedback, and getting patients’ feedback after every session. People have tended to use symptom-based measures, so patients fill out a form at the end of each session to see how they rate the severity of various symptom profiles.

I think that getting the patient’s feedback is very useful, but I’m not particularly impressed with symptomatic measures. I think there are probably more important things that one could find out from the patient after a session. What did they find useful? How did they feel the therapist was responding to them? That’s useful information for therapists to know, and historically we just relied on our own impressions to get that kind of information.
Sometimes we’re right; sometimes we’re wrong, and we often don’t know which is which.
Sometimes we’re right; sometimes we’re wrong, and we often don’t know which is which. Having the patient be the arbiter of that information is very valuable.

Even without written feedback, one would hope that an experienced practitioner would draw out the patient’s feelings and perceptions if he’s seeing some kind of transference to what a therapist has said or done. We hope that that would be an integral part of the work.
DB: Sure.
GS: Some therapists, of course, explicitly ask patients at the end of or at some point in the session, “Well, how do you feel things are going today?” Or, “How do you feel you’re doing?” Or, “How are things with us?” That’s a useful thing to do, but the people that are more into systematic feedback would say that you may get more reliable data if the patient is outside of the session, sitting, thinking about the influence of the therapist. You may get a more complete picture of the patient’s experience that way, instead of—what’s that old term in research?—the “socially desirable” answer.

"What Exactly Does 'Cured' Mean, Anyway?"

DB: Let’s switch back to the marketing aspect of “evidence-based therapies.” I recently came across a practitioner’s website where he claimed that his particular brand of marital therapy has proven to be effective with 90% of his couples and 70% were “cured.” What are your thoughts about that?
GS: It strikes me as primarily marketing. It’s hard for me to wrap my mind around numbers like that. What exactly does “cured” mean, anyway?
DB: Talk about the medical model! As if the people came in limping and left skipping merrily along.
GS: There’s plenty of evidence that therapy, including couples therapy, is effective. It works. But there’s no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that one particular brand is systematically better than another. There just isn’t evidence for that. People make all kinds of claims, but it just isn’t supported when you look at it on the broadest possible level.
DB: I found a couple of articles through the American Psychologist with tables about empirically validated therapies. One broad grouping is “well-established treatments.” And then they have “probably efficacious treatments.” I’m sure you’ve seen all of that.
GS: Yeah, absolutely.
DB: And someone cited 420 different defined psychotherapies. Do you think those are also marketing attempts to differentiate themselves from the rest?
GS: Yes, I think it is primarily marketing. I mean, there just can’t be 420 fundamentally different ways of doing this work. It flies in the face of common sense. I see it as what somebody called the “narcissism of small differences.” People have variations on cognitive therapy, to take a few examples. Albert Ellis, “Rational-Emotive Therapy.” You have Aaron Beck’s “Cognitive Therapy.” You have Jeff Young’s “Schema Therapy.”
There just can’t be 420 fundamentally different ways of doing this work. It flies in the face of common sense. I see it as what somebody called the “narcissism of small differences.”


And then there are probably 20 other variations of it. Well, are they really all that different? I don’t think so. I think it’s just people wanting to create a brand rather than looking for commonalities. They’re looking for, “this is my way,” so that they can develop empires and training institutes and all that.
DB: I’ve talked to a number of colleagues, a few of whom I guess may be possibly nearing retirement, and they look back over the years and wonder, “How did I do? How did it all go?” Arnold Lazarus, years ago, did some follow-up with as many of his patients as he could. Could you comment on how he did that, or your knowledge of that?
GS: I don’t know the specifics of Lazarus’ work on that, but I do know therapists who do this routinely. I’ve always had a lot of fascination and admiration for it, where a therapist will, after a number of years, get in touch with their patients and ask them to come back and to check in and to see how they’re doing. This is, obviously, without charging a fee. It’s just the therapist wanting feedback. Lou Breger wrote a book recently called Psychotherapy: Lives Intersecting in which he describes his experience contacting a lot of his former patients, and asking them how they’ve done. I think more of us should do it, probably.
DB: There are ways to do it, obviously, that ensure ethical reconnection with past patients.
GS: Yes. One has to be sensitive to respect their privacy. I mean Lou Breger got permission from all of his patients and any identifying data were disguised in his book. But even if one isn’t writing about it, just for one’s own edification, systematically getting a patient’s point of view several years after the end of therapy—what they felt about it, whether it was helpful or not helpful—could help sharpen us as clinicians.

We Are All Skinner's Pigeons

DB: Do you feel your clinical work with people is impacted by research results and, if so, to what degree? Or are you more impacted by what has happened in the session? One person pointed out to me quite a while ago, that in a sense, we therapists may be similar to Skinner’s pigeons—we get reinforced to do the things that work for us with our individual clients or couples. Research and theory can, perhaps, clarify and codify what we are doing or should do, but meanwhile, we’ve been getting these experiences with people about what works and doesn’t work. Do you have a sense of whether your own direct experience of doing therapy is most influential, versus reading research results?
GS: I’d say that my own work has been more influenced by my patients’ feedback and from teaching and observing what other therapists are doing in their work and how that’s going. In that case, I have the luxury of not being in the room at that point so I can think more broadly about what’s happening or not happening. I would say that those experiences, along with my own supervision—I’ve had therapy supervision for many, many years by really good people—have probably shaped my work the most.

There are some things from research that have also affected me. In my early training, which was largely psychoanalytic in the 70’s, the role of interpretation, particularly transference interpretation, as a primary mutative factor, was thought to be the primary effective ingredient of psychotherapy. My colleagues and I did some research on that and found, along with others, that there was no evidence that transference interpretations were especially powerful.
My colleagues and I did some research … and found, along with others, that there was no evidence that transference interpretations were especially powerful.


So that certainly led me to rethink everything. I thought, “Wait a minute. All the stuff that we’ve been learning from very senior psychoanalysts—there isn’t really any evidence supporting it other than the fact that they say so?” That really led me to question the role of interpretation in psychotherapy.
DB: Is that close to the idea that information—insight—can be imparted that will change people versus people having an experience that changes them?
GS: That’s exactly right. There’s a very gifted psychoanalyst, Frieda Fromm-Reichman, who said patients don’t come for insight; they come for experience. So this view has been around for a while, particularly in the so-called interpersonal school of psychoanalysis. I think that more often than not, people do learn from their experiences.

Having said that, I also want to say that in terms of my commitment to individualizing psychotherapy, it is true that there clearly are people who do learn a lot from new information, so I don’t privilege one or another. I don’t privilege the idea that there’s a particular technique that is across the board better than others. We might even say that for some people, having a new insight, a new thought about themselves or their lives or their childhood or current process, gives them a new experience.
DB: Yes, it can.
GS: Maybe more compassion for themselves.
DB: It could work both ways. It can work that the insight gives them new experiences. It can also work that new experiences opens them up to new insights.
GS: I would say it really does work both ways. And there’s no way to know in advance which it’s going to be for any given individual.
DB: What are your thoughts more generally about the role of research in a practitioner’s life?
GS:
Unfortunately research hasn’t given clinicians and practitioners a lot that they can use.
Unfortunately research hasn’t given clinicians and practitioners a lot that they can use. That is changing and will continue to change in a positive way, but the whole emphasis on the Randomized-Control Trials and so on has not helped clinicians much in my opinion. Other people have different views about this, obviously.

I think what can begin to help clinicians more is the very consistent research finding that “therapist effects” trump treatment effects. In other words, if there are therapists doing a trial of three different therapies, it turns out that there are particular therapists in all three of those conditions who are actually better than their peers.
DB: Those must include what some have referred to as “non-specific treatment effects.”
GS: And those effects are bigger than the particulars of the therapy that’s being practiced. To me, that’s a really interesting finding. And the question that it begs is, well, what are those therapists doing? Let’s figure that out. And, if we can figure out more about that, we could try to train other people to do that or try to incorporate more of that in our own work.

"He Was a Wise Dude, That Buddha"

DB: The final area I’d like to discuss with you is your own interest and involvement in Buddhist concepts. You’ve done very well-received seminars and workshops with Steve Weintraub, a Zen priest and psychotherapist, on Buddhism and psychotherapy. Is there anything that you would like to say about that?
GS: Overall, Buddhism, for me, as well as just the experience doing psychotherapy, has taught me that much in human life seems to get better when you can have more self-compassion. I’ve been interested in Buddhist thought for a very, very long time. My interest in it probably dates back to when I was studying psychology as an undergraduate. I was really interested in Freud. I was interested in Carl Rogers. I was interested in the Human Potential Movement.

Then I had this kind of—I don’t know what to call it—like an insight. I thought, “Wait a minute. People have been thinking about these things way before Freud, way before Rogers or Maslow; there’s a history to this. And it’s a very, very old and long one.” I would say that
Buddhist thinkers have been paying attention to the nature of mind and suffering for longer than just about anybody else.
Buddhist thinkers have been paying attention to the nature of mind and suffering for longer than just about anybody else. They’ve had a lot of valuable insights into what causes people to suffer, and how people’s suffering can be alleviated and reduced and so on. So at that broad level, I think Buddhism has a lot to teach us about just basic human psychology, and particularly the nature of suffering and what causes people’s suffering.

It’s different, in my opinion, from organized religions, in the sense that it doesn’t say one’s salvation will come through this or that route. I would say it’s a very broad model. It allows people to apply the teachings in their own lives in their own way. It doesn’t really require going to church or synagogue every week or every month or that kind of thing. But it does give certain tools that people can use in a very reliable and useful way.
DB: I’ve seen a commentary attributed to the Buddha, where he sounded like an empirically-based fellow. He essentially said, “Don’t believe anything I’ve told you. Try these things out for yourself. And if they work for you, great. If they don’t, go onto something else.”
GS: Yeah. I think that’s one of the things that has contributed to Buddhism gaining enormous popularity in the West right now. We have something that fits very well with the kind of individualized and democratic mindset that we can learn things by seeing what works for us. There is a lot of wisdom in that. He was a wise dude, that Buddha.
DB: They’ve updated it. I’ve run across some people who are espousing “Open-Sourced Buddhism,” that we are free to choose from those schools of Buddhist thought, from the very cognitive-based wisdom of Tibetan Buddhism to the no-thought idea of Zen.
GS: I love the idea, and would love to see more of that open-source thinking applied to psychotherapy. One of the things that we have right now in therapy is the equivalent of proprietary systems, where people develop one of those 420 brands of therapy, and then you just have to get in and do it that way. As opposed to an open-source model, which is people getting in there and using it for their own purposes and contributing to it, growing it in their ways—which is what’s happened to Buddhism. People are growing in all kinds of ways in the West, and I’d love to see more of that actually happen in psychotherapy.
DB: Supposedly a graduate student went to Jung one time and asked, “How do I become the best therapist I possibly can?” And he replied, “Go to the library, read everything good that’s been written about the art and science of psychotherapy, and then forget it all before you peer into the human soul.”

Well, thank you. I really, really appreciate having had this time with you.
GS: Thank you.

Steven Hayes on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)

Why ACT?

Tony Rousmaniere: In your experience, why do seasoned therapists who may already be proficient in other therapeutic modalities choose to learn ACT? What does ACT offer them that’s different?
Steven Hayes: I think there are a few main things that ACT offers. One is you can deal with deeper clinical issues, but inside of a model that feels progressive, so when you’re pushing into new territory, you have a road map that actually feels coherent. Another piece is that it’s personally relevant to people when they’re facing issues of their own. It’s kind of critical that we do work that does not feel false or hollow in some way, and almost all the ACT practitioners I know feel uplifted by the work when they’re struggling in their personal lives. They see the relevance.

I was giving a talk in England a few years ago and there was a person there from England’s evidence-based treatment program who asked that same question of the audience. Many of them shared that it’s fun to be part of a community that doesn’t speak down to you and that engages your intellectual interests in a number of different ways. People are able to integrate their interests in philosophy, evolutionary biology, social change and transformation, stigma and prejudice into their ACT work, which is unusual.

I think a lot of our psychotherapies have gotten way too focused on DSM disorders and things of that kind, especially the more evidence-based ones, and less interested in the broad application of behavioral science to all kinds of issues around human behavior. There’s a surprising number of people, for example, who are interested in Relational Frame Theory. It’s difficult material, very geeky, and doesn’t seem like something clinicians would be interested in. In fact, they’re not initially interested in it but as the work speaks to them, they become interested in it. Why is language like this? Why are our minds like this? Why does this model work? There’s also a community of scientists in ACT who are coming to conferences and presenting their work. It’s just kind of fun to be part of a group that has that aspect to it.
 
TR: How about therapists coming from CBT or just a purely behavioral angle? Is it challenging for them to move towards the philosophical side of things? 
SH: Part of what’s interesting about ACT is, when you go to an Association for Contextual Behavioral Science conference, which is the ACT community, there’s kind of a fruit-nut-seed mix of people there. There’s people from the gestalt, existential and humanistic side of things as well as behavioral and CBT folks. Because ACT sort of emerged out of behavior analysis, it includes some pretty hardcore Capital B behavioral people. Of the various groups, though, I think it’s hardest for traditional CBT folks because we’ve waved people off of some popular CBT methods that we just don’t think are very important or produce good outcomes. Especially detecting, challenging, disputing and changing cognitions—it’s just not something that we do very much at all. It can be hard for them to let go of these methods and can take some time to adjust.

We may do psycho education and cognitive reappraisal, but it’s just too dangerous and too close to things that are going to be too hard to do and that clients are going to sometimes misuse. You would think that the behavioral folks would really hate the philosophical aspect of ACT, but actually they like it a lot because they can see the connection to their tradition. And having a way to deal seriously with cognition that isn’t dismissive or reductionistic is kind of a relief to them.
 
TR: ACT is considered an evidence-based treatment?
SH: Yes, ACT and many others. I mean, Motivational Interviewing is really Rogerian thinking scaled up into evidenced-based care. People are increasingly required in agency after agency and state after state to show that their practices are evidence-based, and that’s probably even more true worldwide. There are some parts of Europe where you basically can’t practice unless you are doing things that are on a list of evidence-based treatments.
Motivational Interviewing is really Rogerian thinking scaled up into evidenced-based care.


ACT processes and procedures allow you to fit what you’re doing to the needs of an individual and create things on the fly and do things that make sense to you clinically, and yet know that you’re practicing inside an evidence-based care framework. It’s nice to not have to check your mind at the door and leave behind some of the deeper clinical issues that interest you. You don’t have to minimize or dismiss the complexity of human beings in order to make it on the list of evidence-based treatments.
 

If You're Note Busy Being Born, You're Busy Dying

TR: You mentioned that ACT is a progressive model. Can you give a concrete example of what that means or how that would appear in the work of therapy?
SH: There’s a tendency for us as therapists to get into a groove clinically speaking, with our personal style and our knowledge, and settle into it. It’s not a bad thing, but there will always be curve balls thrown by cases that we can’t reach, patients we don’t know how or what to do with, complexities that don’t yield to our methods. And if you’re not busy being born, you’re busy dying, to quote a Dylan song. So the kind of progressivity I’m talking about is the sense that we as individuals and as a field are getting better and better and more and more able to deal with what is complex and difficult, while not having to check what you already know works at the door.

So many of our evidence-based approaches basically ask people to buy in whole cloth to everything that some founder came up with. I don’t think that’s necessary, healthy or even reasonable frankly. I like to say to people when they get interested in ACT, “You’re going to find your own work inside this work. There’s a reason why you’re here, and if that’s not true then you should walk away from it.” Once you see that connection you can build on it. You can do new things and the entire community will support you.
I think our communitarian approach is one of the reasons ACT has developed so much over the years.
I think our communitarian approach is one of the reasons ACT has developed so much over the years. People bring these different ideas in and we keep adding things, subtracting things, modifying things, and extending things so there’s the sense that we’re doing more and doing better and that we’re all part of it. That’s the sort of progressivity I’m talking about.

Being part of a knowledge-development community is an exciting thing. If you look at the people who are active in the ACT world, we’re out there as trainers and writers, scientists and researchers and really sophisticated clinicians. We’re moving forward in a way that’s networked. I call it a reticulated model, meaning a web or a network where each little node has their part of the task of getting better as we move forward.
 

The DSM Kool-Aid

TR: ACT has much less of a focus on psychiatric symptoms and diagnoses than many or most other modalities. Can you talk about that and also your thoughts about the changes to the new DSM-5?
SH: We never did drink the Kool-Aid that was offered from the DSM-III onward. Not that it’s not of some use, of course, to have some sort of terminology or nosology, but it got way overextended. We don’t have any functional entities inside these syndromes. No diseases—none—have emerged. And that’s the whole point of that syndromal game—to lead you to an etiology so you can respond with proper treatment. An honest examination of it points to it being a billion dollar failure.
We never did drink the Kool-Aid that was offered from the DSM-III onward….ACT work is based more on the psychology of the normal.


ACT work is based more on the psychology of the normal. I think we have every reason to believe that most of the things that people struggle with are based on the failure to bring out normal psychological processes. Not that there aren’t abnormal processes, of course there are. But if you take, for example, our tremendously useful human capacity to problem-solve, analyze, categorize, predict and evaluate things—this process, when applied to the world within, can become very toxic. It turns your life into a problem to be solved. Once you start focusing on your sadness or your anxiety or your urges, your problem-solving processes are going to be anywhere between unhelpful and pathological. They’re going to increase your focus on things that are just a small part of what’s going on and create these kind of self-amplifying loops—like, the more you try not to think of things, the more you actually think of them. 

If you focus on the psychology of the normal as we have, we think that experiential avoidance accounts for about 25 percent of the variance in almost all of the major syndromes. But it also accounts for whether or not you can learn a new software program or are comfortable in your relationships and so on. We have to dig down and see what these processes are and how can we rein them in, because it isn’t possible—nor would we even want to—eliminate them. 

Problem solving, for example, is just too darned useful for us to check at the door, but we need to learn how to respectfully decline our mind’s invitation to use our problem-solving repertoire for our normal flow of emotional and cognitive events. That’s very hard to do, but people can learn to do that. The mindfulness folks have learned a number of methods for doing it and we’ve found some additional tools that people can integrate into their lives pretty easily. Using these tools people can become more psychologically flexible, more able to shift their attention from fear and avoidance to what they most deeply care about and want from their lives.
We need to learn how to respectfully decline our mind’s invitation to use our problem-solving repertoire for our normal flow of emotional and cognitive events.


So our approach—instead of the DSM medicalization of human suffering—is to try to dig into the processes that narrow human lives or expand them, and to learn how to measure them so that we can begin to train people to use them to evolve forward. People don’t go into therapy when life is moving forward at a reasonable clip; they go in when life is stuck or going backwards. And it’s not that they get cured or fixed, because humans are not broken, they don’t need to be fixed. They need to be supported in a way that allows them to grow and do a better job over time with the things that they really care about—their kids, their work, their intimate relationships, their sense of participation and connection with the world around them. That’s just not going to be found inside a syndromal model. It doesn’t mean you can’t draw on genetics, epigenetics, physiology and neuroscience in formulating your treatment, but not with the mindset that we’re discovering abnormal processes. 

What we’re actually discovering is the richness of human experience and what moves you forward and moves you back and how can we get evidence-based processes linked to evidence-based procedures that can be used creatively by competent clinicians. Not to fix you but to get you over that hump. From there we have a kind of family dentist model—if you run into problems again, if you find yourself in a cul-de-sac, come on back in. Part of what’s exciting about ACT work is that anybody who responds to it is likely to respond even faster the next time around because the same basic processes show up over and over again. Often just reminding people of the progress that they’ve made in the past by learning to be more open, more aware, and more actively engaged in their values is enough to get them over the new barrier that they’ve run into in their life.

Treating Addiction with ACT

TR: I’ve seen a bunch of literature recently on using ACT with addictions. What’s the ACT approach to addictions?
SH: It’s an exciting area. There are about 10 or 12 controlled studies on ACT with addictions—several very powerful ones on smoking and now some in other areas of addictive behavior. In a recent study we published in The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology titled, “Reducing Shame in Addictions: Slow and Steady Wins the Race,” we showed that you can focus ACT methods on reducing shame and self-stigma. We did a randomized trial at an inpatient unit comparing it to 12-step oriented inpatient care, and ACT interventions resulted in fewer days of substance use and higher treatment attendance at follow up.

When dealing with severe substance abuse, working with shame is critical because people have done a lot of damage, not just to themselves but to their families, their children, their work, to the things they care most about. You don’t get into a 28-day inpatient program in the modern era—at least, not in Nevada where it’s cowboy conservatives—without creating some real wreckage. You’ve probably lost your job and all the rest, and most likely someone else is footing the bill for your treatment.

Guilt actually predicts positive outcomes in substance abuse, but shame does not.
Guilt actually predicts positive outcomes in substance abuse, but shame does not. When you’ve done things that are harmful to others, guilt is a perfectly appropriate emotion; it’s something to have and experience and it can help reorient you toward what’s important in your life and what you can do to clean up the mess you have made. What shame adds on is the “I’m bad” piece—the kind of fused conceptualization of oneself as a broken organism. That’s toxic and it predicts bad outcomes.

The normal, reasonable way that a human mind tries to resolve this problem is to talk itself out of shame. The Stuart Smalley solution: “Gosh darn it, I’m good enough and people love me.” But that’s a form of suppression and it can blow up like a house of cards when people leave treatment because it’s not grounded in a deeper set of values.

What we did initially in our groups was to slow things down, to learn to just watch the mind, watch all the chatter and finger wagging and shame and blame coming up, and then dig into the part that’s useful and let go of what’s not. It sobers people up in a way.
There’s kind of a humbling that takes place when you inhale into the pain of your own history and your own addiction and then make that leap of openness.
There’s kind of a humbling that takes place when you inhale into the pain of your own history and your own addiction and then make that leap of openness. You know, “I’m willing to take a leap of faith that I’m big enough to have this feeling,” and then the intentional flexibility inside a more mindful place to now shift my attention towards what I deeply care about. Then one step at a time, one day at a time—how am I going to get there? This resonates with some of the deeper parts of the Twelve-Step tradition. There’s nothing in the Twelve-Step program, or at least what I see in the Big Book version of it, that contradicts ACT, but these principles are not always what’s being applied in treatment facilities.

For the folks participating in our ACT groups, their shame levels actually went down more slowly, but they continued to go down after treatment and their outcome rates were better. For those not in our groups, their shame levels went down more quickly while they were in treatment, but their recidivism rates were higher after treatment.
 
TR: So mindfulness work is really essential to ACT and specifically to this process of decreasing shame?
SH: Very much so. What’s true about any mindfulness work is that, if you’re going to open up, you’re going to see dark places. You can’t hide from yourself like you used to. Hiding from yourself created problems, but opening your eyes and being with yourself and watching your emotions rise and fall, being more honest about what you’re feeling, sensing, remembering, thinking—that’s also going to be difficult. I don’t think it’s by accident that mindfulness-based cognitive therapy works pretty well for people who have had depression three or more times, but is arguably inert for people who’ve only had a single depressive episode. Because if you’re going to open the door to the basement and go walking down into the basement you’re going to see stuff down there that’s not for the faint of heart.

If you’re going to do this kind of work you’re going to find pain within you and without; you’re going to see injustice, you’re going to see suffering around you. You’re going to walk into the grocery store and you’re going to see people who don’t have enough money to buy the groceries they need. You’re going to see people walking by you who have a hard time taking a next step because they’re old and in physical pain. You start opening up to a more varied kind of perspective on yourself and others that I think is more honest.

But we dare not take these Eastern traditions and simply throw them into our Western minds with the idea that we’re going to relax and walk around with a big smiley face all the time. It’s a richer soup than the kind that our western commercial culture is giving us and our children, but it’s a hard path. This study we did with shame and addiction sort of shows that giving people a healthy way to walk that path is slower, but it’s more surefooted. So we’re bringing something new, I think, to the addiction field that as it becomes more known will be helpful to people working with addictions.
 

“It’s Not a Happy-Happy, Joy-Joy Bliss Trip”

TR: It’s interesting what you say about mindfulness opening your eyes to some of the darker things in the world. Sometimes when I hear therapists or others talking about mindfulness and meditation it seems like they’re talking about a pleasure cruise to bliss land or this image of the Buddha looking all happy. It sounds like that’s not what you mean in ACT.
SH: It isn’t and frankly it’s a distortion of those traditions. Taking a compassionate approach to yourself and others only really makes sense if you know how hard that is. If it’s not connected to the pain for which compassion is useful, then it’s just another suppressive, self-delusional trip. It’s a sort of psychological tranquilizer that is undermining what it’s there for and what I think we need right now.

Science and technology are creating such a challenge for us now that we can instantly see all the horrific things happening in the world on our screens. Those destroyed homes left in the wake of the Oklahoma tornado, the Boston Marathon bombings, the faces of the Newtown victims—your children are seeing it on their screens and you can’t throw out enough televisions and iPhones and all the rest to protect them from it.
The amount of pain that we’re exposed to now is a magnitude higher than anything we evolved to face. Your great-grandparents didn’t see anything near the flow of horrific images and judgmental words and painful events that we do now.
The amount of pain that we’re exposed to now is a magnitude higher than anything we evolved to face. Your great-grandparents didn’t see anything near the flow of horrific images and judgmental words and painful events that we do now. So we need modern minds for this modern world, but it’s not a happy-happy, joy-joy, bliss trip to the beach kind of thing. It’s much more serious and sober. Not serious in the sense that it’s not fun and joyful to be alive and connected, but in the sense that it does justice to the richness of human life. And it’s right in there from an ACT point of view.

We have a saying: “In your pain you find your values and in your values you find your pain.” When you connect with things that you deeply care about that lift you up, you’ve just connected yourself into places where you can and have been hurt. If love is important to you, what are you going to do with your history of betrayals? If the joy of connecting to others is important to you, what are you going to do with the pain of being misunderstood or failing to understand others? The acceptance and mindfulness work doesn’t self-soothe and makes all of that easy; instead it gives us the openness and grounding and consciousness to be able to move our attention in a non-suppressive way towards what we care about. It empowers us to take that leap of faith that we can care, that we can have values and nobody can stop us. Like Viktor Frankl wrote about, you can take away all of my external freedoms but you can’t take away my capacity to choose to love and care about others. You just can’t do it.

With meditation, the artificial anxiety that we pump into our lives sometimes recedes very quickly, and that’s fine. But people sometimes make the mistake of becoming mindfulness junkies. That’s the psychological equivalent of a tranquilizer and it’s an abuse of the traditions. Yet I worry that many therapists use it in just this way. It’s important to have the added dimension of values and caring and compassion and participation and making a difference.
 

ACT and Social Justice

TR: Speaking of making a difference, there’s a social justice component of ACT that I haven’t heard of in very many other therapeutic modalities. Can you describe this a bit more and also maybe some specific examples of how it’s being utilized to help people?
SH: I think that’s kind of a natural extension of ACT. The same cognitive processes that allow us to have a sense of transcendence or oneness or consciousness—the I-here-nowness of consciousness itself—are based upon the ability to see the world through other people’s eyes. So it isn’t just “I,” it’s “I/You.” There’s a social extension of consciousness that happens right in the process of becoming more aware of your own processes in which you begin, suddenly, to become aware of the fact that people around you are suffering. We can model this in the lab, actually. We use Relational Frame Theory methods with kids who don’t have a sense of self, and very soon empathy begins to emerge. When I see from my eyes, it happens at the same moment that you see from yours. When I learn to feel my feelings as feelings, it happens at the same moment that I see that you have feelings—that you’re feeling, too.

The natural extension of that process then is, if I’m going to be more accepting of my emotions and try to walk with them in a values-based way, what about the difficult emotions that other people are experiencing because of things that have happened to them? This is not a kind of mindfulness work that’s alone and cut off and sort of in the corner; it extends across time, place, and persons.

Objectification, dehumanization and prejudice naturally connect to things like self-stigma. I mentioned that we’ve done that kind of work with addicts, but we’ve also done it with LGBT populations, with victims of racial and religious prejudice. It’s the natural, reasonable, sensible thing to take the next step toward reining in the parts of the mind that lead us to objectify and dehumanize others.
Can we bring a more compassionate and values-based world into existence, starting with ourselves and then extending it out?
Can we bring a more compassionate and values-based world into existence, starting with ourselves and then extending it out? 

In our research on experiential avoidance, we’ve found that part of the problem with people who are prejudiced towards others is that they are unable to take in the perspective of others. They get overwhelmed by seeing the pain of others and would rather objectify and dehumanize them than feel what they would have to feel to know what it’s like to be them. We’ve shown the same thing with social anhedonia; you don’t care about being around others unless you have the big trio of good perspective-taking, empathy towards others and not running away from pain. So you can see how the model naturally leads us to a concern for issues of social justice. In a way it’s one and the same.
I can’t cut myself off from others and objectify and dehumanize others except by attacking the processes that allow me to be more open and accepting of myself.
I can’t cut myself off from others and objectify and dehumanize others except by attacking the processes that allow me to be more open and accepting of myself.

And that gives us a way in because nobody goes into therapy saying, “Gee, I’m a bigot. What can you do for me?” But they do come in saying, “I feel distressed. I feel disconnected. I feel far away.” And it turns out that objectification and dehumanization of others produces those results for the individual.

This happens with us, too, as clinicians. You know the kind of dark humor that happens in the staff room—“Oh, Sally the Borderline has shown up.” “Oh, God! Not Sally.” I understand why people do it and don’t mean to wag my finger, but it comes very close to objectifying clients, dehumanizing them as a defense against the pain of not being able to reach them. These kinds of attitudes predict burnout and ultimately minimize your ability to make a difference with others.
 
TR: It’s so interesting to think of therapists as social change agents. Have you done research in this area too?
SH: Our very first randomized trial in the modern era—because we had a few in the ‘80s, then we went dark for 15 years while we worked out the basic model and the theory of cognition and the measures for fear—was done by a guy named Frank Bond at the University of London. He did research with people who were working in call centers in banks—a very tough job, a lot of pressure and very little pay. He compared ACT to a program that was encouraging people to take charge of the stressors in their environment and make changes so that their environment was more supportive. ACT was a more psychological model, obviously, and when people got more open and accepting and values-based, they started demanding work changes of their foremen. The thing that was keeping people small and keeping them in a box was fear—“What will my boss think if I raise this issue?’”

The values piece activated people and I’m proud of the fact that when you do the kind of work that we’re doing, you empower people who are downtrodden or on the short end of the stick. We’ve shown this in several studies, that If you are more open to your feelings, more conscious, more aware, more mindful, and more linked to your values, you will be more empowered to step up. We’re doing that now with racial minorities, ethnic minorities, religious minorities and also with a message for those who are in a majority status but who care about these issues.
Psychotherapists have a role to play not just in the area of mental health, but in social justice as well.
Psychotherapists have a role to play not just in the area of mental health, but in social justice as well.

There’s a richer journey there and I think a lot of therapists are frustrated just dealing one person at a time at a time with the results of a society that just doesn’t know how to support people in being more fully human. You can be in your therapist role but also be part of a social change effort that is linked directly to the clinical work that you’re doing.
 

Running Towards Values

TR: It seems like you’re working to shift the focus away from symptom avoidance and towards values. Does that sound right?
SH: Exactly. A whole person running towards values—not in a suppressive or avoidant way in order to feel less of anything. There’s no delete button. In the language of mathematics, this is addition and multiplication, not subtraction and division. If people can learn how to add and multiply and open up, it’s deeply empowering.
TR: I saw on your website that you’re doing a study looking at the training effects of consultation groups. Is that right?
SH: Yes. People have begun to apply some of these very same processes of openness, mindfulness and values to training itself and we have now several studies showing that we can apply these methods to therapists and they will do a better job of learning. Psychological flexibility is important to us as learners and we’re looking carefully at training and studying it—not only how we train in ACT methods themselves, but also how we use ACT to train in a variety of psychotherapy and other processes that are helpful to us in our professional roles. It’s not simply a matter of learning a clinical technology; instead, we’re trying to create a knowledge development community that takes these processes and procedures wherever they can be of use to people.
TR: Thank you so much for taking the time to share your work with us here at psychotherapy.net.
SH: It’s been a pleasure.

Embracing Your Demons: An Overview of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

Imagine a therapy that makes no attempt to reduce symptoms, but gets symptom reduction as a by-product. A therapy firmly based in the tradition of empirical science, yet has a major emphasis on values, forgiveness, acceptance, compassion, living in the present moment, and accessing a transcendent sense of self. A therapy so hard to classify that it has been described as an “existential humanistic cognitive behavioral therapy.”

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, known as “ACT” (pronounced as the word “act”) is a mindfulness-based behavioral therapy that challenges the ground rules of most Western psychology. It utilizes an eclectic mix of metaphor, paradox, and mindfulness skills, along with a wide range of experiential exercises and values-guided behavioral interventions. ACT has proven effective with a diverse range of clinical conditions: depression, OCD, workplace stress, chronic pain, the stress of terminal cancer, anxiety, PTSD, anorexia, heroin abuse, marijuana abuse, and even schizophrenia.¹ A study by Bach & Hayes² showed that with only four hours of ACT, hospital re-admission rates for schizophrenic patients dropped by 50% over the next six months.

The Goal of ACT

The goal of ACT is to create a rich and meaningful life, while accepting the pain that inevitably goes with it. “ACT” is a good abbreviation, because this therapy is about taking effective action guided by our deepest values and in which we are fully present and engaged. It is only through mindful action that we can create a meaningful life. Of course, as we attempt to create such a life, we will encounter all sorts of barriers, in the form of unpleasant and unwanted "private experiences" (thoughts, images, feelings, sensations, urges, and memories.) ACT teaches mindfulness skills as an effective way to handle these private experiences.
 

What is Mindfulness?

When I discuss mindfulness with clients, I define it as: “Consciously bringing awareness to your here-and-now experience with openness, interest and receptiveness. There are many facets to mindfulness, including living in the present moment; engaging fully in what you are doing rather than “getting lost” in your thoughts; and allowing your feelings to be as they are, letting them come and go rather than trying to control them. When we observe our private experiences with openness and receptiveness, even the most painful thoughts, feelings, sensations and memories can seem less threatening or unbearable. In this way mindfulness can help us to transform our relationship with painful thoughts and feelings in a way that reduces their impact and influence over our life.

How Does ACT Differ from Other Mindfulness-based Approaches?

ACT is one of the so-called “third wave” of behavioral therapies—along with Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR)—all of which place a major emphasis on the development of mindfulness skills.

Created in 1986 by Steve Hayes, ACT was the first of these "third wave” therapies, and currently has a considerable body of empirical data to support its effectiveness. The “first wave” of behavioral therapies, in the fifties and sixties, focused on overt behavioral change and utilized techniques linked to operant and classical conditioning principles. The “second wave” in the seventies included cognitive interventions as a key strategy. Cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) eventually came to dominate this “second wave”

ACT differs from DBT, MBCT, and MBSR in many ways. For a start, MBSR and MBCT are essentially manualized treatment protocols, designed for use with groups for treatment of stress and depression. DBT is typically a combination of group skills training and individual therapy, designed primarily for group treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder. In contrast, ACT can be used with individuals, couples and groups, both as brief therapy or long term therapy, in a wide range of clinical populations. Furthermore, rather than following a manualized protocol, ACT allows the therapist to create and individualize their own mindfulness techniques, or even to co-create them with clients.

Another primary difference is that ACT sees formal mindfulness meditation as only one way of many to teach mindfulness skills. Mindfulness skills are “divided” into four subsets:

  • Acceptance
  • Cognitive defusion
  • Contact with the present moment
  • The Observing Self

The range of ACT interventions to develop these skills is vast and continues to grow, ranging from traditional meditations on the breath through to cognitive defusion techniques.

What is Unique to Act?

ACT is the only Western psychotherapy developed in conjunction with its own basic research program into human language and cognition—Relational Frame Theory (RFT). It is beyond the scope of this article to go into RFT in detail, however, for more information see https://contextualscience.org/rft 

In stark contrast to most Western psychotherapy, “ACT does not have symptom reduction as a goal.” This is based on the view that the ongoing attempt to get rid of “symptoms” actually creates a clinical disorder in the first place. As soon as a private experience is labeled a “symptom,” a struggle with the “symptom” is created. A “symptom” is by definition something “pathological” and something we should try to get rid of. In ACT, the aim is to transform our relationship with our difficult thoughts and feelings, so that we no longer perceive them as “symptoms.” Instead, we learn to perceive them as harmless, even if uncomfortable, transient psychological events. Ironically, it is through this process that ACT actually achieves symptom reduction—but as a by-product and not the goal.

Healthy Normality

Another way in which ACT is unique, is that it doesn't rest on the assumption of “healthy normality.” Western psychology is founded on the assumption of healthy normality: that by their nature, humans are psychologically healthy, and given a healthy environment, lifestyle, and social context (with opportunities for “self-actualization”), humans will naturally be happy and content. From this perspective, psychological suffering is seen as abnormal; a disease or syndrome driven by unusual pathological processes.

Why does ACT suspect this assumption to be false? If we examine the statistics we find that in any year almost 30 percent or the adult population will suffer from a recognized psychiatric disorder.³ “The World Health Organization estimates that depression is currently the fourth biggest, most costly, and most debilitating disease in the world, and by the year 2020 it will be the second biggest.” In any week, one-tenth of the adult population is suffering from clinical depression, and one in five people will suffer from it at some point in their lifetime?. Furthermore, one in four adults, at some stage in their lifetime, will suffer from drug or alcohol addiction. There are now over twenty million alcoholics in the United States alone.? 

More startling and sobering is the finding that almost one in two people will go through a stage in life when they consider suicide seriously, and will struggle with it for a period of two weeks or more. Scarier still, one in ten people at some point attempt to kill themselves?.

In addition, consider the many forms of psychological suffering that do not constitute “clinical disorders”—loneliness, boredom, alienation, meaninglessness, low self-esteem, existential angst, and pain associated with issues such as racism, bullying, sexism, domestic violence, and divorce. Clearly, even though our standard of living is higher than ever before in recorded history, psychological suffering is all around us. 

Destructive Normality

ACT assumes that the psychological processes of a normal human mind are often destructive, and create psychological suffering for us all, sooner or later. Furthermore, ACT postulates that the root of this suffering is human language itself. Human language is a highly complex system of symbols, which includes words, images, sounds, facial expressions and physical gestures. We use this language in two domains: public and private. The public use of language includes speaking, talking, miming, gesturing, writing, painting, singing, dancing and so on. The private use of language includes thinking, imagining, daydreaming, planning, visualizing and so on. A more technical term for the private use of language is “cognition.”

Now clearly the mind is not a “thing” or an “object.” Rather, it is a complex set of cognitive processes—such as analyzing, comparing, evaluating, planning, remembering, visualizing—and all of these processes rely on human language. Thus in ACT, the word “mind” is used as a metaphor for human language itself.

Unfortunately, human language is a double-edged sword. On the positive it helps us make maps and models of the world; predict and plan for the future; share knowledge; learn from the past; imagine things that have never existed, and go on to create them; develop rules that guide our behavior effectively, and help us to thrive as a community; communicate with people who are far away; and learn from people who are no longer alive.

The dark side of language is that we use it to lie, manipulate and deceive; to spread libel, slander and ignorance; to incite hatred, prejudice and violence; to make weapons of mass destruction, and industries of mass pollution; to dwell on and “relive” painful events from the past; to scare ourselves by imagining unpleasant futures; to compare, judge, criticize and condemn both ourselves and others; and to create rules for ourselves that can often be life-constricting or destructive.

Experiential Avoidance

ACT rests on the assumption that human language naturally creates psychological suffering for us all. One way it does this is through setting us up for a struggle with our own thoughts and feelings, through a process called experiential avoidance.

Probably the single biggest evolutionary advantage of human language was the ability to anticipate and solve problems. It has enabled us not only to change the face of the planet, but to travel outside it. The essence of problem-solving is this:

Problem = something we don't want. 
Solution = figure out how to get rid of it, or avoid it. 

This approach obviously works well in the material world. A wolf outside your door? Get rid of it. Throw rocks at it, or spears, or shoot it. Snow, rain, hail? Well, you can't get rid of those things, but you can avoid them by hiding in a cave, or building a shelter. Dry, arid ground? You can get rid of it by irrigation and fertilization, or you can avoid it by moving to a better location. Problem solving strategies are therefore highly adaptive for us as humans (and indeed, teaching such skills has proven to be effective in the treatment of depression.) Given this problem-solving approach works well in the outside world, it's only natural that we would tend to apply it to our interior world; the psychological world of thoughts, feelings, memories, sensations, and urges. Unfortunately, all too often when we try to avoid or get rid of unwanted private experiences, we simply create extra suffering for ourselves. For example, virtually every addiction known to mankind begins as an attempt to avoid or get rid of unwanted thoughts and feelings, such as boredom, loneliness, anxiety, depression and so on. The addictive behavior then becomes self-sustaining, because it provides a quick and easy way to get rid of cravings or withdrawal symptoms.

The more time and energy we spend trying to avoid or get rid of unwanted private experiences, the more we are likely to suffer psychologically in the long term. Anxiety disorders provide a good example. It is not the presence of anxiety that comprises the essence of an anxiety disorder. After all, anxiety is a normal human emotion that we all experience. At the core of any anxiety disorder lies a major preoccupation with trying to avoid or get rid of anxiety. OCD provides a florid example; l never cease to be amazed by the elaborate rituals that OCD sufferers devise, in vain attempts to get rid or anxiety-provoking thoughts and images. Sadly, the more importance we place on avoiding anxiety, the more we develop anxiety about our anxiety—thereby exacerbating it. It's a vicious cycle found at the center of any anxiety disorder. (What is a panic attack if not anxiety about anxiety?)

A large body of research shows that higher experiential avoidance is associated with anxiety disorders, depression, poorer work performance, higher levels of substance abuse, lower quality of life, high-risk sexual behavior, borderline personality disorder, greater severity of PTSD, long-term disability and alexithymia.

Of course, not all forms of experiential avoidance are unhealthy. For example, drinking a glass of wine to unwind at night is experiential avoidance, but it's not likely to be harmful. However, drinking an entire bottle of wine a night is likely to be extremely harmful in the long term. ACT targets experiential avoidance strategies only when client use them to such a degree that they become costly, life-distorting, or harmful. ACT calls these “emotional control strategies,” because they are attempts to directly control how we feel. Many of the emotional control strategies that clients use to try to feel good (or to feel “less bad”) may work in the short term, but frequently they are costly and self-destructive in the long term. For example, depressed clients often withdraw from socializing in order to avoid uncomfortable thoughts—“I’m a burden,” “I have nothing to say,” “I won’t enjoy myself”—and unpleasant feelings such as anxiety, fatigue and fear of rejection. In the short term, canceling a social engagement may give rise to a short-lived sense of relief, but in the long term, the increasing social isolation makes them more depressed.
 

Therapeutic Interventions

ACT offers clients an alternative to experiential avoidance through a variety of therapeutic interventions. In general, clients come to therapy with an agenda of emotional control. They want to get rid of their depression, anxiety, urges to drink, traumatic memories, low self-esteem, fear of rejection, anger, grief and so on. In ACT, there is no attempt to try to reduce, change, avoid, suppress or control these private experiences. Instead, clients learn to reduce the impact and influence of unwanted thoughts and feelings through the effective use of mindfulness. Clients learn to stop fighting with their private experiences—to open up to them, make room for them, and allow them to come and go without a struggle. The time, energy, and money that they wasted previously on trying to control how they feel is then invested in taking effective action (guided by their values) to change their life for the better.

The ACT interventions focus around two main processes:

  1. Developing acceptance of unwanted private experiences which are out of personal control. 
  2. Commitment and action toward living a valued life. 

What follows is a brief summary of some core ACT interventions, illustrated with vignettes of clinical work with a client called “Michael.”
 

Confronting the Agenda

In this step, the client's agenda of emotional control is gently and respectfully undermined through a process similar to motivational interviewing. Clients identify the ways they have tried to get rid of or avoid unwanted private experiences. They are then asked to assess for each method: “Did this reduce your symptoms in the long term? What did this strategy cost you in terms of time, energy, health, vitality, relationships? Did it bring you closer to the life you want?”

Michael was a 35-year-old accountant who suffered from significant social anxiety, and had seen a number of therapists to no avail. In the first session we ran through the many strategies he had used to avoid or get rid of his social anxiety. They included: drinking alcohol, taking Valium, being a “good listener” (asking lots of questions, but sharing little of himself), arriving late, leaving early, avoiding social events altogether, deep breathing, relaxation techniques, using positive affirmations, disputing negative thoughts, analyzing his childhood, blaming his parents (who were both socially avoidant), telling himself to “get over it,” self-hypnosis and so on. Michael realized that none of these strategies had reduced his anxiety in the long term. Although strategies such as taking Valium, drinking alcohol, and avoiding social events had reduced his anxiety in the short term, they had created significant costs to his quality of life. His “homework” was to notice and write down other emotional control strategies, and to assess their long-term effectiveness and costs to his quality of life.

Control is the Problem, Not the Solution

In this phase, we increase clients' awareness that emotional control strategies are largely responsible for their problems; that as long as they're fixated on trying to control how they feel, they're trapped in a vicious cycle of increasing suffering. Useful metaphors here include “quicksand,” “the struggle switch,” and the concepts of “clean discomfort” and “dirty discomfort.” We might deliver these metaphors like this:

Remember those old movies where the bad guy falls into a pool of quicksand, and the more he struggles, the faster it sucks him under? In quicksand, struggling is the worst thing you can possibly do. The way to survive is to lie back, spread out your arms, and float on the surface. It's tricky, because every instinct tells you to struggle; but if you do so, you'll drown.

The same principle applies to difficult feelings: the more we try to fight them, the more they overwhelm us. Imagine that at the back of our mind is a “struggle switch.” When it's switched on, it means we're going to struggle against any physical or emotional pain that comes our way; whatever discomfort experienced, we'll try our best to get rid of it or avoid it.

Suppose the emotion that shows up is anxiety. If our struggle switch is ON, then that feeling is completely unacceptable. This means we could end up with anger about our anxiety: “How dare they make me feel like this?” Or sadness about our anxiety: “Not again. Why do I always feel like this?” Or anxiety about our anxiety: “What's wrong with me? What's this doing to my body?” Or a mixture of all these feelings. These secondary emotions are useless, unpleasant, and unhelpful, and a drain upon our vitality. In response we get angry, anxious or guilty. Spot the vicious cycle?

But what if our struggle switch is OFF? Whatever emotion shows up, no matter how unpleasant, we don't struggle with it. So if anxiety shows up, it's not a problem. Sure, it's unpleasant. We don't like it, or want it, but at the same time, it's nothing terrible. With the struggle switch OFF, our anxiety levels are free to rise and fall as the situation dictates. Sometimes they'll be high, sometimes low and sometimes there will be no anxiety at all. Far more importantly, we're not wasting our time and energy struggling with it.

“Without struggle, we get a natural level of physical and emotional discomfort, depending on who we are and the situation we're in. In ACT, we call this “clean discomfort.”” There’s no avoiding “clean discomfort.” Life serves it up to all of us in one way or another. However, once we start struggling with it, our discomfort levels increase rapidly. This additional suffering we call “dirty discomfort.” Our struggle switch is like an emotional amplifier—switch it on, and we can have anger about our anxiety, anxiety about our anger, depression about our depression, or guilt about our guilt.

Obviously, these metaphors are tailored to the particular feelings the client struggles with. With the struggle switch ON, not only do we get emotionally distressed by our own feelings, we also do whatever we can to avoid or get rid of them, regardless of the long term costs. We draw clients' attention to the many ways they've tried to do this—through more obvious strategies such as drugs, alcohol, food, TV, gambling, smoking, sex, surfing the net—to less obvious emotional control strategies such as ruminating, chastising themselves, blaming others and so on. (As mentioned earlier, many control strategies are not an issue, as long as they are used in moderation.)

Michael was able to connect with these metaphors readily, especially the idea of the struggle switch. We were able to refer back to this in subsequent sessions whenever he experienced anxiety. “Okay, right now, you're feeling anxious. Is the struggle switch on or off?”
 

Six Core Principles of ACT

Once the emotional control agenda is undermined, we then introduce the six core principles of ACT. ACT uses six core principles to help clients develop psychological flexibility:

  • Defusion
  • Acceptance
  • Contact with the present moment
  • The Observing Self
  • Values
  • Committed action

Each principle has its own specific methodology, exercises, homework and metaphors. Take defusion, for example. In a state of cognitive defusion we are caught up in language. Our thoughts seem to be the literal truth, or rules that must be obeyed, or important events that require our full attention, or threatening events that we must get rid or. In other words, when we fuse with our thoughts, they have enormous in influence over our behavior.

“Cognitive defusion means we are able to “step back” and observe language, without being caught up in it. We can recognize that our thoughts are nothing more or less than transient private events—an ever-changing stream of words, sounds and pictures. As we defuse our thoughts, they have much less impact and influence.”

If you look through the wide variety of writings on ACT, you will find over a hundred different cognitive defusion techniques. For example, to deal with an unpleasant thought, we might simply observe it with detachment; or repeat it over and over, out aloud, until it just becomes a meaningless sound; or imagine it in the voice of a cartoon character; or sing it to the tune of “Happy Birthday”; or silently say “Thanks, mind” in gratitude for such an interesting thought. There is endless room for creativity. In contrast to CBT, not one of these cognitive defusion techniques involves evaluating or disputing unwanted thoughts.

Here’s a simple exercise in cognitive defusion for yourself:

Step 1: Bring to mind an upsetting and recurring negative self-judgment that takes the form “I am X” such as “I am incompetent,” or “I’m stupid.” Hold that thought in your mind for several seconds and believe it as much as you can. Now notice how it affects you.

Step 2: Now take the thought “I am X” and insert this phrase in front of it: “I’m having the thought that….” 'Now run that thought again, this time with the new phrase. Notice what happens.

In step 2, most people notice a “distance” from the thought, such that it has much less impact. Notice there has been no effort to get rid of the thought, nor to change it. Instead the relationship with the thought has changed—it can be seen as just words.

There now follows a brief description or the six core principles, with reference to the case or Michael.
 
1. Cognitive Defusion: learning to perceive thoughts, images, memories and other cognitions as what they are—nothing more than bits of language, words and pictures—as opposed to what they can appear to be—threatening events, rules that must be obeyed, objective truths and facts. 

In session two, Michael said he experienced frequent distress from thoughts such as “I'm boring,” “I have nothing to say,” “No one likes me,” and “I'm a loser.” As the session continued, I had Michael interact with these thoughts in a number or different ways, until they began to lose their impact. For example, I had him bring to mind the thought “I'm a loser,” then close his eyes and notice where it seemed to be located in space. He sensed it was in front of him. I asked him to observe the thought as if he was a curious scientist, and to notice the form of it: whether it was more like something he could see, or something he could hear. He said it was like words that he could see, and he noticed that as he “looked” at it, it became less distressing. “I asked him to imagine the thought as words on a Karaoke screen; then change the font; then change the color; then imagine a bouncing ball jumping from word to word.” By this stage, Michael was chuckling at the very same thought that only a few minutes earlier had brought him to tears. “Homework” included practicing several different defusion techniques with distressing thoughts—not to get rid of them, but simply to learn how to step back and see them for what they are—just “bits of language” passing through.

2. Acceptance: making room for unpleasant feelings, sensations, urges, and other private experiences; allowing them to come and go without struggling with them, running from them, or giving them undue attention.

In session three, I asked Michael to make himself anxious by imagining himself at a forthcoming office party. When I asked him to scan his body and notice where he felt the anxiety most intensely he reported a “huge knot” in his stomach. I asked him to observe this sensation as if he was a curious scientist who had never seen anything like it before; to notice the edges of it, the shape of it, the vibration, weight, temperature, pulsation, and the myriad of other sensations within the sensation. I had him breathe into the sensation, and “make room for it”; to allow it to be there even though he did not like it or want it. Michael soon reported a sense of calmness; a sense of being at ease with his anxiety even though he didn't like it. “Homework” included practicing this technique with his recurrent feelings of anxiety—not to get rid of them, but simply to learn how to let them come and go without a struggle.

3. Contact with the present moment: bringing full awareness to your here-and-now experience, with openness, interest, and receptiveness; focusing on, and engaging fully in whatever you are doing.  

In session four, I took Michael through a simple mindfulness exercise, focused on the experience of eating. I gave him a sultana, and asked him to eat it “in slow motion,” with a total focus on the taste and texture of the fruit, and the sounds, sensations and movements inside his mouth. I told him, “While you're doing this, all sorts of distracting thoughts and feelings may arise. The aim is simply to let your thoughts come and go, and allow your feelings to be there, and keep your attention focused on eating the sultana.”

Afterwards, Michael said he was amazed that there was so much flavor in one single sultana. I was then able to use this experience to draw an analogy with social situations, where Michael would he so caught up in his thoughts and feelings that he wasn't able to engage fully in conversation, and missed out on the “richness.” “Homework” included practicing full engagement with all the five senses in a number of daily routines (having a shower, brushing his teeth, and washing the dishes) as well as continuing to practice his defusion and acceptance techniques. He agreed also to practice mindful engagement in conversations; i.e. keeping his attention on the other person, rather than on his own thoughts and feelings.

4. The Observing Self: accessing a transcendent sense of self; a continuity of consciousness that is unchanging, ever-present, and impervious to harm. From this perspective, it is possible to experience directly that you are not your thoughts, feelings, memories, urges, sensations, images, roles, or physical body. These phenomena change constantly and are peripheral aspects of you, but they are not the essence of who you are.
 
In session five, I took Michael through a mindfulness exercise designed to have him access this transcendent self. First, I asked him to close his eyes and observe his thoughts: the form they rook, their apparent location in space, the speed with which they were moving. Then I asked him: “Be aware of what you are noticing. There are your thoughts, and there you are noticing them. So there are two processes going on—a process of thinking, and a process of observing that thinking.” Again and again, I drew his attention to the distinction between the thoughts that arise, and the self who observes those thoughts. From the perspective of the Observing Self, no thought is dangerous, threatening, or controlling. 

5. Values: clarifying what is most important, deep in your heart; what sort of person you want to be; what is significant and meaningful to you; and what you want to stand for in this life. 

In session six, Michael identified important values around connecting with others, building meaningful friendships, developing intimacy, and being authentic and genuine. We discussed the concept of willingness. The willingness to feel anxiety doesn't mean you like or want it. Instead it means you allow it to be there in order to do something you value. I asked Michael, “If taking your life in the direction of these values means you need to make room for feelings of anxiety, are you willing to do that?” His reply was, “Yes.” 

6. Committed Action: setting goals, guided by your values, and taking effective action to achieve them. 

Continuing session six, we moved to setting goals in line with Michael's values. Initially, he set the goal of going for lunch with a work colleague every day, and sharing some personal information on each occasion. In subsequent sessions, he set increasingly challenging social goals, and continued to practice mindfulness skills to handle the anxious thoughts and feelings that inevitably arose. At the end of ten sessions, Michael reported that he was socializing a lot more, and more importantly, he was enjoying it. Thoughts of being “a loser” or “boring” or “unlikeable” still occurred, but usually he did not take them seriously or pay them any attention. Likewise, feelings of anxiety still occurred in many social situations, but no longer bothered him or distracted him. Overall, his anxiety levels had diminished considerably. This reduction in anxiety was not the goal of therapy, but was a pleasant by-product.

This illustrates how ACT can result in good symptom reduction without ever aiming for it. First, a lot of exposure took place, as Michael engaged in increasingly challenging social situations. It is well known that exposure frequently can lead to reduced anxiety. Second, the more accepting Michael became of his unwanted thoughts and feelings, the less anxiety he had about those thoughts and feelings. Indeed, practicing mindfulness of unwanted thoughts and feelings is a form of exposure in itself.

The ACT Therapeutic Relationship

ACT training helps therapists to develop the essential qualities of compassion, acceptance, empathy, respect, and the ability to stay psychologically present even in the midst of strong emotions. Furthermore, ACT teaches therapists that, thanks to human language, they are in the same boat as their clients—so they don't need to be enlightened beings or to “have it all together.” In fact, they might say to their clients something like: “I don't want you to think I've got my life completely in order. It's more as if you're climbing your mountain over there and I'm climbing my mountain over here. It's not as if I've reached the top and I'm having a rest. It's just that from where I am on my mountain, I can see obstacles on your mountain that you can’t see. So I can point those out to you, and maybe show you some alternative routes around them.”

Conclusion

The experience of doing therapy becomes vastly different with ACT. It is no longer about getting rid of bad feelings or getting over old trauma. Instead it is about creating a rich, full and meaningful life. This is confirmed by the findings of Strosahl, Hayes, Bergan and Romano? who showed that ACT increases therapist effectiveness, and Hayes et al (2004) who showed that it reduces burnout. If I had to summarize ACT on a t-shirt, it would read: “Embrace your demons, and follow your heart.”


References
 

  1. Bond, F. W. & Bunce, D. (2000). Mediators of change in emotion-focused and problem-focused worksite stress management interventions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 156-163; Branstetter. A. D., Wilson, K. G., Hildebrandt, M., & Mutch, D. (2004). Improving psychological adjustment among cancer patients: ACT and CBT. Paper presented at the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New Orleans; Dahl, J., Wilson, K. G., & Nilsson, A. (2004). Acceptance and commitment therapy and the treatment of persons at risk for long-term disability resulting from stress and pain symptoms: A preliminary randomized trial. Behavior Therapy, 35, 785-802; Twohig, M. P., Hayes, S. C., Masuda, A. (2006). Increasing willingness to experience obsessions: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy as a treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder. Behavior Therapy, 37:1. 3-13; Zettle, R. D., & Raines, J. C. (1989). Group cognitive and contextual therapies in treatment of depression. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 438-445.
  2. Bach, P. & Hayes, Steven C. (2002). The use of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to prevent the rehospitalisation of psychotic patients: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 1129-1139.
  3. Kessler, R.C ., McGonagle, K.A., Zhao, S., Nelson, C.B., Hughes, M., Eshleman, S., Wittchen, H.U., and Kendler, K.S. (1994). Lifetime and 12-month Prevalence of DSM-111-R Psychiatric Disorders in the United States. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51 (Jan 1994): 8-19. 
  4. Davies, T. (1997), ABC of Mental Health, British Medical Journal, 314, 27.5.97: 1536-39. 
  5. Kessler, R.C ., McGonagle, K.A., Zhao, S., Nelson, C.B., Hughes, M., Eshleman, S., Wittchen, H.U., and Kendler, K.S. (1994). Lifetime and 12-month Prevalence of DSM-111-R Psychiatric Disorders in the United States. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51 (Jan 1994): 8-19. 
  6. Chiles J., and Strosahl, K. (1995), The Suicidal Patient: Principles Of Assessment, Treatment, and Case Management, American Psychiatric Press, Washington, DC. 
  7. Strosahl, K. D., Hayes, S. C., Bergan, J., & Romano, P. (1998). Does field based training in behavior therapy improve clinical effectiveness? Evidence from the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy training project. Behavior Therapy, 29, 35-64; Hayes, S. C., Bissett, R., Roget, N., Padilla, M., Kohlenberg, B. S., Fisher, G., et al. (2004). The impact of acceptance and commitment training on stigmatizing attitudes and professional burnout of substance abuse counselors. Behavior Therapy, 35, 821-836. 


 

Michael Lambert on Preventing Treatment Failures (and Why You’re Not as Good as You Think)

The Blind Spot

Tony Rousmaniere: Let’s jump right in. You’re a leading researcher in the field of helping clinicians track their clients’ outcomes.
Michael Lambert: Right.
TR: Despite a quickly growing body of evidence that tracking outcomes can really help clinical practice, there are still many clinicians who don’t do it or who don’t want to do it. How would you make the case to these clinicians that tracking outcomes can be beneficial for their practice and for their clients?
ML: Well, the system we developed, the OQ (outcome questionnaire) Analyst, essentially monitors people’s mental health by asking 45 questions about their mental health. Clinicians can’t do that on a weekly basis because it takes too much time to do it, so the best way to do it is through a client self-report measure that asks very specific questions about different areas of functioning. It’s important to use a self-report measure and to tap into a broad range of symptoms that wouldn’t normally come up in a session, since sessions usually focus on what happened last week. It’s like taking a patient’s blood pressure and checking their vital signs for each visit. It gives you a much more precise measure of how they’re doing over time.

We developed the measure essentially to reduce treatment failure. It came out of the problem of managed care bothering clinicians with management bureaucracy around cases they knew nothing about. And so the idea was to stop managed care from managing all the patients in the clinician’s caseload and to focus on the management of patients not responding to treatment. So it’s not for all patients. It’s not necessary for the majority of the patients, actually—but it is necessary for patients who are not progressing or are getting worse. 
About 8 percent of adult patients actually deteriorate at the time they leave treatment, and with kids it’s double that at least. So 15—24 percent of adolescent child clients actually leave treatment worse off than when they started.


Our estimate is that about 8 percent of adult patients actually deteriorate at the time they leave treatment, and with kids it’s double that at least. So 15—24 percent of adolescent child clients actually leave treatment worse off than when they started, which doesn’t include people who simply aren’t improving. But in our survey with clinicians we asked what percent of their patients were improving in psychotherapy, and they estimated 85 percent. This is a major blind spot for clinicians. They’re not good at identifying cases where patients are not progressing or are getting worse. Even in clinical trials where you’re delivering evidenced based psychotherapy and get well trained clinicians who are following protocol, etc., you’re only getting about two-thirds of those patients responding to treatment. And then in routine care, the percentage of responders is closer to one-third. So clinicians’ estimates are way overstated.

In many ways, I think it’s a necessary distortion for clinicians; in order for us to remain optimistic and dedicated and committed and engaged, we have to look for the silver lining even when patients are overall not changing or outright worsening. It’s kind of a defensive posture, and it serves clients well generally and it serves clinicians well generally because the more success we see in our patients the happier we are in our jobs. But the downside is for the subset of patients who are not on track for a positive outcome. The distortion doesn’t work in their favor.
 

We Are the 90 Percent

TR: So are you saying that therapists are kind of inherently optimistic and positive, which helps them with most clients, but creates a blind spot for clients who are possibly deteriorating?
ML: Exactly. The evidence for that comes from a few studies we’ve done. It’s been true since it was first studied in the 1970s that individual private practice clinicians are overestimating treatment effects. This has been going on for 40 or 50 years that we know of and probably forever and it goes on today.


So if you’re in that world of overestimating the successes, then you’re not going to be motivated to adopt what we’ve developed because you can just stay in the happy world of optimism. But if you actually measure people’s symptoms and their interpersonal relationships and their functioning at work or homemaking or study, then the patients aren’t reporting the same thing that clinicians are reporting. That’s a problem.

Another related problem is just how good clinicians think they are at having success compared to other clinicians. Ninety percent of us who practice—I’m one of those 90 percent—think our patients’ outcomes are better than our peers outcomes. So
90 percent of us think we’re above the 75th percentile.
90 percent of us think we’re above the 75th percentile. And none of us in our survey saw any clinician who rated themselves below average compared to their peers; whereas, 50 percent of us have to be below average because it’s normally distributed. So we live in this world where we not only think our patients are having excellent success, but we think we’re having greater success than our peers.
 
That’s one line of evidence to support formal measurement. Another one is a guy named Hatfield in Pennsylvania, who did a study where he compared patients’ mental health with clinicians case notes, and clinicians missed 75 percent of people who were getting worse.

In the study we did we asked 20 clinicians, doctoral level psychologists, and 20 trainees getting doctorate degrees to identify the cases they were treating where patients were getting worse and who they predicted would leave treatment worse off. The patients answered a questionnaire at the end of every session and we identified 40 out of about 350 patients who got worse over the course of their treatment. Of the clinicians in the study, one trainee identified one of those 40 as being worse at the end of the treatment. The licensed professionals didn’t identify a single case.
We live in this world where we not only think our patients are having excellent success, but we think we’re having greater success than our peers.



They did identify about 16 people who were worse off in a particular session than they were when they entered treatment, so if they had just used that information alone, they would have increased their predictability a lot. We thought maybe licensed professionals would be better than trainees, but there was absolutely no difference. It’s a blind spot. We’re just ignoring it.
 

The Moneyball Approach to Therapy

TR: This reminds me of that movie, “Moneyball,” where they talk about using statistics to improve baseball outcomes. It’s like a Moneyball approach to therapy.
ML: Exactly. And if you listen to any recent talks by Bill Gates about improving the health of kids in underdeveloped nations and teaching in the U.S., he’s advocating essentially the same thing we’re advocating. You’ve got to measure it. You’ve got to identify the problems because you can’t solve the problem unless you can identify the problem.
Our clinicians are no better now than they were before we started doing this research. They actually have to use the data.
The way to identify it is not to ask clinicians. We are optimistic. We have to be. I want clinicians to continue thinking that they’re better than their peers. I want them to continue to have huge impacts on their patients. But there are some patients for whom it just isn’t true. So clinicians can’t do it with their intuition.

In our statistical algorithms, we look for the 10 percent of clients that are furthest off track and then we tell clinicians, “This patient is not on track.” That’s what clinicians can't do on their own. That’s information they need. They don’t actually get better at this over time. Our clinicians are no better now than they were before we started doing this research. They actually have to use the data.
TR: So this isn’t something that therapists should hope to improve, like getting rid of this blind spot?
ML: No. All our data suggests they don’t improve. 

But Therapy is So Complicated and Nuanced…

TR: We use the OQ Analyst here at my clinic and we find it really helpful. When I talk about it with other clinicians, one thing I hear a lot is, “Therapy is so complicated and nuanced and subtle. How could a computer program possibly understand that?” What would you say to them?
ML: I’d say that computers weigh evidence properly and clinicians don’t. Clinicians don’t know what evidence is relevant to predicting failure and they don’t weigh it. A statistical system actually gives things weight. 
TR: Are you a practicing therapist yourself?
ML: Yes, and I think I’m better than 90 percent of other therapists [laughs].
TR: I’m sure you are! So how has using the OQ affected your personal practice?
ML: Well, I pay attention to it. I realize that it’s much more accurate than I am. So when somebody goes off track I take that seriously. I say, “Well, whatever is causing this—whether it’s something about our therapy or something in the outside world—something is making them deviate from the usual course to recovery.”

The second part in what we developed was a clinical support tool for identifying what might be going on that’s causing the deterioration. We have a 40-item measure, the ASC, the Assessment for Single Cases, that measures generic problems in psychotherapy like the therapeutic alliance, negative life events, social support outside of therapy and motivation. And there’s a prompt to consider referral for medication. If a patient is getting worse and we’re working hard in therapy, then maybe they need to consider being on a medication. And there’s a prompt for change in therapy tactics, like delivering a more structured psychotherapy—you start increasing the directiveness of the therapy for the off track cases. If you’ve ever read any of Luborsky’s stuff, they do brief psychodynamic psychotherapy of about 20-25 sessions and they divide what they’re doing into supportive tactics and expressive tactics. One goes into deeper exploration of a person and the other one offers a more supportive environment. So you might shift from an expressive tactic to a supportive tactic when people go off track instead of pushing harder to break down fences. You start to try to strengthen the defenses that are there.
When clients are interviewed about the course of therapy, they lie to protect their therapists. But when they take a self-report measure, they're inclined to give a more honest appraisal.



For example, if I were treating a posttraumatic stress disorder patient and we were doing exposure and I was tracking their mental health status and they were going off track, I’d think about giving them coping strategies to deal with their anxiety. We might back off from exposure and make sure they have the tools they need to deal with the anxiety that’s provoked by the exposure. Because they should get more anxious, they should become more disturbed, but it shouldn’t last every day of the week after an exposure session. So you might think you’ve got them in the habit of breathing, but they’re actually not breathing and you have to go back to basics and make sure they’re taking some time to breathe when they get panicked. So the problem could be anything from a technique that’s being misapplied, like exposure therapy, or the need for medication because they’re not really able to make use of the therapy and they’re decompensating.

Another blind spot for clinicians is the therapeutic alliance. Clinicians tend to overrate it as positive, but it really does correlate with outcome if it’s based on client self-report. We’ve looked at studies where clients are interviewed about the course of therapy and in that case they lie to protect their therapists. But when they take a self-report measure, they’re inclined to give a more honest appraisal. 

My Therapist Was Glad to See Me

TR: What do you use to measure the alliance?
ML: We use the ASC for that, too. Eleven of the 40 items are alliance items and they’re based on traditional conceptions of therapeutic alliance, but with 11 specific items like “my therapist was glad to see me.”
It would be nice if therapists knew when patients didn’t think they were glad to see them.
It would be nice if therapists knew when patients didn’t think they were glad to see them. That’s something that therapists can take action on pretty fast unless there’s strong countertransference problems, in which case they probably need to seek supervision and figure out why they don’t like a client.

It might be the time of day, for example. If you see somebody at 5:00, you may not be as perky as at 4:00. Or it may be certain client characteristics like they’re intellectualizing and boring. So we just try to provide clinicians with individual item feedback on items of the 11 that are below average. But it’s only for the 20 percent or so of clients who go off track.
TR: What about dropouts? That’s a pretty chronic, widespread problem in our field that we generally don’t like to talk about. Did OQ help clinicians with that at all?
ML: Yes. What it tends to do in our feedback studies is it keeps the patients who go off track in treatment longer with much better outcomes at the end. And it tends to shorten the treatment with people who are responding well to treatment because it presumably facilitates the discussion of ending treatment. So overall you get about the same treatment lengths, but you’ve got more treatment aimed at people who are having a problematic response and less treatment than people who are responding. We actually find that about half the dropouts are completely satisfied with treatment. So they quit because they felt better. And that can happen really fast, so not all dropouts are a bad thing; about half of them are.

Suicide and Substance Abuse

TR: You mentioned earlier that the OQ assesses for suicide and drinking and other red flags. Maybe you could just speak to that and how it can help clinicians dealing with these issues.
ML: Well, there are three subscales. There’s the symptom distress subscale that’s mainly anxiety and depression with some physical anxiety symptoms. Then there’s one on interpersonal relations and one on social role functioning. The role of adults is often to go to work and do their job and get raises and advance their careers. If you’re a student, it’s succeeding in college or some training program. You can look at those different areas and sort of calibrate problem areas in those three areas. Is it across the board or is it one of the three? And then you can focus your treatment based on where the problems are. And then there are critical items that go into those subscales that are substance abuse and suicide.

We find clinicians tend to underestimate the problems people have with substances.
We find clinicians tend to underestimate the problems people have with substances. They’re under reported, but when they are reported it’s often not addressed because people underestimate the negative consequences of substance use. With suicide, no clinician asks patients at every session how suicidal they were this last week, but that can spike quickly. A patient can go from not thinking of suicide much at all to thinking of it almost daily over the last week. One item on suicide isn’t a predictor of suicide, but, of course, predicting suicide is sort of beyond us generally speaking. So it’s important to ask more questions about It more frequently.

When I see a client and I give them the OQ45, it gives me right off the bat a gauge of just how unhappy they are, but I don’t find it a rich diagnostic instrument. It’s more like a blood pressure test. Some people come in with a really high score. If they score a 100 then I’m really alert because if that doesn’t come down, they’re going to do something stupid. They’re going to try suicide, or drink too much or be too promiscuous or they’re going to end up in the hospital. So for me, if I was tracking somebody that has a score of 100 and we had three weeks of therapy and their score didn’t come down, I’d be thinking about medication if they were depressed more than if somebody had a score of 70, which is moderately or mildly disturbed.

For people scoring really high, they’ll likely have a better outcome if they’re not just relying on psychotherapy. So it could prompt a referral, but certainly it’s going to prompt you to be very alert. I usually have a good sense in the first session without the OQ45 of how disturbed people are—unless they’re that exceptional person that doesn’t want to admit to anything, but has plenty of problems. They may not trust you and they may not trust the system and they may not want to report stuff. You find that a lot in the military. When they start to trust you they’re more open.

I saw a borderline patient who didn’t look very borderline on the surface, and it took six months for me to learn that she was cutting herself. I gave her the MMPI as well and she scored quite normally on the MMPI and then was within the average range with OQ45. She presented herself with a simple phobia, a driving phobia. So we were concentrating on the phobia, but there was all kinds of stuff that came out once she felt more trusting. So if there’s a discrepancy between the score on the test and your own intuition, then that tells you the patient may be too ashamed or distrustful to tell you.
 

When Confidence Hinders Us

TR: It seems that a real crux of this is therapists being willing to acknowledge their own limits or blind spots. I came across the outcome measurement before I was licensed. I was a beginner, so it was pretty easy for me to acknowledge. Do you find that more experienced clinicians have a harder time acknowledging that they have blind spots and might need something like the OQ45 to help find them?
ML: I think people trained in CBT and behavior therapies would be open to measurement. Although, in routine practice, they don’t really do it the way it’s supposed to be done and start relying on their intuition. But CBT therapists generally are more open to it. If you get somebody who’s psychodynamic, they’re very, very resistant. I’ve found that it does depend on theoretical orientation. I think also in certain community mental health settings where the patients are so disturbed it can be quite disheartening to see the slow rate of change if there’s any change at all.So you’d just rather not see the bad news because you’re kind of used to people not responding very much.

So it’s a lot harder to sell with psychodynamic therapists and maybe post-modern therapy. Even though client-centered approaches have a long history of studying the effects of psychotherapy and the process of psychotherapy, they still see simple self-report measures as easily faked.
Psychodynamic therapists are usually overly confident in their clinical judgment, so they see defenses at work everywhere and don’t trust self-report measures.
Psychodynamic therapists are usually overly confident in their clinical judgment, so they see defenses at work everywhere and don’t trust self-report measures. But I think underneath all of that is that once we get into a routine and we develop confidence, we think there is no reason to give new interventions a try. You just hear all kinds of excuses for why people can’t do this and they usually don’t hold water. For example, patients don’t mind doing it at all. They like it.

It’s true across all of medicine, where people are really slow to take advantage of innovations. They only adopt new innovations when the gal in the office adopts it. So you’ve got to get people doing it around you before you decide you’ll give it a try. In our very first study, we only got half the therapists to participate. And then by the time we did our third study, all but one participated. And now if the computer system goes down, people get really upset. They don’t want to work without it. But it took two or three years to get all of them into it.

Innovations are a hard sell. Unfortunately, the way most clinicians get exposed to this is through administrators who make them do it, and then their general attitude is distrust of the way the information is being used. Clinicians passively-aggressively don’t participate, and as a result they sabotage the whole effort. It ends up being a power struggle between clinicians and administrators.
 
TR: This brings up a question I wanted to ask you, which is about using the OQ to compare therapists. I think I’ve heard you say that you don’t think it or other outcome measures should be used to compare therapists. Is that accurate?
ML: Yes. I think you end up being on thin ice in settings where patients are assigned randomly. In most settings, like private practice settings, they’re not assigned randomly but you can’t assume that clinicians have equivalent caseloads. Plus we find most clinicians are in the middle. But you can see a big difference between clinicians at the extremes. The average deterioration rate at the institute is about two to three percent, and then we’ll find a clinician that has a deterioration rate of 17 percent. We had one clinician in our center whose patients on average got worse. So I think you can do something with that data. But you wouldn’t want to make too much of it because most of us can’t be distinguished. Our patients do well. And our student therapists do as well as our licensed, supervising professionals. That’s very disturbing [laughs].
Our student therapists do as well as our licensed, supervising professionals. That’s very disturbing.


The only thing we can find is that when you see somebody with a lot of experience, their patients get better faster. But the overall outcome is the same. Even the stuff on paraprofessionals doesn’t show a huge difference between professionals and paraprofessionals.

If you go to a conference where people present outcome data on borderlines, they spend half their time arguing that the patients in their setting are real borderlines and the patients in the other people’s settings are mild borderlines or not real borderlines. Everybody always wants to say, “I have tougher cases,” but it’s not true all that often.
 
TR: Well, that’s how I personally know them in the top 10 percent of therapists, because I’m getting average results, but with really tough cases [laughs].
ML: But the really tough cases, from the point of view of measuring outcomes, are patients who aren’t disturbed. If I was going to fill my caseload to make my data look good, I’d go for the moderately disturbed patients. I would not want a patients who were close to the norm because those people are not going to change. They have nowhere to go. Whereas, the people that are admitting a lot of disturbance, it’s harder for them to get worse and there’s a lot of room for them to improve. Does that make sense?
TR: Absolutely.
ML: They would change a lot. They may never enter the ranks of normal functioning, but they would definitely improve.

The Fact is, We're All About Average

TR: There’s a handful of therapists, including myself, who have been making our outcome data available to the general public, to prospective clients. Do you think that’s a legitimate use of the outcome data?
ML: I have some concerns about it, so I guess it depends on how it’s used. Because in some ways you don’t want patients to know the truth that they have, say, a 50 percent chance of recovering. And if it’s in comparison to other therapists, then you’ve got to make sure there’s some way of making the cases equivalent. Individual clinicians can’t do this, unless they’re gifted with statistics. What we’re doing in managed care is we can calculate the expected level of success for a clinician based on their mix of clients. So if you had one kind of mix, the expectations would be higher than if you had a different mix. And then you can see how they perform in relation to the expected treatment response for their mix.
You don’t want patients to know the truth that they have, say, a 50 percent chance of recovering.
 

The fact is we’re all just about average. So we have no unique claim to effectiveness unless we’re the outlier. So it might be good for outliers on the positive side. For the average clinician you are just able to say, “my outcomes are as good as others.”
 
TR: Our outcomes, as a field, are pretty good, though, especially when you compare it to medical outcomes.
ML: Yes, I think we have a lot to be proud of. 
TR: So your average clinic therapist is actually pretty good.
ML: Yes, I think so. But knowing routine care clinics, the average number of sessions is three or four. So that’s a dose of therapy that’s good for 25 percent of people, not 75 percent. 
TR: What about for therapists who do want to get better? I know a lot of the Psychotherapy.net readers are there to learn new techniques and broaden their skills and knowledge. Can the OQ help people become better therapists?
ML: Maybe in the long, long run, but I don’t think there’s any evidence for it. I think you’ve got to go through the procedures, get the feedback and figure out a way to make it work for the patient. But if they don’t get feedback, they’re not going to be able to identify problem cases and make appropriate adjustments.

What’s true is you need to be measuring patients on an ongoing basis and get feedback when client’s are failing. I don’t think there’s too much effect for giving feedback to clinicians whose patients are progressing well. They may like it, but as far as improving their outcomes, most of the bang for the buck is when the therapy has gone off track. That’s the novel information.
Feedback helps when it’s novel, when it’s giving you information that you didn’t know about.
Feedback helps when it’s novel, when it’s giving you information that you didn’t know about.
 
TR: It sound like what you are saying is the way that we improve is by really recognizing our blind spots and finding tools to help us there rather than thinking we’re going to overcome them.
ML: Yes. The practice of medicine is a good analogy. I don’t think my doctor is any better at guessing my blood pressure after measuring everybody’s blood pressure and getting feedback. I just don’t think he can operate without a lab test. I don’t think we want people managing medical illnesses without lab tests. And they don’t feel any shame at all. They feel like they really get good information and they wouldn’t dream of managing a disease without that information. They don’t expect themselves to be able to do it or learn from it.

If you look at the psychoactive medications—I’m just shocked at how poorly it’s managed. If you work at UCLA, you believe one thing’s the best practice and if you work at NYU, you’ve got a completely different set of practices. And it’s not like it’s based on how your patients are responding to the drugs because it’s very poorly monitored.

I hope this is not too disappointing.
 
TR: How so?
ML: Well just that the feedback is absolutely essential. Therapists can’t just “get good.”
TR: I actually find it liberating because it means I don’t have to try to become good at something that I’m just inherently not good at. So it kind of takes the load off. I just hope we can find more things like this in the future to point out our blind spots and help us so we don’t have to run around pretending they’re not there.
ML: We’ve confirmed our findings in study after study—and now there are more studies coming out of Europe—but it’s really hard to get clinicians to do it. There are people who adopt this early in their careers, but many people are pretty closed and defensive.
TR: Well I’m a psycho dynamic therapist—I do short-term dynamic work and I’m part of a psychodynamic community—and I have found that newer therapists are just a lot more open to it and are kind of growing up with it. 
ML: And they’re not so afraid of technology.
TR: Yeah, that too. So I’m really hoping that the psychodynamic community can start to embrace this instead of resisting it.
ML: It’s not an easy sell, but we’ll see.
TR: Well, it’s been a really fascinating conversation. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk about your work. 
ML: : It was my pleasure.