Psychotherapy with Older Adults: Unjustified Fears, Unrecognized Rewards

I am a geriatric clinical psychologist. I love working with older adults. I have often wondered, though, why there are so few of us around. Ten thousand people in America turn 65 every single day now. There is an accelerating rate of this already underserved segment of our society, and there is a huge and growing but untapped market of potential revenue for psychotherapists wanting to expand their practices. Why, then, are there so few psychotherapists actively working with older adults? While it is estimated that 70% of psychotherapists see adults on their caseload, only 3% of them have had formal training in working with older adults. What has stopped clinicians from getting training that could be so valuable in their professional development? Despite the general finding that the motivation and attitude of the older adult toward psychotherapy is as positive as it is in other age groups, many clinicians doubt this nevertheless. As I began working with older adults, I confronted these issues, and as I did, I found new joy in my work. What I discovered was this: I have as much to learn from my older clients as they may have to learn from me.

Many clinicians prefer not to work with older adults, and I have a great deal of respect for those preferences. In my own practice, I'm not inclined to work with children or adolescents. Oftentimes, though, the therapist’s preference is based on a view of older adulthood that is grounded less in fact and more in myth. When I first started seeing people in nursing homes, I felt like a fish out of water. I was trained in two of the best graduate psychology programs around, but when I was in a nursing home, I was consumed with doubt and fear.

It was 1999. I had just become licensed as a psychologist, and I was offered a job with a firm that brokered psychological services to nursing home residents. I was excited about making a living as a psychologist, energized about venturing into this new application of my skills, and eager to ply my trade—that is, up until the first week I actually saw clients! It was then that the reality of working with older adults eclipsed my fantasies of doing so. It was then that I confronted my awareness that this was incredibly challenging work for which I felt ill prepared.

My main fear: could my cognitively compromised clients even benefit from psychotherapy? I asked myself, How much of my work with them could they actually comprehend? How capable were they of working through their emotional struggles and inner conflicts? To what end would our psychotherapy serve if their lives would soon come to a close? I was overwhelmed with confusion, uncertain of my effectiveness, and scared I might be practicing outside my area of competence. Out of an amalgam of fear, guilt, and good sense came a series of consultations with a wise geropsychologist, and it was there that I began my schooling about the cognitive, emotional, and functional eccentricities of the older adult.

I am here to tell you, though, that 13 years later, I have come full circle. My acquired knowledge and experience in geriatrics have been invaluable, but I see now that, with respect to the essence of effective psychotherapy, it turned out that I had been sufficiently trained to do the work all along. Becoming technically proficient as a gerontologist has taken me on an invaluable path, but I see now that my former fears about conducting psychotherapy with older adults were driven almost entirely by my own introjects from the social stigma of aging. That’s what this article is about—to describe my own journey as a clinician framed within the cultural mythology around aging.

Myth #1: Psychotherapy with the elderly is time wasted, because the elderly client has so little time to enjoy any gains that might be made.

There is a film released in 2011 entitled Beginners, for which Christopher Plummer won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. The story involves a widower who, at age 75, joyously begins living a sexually authentic life as a gay man. To justify such a change, how many years should this man have left to live? Is the length of time he would have to enjoy his newfound emotional freedom really the issue? I am reminded of the elderly client who responded to her therapist’s query why she wanted psychotherapy by saying, “It’s simple; all I have left is my future.” At age 49, Freud is well known for having contended that anyone over 50 was uneducable, and I wonder if some of our biases working with older adults might stem from this overstated assertion.

Due to a very severe stroke, Estelle had for some four years been living in a nursing home. At 75, this was her home now. She was referred to me because she could not stop getting into heated arguments with other residents, and she was sad a lot. She had a history of drinking moonshine; she had been an ironworker and a barmaid, drove a semi, and had graduated high school with honors.

As with most nursing home residents, she was on a ton of meds, including an antidepressant, two anxiolytics, and an antipsychotic. When I first met her, she told me she had multiple personality disorder (which wasn’t the case), but due to her stroke, she did have memory problems and severe aphasia (difficulty expressing herself with language). In fact, her aphasia was so pronounced that it took her as long as a minute to express a complete sentence. She grinded out each word—one by one—with persistent determination. Her desire to communicate was relentless, and this was what allowed her to stay connected to others.

My psychotherapy with Estelle lasted two years, and I learned a great deal from her. I learned about the incredible courage and fortitude it takes to cope with an abusive upbringing, the loneliness and isolation that can accompany nursing home life, and the debilitating physical ravages of vascular dementia. I also learned about the connection that occurs between two souls—where words are often not needed.

More than her aggravated depression, though, Estelle wanted to work on emotional abuse issues from her childhood and the disparaging way her mother and father had treated her. She was open to the idea that those images—and the ways she coped with them—were influencing how she related to others and to herself. And this was how we approached her psychotherapy.

I am tempted to say that Estelle was a wonderful psychotherapy client, but the temptation to do so implies that it was Estelle’s characteristics that made the therapy meaningful. It was not. What made the psychotherapy beautiful—even reverent—evolved from the exceptionally meaningful way the two of us found to communicate with each other. And not unlike Victor Frankl’s odyssey through Auschwitz, what was most meaningful to me was to witness Estelle’s search for meaning in the limitations of her own life.

In the beginning, our therapy focused on relieving her depressive and angry feelings, and Estelle made comments like,

I have been fighting lately—it’s enjoyable … and it’s not enjoyable. It relieves tension, but I am crying all the time. If I told you all that is going on inside of me now we would have to meet all day!

Take a minute and think about her, though—grinding out each sentence—me wondering where in the world it was going to go—waiting almost interminably for each idea to unveil itself—and to eventually experience just how wondrous it was to witness such life-revealing self-reflection. How could a therapist not marvel at the human capability that was co-existing with such daunting a physical disability!

As our therapy progressed, the emotional work Estelle and I did together chronicled her evolution in becoming a more whole person. She created a process where she found her inner self in a way she had never done—developing her own autonomy and independence by resolving longstanding introjects that, for the first time in her life, she was now ready to expel. Toward the end of our work together, she proclaimed,

I’ve overlooked myself … but I can discover me … I can see the good inside me now. That surprises me to hear myself say that, but I see I will make it … and I know now who I’ve been angry at, and I see that I don’t need to be angry at everybody anymore. I’m not quite proud yet, but I do like being alone with me now … I really do enjoy my company. I’m on my way.

When I began doing psychotherapy with older adults, I didn’t realize that the kind of emotional and spiritual trek that Estelle would make was more similar than different from the journey I made with clients in other age groups. This is my joy of working with older adults—to see them unveil to themselves and to me their indomitable wisdom. For me, this is a revelation perhaps most profound in those who have lived with their darkness for so long.

Myth #2: The grief, loss, and somatic and socioeconomic burdens of the elderly are too excessive to warrant believing they could get better.

There is a great deal of pessimism about doing effective psychotherapy with older adults. Many of these clients have limited resources to face unimaginable social, medical, and economic struggles, and many clinicians tacitly believe that the elderly’s frustration, deprivation, fear, and dependence are so emotionally injurious that no amount of psychotherapy could really help them. When I began my psychotherapy career with the elderly, I wondered about these things too. With experience, though, what I learned was that it was not my clients’ deprivation and burden that was too excessive—it was my own. It was my inability to cope with my fears and frustrations working with excessively burdened people, and I was projecting these issues into my elder clients.

Marge was a ten-year resident of her nursing home. Legally blind, she had a longstanding diagnosis of mild mental retardation and had been institutionalized with paranoid schizophrenia for much of her life. When her mobility began to fail and her dementia and other medical conditions became too much for her family caretakers to manage, she was admitted to a skilled nursing facility. In order to address issues of depression and to help her manage her psychotic symptoms, for almost three years I saw Marge weekly for psychotherapy. I wondered if the odds of Marge overcoming her burdens were too great. I wondered if she could fight the good fight. What I came to learn, though, was that I was actually asking that of myself.

Like many people with schizophrenia, Marge was an isolationist, and this often exacerbated her psychotic symptoms. The structure and consistency of our weekly visits, though, allowed her to quell many of her paranoid thoughts, and she made remarkable progress. For the first time in many years, she was successfully managing most of her troubling and longstanding paranoid symptoms. Her solitary lifestyle, however, unintentionally reinforced her chronic feelings of loneliness.

As does happen sometimes, changes in my own life forced me to turn her psychological care over to another clinician, and we spent two months planning for the transfer. As you might imagine, my concern was that my departure would lead her to regress into further isolation. As it turned out, though, my underestimation of her strengths and concerns about her succumbing to her fears were a projection of my own issues.

In the waning weeks before my departure, Marge began to voice her sadness with our impending termination, and this was clinically therapeutic for her. She also began to tell me about the new and pleasant experience she was having on "the boat," so asked her about it.

Marge: "I will miss you."
Dr. Kraus: "Yes. It's sad that our therapy together is going to end. You have made great progress, and I am proud of you. I know you will continue your good work with Dr. Hamilton. … You had mentioned to me about a boat. Can you tell me more about it?”
Marge: "Oh, yes! We travel around."
Dr. Kraus: "Do you, now! Where have you been?"
Marge: "Well, we're going to France."
Dr. Kraus: "Really! How nice! It sounds like a cruise ship."
Marge: "Not really.{whispering} It's a submarine, but you can't tell anyone."
Dr. Kraus: {with curiosity} "How come?"
Marge: "Because they might throw me off!"
Dr. Kraus: "I see. What's it like for you traveling to all these places?"
Marge: "There's a group of us … my roommate … and a few more … and Nancy {one of her nursing assistants} … I like it."
Dr. Kraus: "That's terrific. It sounds like you're seeing that while you are sad our therapy is ending, you also see that you will have some good friends here with you after I am gone."
Marge: {Smiling and in a very calm and self-assured voice} "Yes, I will." 1

And so it was with Marge that I learned two very important lessons: 1) even with a mentally retarded, schizophrenic, aging nursing home patient with dementia, extraordinary things can be accomplished, and 2) the fears and discounting of her strengths that I imagined within her were really projections of my own.

Myth #3: Old people are staid in their ways; they are too stubborn to change.

In some of my geriatric workshops, I ask the audience what the four essential signs of aging are. Invariably, they will say things like grey hair, illness, and memory loss. Then I tell them my four: wisdom, confidence, character, and strength! I tell them that I threw them a little curve-ball, but they get the point that we often ignore or minimize the tremendous assets and capacities possessed by older adults. We overfocus on their liabilities and underrecognize their strengths. We miss how many competencies increase with age: appreciation, authenticity, desire to help, maturity, patience. Being stubborn can imply having mettle to take a stand and stick to it, and it is often quite effective for a psychotherapist to run with a resistance than to try to overcome it. It also occurs to me that to say that the elderly are staid may again say more about the patience, optimism, and confidence of those who serve them than anything else.

In Psychotherapy with the Elderly, psychologist George Bouklas offers an extraordinary account of a conversation with Errol, an 82-year-old patient of his with mild dementia, who entered a nursing facility for rehab following a colostomy. Errol never accepted his surgery, was constantly angry and agitated, and would routinely resist medical care. He was referred to Bouklas for ripping off his colostomy bag and spreading its contents across the room. He then would ask the staff what the fuss was all about! Here’s a powerful and provocative excerpt from their therapy:

Errol: (in an angry tone) "I stopped spreading shit on the floor.”
Bouklas: (silence)
Errol: "I told you, I stopped spreading shit on the floor! You act like that doesn’t matter! Well, does it matter to you?”
Bouklas: "Should it matter to me?”
Errol: "I thought you might be proud. The room doesn’t smell like shit anymore.”
Bouklas: "What’s wrong with the smell of shit?”
Errol: "You mean you liked it?”
Bouklas: “I like everything about you, no matter what it looks like, what it sounds like, or what it smells like.”
Errol: (now weeping) “You son of a bitch, if you’re lying to me I’ll kill you.”
Bouklas: “If I was lying to you I would deserve it.”2

Errol is typical of most elderly clients in that their stubbornness is a defense, albeit maladaptive—an indication that something more loathsome, more unacceptable, more humiliating may lie beneath. From my point of view, the word “staid” is an exemplar to some extent characterizing every psychotherapy client.

All clients resist—they all hold on to old patterns of thought and action. Resistance is the sin qua non of all psychotherapy, and it is no less true of the elderly. But when clients are unblocked, when resistance evaporates, psychotherapy with the elderly is an amazing thing. When we can help our clients abandon their defenses—even for just a moment—we create in the therapy a transcendent experience that elevates and inspires. It takes something special to really dare to live, and I feel privileged to witness them doing it. If we are open to our undeniable emotional connection to our clients, we can truly witness their transcendence—and it then emphatically becomes our own. With the elderly client, the metamorphosis is no less exalting, no less divine.

Growing old changes the way people relate to themselves and to others. The aged are often dealing with three principal issues: (1) how to adapt to the biggest transition of their lives—their changing health, the idea of getting older, and their changing family and work roles, (2) how to cope with the grief and loss that accompany their advancing age and decreasing abilities, and (3) how to manage their interpersonal relationships with others. As people advance in age, they go through an immense life transition—their role in their family changes, their view of themselves as a healthy person changes, and their sense of their own longevity and mortality changes. If kept silent or hidden, the feelings underlying these transitions often get acted out in disguised forms. Listening to and being there for the elderly client is invaluable to them not only because it makes available a problem-solving process that may ameliorate their distress, but also because it brings a heightened sense of connectedness and bonding with you. When this happens, they are not alone, and in that moment, neither are you.

Grief over family that's passed on, sadness over their sense of lost usefulness, loss of their former and more active pursuits that once gave them so much pleasure all make it more difficult for aging people to emotionally cope with their circumstances. Simply listening with supportive understanding and making meaningful emotional contact can bring them a sense of calm and solace. More than that, though, most of my older clients have the capacity for and can benefit from deeper emotional work. Not always are they aware they are engaged in such work, but my experience has been that it doesn’t really matter whether they are aware of it or not. It can go on, and they can reap the benefits of it nevertheless. Although the person's memory for recent events may be lacking, long-term memory, especially for well-learned actions, events, and knowledge, is one of the last cognitive abilities to decline. By helping them share something important and meaningful about their own lives, you bring into your here-and-now relationship with them the feelings of closeness they have experienced or longed to experience with others. In my view, this is so important in facilitating the growth process.

Geraldine was one of my depressed nursing home patients. Her Alzheimer's was at a moderate stage, and she could not remember my name to save her life. I met with her every week for months, and at every session she had trouble recognizing me. "Its Dr. Sparky," I would say. The social worker at the nursing home who introduced me to each of the residents there liked telling them my nickname, and that's how everybody soon started knowing me. When she would hear this, Geraldine's brow and eyelids would rise ever so slightly. "I'm your psychologist," I would say. I would prompt her recall with a verbal sketch of my role and why we were meeting. With this, you could begin to see her recognition building and she began feeling more at ease with me. I never really knew for sure that she actually was recognizing me, but it really didn’t matter, because she felt more comfortable with me.

As a rule, Geraldine's mood was irritable, she had a cynical view of the world, and she isolated herself excessively. Keeping to herself was a real problem for her, because she had begun to develop sores on her backside from lying in bed so much. When she wasn't in her bed, she was lying in her recliner. Her sores were becoming so severe that the medical staff felt they would soon threaten her life. Despite forgetting who I was and what we had talked about the week before, after a number of sessions together she began to learn that she could trust me. This is not learning that is taking place in the cerebral cortex but learning that new neuroscience research explains is occurring at a subcortical level. One thing was true—I enjoyed her sarcasm, and she could see that. I encouraged her to socialize more with others, to give others a second chance, but it was not my expertise or even my words that made a difference—it was her trust in me that eventually allowed her to risk taking my suggestions to heart.

You see, underneath her rough exterior, Geraldine really was a sweetheart. As she allowed herself to trust me, she learned that she just might be able to trust others as well. As she allowed others to know her, they began to see her sweetness, too, and as she socialized more, her depression began to lift, she spent less time in her bed and chair, and her sores began to heal.

Along with her physical healing, Geraldine experienced a significant emotional healing. Just how emotional healing occurs in therapy is still quite a mystery, but for Geraldine, it seemed to occur at a level that went well beyond what she could articulate in words or what she could remember. In this sense, her Alzheimer's did not prevent her emotional recovery. Her learning seemed to take place not within her cognitive self but as a consequence of how she felt about her relationship with me and, later, with others. Communication with her took place beyond words, beyond logic, beyond conscious thought.

“What I learned from Geraldine was that in psychotherapy, words are overrated—I learned that it is the relationship that can heal.” I have often mused about how insightful my interpretations were in a session and believed how it may have been my pithy comment that was a turning point in the therapy. That seems almost never to have been the case. When my clients recall their own turning points in therapy, it almost never has to do with anything I have said but almost always relates to something I have done or been for them. Being with them in their “staidness” may be the most effective thing I do with my older clients.

This type of healing occurs because an emotional reconciliation is reached within the aging client that has more to do with restored faith, with renewed hope, and with enhanced trust in the world, in themselves, and in their relationships with others than it has to do with cognitive functioning per se. Granted, cognitive decline generates fear, anger, suspiciousness, loss, and any number of other difficult and challenging emotional experiences—but the aging process impairs emotional functioning on a biological level only in its final stages. And that's why many people with Alzheimer's can be comforted and counseled, can feel support from others, and can reach a greater sense of peace with their experience. It's your empathy that eases their suffering. It's your empathy that cultivates their sense of joy in the life they might see they are blessed to be living and can give thanks to have lived.

How Clinicians Get Stuck: Some Emotional Risks in Working with the Aged

For several years, I led a biweekly consultation group with psychologists and master’s-level clinicians interested in learning from their own experience with their elderly clients. Some of what we discussed had to do with gerontology, cognition, testing, contracting, and the like, but much of what we discussed related to the emotional lives of the clinicians when they were with their clients.

Despite the growing evidence on the effectiveness of psychotherapy with the elderly—even with those who have dementia—psychotherapists underserve this population of clients. One of the reasons for this stems from how clinicians defend against the knowledge of their own physical and emotional mortality and the terror of their own vulnerability and dependency. I believe that this is especially true in psychotherapy with the dementia patient, where, in some form, the death of the cognitive self is confronted.

Another reason psychotherapists shy from involvement with older adults arises from the necessity for therapists to manage their own unresolved internal representations of parental and grandparental figures. Much has been written about how the older client sees a younger therapist as a younger (adult) child. When this occurs, the client needs to work through issues within the therapeutic relationship that mirror unresolved issues in the client’s relationship with his or her own children. Younger therapists, especially, can have a difficult time addressing an older client’s provocative comments like “You’re just a kid. What do you think you know about what I am going through?” In the reality of older adulthood—where the older client is increasingly dependent on younger caretakers—the unjustified but prejudicial attitude that older clients can develop toward their younger therapists can be exceptionally challenging.

It is generally understood that psychotherapy occurs within an intersubjective field—where the therapist and the client affects and is affected by the other. At some level, the therapist is always experiencing what is emanating from the client, and the client is always projecting into the therapist his or her needs, fantasies, and stereotypes. And the therapist cannot help but do the same. When skillfully observed, this can lay the groundwork for significant therapeutic gains. The therapy progresses when the therapist is aware of these processes and can use them to move the therapy forward. The less therapists are trained to do so, or the more they are hampered by their own complete internal resolution, the more likely that these processes will be acted out within the therapeutic relationship, and the less likely these processes will be therapeutically worked through. The less therapists are aware of their own projections, the more their idealized and devalued stereotypes of “old age” will unknowingly creep into the therapy, and the meaning they unknowingly assign to “old age” will color their relationships with their clients. Signifiers that should alert therapists that they may be developing distorted attitudes toward their clients are:

  • the assumption that an elderly client would not benefit from therapy,
  • the assumption that medication would be preferable to psychotherapy,
  • the attitude that a client may be too old, too stubborn, or too burdened to benefit from psychotherapy, and
  • prominent feelings of boredom, anxiety, or frustration when with a client.

In America, we honor the young for their beauty, strength, and vitality. However, in other places on the globe, old men and women are objects of veneration. This leads to a curious consequence: the less we acknowledge what can be respected, admired, or even venerated in the parents and grandparents of the world, the more we make ourselves orphans who lose a piece of our faith, security, and connection to a past that we risk repeating. This has been part of my joy in working with older adults: I am able to honor them, to sit at their feet, marvel, and learn. As their therapist, I have become their faithful student, their privileged witness, and my life is ever richer because of it.

Footnotes

1 Kraus, G. (2006). At wit's end: plain talk on Alzheimer's for families and clinicians. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

2 Bouklas, G. (1997). Psychotherapy with the elderly: Becoming Methuselah’s echo.Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

John Arden on Brain-Based Therapy

Why Brain-Based?

Rebecca Aponte: Why did you call your book Brain-Based Therapy? What does “brain-based therapy" mean?
John B. Arden: I've got to say that the actual title of the book was chosen by Wiley, the publisher. The earlier title had something to do with neuroscience—I forget, actually, what it was. But when this one was chosen, my initial reaction was, "Geez, that sounds so reductionist."
RA: That’s what I thought, too.
JA: And there's so much out there about neuroscience. A good friend of mine, Lou Cozolino, wrote a book called The Neuroscience of Psychotherapy, so maybe it was too close to his title. But from my point of view, it doesn't have anything to do with reductionism. I still regard Jung's analysis of culture and fairy tales and religion to be fascinating. In fact, I spent a lot of time sitting in yoga ashrams in different parts of the world meditating, and those parts of my development are still with me. I'm still interested in all of that, but I want to integrate it all. And it has to be integrated from a nondualistic perspective. It seems to me that for many years we were in what I call the Cartesian era.

RA: The separation of the body and the mind.
JA: Right. Between 1890 and about 1980, we were in the Cartesian era with no scientific grounding for this view whatsoever because, despite the fact that Freud was a neurologist and wrote a hundred articles in neurophysiology, on such things as the neurophysiology of the crayfish, we didn't really know much about the brain at the time. So the schools of psychotherapy just splintered all over the place—everything from primal scream all the way to radical behaviorism—because there was no common language, no common integrative core.

The picture changed around 1979 to 1981 due to the convergence of a number of different factors. For one thing, the DSM-III—the third Book of Bad Names—developed. And it was a whole lot better than DSM-II and DSM-I, because you didn't have a lot of terms like "neurosis." Even homosexuality, believe it or not, was in the DSM-I. Finally, in 1974, when the DSM-II came out, millions of Americans and Europeans became cured of their disorder. That's why people get really caught up with the diagnostic terms. So DSM-III came about, and there was a whole lot more science to it. People were saying, "Wow, geez, this is so much better. This makes a little bit more sense."

Also, up until about 1980, the efficacy studies for psychotherapy were pathetic. Way back to Hans Eysenck, the mere passage of time was as effective as psychotherapy. Before Timothy Leary went to Harvard, he actually worked for us as a chief psychologist at Kaiser Oakland. He was a pretty bright guy before he started taking acid and flipping out. And he did a study there where he found that people on the waitlist did as well as people in psychotherapy. So imagine all that.
RA: A huge crisis for the field to go through.
JA:

The Age of Pax Medica

Exactly, until the Smith and Glass studies, which came out in 1979 or 1980. I was at University of New Mexico at the time, and we were pretty excited because this big meta-analysis found that, actually, psychotherapy worked. "Oh, my god. What we're studying and what we're doing really makes sense. We're helping people. Thank God!" Then, too, the development of these SSRIs in the '80s was a major factor in the development of what we call Pax Medica.
RA: Can you elaborate on that term?
JA: Pax Romana was a term used to describe the Roman world roughly 2,000 years ago. You could travel anywhere in the Roman world, and as long as you didn't insult Roman gods and Roman law, everything was cool. Similarly, since 1980, as long as you recognize that that psychiatry is in charge and that the number one factor is psychotropic medication, everything's going to be cool. That's why we call it Pax Medica. We've been operating in Pax Medica roughly since 1980. I think we're ready to leave it.
RA: Yet you recently said in a lecture that, in some ways, Pax Medica benefitted mental health.
JA: Because it got us all on the same page. We were all over the place. We were talking about interjected self-objects on one side and behavioral reinforcement paradigms on the other. We didn’t have a common language.

But Pax Medica’s page is extremely one-dimensional. In fact, the common language that we began to use is rather clunky and presumptuous. So we became a medicalized group, and the psychotherapy world became medicalized psychotherapy. And instead of being called “psychotherapists,” we became “clinicians.” “Now, you’re talking.”
RA: “Now you sound medical.”
JA: Now you’re clinically speaking, but what were you speaking before? Is this a new language or something? I’ve sat around in these big meetings where people say, “So what’s the diagnostic picture here?” In other words, they want a name quick, from the Book of Bad Names. And then they say, “What’s medically necessary?” Medically necessary, what? The guy just had a divorce. He’s really bummed out. “Medically necessary” sounds kind of silly.
RA: It sounds you're saying there's a fundamental disagreement about what the role of the therapist is.
JA: Yeah, and I think that the disagreement resulted in a compromised agreement. And the compromised agreement became the clinical role. And the clinical role is, I think, very antiseptic and one-dimensional, and in some ways very subservient to the so-called "principal treatment," which was medication.

Now we know the efficacy studies for antidepressants are rather suspect. The negative studies outnumber the positive studies by 12 times. So the pillars of Pax Medica are actually falling apart in major studies in JAMA and New England Journal of Medicine and other places.
RA: Within the Pax Medica frame, what do you think has been the cumulative effect of the outcome studies that focus on a specific treatment for a specific problem?
JA: Another part of Pax Medica was evidence-based practice. From roughly the early '80s on, various CBT-oriented therapists were the ones doing a lot of the studies on specific methods. David Barlow and others were showing that specific approaches to panic or OCD were more efficacious, and that dovetailed really nicely with the Pax Medica model, whereby you had a diagnosis and you had a prescribed treatment for the diagnosis. There was a positive part of that, because, come on, now—a person with a panic disorder, you want to sit around and analyze their feelings about their mother endlessly? No, you want to get them doing interoceptive exposure and other approaches that have been found for the last 35 years to be much more efficacious than sitting around analyzing archetypes and other things that, even though I find them intellectually stimulating, are a waste of time with somebody with a panic disorder.

So there's a lot more science in Pax Medica, and that's a good thing. But I think we're ready to integrate many strata of science now, to emerge out of the one-dimensionality. Evidence-based practice is still going to be part of the picture, despite the knowledge that the outcome management people have provided us, which is that there are diffuse boundaries between these psychotherapeutic schools.

I'm arguing that we don't need any more gurus.
I'm arguing that we don't need any more gurus. I certainly don't want to be anybody's guru. We don't need another school. I'm not suggesting brain-based therapy is a school and now everybody's got to be an Ardenian. Oh, what a terrible burden it would be to be one of these gurus—and a hollow experience, at that.

Rather, I think we have the opportunity to integrate evidence-based practice—which still is part of the picture for anxiety disorders and depression—with a better look, for instance, at the building of the alliance. The Adult Attachment Inventory and things like that give us insight into the various types of relationships we have been taught to develop, that are going to be replicated in the therapeutic encounter anyway. So why not include that as part of the overall picture? And we know that certain types of brain dynamics and temperament are associated with relationships—neuroscience is a big part of this new equation, as well.
RA: The brain is a popular topic right now, but do you feel that we’re really there yet with the science backing biological theories about how the brain works?
JA: More than we ever have been. I’m also convinced that in five years, I’ll be looking back at what I’m saying to you right now and thinking, “God, John, you had such a limited understanding of what’s going on.” And I think that’s a good thing. So, yes, I think that we can begin to have a dialogue about neuroscience, but are we there yet? No. I don’t think we’re ever going to be totally there. There is no “there.” But we’re going to be far more enlightened about what’s going on. And certainly, not everybody’s brain is exactly the same, but we know that there are psychological syndromes, like anxiety and depression, that have some commonality across people. We ought to be talking about that among ourselves as therapists, and also in therapy with our clients. I’m always talking about the brain with my clients.
RA: A lot of people feel that there’s been an overemphasis on the brain and that therapy has really moved away from focusing on emotions and the human experience. Related to what we were talking about with Pax Medica, there’s a concern that overfocusing on biology closely ties in with overfocusing on pharmaceutical therapy.
JA: I think otherwise. In fact, I think it's an opportunity to focus less on psychopharmacology. Out of the 2,000 of us in the Kaiser system, I'm among the people who refer my clients less for medication evaluations, because I want to work with emotion. That's our province. So how do you work with emotion? Well, if you have people narcotized, you're not going to have access. And certainly with people who have anxiety disorders, anybody on a benzo I'm trying to get off of benzos as quickly as possible.

SSRIs I'm less concerned about, but I only go there when I exhaust all other avenues, including diet, which I'm always talking about at length. Exercise is the most effective biochemical boost that there is—as effective as psychotherapy. Exercise is as good as psychotherapy in alleviating depression. We ought to be doing that and psychotherapy together.

Including all these biophysiological dimensions that don't include the drug cartels is a good thing. Now, the reductionism to a specific neuron—no, I don't go there. Remember, I'm a guy steeped in psychodynamic theory, and I still love all the allure associated with it and all these characters that are battling with one another. It's fun, and it's enlightening in many ways. I think the new psychodynamic perspectives are quite a bit more advanced than the original psychoanalysis.
RA: So you see the new role of the therapist incorporating biology, traditional psychology, but also sleep hygiene, exercise, and nutrition.
JA: Absolutely. I'm not suggesting that we don't pay attention to the alliance. In fact, that's one of the principal effective agents. And we know that from psychotherapy research; the outcome management people have shown that to be pretty powerful. But why not pay attention to those parts of the brain that make that possible mirror neurons, the anterior cingulate, the orbital frontal cortex, the insula, the spindle cells? It's interesting for us to know that some people, if they've had a poor attachment history, have underdeveloped areas like the ones I just mentioned.
RA: You mentioned that you can see this information as a opportunity to teach clients about what may be happening in their brains. How does that help?
JA: Let me give a fairly common example. Say you have a client who says to you, "I just don't know why in the first part of the day, when I lie there in bed, I get so overwhelmed and I get paralyzed with this totality of anxiety. I don't know what's going on there. I get anxious and depressed. What am I going to do?"

Well, we know now from all these affective symmetry studies that people who get hyperactive right prefrontal cortex plus underactive left prefrontal cortex get more anxious and more depressed. And what kindles the right prefrontal side are withdrawal and avoidant behaviors. So when she gets into the withdraw-avoidant behavioral response, she's kindling up the right prefrontal cortex.

Now, how to get out of that? You've got to do what are called approach behaviors. The CBT people have known this a long time—it's called behavior activation. What do you do with depressed clients? Do you sit around and analyze things to death? No, you get them doing stuff. And you get them doing it quick. As soon as you start to feel overwhelmed, it's time to do something, because that kindles the left prefrontal cortex, which is about approach behaviors. But you do it incrementally, because it's always very overwhelming to do big, big projects.

We're not talking about the left hemisphere as being the new cool one now and the right hemisphere as passé, where it was the right hemisphere that was the cool one before. No, we're going to be talking about a relative activation of the two hemispheres. In fact, we know, too, that if you get the right prefrontal cortex knocked out, you lose your sense of humor. What's that about? Well, you want to have a sense of humor, right? A sense of humor is about plays on words, metaphors, juxtapositions, and all of that. You want to have that larger picture.
RA: So all of that also really speaks to how behavior changes the brain.
JA: Absolutely.
Behavior changes the brain and the brain changes behavior. It’s a bidirectional flow of information. It’s not one way or the other.
Behavior changes the brain and the brain changes behavior. It’s a bidirectional flow of information. It’s not one way or the other. Pax Medica had it one way: “Brain changes behavior. All you’ve got to do is tweak up some neurotransmitter system like serotonin, and everything’s going to be fine.”
RA: “Because you have a chemical imbalance.”
JA: "Chemical imbalance" is so American, isn't it? "Okay, let's just go in there and change that chemical imbalance. I want to fix it quick, will you, Doc?"

Come Together

RA: Where do you think we are in the grand scheme of integration?
JA: I think it's slowly developing. There will always be tidal pools that pull back. For example, you mentioned earlier that some people are saying, "Oh, neuroscience. What's the big deal? Neuroscience isn't going to be part of the picture. Get over it." It's going to be, but how is the bigger picture? I think that there are a lot of people jumping in the bandwagon who aren't paying attention to the science in neuroscience. I'm not going to get into names, but some people make it rather New-Agey, and that kind of turns my stomach.

Science is a good thing. We ought to be paying attention to how the research actually shows this or that instead of, "Well, that's kind of a cool thing. Why don't you just talk about the so-called limbic system?"
How we incorporate neuroscience, I think, is going to be a big part of how we advance toward the future. And it's not going to be reductionistic. It's going to be a part of the picture. We're still going to talk about the relationship and pay very close attention to the alliance. And as I said earlier, it works both ways, because there are parts of the brain and parts of our nervous system that respond to close relationships, and that's something we ought to be paying attention to.

The psychological theories and all the alphabet-soup therapists—EMDR, EFT, CBT—the advances in some of those areas, I think, are going to be part of the picture. But I think the allegiance to the schools is going to be increasingly less of an issue.

Reshaping Memories

RA: I think a lot of people in the field really hope that your view is right. What evidence do you see that indicates the field is moving in this direction?
JA: It seems to me that the studies that show actual change in the brain resulting from psychotherapy are what will convince everybody that we’re moving in the right direction. And there’s a wealth of information out there that’s developing and will become stronger and stronger, and it’ll be undeniable that there’s an intersection here. Again, it’s all not reductionism: it’s integration. And memory is a major part of the picture here.
RA: Say more about that.
JA: Understanding memory and the complexities of our various memory systems, including the various types of implicit and explicit memory and how those systems work together to make us who we are, and how we, as therapists, interact with these memory systems—that, to me, is the foundation of therapy. Our job is to help people reconsolidate memory in a much more adaptive and effective way, because there is no such thing as a memory encapsulated in some sealed-off portion of time, where you go back in and you pull it up. That's where the early psychodynamic theorists had it all wrong. Every time we bring up a memory, we change the memory.

That's what we do for a living: we bring up memories in the new context and help people re-adapt in a much more effective way.
That's what we do for a living: we bring up memories in the new context and help people re-adapt in a much more effective way. I regard memory as one of the major foundational aspects to psychotherapy in this unfolding sea change—not a paradigm shift, but actually a sea change—that's occurring in mental health.
RA: You’ve said that it really seems like we’re moving beyond brand-name therapies, but do you think we’ve just substituted techniques? You mentioned CBT. I’m not completely clear on what the theory behind CBT is, other than that it seems very removed from things like memory and emotional experience.
JA: Actually, it does incorporate them. If you think in terms of anxiety, for example, it's quite clear that avoidant behaviors make anxiety worse even though, over the short term, they make it feel less severe.

Let's say I'm a socialphobe and I walk into a room. I feel better for the first minute, and then I feel terrible, and my amygdala gets hyperactive as a result. In other words, I'm painting myself into a corner. Exposure is the antidote—the therapeutic direction that we ought to be working in. And that goes back to Joseph Wolpe, who doesn't get enough credit now, even in the CBT community. The whole idea of incremental exposure is critically important in psychotherapy for people with anxiety disorders. So the CBT people are talking about the brain even though they're not using the brain in their dialogue. They're not mentioning the brain because they haven't been really incorporating it into their understanding. But they are changing the brain, because exposure actually changes the brain. It could make the anxiety worse by flooding too quickly, but incremental change could make it much more resilient and adaptive.
RA: Let me see if I’ve got this right. It sounds like you’re expecting that there would be a much more integrated theory about how psychotherapy works, because it’s going to include neuroscience. And because we have more technology now, we’re going to be able to actually see these changes and understand it, and we’ll continue to see even more levels of complexity.
JA: We are seeing these changes. And in fact, with psychodynamic theory, the whole concept of working through is the same thing as incremental exposure. A book that I like to recommend that's now 20 years old is Psychodynamics in Cognition, by Mardi Horowitz. I really like that book. It was Horowitz's attempt by to talk about the overlap between psychodynamic theorists and cognitive theorists-maybe they aren't talking about something so different. Let's talk about how defense mechanisms and schemata have an overlap. That's what I'm talking about: finding the overlap between these therapy types. Just because they use different language doesn't necessarily mean that they're not talking about the same thing. Where there is an overlap, I get excited about it.
RA: So neuroscience is going to be what shows us that we’re all talking about the same thing.
JA: Neuroscience, and a look at these therapeutic styles. Defensive maneuvers are still relevant, and we can look at them from a cognitive perspective, and from this whole affective symmetry dynamic, as well. In other words, we could look at them from a number of different vantage points, and if all those vantage points have a cohesive quality to them, then I feel much more confident about it.

So we’re not just talking neuroscience or just talking psychodynamic or just talking CBT or memory, but rather how these all can overlap and say the same thing to give us a much more robust understanding of what goes on in psychotherapy and what goes on in our own heads.
RA: Do you believe this integrationist’s frame of reference changes the way that you work with clients?
JA: Absolutely. I've been in the mental health world for 35 years, and when I first started, I was part of this whole the institutionalization movement—we were creating alternatives to hospitals in San Francisco, and then wrote a bill for the New Mexico state legislature in 1980 to do the same thing. What I thought was going on back then is quite a bit different from what I think about what's going on now.

Even in 1976, when I was working with autistic kids—God, we had a stupid understanding of what was going on with those kids back then, because we didn't understand what was happening in their brains. We thought it had to do with these really cold mothers. Bettelheim was our popular hero. My God, what a dumb, dumb way of understanding.

It didn't mean, though, that what we were trying to do, in terms of developing a good relationship with the kids, wasn't a good thing to do. We called it reparenting, but nowadays we'd think about it as being helpful to the kids so they could acquire better social skills and develop a better ability to have human relationships.
RA: This makes me think about some of the preliminary studies in the news now about sudden-onset OCD in children after they have strep infections.
JA: And that has helped us to understand the role of the striatum very well, because that’s the area of the brain that gets attacked viciously in these kids during the infection. And we know that the front part of the striatum is kind of like a spam filter. In people with OCD, unfortunately, that striatum doesn’t work like a spam filter, and the orbital frontal cortex gets flooded with all this nuisance information: “This is wrong, this is wrong, we’ve got to do something, wash your hands, wash your hands,” or whatever it is. Baxter’s group down at UCLA showed very clearly the orbital frontal cortex being flooded with all this nuisance information, and that what can help alleviate the OCD is to “rescue” the orbital frontal cortex with the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex (which has a lot to do with working memory) via CBT with a mindfulness approach. In these imaging studies, you could see OCD patients before and after the treatment. And the strep infection material was supports the idea that OCD involves this “gate” that is left open in the striatum.

But How Does It Work?

RA: Let's walk through a hypothetical. I come to see you because I feel depressed and generally anxious, and this has been going on for some months now. Where would you start to look for the cause of my feelings and some relief?
JA: It's interesting that you say depressed and anxious, because under Pax Medica, if you were depressed and anxious together we would have two diagnoses on Axis I—a comorbid problem. Well, you're one person. Are these two genetic disorders you have? What a silly idea. And the prescribed pharmacological agents actually work against one another. These stupid benzos, which are really a nuisance in the mental health world, would actually contribute not only to addiction, tolerance, and withdrawal problems, but also to depression. And then you'd toss in an SSRI or something like that, so you'd have this weird cocktail.

There is an interesting neurochemistry that occurs with anxiety and depression. For example, for 90 minutes after you experience a severe stressful incident, your levels of dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin will be down. Let's say that you've just found out that you can't get into school. All the PhD programs have turned you down. That's a pretty big blow, right?

So you're going to get a downregulation of all those neurotransmitter systems, and you're going to withdraw a little bit. But it's what you do with that neurochemistry and those neurodynamics that can tumble you into more anxiety and more depression, or get you out of it. If you do things that kindle up the same systems that would get you more anxious and depressed, you'll get more anxious and depressed.

Now, we're going to have bumps in the road. It's what you do in response—it's that resiliency. Some of the positive psychology spinoffs are paying attention to that, and of course the counseling psychologists have long done that.
RA: So, if I were your client, would you want me to tell you about something stressful that happened and what I did afterwards?
JA: I often do that, just to get an idea of how people react to certain events in their lives—to get a characteristic description. I'm also paying attention to the way they describe them to me, because that interaction between us is so important. It replicates other relationships they're having that might have great continuity with the earlier attachment-based relationships. It tells me a lot about how I can intervene, because I don't want to create more resistance. I do like Milton Erickson a lot—that indirect approach. I'm not going to want to shut you down and have you screen me off, but rather do some motivational interviewing to some degree—which is very Rogerian, in fact. Bill Miller was a Rogerian from the school that I came from.
RA: Out of curiosity, did you study with him at UNM?
JA: No, I didn't. In fact, I didn't know about him until after I left. I don't know if he was there then—that was 30 years ago. But had he been there and I missed him, I would have been disappointed, because I really like his contribution to the substance abuse community.

Addiction: A Sliding Scale?

RA: And substance abuse is one thing that we haven't really touched much on in terms of what neuroscience is really teaching us. There's big debate about whether addiction is a genetic disorder.
JA: There is some literature to suggest that if you have two alcoholic parents, your vulnerability to become an alcoholic is heightened. But let's say the concordance rate is 50 percent. Well, what about the other 50 percent? It isn't a one-and-one factor.

In a discussion I had with Fred Blume, one of the pushers of the alcohol gene concept, I asked, "How about an acquired disease? You guys are really into this disease concept." AA's really into it. AA and NA are the most powerful self-help groups in the world, in my opinion. My sister-in-law's life was saved as a result. Fantastic groups. I love their little jingles and all that. But they're too into this disease concept. It's useful in early recovery, but you could create a disease. It's bidirectional. The more I drink alcohol, the more I feel like I need alcohol, because my biology changes. I downregulate various neurotransmitter systems, so now I feel like I need to mellow out because now I'm downregulating the synthesis of GABA. That means I need more GABA-like effect because I'm always dampening down glutamate.

What I think therapists ought to be paying attention to is how these various substance abuse habits, if you want to call it that, create psychological symptomatology. “I see all sorts of people here in the North Bay who are suffering from anxiety and/or depression, and I find out they're just drinking a glass or two of wine at night.”
RA: That’s a lot of wine, though.
JA: I think it’s a lot of wine. I drink a glass every week or two. It would be nice if you could have two glasses of wine a night, but my sleep gets all messed up. You get the mid-sleep-cycle awakening and all that. And that’s a small snapshot. What about the next week? These are subtle effects, but when I used to do neuropsychological testing and psychological testing, and then later teach it, we used to say, “Don’t test a wet brain for up to three months after your last drink.” There are all sorts of artifacts to subtle alcohol consumption.

And red wine isn’t that cool, you know. It’s the resveratrol in the skin of the red grape. You can drink Welch’s grape juice and still get the same effect. You don’t need the alcohol.
RA: And what about other drugs? I haven’t heard too many therapists saying that they necessarily ask their clients, “Do you smoke pot?”
JA: Everybody here does. And pot is one that I really pay close attention to in the North Bay, because of all these people on medical marijuana cards. They have a sore back. Well, give me a break. So do I, but I don’t smoke marijuana now. I did 40 some years ago as a young hipster, but I’m glad I stopped 40 years ago, because otherwise I’d be muddled and kind of down. THC is chemically structured like a neuromodulator called anandamide, which is Sanskrit for “bliss.” It orchestrates the activity of a number of neurotransmitters, so when you’re stoned you get what we call virtual novelty. “Look at this cup! God, that is so incredible. Look at the way it’s shaped, and the colors! This is amazing.” Then the next day you get what we would call in the ’60s “jelly brain,” because everything’s downregulated now. And you never get the same high.

So now what we see are all these people smoking medical marijuana who have low-grade depression. They can’t remember much, because they downregulate the acetylcholine release in their hippocampus and have symptoms very much like ADD. God, I get people with ADD evals all the time who are smoking marijuana.

So with regard to substance abuse, psychotherapists should perform a full analysis of everything the clients are doing, instead of saying such things as, “Do you abuse alcohol?” I want to know what they’re consuming rather than ask blanket questions.
RA: Well, what’s abuse? “Yeah, I have five beers a night, but I’m fine.”
JA: Exactly. But if somebody’s drinking two, I’m concerned about that, especially if she’s anxious or depressed. Or if somebody’s taking a toke of marijuana a night, and he’s coming in with this low-grade depression, muddled thinking, and attentional problems, I’m concerned about that.

Defining Therapeutic Success

RA: In the way that you’re visualizing therapy, how do you define therapeutic success?
JA: We're always a little too symptom focused. I still think we ought to be paying attention to symptoms—that's an important part of the picture—but we also ought to pay attention to what clients are telling us about their overall improvement and their perspective in life: "I'm feeling so much more hopeful and so much more resilient and I'm not as easily stressed." And we're getting more of that from the outcome management process, instead of, "You originally came in with these panic symptoms. How's the panic doing?" "Oh, I don't have those panic symptoms anymore." Well, that's good. That's only part of the picture, though. There's got to be a larger look at things: is the relationship improved, for instance?

Therapists: The Next Generation

RA: As a mental health training director for Northern California for Kaiser, you work constantly with the next generation of therapists. What do you see in their training that concerns you?
JA: What got me intensely concerned and preceded the development of Brain-Based Therapy was typified by an answer to the question, "What do you want to do in the next year?" In the Kaiser Northern California, we have 60 postdocs in 20 medical centers, and another 50 interns. When I interview a postdoc and ask, "What do you want to do over the next year?" they say, "I really want to find my theoretical home." You want to what? We're certainly not going to be helping you find your theoretical home. In fact, I want to dissolve those theoretical homes into a grand unified area. So that's a concern.

And a lot of young therapists come out of these schools too young and inexperienced—they haven't had to go out in the world and learn business and all this, to augment their academic understanding. Between undergraduate and graduate, I spent a year in Asia and the Middle East, and I just kept circling the globe. I was gone for a year, and I don't know how many countries I visited. What an incredible education. I matured so much during that period.

Life experience is critically important. Having to deal with some stressful events can really help a therapist. Just being pumped out of all these professional schools with all these fancy degrees and all that, boy, that's such a limited area. I get a little concerned about too-young therapists being plopped out and wanting to be Dr. Somebody-or-other.
RA: That seems to address my next question: do your intern therapists seem to come with a broad base of knowledge about other aspects of the human condition—literature and art and history?
JA: That's a pretty interesting question. I remember when I was being interviewed for my PhD program, that was a question in the interview. I was in the Counseling Psych department, even though I later got involved in both departments. I was really into talking about Dostoevsky and D. H. Lawrence, and that perked up the interest of the interviewers. Contrast this with the clinical program applicants—I call them the GREs. All they got was a high GRE score and a good GPA. Big deal!
RA: In the next generation, are you seeing much of that?
JA: If you immediately go from a bachelor's to a master's and, usually, especially the professional schools, straight to a PhD program, I see a lot of that. And physicians, unfortunately, hardly read at all. It's just shocking that the educational system kills the quest for reading in diverse areas. It's amazing.

Therapists don't read enough. And when they do read, unfortunately, they read in their own little clubhouse. Where you get more cognitive reserve, if you will, is where you step out of your own zone of comfort. I particularly like to step out of all these mental health areas completely and pay attention to what other scientists are doing.

Particularly, I love complexity theory. When I'm back in Santa Fe, I like to go to the Santa Fe Institute. This place is incredible—founded by three Nobel laureates, two physicists, and an economist. And then there are biologists and computer scientists and archaeologists, all talking about the change in complex systems. Well, aren't we a complex system?

So I think we don't read enough, and not only of another psychotherapeutic school, but, also another area of science. It would be really good for us to do that on a regular basis. I'm perpetually advocating for that.
RA: There are some people who are advocating for academia to do something similar to what you’re saying psychotherapy should do, arguing that there really shouldn’t be such big walls in between each department.
JA: Yeah. In fact, in the Sonoma State University, there’s the Hutchins School, which is very much like St. John’s College in Santa Fe, whereby you have more of an interdisciplinary approach. At St. John’s it’s more of a classics approach, but at Hutchins, you have a department with anthropologists and biologists and other people all there. It’s that interdisciplinary approach that I think is so valuable.

Inside Kaiser

RA: Do you think, working at a large health maintenance organization, that this move toward integration will also eventually break down some of the barriers for clinicians to be able to determine what kind of treatment they want to give to a particular client? Right now, HMOs rely very heavily on CBT because there are so many studies of a specific symptom with a specific treatment.
JA: I don’t necessarily see Kaiser as being a CBT mental-health dispensary. I’d look around at all my colleagues, and one person might be into EMDR, another person CBT, another person steeped in psychodynamic or narrative. But we do pay attention to evidence-based practice. In fact, we have a whole administrative structure just for that. But we also have an administrative structure just for outcome management. The convergence of the two is pretty important.
RA: I’m sure that you’ve heard some of the recent complaints about Kaiser that people have a difficult time getting timely access to mental health care.
JA: That's kind of old news—20 years old. All departments are graded for access right now. I was hired during the Model of Care, which was 20 years ago, where we tripled or quadrupled the size of many departments because it was all about access. Every department now is graded on how quickly a client can come to see someone. If you call in right now, we've got to give you an appointment within two weeks. That's called initial access for the new, and there's a seen-to-seen that we're being graded in, too. We've improved dramatically in the last 20 years.
RA: There is a recent report that union leaders and employees were asking for an investigation to make sure that it was happening in a timely manner. Do you feel like the treatment model that you’re describing can fit well into an organization like Kaiser?
JA: Kaiser's in a difficult position because it's swimming in this vast sea of other medical providers, and it's trying to survive at the same time as thrive—to use that term. So I know what those folks are saying, and we're not immune from any criticism. There are always these concerns about improving, and that's a good thing.
RA: And people having access.
JA: Absolutely. Access is critically important. I know that we're trying to do whatever we can. I'm in meeting after meeting about improving access. We're always talking about improving access, while at the same time we're talking about hiring new people. But where are you going to get the money to hire the new people unless the membership rates go up? It's a complex situation.
RA: You obviously have a very expansive knowledge base that you're integrating. What wisdom do you hope the clinicians that you're training will take away from it?
JA: That there is this exciting sea change occurring in mental health, if you pay close attention to it and if you read voraciously. Just because you’re out of graduate school, we don’t want you to stop reading. We don’t want you to get rigor mortis. In fact, we want you to now read more than you read before, and go to more workshops in areas that you don’t even have any interest in initially. That’s where you get the best change, really, is if you go, “I have no idea what that person is going to be presenting over there.” Those are the ones you want to go to, rather than, “Yeah, I’m really into that kind of therapy.” How many more times are you going to hear that particular frame with a little bit of a twist to it here and there? In fact, you get more neuroplasticity if you get into an area you have no knowledge about at all. What we want to do for this next generation of therapists is to be integrators and to be active consumers of diverse areas of science.
RA: What are your hopes and concerns about the future?
JA: I'm concerned about the economy affecting mental healthcare and, again, as somebody who in the '70s and '80s was helping people who were chronically mentally ill and homeless, I'm really concerned about mental healthcare for the poor. Here I'm in Kaiser right now, and who are the Kaiser members? Well, they're people with jobs. So I'm really concerned about the disadvantaged groups, and that has a political component, too, because if we go Tea Party zone, you're talking about massive cuts in the safety net, and it's pretty primitive.

Into the more advantaged stratum, I'm concerned that, even though I think there's a sea change going on, it could go the other way—the continued focus on these clubhouses. But I'm heartened that things are going to change eventually. I'm totally convinced that they will, because of these converging fields. When it will happen is another thing. It might be more in your generation and in my son's generation who, like you, is applying for graduate schools right now, than my generation. I think for quite a while, we're still going to have the gurus out there. But hopefully they will be talking in more integrative ways and less about themselves, so to speak.

Stan Tatkin on a Psychobiological Approach to Couples Therapy

A Psychobiological Approach to Couple Therapy

Ruth Wetherford: So, Stan, let's talk about psychobiological couples therapy.
Stan Tatkin: Right. It’s actually a psychobiological approach to couples therapy.
RW: What is that approach all about?
ST: When we're talking about psychobiology, we're talking, really, about the brain and the body. And we're looking at five domains—the first being attachment. And by attachment I mean infant attachment as well as adult attachment.

The second domain is arousal regulation. We focus on preparatory, or anticipatory, systems that work alongside the attachment system, and that are embedded in procedural memory. These anticipatory systems prepare us for moving toward and away from others, based on history and experience. And this is read through the body —through the face, the eyes, the pupils, the voice or prosody of the voice, skin color, temperature, movement, posture, and so on.

The third domain is neurobiological development. We take a deficit-based approach, not a conflict-based approach, meaning that we don't really focus on conflict. We don't focus on what most people —couples, at least —bring into therapy as a presenting problem: money, sex, mess, kids, and time. That is what most everybody complains about.
Rather, we look at the couple's ability to be a co-regulatory team–to be able to manage each other, particularly during distress.
Rather, we look at the couple's ability to be a co-regulatory team–to be able to manage each other, particularly during distress. How good are they during stress? Everybody has conflicts, as John Gottman says. Every couple has conflict. We're looking to see how a couple handles conflict and whether they handle it in a secure functioning manner or in an insecure functioning manner.

The fourth domain is therapeutic enactment. We work with procedural memory. We work with the body, with a bottom-up approach. In other words, rather than use interpretation, we stage experiences so that couples have an enactment, or certain state of mind, state of body, online to work with. So it's really experience before interpretation.

RW: What are some examples of these?
ST: It's using a lot of psychodrama —going back to Moreno, but also Gestalt, pulling from Satir. By basically moving people into experience, using a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down approach, we avoid tapping into higher cortical areas first, which are really good at error correcting, really good at processing, but can also mislead the therapist.

In other words, higher level cognitive processing is not as reliable as the body. So we want to get at the body first.

And then the fifth domain is therapeutic narrative. This is the therapist's own stance about why couples should be together. It has to be a coherent narrative that, along with theory, explains where the couple has been, what their trajectory is, why they are where they are, and where they're going. The narrative is grounded in secure functioning relationship, as opposed to an insecure functioning relationship. So it's very much as it is when you're working with personality disorders: the therapeutic stance is very important.
RW: This is an integrative approach.
ST: Yeah, very.
RW: Let’s dive in and talk about how we can use this. Where would you start, with a therapist who is reading the article on Psychotherapy.net, and is very intrigued and wants to know more about how to apply it?
ST: It depends on which domain we’re focusing on. With the people in my training, we focus on all five domains, each having its own set of principles and goals. But I would say one of the first ideas for therapists to grasp is: what is a secure functioning relationship, and what is insecure functioning relationship? I would say probably the easiest way to parse this is that an insecure functioning relationship is fundamentally based in a system that is unjust, insensitive, and unfair.
RW: Relational injustice.
ST: Yes.
RW: How important do you feel it is for therapists to focus on their own levels of security of attachment in their general approach to clients?
ST: Well, that's a big question, and that's more about therapy for themselves. We're talking here about theory. There are therapists who might have an insecure attachment if they were tested, say, in a proper AAI [Adult Attachment Inventory] with a reliable coder. But they could still be effective therapists and understand what a secure functioning relationship is, and follow those principles.

Here's the difference between therapist self-awareness and education, adherence, and understanding of theory. I think the very first thing is, talking professionally —and again, this is also true for couples —it is entirely possible for two individuals to be insecure but to form a secure functioning relationship. That is, their model of relationship, the principles they follow, would be considered secure functioning. What we're comparing is a two-person psychological system based on true mutuality (good for me and good for you), versus a one-person psychological system with too much emphasis on self-values or -interests, rather than on relational interest.

But there are other factors —not just a two-person psychological system —that add up to secure function. The other, in terms of a primary attachment relationship, is a mutual protection of the safety and security system for the couple.

This means that both partners agree that the relationship comes first, and that the safety and security of the relationship come first. And the reason it comes first is because, without that agreement, neither can really thrive.

Looking at the mother/infant attachment system and what we know about that system, in terms of security, a secure relationship is based on attraction, not fear or threat. Insecure models base their relational glue around fear or threat. So protection of that safety and security system is a key feature of a secure functioning relationship.

Yet another factor is a lot of mutually positive, amplified moments between the two, which are usually face to face, eye to eye, sometimes skin to skin. That is actually called primary intersubjectivity —when two people are in close physical proximity and using each other's eyes and communication to amplify positive moments, which, by the way, have neurochemical parallels to them.

And then, secondarily to that, is joint attention, wherein partners focus on a third thing to amplify the relationship. That's another quality of secure functioning. Namely, first, a lot of mutually positive amplified moments between the two people, and then —this is really important —second, that the negative experiences that partners encounter individually and collectively are mutually attenuated and foreshortened by the couples' skill at metabolizing and managing distress.

So I would say those two are extremely important for secure functioning relationships: high positives that are mutually amplified, and negatives that are quickly repaired and corrected. Distress is relieved quickly, not dismissed. When you asked the question, "How does a therapist apply this or understand this," I think we first must understand what it is, and then adhere to that idea when looking at couples. And then, of course, it's very hard, if you're working in this way, not to grow yourself, and look for it yourself in relationship.
RW: It’s everywhere.
ST: Well, it becomes everywhere, because that’s where your focus is.

Avoidant and Angry-Resistant Styles

RW: Regarding the importance of the soothing being a mutual skill, it’s a very common complaint in couples work that one partner complains that, when there is a breach of empathy, or something that moves the interaction toward an insecure feeling, one person is usually more in the role of the one who bridges that distance. And that person complains. They want the other to be less avoidant, more engaging. And typically two people are differently skilled about the extent to which, in the moments of conflict, they can self-regulate and reach out to the other.
ST: That’s right.
RW: Any thoughts about that?
ST: We're looking for couples to be able to rely more on interactive regulation, coregulation. People who are insecurely attached —that is, basically the avoidant and what I call the angry-resistant on the other side —have different styles that are wired in from childhood, in terms of how they regulate. For example, the avoidant, who comes from dismissive and derogating parenting, relies on autoregulation, which is a form of self-stimulation, self-soothing. It's not just simply a defense: it is an adaptation from very, very early, and it's wired in. So this is a default position.
RW: Things like saying a prayer, singing a song, taking deep breaths, meditation.
ST: Or masturbating, or reading. Or singing, like you said, or performing, writing. Anything that doesn't involve another person —although there are things that involve another person, with which the avoidant person could autoregulate. In Kohutian terms, that would be using that person as a self-object.
So autoregulation is normal–everyone does it–but the avoidant over-relies on autoregulation.
So autoregulation is normal–everyone does it–but the avoidant over-relies on autoregulation. And that's a sign of a one-person psychological system. The thing with autoregulation is that it's a very energy-conserved state, almost dissociative. And the problem with the avoidant is his or her inability to shift from being alone to interacting. Avoidants can shift from interacting to being alone, but not in the other direction very easily.

The angry-resistant, by contrast, focuses and over-relies on external regulation. Angry-resistants require another person to help calm them down or stimulate them. They, in contrast, have a hard time shifting from interaction to being alone, not from being alone to interacting. So you have two one-person systems that avoid relying on interactive or mutual regulation, which is what we're trying to move couples toward.

The angry-resistant will feel some fear about separations and reunions, particularly about being dropped. But both partners have a responsibility to repair these reflexes with each other, regardless of whether they are avoidant or angry-resistant. So we have a lot of emphasis on getting the couple, especially during distress, to coregulate —eye to eye, face to face —and to make quick repair, make things right as soon as injuries or distress arises. This way there's no memory of the event.
RW: What are some ways you have found that help people to engage in face-to-face, mutual soothing activities? Do you talk to people about the theory?
ST: Sometimes I do. But, basically, I suggest to my students that we push the therapeutic narrative forward by expecting a secure functioning relationship, not just teaching it. We expect one. So when people are not operating in this way, we wonder why. Don’t forget, it’s not simply the avoidant who can create a tone that is threatening, and who starts a fight. Let me just say this: “the reason most couples enter into conflicts that are problematic is because of their inability to know how to manage one another. They don’t know how the other person really works.”

Getting Couples to Manage Each Other

RW: Do you teach them skills to help them overcome their deficits?
ST: Yes. Much of the therapy is really active and experiential. I do very long sessions —two to four hours, sometimes six hours, and they're all videotaped. And the reason for this is to be able to move the couple through a variety of states, which are very much like real life.
Instead of talking about events, we try to enact them and try to make the corrections in real time
Instead of talking about events, we try to enact them and try to make the corrections in real time, while they're in that state of mind. So this becomes a part of procedural memory, which is actually why they get in trouble in the first place.
RW: I’m inferring a lot of coaching.
ST: There’s a lot of coaching, yes.
RW: Like when you've asked them to have an interaction, you read the facial expression and tone of voice a certain way, empathically. The spouse you're teaching doesn't. They're not empathic. They break right there. You'll stop the interaction there or you may note that and use it in some way to help them read the other face. I can imagine how helpful that would be if I'm reading my partner's eyes as angry when it's interest or when it's confused. If I see criticism, based on my deficit —if everything is critical, you can teach me nuance. That would be great.
ST: The idea here is that each partner is in the other’s care. They’re not in the therapist’s care. So we want to point to each partner: “Did you see that on her face? Did you notice that?” I don’t want to be the only person noticing things. I want them to be able to see things. I should say that the room is set up in a particular way, like a staging area. Everyone is on chairs with wheels. So I can see body movement. I can turn to them. They can turn to each other, and I can see them turning away, as well. “So the emphasis is to get them to read each other. They have to be experts on each other.”
RW: You identified the domains of your focus. What are some of the goals of these different domains?
ST: On the attachment level, we want to educate both partners in terms of their attachment orientation. This isn’t to say that we’re going to give them jargon, but we want them to understand from where they came and how that has wired psychobiologically into their nervous system and every cell of their body, to normalize it. This is not a pathological view of human nature. This is a very natural view of human nature in terms of attachment, adaptation. We all adapt. And the nice thing about looking at developmental theory is we can get a picture, a sense, of how someone has to adapt to certain situations. And that gives us a sense of what the person is going to do in the future.

We want people to understand who they are, really, and to take responsibility for that. For example, if the avoidant is dismissive or derogating or gets angry when his or her partner approaches, then he or she must quickly fix that and make it right. But also, we want each partner to understand the other and to know how to manage the other in the best way. When we look at attachment, we know that it isn’t so much about personality; rather, it’s about the sense of competence and agency that two people in a dyad feel they have over the other. In other words, I know that I can manage you. I can shift your state if I need to. I can move you around if I want to, without the use of threat. I can do this in the best way.

And that’s what we want. We want couples to learn who they are. They didn’t get married to be different people. They got married to be just who they are. But they want to feel that they know how to manage the other person. So the emphasis here is very different. We’re not teaching people how to manage themselves. We’re teaching the proper way, which is how to manage each other. And this, again, is borrowed from developmental theory.
RW: Don’t you think it’s both/and?
ST: It’s both/and, but too many therapies focus on self-regulation.
RW: Exclusively.
ST: Right. The way that this works is that, in a primary attached relationship, it is much more efficient for me to manage your state than it is for me to manage my own. And one of the reasons it's more effective is that, the way we're wired, at close distances you can see what's going on in my internal state, my nervous system, before I know. I can see what's going on in yours before you know. This gives us an advantage. There's a reason this is built in at close distances. At far distances, we're interested in whether we're attracted or we're dangerous. But in close distances, we're able to see into each other's nervous system and to be able to respond in this dance of mutual regulation.

So that's what we want to encourage, on the attachment level. On the arousal level, we want to make sure that couples can talk about anything, do anything, without fear of dysregulation. One of the reasons therapy sessions are very long is
I like to set fires and put them out, or make messes and clean them up
I like to set fires and put them out, or make messes and clean them up —however you want to look at it. But we want to get into areas of difficulty so that partners are not afraid, so that they know how to co-manage these situations by tensing and letting go, and never getting into a situation in which they dysregulate one another. They must know how to stay in a play zone, even when they're fighting. This is a very, very important part.
RW: That's powerful —the role of play.
ST: It is. Couples should not be afraid of anything when it comes to each other, and they certainly should not be afraid of the relationship breaking simply because they’re in conflict. So we take off the table any fear having to do with the relationship breaking or falling apart on either side of the partnership.

The Elephants in the Room

RW: So if there is doubt that the person wants to stay, and they say, "Yes, I am thinking about divorce, and I can stop saying that in the middle of a fight but it's there. I don't know if I want to stay" —how would you take that off the table?
ST: Well, in the very beginning, if that is really a very strong message and one partner, at least, is drifting or pushing in that direction, this is where it gets kind of tricky.

I will go in that direction and push it all out. In other words, I call it "bending metal" —going in one direction or the other fully. I'm not in the business of breaking people up. But if there is resistance and there's one person saying, "I don't know if I want to do this," then I will go full bore into breaking them up, for the purpose of getting pushback or blowback. In other words, I want to find out what they're really made of, and I think one of the jobs for all therapists is to clarify what's going on.
RW: That’s very important because that’s the elephant in the room that the other spouse knows is there. And if the therapist is too afraid to push on it and bend the metal, then you really can’t get to building the security.
ST: Right. One of the reasons this approach goes fast is the therapist is very active and evocative, and even a bit of a clown-at-the-bullfight kind of person. I was trained psychoanalytically; this is very different because we want to push the boundaries and see what people are made of. So if somebody thinks he or she wants out of the relationship, then we have a session on “Let’s divorce,” and we’ll go all out. And then I will look for pushback. Now, much of the time, people are using this as a way to threaten the partner to get him or her to comply. But once it’s exposed that they really aren’t going to leave, they don’t want to leave, they can’t leave, then it gets taken off the table. Because we’ve already proven that the person is not being truthful. They’re using this as a maneuver to threaten the partner. So we want to get that off the table as soon as possible, and we do that by getting them to throw down, basically.

You can see this is taking a little bit from strategic family systems, too, in that we’re being a little tricky, but always in the interest of clarification. So that’s how that’s handled.
RW: And that would apply when a person is having an affair?
ST: Oh, that’s our bread and butter.
RW: How so?
ST: A lot of people end up coming in because either they are having an affair or they're hiding one. And in this model,
we think of affairs not as attraction to a third, but an aversion toward the primary.
we think of affairs not as attraction to a third, but an aversion toward the primary. So when two people assume the office —and I think of it as an office —of primary attachment figure, it's almost like the office of Presidency. The office of Presidency has a certain valence to it. Forget who's sitting in it. And then there's the person with his or her personality, which either adds to, amplifies, or whatever, the office.

So when two people assume the office of primary, this is a very intense relationship that resembles no current relationship, only past relationships. And, as such, people become deep family when in these positions. That is why a lot of problems arise. I call it the marriage monster. As soon as people get married or they enter into the relationship with a sense of permanence, all these attachment fears coming from procedural memory and experience begin to arise. So movements away and toward each partner we see as part of the predictable trajectory, and not just as happenstance or an accident.

So, most affairs, depending on who's having them, reflect the insecurity of the primary attachment relationship, not so much the attraction to the outside third person. Ironically, many people pick, as their affair, somebody who's almost identical to themselves. And one of the common things I'll hear, and I'm sure you hear too, is "Why aren't I like this with that person? Why do I feel this way with my sister or my brother and not with you? Why my friends don't do this to me?" My thought about that is, "Well, marry your friend and then see what happens." Because it is a phenomenon of marriage or commitment that this material starts to come up.
RW: Going back to the goals, you were naming the goal of the attachment domain is to move towards security.
ST: Move towards security and to understand who each person is and how to manage him or her.
RW: And then, in the arousal domain, the goal is to promote mutual regulation.
ST: Yes, we're promoting interactive regulation, which is a close monitoring of each other's face, voice, eyes, and body. And by the way, interactive regulation in this close proximity, and mutual gaze, are how we fall in love, most of us. So it's simply going back to the way we originally began anyway. But also, the goal is to learn how to do this so that you and I, as partners, can talk about anything. We can enter into any area of importance without fear of threat or dysregulation. And that's a major, major goal.

On the developmental level, the therapist really has to discover what deficits do arise —and we all have deficits, and especially they come up in relationship —to clarify those and to hopefully help move them along developmentally. Partners need each other to do that.

If I am with you, and I discover that you've never been able to read my face, you've never been able to read anybody's face, that is going to be one of the reasons we have trouble. And I may have thought you were doing this purposely, when actually you weren't. This is a deficit. This is something you've never been able to do. That changes the game in a lot of ways. And sometimes people will never get very good at something. Other times they can get better with the help of the partner.
RW: Okay, any other goals in the other domains?
ST: In general, we're moving people towards a secure functioning relationship. And that includes, like I said, true mutuality. In other words, everything we do is based on a social contract, borrowing a bit from attachment theory and John Rawls here —a social contract that's based in fairness and justice and sensitivity. So, if the relationship comes first —not us as people, but the relationship —and it becomes the air we breathe, the water we drink, our basic fundamental engine of energy to go through the day and to brave the world, then there are things that we have to do with each other to keep each other feeling attractive and attracted to the relationship. And one of those is making sure that every decision we make is one you're good with and one I'm good with. There is no dragging you along because it's good for me, but it doesn't have to be good for you.

So we're changing really from a monarchy, or dictatorship, to a system that is fair between these two generals, who are both in charge and they have to please other.
RW: If we’re not both happy, neither one of us is happy.
ST: Neither one of us is happy. And everyone who lives below us and around us will be unhappy, too. I kind of think of this as king and queen. If the king and queen are in disorder, everyone in the land is in disorder.

So that goes with kids and that goes with everybody we interact with socially.

There’s one more part here: the management of thirds. By this I mean third things, third people, third objects, third tasks. This could be drugs, alcohol, work, in-laws, friends, children, dogs, pets, and so on.
RW: Famous triangulation.
ST: A secure functioning couple has a kind of couple bubble around it, wherein the dyad comes first, and thirds are secondary. What this means is that the couple is aware that in public and in private they protect each other at all times. They don’t allow either of them to be the third wheel for very long, at least not without repair. In this way, everybody actually fares much better. So the management of thirds is a huge deal. As therapists, we can find out right away if a couple is mishandling this by the way they address us.

One of the reasons I have them on chairs with wheels is that I can see how they’re moving and who they’re talking to and who they’re addressing. If I notice the partner is talking to me, ignoring the other, or saying something about the other without checking with him or her, then I know both of them handle thirds poorly. And not just in the therapy session, but everywhere. So, another big goal is the management of thirds, in public and in private.

It’s great fun.
RW: It sounds like fun. What are some things that therapists can take from this to translate it into tactical tips, tools, and techniques?
ST: First of all, I would recommend that someone who wants to get into being a couple therapist do it wholeheartedly, because it is very different than working with individuals and families. It's a specialty. And I think, as such, it deserves a lot of attention and a lot of focus. Having said that, I think that it is next to impossible to see a couple, particularly in the beginning, for an hour. I think the therapy sessions must be long, to give therapists enough time to relax and not be pressured. Otherwise, the therapist, him- or herself, can become dysregulated, and pressured. More mistakes are made that way.

So longer sessions to watch the couple cycle through different states, to give therapists time to think and formulate. Begin to play very, very close attention, not to content, but to micro-expressions, micro-movements. I think therapists today should be trained —whether it's Paul Ekman's material or other places to get this training —to work with the body and be able to pick up very subtle but very significant cues on the face and the voice that reveal shifting states and emotions. This is very key to working with the body. I think it's important to try to avoid getting caught up in the content of what a couple's talking about and start watching, basically, these two nervous system interacting.

One thing I do want to say before ending here is that this is a maxim that I always use and say: people do not know what they're doing. This goes for us therapists, as well.
We do not know what we're doing most of the time, and we don't know why we do what we do
We do not know what we're doing most of the time, and we don't know why we do what we do most of the time. And there's a reason for this. When we are interacting with another person, we're using very fast-acting subcortical processes that never see the light of day in terms of higher cortical areas. We're simply acting and reacting very quickly, as we should. And then, when asked why we did what we did, we really don't know. But because we're human beings and because we don't like to not know, we make it up.

I could say that this is a function of the left hemisphere that confabulates, because it doesn't know what the right hemisphere and subcortical areas are doing. But this is the flow of data through the body and the brain. We act and react much faster than our cognition, and certainly our words.

So the therapist would do well to understand neurobiology and how the brain actually works and what people are really doing. A lot of things that are happening between two individuals —and this includes individual therapy —are sub-psychological. In other words, it's biological. It doesn't even get to the higher levels that we consider psychological or theory of mind. This is our most basic nature. Our number one imperative as human beings is to not get killed. It comes before love. It comes before everything else. And we have some very, very well developed —in terms of evolution —primitive areas of our brain that are very good at looking out for our survival. They don't give a damn about relationships or anything else. If it comes down to feeling threatened, we do war instead of love. That's what I'd say.
RW: And from there is the title of your new book with Marian Solomon.
ST: That's right. Love and War in Intimate Relationships: Connection, Disconnection, and Mutual Regulation in Couple Therapy. It is available through Norton in the Interpersonal Neuroscience Division. The official publishing date is February of this year.
RW: Congratulations on that book.
ST: Thank you.
RW: What kind of training are you planning to do in the future, so that you can disseminate and spread the word and help people learn this?
ST: We do trainings in Los Angeles; San Francisco; Seattle; Austin, Texas; Boulder, Colorado. Maybe soon to be in New Jersey. We also have an international group that we do training with, as well. So it’s spreading like wildfire right now. And if people want to get involved in the training, which is a great deal of fun, they’d have to go to this web address: www.ahealthymind.org, and the click on the city that’s nearest to them.
RW: Is there anything that that I haven’t asked you or that you haven’t had a chance to say yet?
ST:

Applications for Individual Therapy

We didn't really get a chance to talk about how this translates into individual work, but it does, because we're dyadic creatures. Individual therapy is a dyad. I will say that, as a cautionary note, being an individual therapist for so many years, I now view primary attachment relationships as sacrosanct. And if an individual does come to me and is in a primary attachment relationship, I will work my darnedest to get that partner in, to turn it into couple therapy. And the reason I do that is because when we're working with the primary attachment relationship currently, we're dealing with proxies: people who represent the past. And there's no more powerful system than that system. The therapeutic relationship tries to approximate that, but really can never do that for a variety of reasons. For one, the therapeutic relationship is asymmetric. So, when we have that capacity and that exists, I think we should shift to couples therapy. If the couple or the individual is unwilling to do that, I think it's incumbent upon the individual therapist to act as an adjunct —to move that relationship forward rather than try to compete with it.

So I think there are mistakes being made now with individual therapists who are competing with primary attachment relationships. And that would be a nice thing, I think, for people to start to learn not to do.
RW: It sounds like you’re suggesting that therapists not only promote secure attachment with themselves, but also with the primary attachment spouse.
ST: Right. Instead of trying to compete with it, we try to promote the one that already exists. Unfortunately, when we see one individual who’s in a relationship, we will never, ever know the truth. One person is not a reliable reporter of the relationship.
RW: Well, there are different truths. There’s my truth and then there’s your truth.
ST: After a while doing this, you understand again the principle that people don’t know what they’re doing. That’s true for everybody. So, in this work, working psychobiologically, we want proof. We want to see it. We don’t want to hear about it. We want to see it.
RW: I know that you’re familiar with the notion that in many situations we don’t know if people should divorce or stay together.
ST: That’s right.
RW: Particularly if they are at the long line of a series of many, many injuries and don’t have any capacity for repair and a very entrenched avoidant or resistant pattern of attachment. And let’s say one is growing and is seriously wanting to think about leaving. How do you deal with that? How do you deal with those moments when you are promoting the divorce rather than the increased security attachment?
ST: I only promote divorce as a trick. I only promote divorce to test the mettle of at least one person who is drifting in that direction.
RW: And if the metal yields?
ST: Well, if the metal yields, then no harm, no foul, because clarity is the most important thing. People aren’t going to do anything because you tell them to, not really.
I have stopped being the arbiter of who should be together and who shouldn’t.
I have stopped being the arbiter of who should be together and who shouldn’t. I assume that partners will no longer be together when they are no longer together. Until that time, they’re a couple, and I’m their couple therapist. And I continue to assume that my job is not to decide whether they’re right or wrong for each other, but to move them toward a secure functioning relationship. That’s my job. If they do not make it, they’ll be better the next time for therapy. But I don’t decide anymore. Now, when I have strong feelings about the couple not being together, it’s always countertransference that passes momentarily. There are a lot of therapists who’ve tried to break up couples, and I think this is actually morally wrong.

I think nature has its own path. Primary attached relationships are very complex and very strong. We don’t understand them fully. I think people are quite capable of ending things when they’re really, really done. And they’ll prove it. Otherwise, you’re the couple therapist until that time. That’s my belief.
RW: Thank you for this interview. It was very enjoyable.
ST: Thank you.

My, How Couples Therapy has Changed! Attachment, Love and Science

The revolution

Just a few short years ago couples therapy was cynically labeled as a set of techniques in search of a theory! Now researchers such as John Gottman and Kim Halford have suggested that even the accepted techniques of this field, such as teaching problem-solving and conflict-management skills, while beneficial, do not seem to get to the heart of the matter in terms of offering a pathway to lasting change in relationships and do not reflect how happy couples relate to each other outside of therapy.

If all this weren’t rough enough, everyone agrees that couples therapy can be very difficult to do. “Dealing with two people, two sets of hot emotions, escalating fights, and clients who hurt but don’t want to slow down, be more reasonable and negotiate is not for the faint of heart.”

Given all this, it seems almost reasonable that couples therapy is often ridiculed or maligned as ineffective in the media. But in spite of this, millions of couples persist in seeking out therapists, perhaps because, as recent surveys tell us, most people in North America rate finding a loving relationship as their main life goal, placing it ahead of career or financial success. It is fortunate, then, that the image of couples therapy painted above is not the whole story. In fact, this image is simply out of date.

Couples therapy is in the midst of a revolution. The key element in this revolution is the development of a new science of love and love relationships. As Yogi Berra told us, “If you don’t know where you are going, you wind up somewhere else.” Without a clear model of love and the process of connection and disconnection, it is difficult to know how to focus interventions on the defining issues and moments in a relationship. It is hard to know what changes will really make a difference and what the overall goal should be in couples therapy. If love is, as Marilyn Yalom in her book The History of the Wife suggests, “an intoxicating mixture of sex and sentiment that no one can understand,” then couples therapy is just appropriate sitcom material. As she suggests, sex and emotion do seem to be intrinsic to love, but it does not have to be a complete mystery.

There are many strands in this new science of love relationships, but they all come together in the growing literature on adult attachment, a relatively recent extension of the English psychiatrist John Bowlby’s work on the emotional bonds between mothers and children. The attachment perspective gives the couples therapist a meaningful and effective map to the drama of distress between partners. It guides the therapist in the pivotal moments in couples interactions and why they matter so much; it offers the therapist a guide to each partner’s deepest needs and strongest emotions. Even so, most therapists will ask, “But does it tell me what to do from moment to moment in a couple session?”

Many streams of research and theory have addressed these questions of late. My colleagues and I have explored these questions in what we call Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy (EFT), a systematic, rigorous, tested set of interventions based on the attachment view of love and bonding. I recently summarized attachment-based approaches in a manner that can be offered to clients and the public in Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love . The great strength of this new scientific perspective is exactly that it offers a rigorous body of observation and research into what love is all about and how it changes shape and color. Moreover, it is a tested approach to intervention with excellent outcome data and clinical relevance. Clients also tell us that this way of seeing and working does indeed go to the heart of the matter. In this article I will summarize the attachment perspective and how it is supported by different strands of relationship science (these science strands will be in italics to find or avoid, as you wish!) and how it translates into practice in EFT.

A new scientific and practical theory of love

The multitude of studies on adult attachment that have emerged over the last decade tell us that the essence of love is not a negotiated exchange of resources (so why teach negotiation skills?), a friendship, Nature’s trick to get you to mate and pass on your genes, or a time-limited episode of delusional addiction.

“Love is a very special kind of emotional bond, the need for which is wired into our brain by millions of years of evolution.” It is a survival imperative. The human brain codes isolation and abandonment as danger and the touch and emotional responsiveness of loved ones as safety, a safety that promotes optimal flexibility and continual learning. Jaak Panksepp1, in his neurobiological studies, finds that loss of connection from attachment figures triggers “primal panic,” a special set of fear responses. As Bowlby notes, the words “anxiety” and “anger” come from the same etymological root and both arise at moments of disconnection, when attachment figures are non-responsive. This need for emotional connection is not a sentimental notion. The basic image of who we are and what our most basic needs are, namely that we are social animals who seek such connection, is reflected in health studies. For example, it is now clear that emotional isolation is more dangerous for your health than smoking, and that it doubles the likelihood of heart attack and stroke.

Attachment theory states that we need a safe haven relationship to turn to when life is too much for us and that offers us a secure base from which to go confidently out into the world. This is effective dependency. Many psychotherapy clients learn that their problem is that they are too close or undifferentiated from loved ones. The approach discussed here offers a larger picture. The evidence is that secure, close connection is a source of strength and personality integration rather than weakness. Studies show that the securely connected have a more articulated and positive sense of self. Eighteen months after 9/11, researcher Chris Fraley2 found that securely connected survivors, who could turn to others for emotional support, were able to deal with this trauma and grow from it, whereas insecurely attached survivors were experiencing significant mental health problems. Secure connection is shaped by mutual emotional accessibility and responsiveness. This is the heart of the drama that plays out in the couple therapist’s office. The fights that matter in a relationship are only superficially about the kids or money. Partners and therapists can spend many hours talking about these content issues instead of focusing on how the couple talk and more specifically, on the key attachment questions that drive a couple’s negative dance. “The key questions are: “Are you there for me?” “Do I matter to you?” “Will you turn towards me and respond to me?”” Partners often do not know how to ask these questions, and therapists often miss them or even see them as a sign of immature dependency.

Attachment theory tells us that emotion and emotional signals are the music of the dance between intimates. Many therapies encourage clients to go round strong emotion or replace it with rational thoughts or decisions. Emotion researchers such as James Gross now tell us that this not only increases arousal in the person who is inhibiting emotion but also creates tension in the other partner. An approach that focuses on attachment suggests that emotion is best acknowledged and listened to, so that emotional signals can be shaped in ways that make for safe connection. New emotional responses are also essential if therapy is to address each partner’s deeper longings, help partners formulate their needs and offer a path to the kind of compassionate loving connection that couples are seeking. “Secure attachment, not just conflict containment, is the goal of couples therapy here.” By the end of therapy, an EFT therapist, for example, wants to see his or her clients listen to their emotions, speak their needs clearly and reach for their partner in a way that helps that partner tune in and respond. Research into EFT outcomes tells us that when partners can do this in key sessions, they move into recovery from distress, and this recovery tends to be stable over time. Studies show that over 7 out of 10 couples reach this in EFT. Safe emotional connection then helps each partner deal positively with stress and distress, whether this stress arises from within or outside the relationship. Negative events then only make a relationship stronger. Jim Coan found that when women in an MRI machine were shown a sign that meant they might be shocked on their feet, their brains registered a high stress response, especially if they were alone and even if a stranger held their hand. But if they felt loved in their marriage and their husband held their hand, then these women’s brains were much calmer and the shock seemed to hurt less; holding hands with a loved one “calms jittery neurons” in the brain. As Bowlby predicted, there is more and more evidence that lovers are connected by a neural net. They regulate each other’s physiology and emotional lives. When they are tuned in emotionally, they help each other reach a physical and emotional balance that promotes optimal functioning.

If you look through the attachment lens, the negative spirals that distressed couples create and are victimized by are all about separation distress—the deprivation and emotional starvation that comes from emotional disconnection. “When we cannot get an attachment figure to respond to us, we step into a wired in sequence of protest, first hopeful and then angry, desperate and coercive.” We seek contact any way we can. My client tells me, “I poke him and poke him—anything to get a response from him, to know I matter to him.” If we cannot get a response, despair and depression come to claim us. This way of understanding the usual demand-withdraw cycle in a distressed relationship allows the therapist to help partners to see the game instead of the ball, and to come together against the common enemy of the isolation and the negative dance that is consuming their relationship. It also implies that unless the underlying attachment issues and primal panic is addressed, other approaches, such as insight or learning skill sequences, are unlikely to be effective.

Shaping a sense of safe connection

If we cannot find a way to turn towards our partner and shape a sense of safe connection, there are really only two other secondary strategies open to us and they map onto two emotional realities with exquisite logic. Strategy one is to become caught in fear of abandonment and demand responsiveness by blaming; unfortunately, this often threatens the other and pushes this person further away, especially if this strategy becomes habitual and automatic. Strategy two is to numb out attachment needs and feelings and avoid engagement (and conflict), that is, to shut down and withdraw. Unfortunately, this then shuts the other person out. Both these secondary strategies are ways of trying to hang onto an attachment relationship and deal with difficult feelings, but they often backfire. Over the course of EFT studies and practice, we have been able to chart the emotional realities of partners as they use these strategies. Once they can order and name their feelings, blamers speak of being alone, left, unimportant, abandoned, and feeling insignificant to their partner. Underneath their anger they are extremely vulnerable. Withdrawers speak of feeling ashamed and afraid of hearing that they are failures. They believe that they can never please their partner and so feel helpless and paralyzed.

Attachment-oriented couples therapy

Attachment theory offers a map to the dance of love and the powerful emotions that move partners in this dance. In moment-to-moment interactions, cognitive models of personal identity are also shaped. Each person is defined and defines themselves as lovable or unworthy and the other as trustworthy or dangerous. The map offered here allows the therapist to go within each partner and between the partners into the dance and its patterns. The therapist then, with EFT attachment-based interventions, shapes new interactions and new emotions, helping partners move from desperate anger, for example, to a clear expression of fear and longing that evokes caring and compassion in the other partner and creates the contact they long for.

EFT as an attachment-oriented therapy assumes that reshaped emotions and emotional signals and new sequences of responsive interaction are necessary to transform an attachment relationship. Couples therapy has rightly, from this view, been accused of ignoring nurturance and connection for a focus on conflict management, power and boundaries. This approach addresses this issue as core to forging satisfying and meaningful relationships. Attachment longings are wired into our brains and the tendency to reach and to trust and to comfort and care are always there, even if unrecognized or denied. The tendency to respond to hurtful disconnection by shutting down or attacking is also always there, and can become habitual for all of us.

Bowlby, like Carl Rogers, saw how we can all get stuck in dead-end ways of dealing with our emotional needs and with loved ones, but also believed that we can have a corrective emotional experience of safe connection that opens new doors for us and changes these ways. “What has to happen—or what is necessary and sufficient for a lasting transformational shift to occur in a distressed relationship?” My experience leads me to believe that a corrective emotional experience of safe connection that is then integrated into the self and the relationship is necessary. What does this look like?

We know from thousands or studies on attachments between mother and child and from studies of adult love that in secure relationships that people can become aware of and regulate their attachment emotions, accept their needs and express these needs coherently and openly to the other. They can accept comfort when offered and, in an adult relationship, offer comfort to the other. They can then use this sense of felt security to move out into the world, to explore and learn. In key change events that predict positive outcome in the second stage of EFT, when the therapist is guiding the couple into positive cycles of engagement and trust, this is also what we see. With both withdrawers and blaming anxious partners, the therapist helps them move into a deeper connection with their own fears and longings, and then express these fears and longings to their partner in a way that pulls the other close.

Withdrawers assert their needs for safety and can tell their lover what they require to stay emotionally engaged. David says, “I have to feel that I can win here. I can’t be walking on eggshells and get doubted and slammed every day. I want to be close. I need your help and a little trust from you.” More blaming partners can express their fears and also risk reaching for their partner. David’s wife, Sue, can say, “I am so scared of being let down, of going into freefall, but I need your reassurance. I have to know that I matter to you—that you will not let us lose each other.”

When couples can reconnect (or even connect for the first time!) in this way, immensely positive bonding events take place. Partners begin to see each other more fully and are more authentic and compassionate with each other. Their connection empowers each of them and opens the door to all the benefits that research tells us comes with secure attachment. Their way of engaging with their own emotions, their loved one and the world, which now contains a safe haven, shifts. The research on bonding suggests that as they make this kind of connection, lovers are likely flooded with the cuddle hormone, oxytocin. This is released during orgasm, breast-feeding or simply when attachment figures come close to us. Oxytocin is also linked to the release of dopamine, a natural opiate linked to pleasure, and down-regulates cortisol, the stress hormone. The neurochemical basis of bondingthe physical source of the calm euphoric feeling associated with loveis no longer a mystery. Once a couple can create these kinds of interactions, they can move into the final consolidation phase of EFT.

The practical application of attachment and associated research findings also leads into exciting new areas. It leads to a new understanding of how to create forgiveness for injuries in attachment relationships. A seven-step process has been outlined and tested (Johnson, 2004). New research also gives the therapist a guide to the integration of sex and attachment, helping us to understand Laumann’s recent survey results that the most satisfying sex occurs in long-term loving relationships. The passion of infatuation is perhaps just the hors d’oeuvre rather than the main meal. “Emotional presence and engagement are the keys to sex that remains thrilling, rather than seeking novelty or needing distance to spark desire” (see the chapter on this in Hold Me Tight). A new understanding of love also extends the reach of the couples therapist. EFT is used to create safe-haven relationships for those who are traumatized. If we can heal relationships, we can also create relationships that heal. A safe, loving relationship is the natural antidote to the emotional tsunami of trauma.

Sam and Kate: An EFT couples session

Let’s now look at some interventions in a small piece of couples therapy and see how all of this impacts the choices the therapist makes in a session. Kate and Sam are an older couple who have been very wounded in past relationships. Kate was wounded early by Sam’s reluctance, for the first few years of their relationship, to commit to her. He needed an “escape route,” to the point where she would feel humiliated and excluded by him, especially in social situations. They have come a long way. Sam is now expressing commitment and caring, but Kate just cannot bring herself to trust him and move in with him again. This session focused on addressing that impasse. Below is a list of a number of the interventions used and some examples of therapeutic interactions with Sam and Kate.

  • Validation is used to create a safe haven in the session for both partners.
  • Emotions are tracked, unpacked, and tied into key steps in the couple’s drama.
  • Responses are framed and clarified within the new understanding of attachment.
  • Profound core emotions are heightened and evoked to move partners into new, more responsive interactions.
  • New enactments are shaped to help partners move into interactions where each one of them can reach for the other and respond caringly to the other.

Sam: We are fine and then we are not. She just gets so upset. It’s like, “Go to jail, do not pass Go” for me. It’s disheartening. Then I get scolded about all the past injuries and crimes. (He shrugs and throws up his hands.)

Therapist: (Chooses to focus on process—Sam’s emotions and how they move him in the attachment dance.) You feel disheartened, and like you are being scolded. Kind of hopeless, then? So then, what do you do here? Is this one of these times when you, as you have said, try to “explain,” give reasons for past actions, and end up “stepping back” a little? (Sam nods and so does Kate.) That must be so hard for you, Kate. (Therapist actively reflects this couple’s attachment pattern, validates and empathizes to create a safe haven in the session.)

Kate: I still don’t feel heard. I was expendable to him—I am hurt. (“New research on hurt finds that is it a mixture of anger, sadness and fearthe fear of being excluded, abandoned and rejected.”) We have talked lots but it doesn’t change. And then we went to that party on Saturday and then we fought. The hurt goes on forever. So I just say, “Just leave.” (She weeps bitterly.) Some days I see that he is struggling to be there, but . . . then we just withdraw from each other. I can’t trust and he just gives up on us.

Therapist: Some part of you sees that he is fighting for you, (she nods). But these moments–this hurt is still triggered and hits like a tsunami (heightening primary attachment emotions). The hurt is sadness? (She nods). There is some anger, and a terrible sense that this is unbearable. The only answer is for him to leave and you to protect yourself, not let him in? The hurt will go on and on–that is the scary part.

Kate: Yes. It’s sad and it’s terrifying. I will never feel safe here. I can’t risk with him.

Therapist: (Using the map of attachment emotions.) There is a panic. Can you feel that fear right now? (Kate murmurs that she does.)

Kate: It’s like I am in freefall.

Sam: I try. I try to tell you that I am here, that I want you to come to the party with me. I know that in the past parties were like a minefield. I know I kept you at arm’s length. Now I try to reach out to you, but you don’t trust it. So what can I do? (He again throws his arms up in the air and turns away.) You are so attractive, so competent. You are dangerous for me too.

Therapist: Sam, I want you to stay here right now—not turn away and get discouraged. I know it’s hard to be holding out your hand to Kate and have her not able to really reach out and take it. That takes courage. But can you see that she is scared? Lots of past hurts and fears are right there for her in these moments. (His fears are validated and Kate’s responses are clarified in the light of attachment vulnerabilities.) Can you tell her, “I want you to be with me at the parties; I want to reassure you and have you take in my caring, feel safe”? (Highlighting the attachment message, the invitation, coming from Sam.)

Sam: (Turns to Kate) Yes. Yes, I am reaching from my heart. (He puts his hand on her arm.)

Therapist: Kate, can you feel Sam’s hand on your arm? (She shakes her head.) You can’t feel the warmth in his hand? (She shakes her head again.) You are so scared that you go numb, is that it?

Kate: I go numb. At the party the other night, I was numb. So scared that the old scenario would play out. He would move away; act like I wasn’t his lady. My facade works but underneath . . .

Therapist: You are just so very scared of being hurt again, of feeling unimportant, expendable. (Kate nods.) So you numb out. You can’t feel his warmth then. You can’t take in his reassurance. Then he gets discouraged and begins to express hopelessness and that confirms your fear. Can you tell him, “I am so very scared of letting myself hope, of beginning to feel and need you again”?

Kate: (To Sam) I am just so scared. I want to believe that you are with me now, but when we do stuff like go to a party, all that old hurt comes up and I just numb out. Then when you do touch me, it’s like you are a million miles away.

Therapist: How can Sam help you, Kate? How can he help you with your fear, your doubt? (“Don’t know,” Kate murmurs.) Can you look at him? Do you see that he cares, that he doesn’t want you to be hurt or afraid?

Kate: (Looks at Sam intently.) Yes, I see that. I need him to listen to that old hurt I have and help me with it. I need him to help me heal it and to reassure me that it is okay to begin to put my trust in him again. (Suddenly she smiles and he moves closer and smiles back at her.)

Sam: Well, then that is what we will do. I am not sure quite how to do it, but here I am. (She leans forward and folds herself into his shoulder.)

In this moment, Sam offers Kate a felt sense of connection, and I see the neural duet that researchers describe when they speak of mirror neurons firing in the brain so that we feel within our bodies the moves and emotions of another. This sense of felt connection seems to create a state of resonance that physicists speak of. “In this connected state, two particles vibrate together and move into exquisite coordination, a natural synchrony of matching rhythms and responses, where intentions and moves are transparent and perfectly anticipated.” This kind of engagement can be seen in joyous moments between mother and child, father and child. It is also part of these moments between adult lovers such as Sam and Kate. This is perhaps the essence of love.

So, yes! couples therapy has changed. It is changing into a rich scientific discipline that has a central place for love and attachment. We have reached into outer space, to Mars and beyond. This science of human connection changes everything, allowing us to reach into the space within and between us… for the better.

Seminal References

Mikulincer, Marion and Shaver, Phil (2007). Attachment in adulthood. Guilford Press.

Johnson, Sue (2008). Hold me tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love. Little Brown. (Or visit the Hold Me Tight website for more info.)

Johnson, Sue (2004. 2nd Ed). The Practice of Emotionally Focused Therapy. Brunner/Routledge.

Notes

1Panksepp,Jaak. (1998) Affective Neuroscience:The foundations of human and animal emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2Fraley, C., Fazzari, D., Bonanno, G., & Dekel, S. ( 2006) Attachment and psychological adaptation in high exposure survivors of the September 11th attack on the world Trade Center. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 538-551