ACT and the processing of emotions ?
I recently attended a training on the processing of emotion. Similar in many ways to the focusing approach (Eugène Gendlin), it describes the emotional process and how letting this natural process goes to completion helps us understand the needs behind our emotions. It presents emotions as a compass of where to go next in our life. To give more precision, I will summarize the process (emergence-immersion-development-insight-taking action). In the emergence phase, a content appears in the form of sensations, images, thinking. In immersion, the person takes in and bears the intensity of the emotion until more content appears like pop-corns (development) and an insight arrives at the end of this process. The insight gives enought determination for the person to act in direction to fullfill the need behind the initial signal of the emotion. It presents emotion as a signal to draw our attention to our psychological experience, the same way a sensation is a signal to draw our attention to our body. In other words, when something goes wrong in our body, a sensation let us know that something has to be done in that direction. I believe that most readers understand what is meant by the recognition of the fonction of our emotions and sensations.
Well, I am a little bit perplexe about the way ACT presents all these private events (emotions, sensations, images) as simply things that come and go without any real fonction for us. I understand at the same time how trivial this content can be, but how can we make a distinction between emotions that are useful and others that are trivial if we do not give them some credit at the start. I think that the immersion phase of this emotional process is equivalent to the acceptance phase (opposite to experiential avoidance) of ACT. At the same time, I knows that there is a precision in ACT theory about "if it is useful in the direction of where you want to go" keep it. By looking only to the different processes that we have (thinkings, evaluation, emotions, sensations) and ignoring the content of it, are we not missing a part of the puzzle to the direction we want to give to our lives? I am completely aware how this content can also be a barrier to acting if we keep staying in it, but at the same time this content can at some occasion lead us to the path of insight. Observing the content as just a content of a thought might sometimes lead us to miss the fonction of this content. How can we detect insatisfaction in our life if we keep saying it is just a thought or an emotion that comes and goes? I read many books of ACT and it resonates well with my inner self. But at some point, I am still wondering if I am not missing precious information by just considering my emotions as just private events that just come and go. I would need more precision about this distinction. Thanks for taking the time to answer.
User login
Upcoming Community Events
- 3-Day Eugene Intro and Skill Building with Kelly Wilson(Event)(3 days)
- Lancaster, PA--ACT: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Powerful Life Change(Event)(8 days)
- King of Prussia, PA--ACT: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Powerful Life Change(Event)(9 days)
- Cycle de Formation ACT Lyon, France Nov 2008-Mars 2009(Event)(9 days)
- Cherry Hill, NJ--ACT: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Powerful Life Change(Event)(10 days)
- ACT: Using Mindfulness and Values to Make Powerful Life Change - Robyn Walser -Bel Air/West LA, California(Event)(11 days)
- ACT Interest Group, Sheffield, UK(Event)(17 days)
- Cycle de Formation ACT Lyon, France Nov 2008-Mars 2009(Event)(23 days)
- Vervolgcursus Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in Blooming, Bergen (NH)(Event)(24 days)
- ACT Training at the Albert Ellis Institute, NYC with DJ Moran(Event)(25 days)
- "Acceptance and Mindfulness in Clinical Practice" Steven C Hayes, Århus, Denmark 3.-4. of february 2009(Event)(28 days)
- Cycle de Formation ACT Lyon, France Nov 2008-Mars 2009(Event)(51 days)
- Introductiecursus Acceptance and Commitment Therapy - Bergen, Holland(Event)(52 days)
- La nouvelle génération de thérapie cognitive et comportementale : la théorie et la pratique - Frédérick Dionne, Ph.D.- Montreal (Event)(52 days)
- Workshop-Atelier ACT - Paris (2 jours)(Event)(59 days)
- Erfahrungsorientierter Einführungsworkshop in Lenzburg, Schweiz, mit Jan Martz und Rainer Sonntag(Event)(59 days)
- Evidence-Based Treatment Conference - Las Vegas, NV(Event)(62 days)
- Cycle de Formation ACT Lyon, France Nov 2008-Mars 2009(Event)(65 days)
- Dover, New Hampshire -- Making Bold Moves: Enhancing Your Practice with Acceptance & Commitment Therapy(Event)(74 days)
- Introductiecursus Acceptance and Commitment Therapy - Bergen, Holland(Event)(80 days)
- Awakening to Mindfulness Conference - San Diego, CA(Event)(86 days)
- 3-Day in Sydney: Skill Building and Case Conceptualization with Kelly Wilson(Event)(98 days)
- 3-Day in Brisbane: Skill Building and Case Conceptualization with Kelly Wilson(Event)(102 days)
- 3-Day in Melbourne: Skill Building and Case Conceptualization with Kelly Wilson(Event)(106 days)
- La nouvelle génération de thérapie cognitive et comportementale : la théorie et la pratique, par Frédérick Dionne, Ph.D. (Event)(141 days)
- ACT introductiecursus Utrecht - Netherlands(Event)(143 days)
- Mindfulness, Acceptance and Commitment - Steve Hayes - Greater Hartford, CT(Event)(150 days)
- Kelly Wilson: Acceptance & Commitment Therapy - Combined Introduction and Skill Building Addictions Workshop(Event)(168 days)
- Pre-Conference Experiential Workshops (Enschede, The Netherlands)(Event)(174 days)
- ACBS World Conference III - Enschede, The Netherlands(Event)(175 days)
- Using ACT to Help your Clients Get Out of Their Minds and into Their Life - Steve Hayes - Eastham, Massachusetts(Event)(216 days)
Sure they have functions
Hmmm
Several places in this post you talk about the ACT position being that you should ignore the content of private experience or assume that they have no functions. That is a misunderstanding. I'm sure there are no quotes saying such things in the primary ACT literature. This interpretation usually comes from folks who have so far only read ACT, and even then without a more knowledgable group to help guide the reading. A good ACT workshop (or the World Conference!) will make it a lot clearer what is meant.
These private events are reflections of history and context.
Emotions, for example, are loose, fuzzy sets of bodily states, behavioral dispositions, states of reinforcibility, and verbal categories that are evoked or elicited by the current context given ones history. They have various functions but that point is that these too are established by history and context, and there are no necessary or mechanical functions. You can change the context to change the functions.
Contact with emotions is important because it is contact with the past in the present and many of our most important forms of social knowledge come to us in the language of emotions. The single biggest correlate with experiential avoidance is alexythymia ... so ACT will help you learn how to feel, and once you do that you can use emotions to guide behavior when that is useful (and not when it is not). And yes, emotions can be a route to becoming clearer on ones values. But emotions are not treated in ACT as reliable avenues to real insights / true understandings / etc anymore than are any other behavioral form. They are content to be known and to be allowed to participate in behavioral regulation on the basis of workability.
The focusing approach is from a different tradition, and treats emotion in a somewhat more traditional way. Insight is also emphasized, which is not characteristic of ACT. The two traditions are more in touch with each other at a lower level than at the highest level. For example, the Experiencing Scale (which Gendlin helped develop, as I recall) will work for an ACT case until you get to the higher items on the scale -- then Gendlin's tradition gives emotions special status while ACT does not. Sue Melancon McCurry's dissertation was on that topic some years ago.
Which is better? Hard to say because the standards of evidence are different. The outcome research on ACT is much stronger, in my opinion, but like most experiential approaches, the focusing research is mostly qualitative and quantitative evidence would be seen as less important. The processes of change will overlap and then diverge for the reasons I specified.
I think experiential therapy in general is contextualistic, but it is more descriptive contextualism than functional contextualism, which helps explain the sense that the two approaches are similar and yet different.
- S
Steven C. Hayes, University of Nevada
Emotions not treated in ACT as real insights
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that emotions, separate from their contexts, cannot be assumed to be accurate indicators of insight. I think that is a true statement for the traditional view from where mindfulness is taken, also.
I still see many similarities between what you are teaching in your book, GET OUT OF YOUR MIND & INTO YOUR LIFE, Dr. Hayes, and the essence of Buddhist teachings, which I have read much about.
I believe you expressed what I was attempting to say about "Deep Seeing" when you referred to the "history and context" in which emotions occur, at least insofar as their meaning being only pertinent to the "meditator" or "patient", as the case may be. Does this seem close to what you mean or am I way off?
feelings and feelers
I see a very important question in many issues I read above. It seems to me that the tendency is to consider feelings, emotions, thoughts, etc. as "real things" outside our mind (as things in the "real life"). So it sounds quite reasonable to say that if we don´t look at the content of our private events we can miss important clues about the direction in our lives... but private events are not things in the real life, but constructions, elaborations we make ourselves in our mind, interpretations, inner dialogs; not "things" as armchairs or tables.
Of course they can give us some insight about our chosen way in life(as it possibly does the interpretation of a shocking dream or our understanding of a friend´s advice or our conclusions on reading "I Ching" or Marcel Proust). But I think we must not take them as "objective" elements; feelings, emotions, etc. are subjective; they are not gods´ voices, they belong to our inner voice. Perhaps they are underlining our personal doubts or fears or hopes or the distance between our behavior and the social rules (pliances we need consider to avoid despite our doubts and fears) and it will be helpful to consider them in the way that Focusing does (more or less, searching for its "personal" meaning).
In any case, I believe, the only reliable compass to cross the stormy sea of life (feelings, thoughts, behaviors, fears, hopes, dreams, dissapoints, etc.) are personal values, not emotions because these may play the role of sirens (women + fish) in the Odiseus´ trip. And personal values are personal matter.
But it is only my opinion.
Sorry for my English. I am taking classes.
(By the way: Korzybski´s "General Semantics" may be a complementary and interesting help to contextualism in order to approach "reality" and to get "words" and "things" separate
Ramiro - Spain
Emotions and values, how are they linked?
I understand not being identified to our emotions and that they are not real life things. I understand the contextual nature of it. You are talking about personal values and this is what I am concerned about. How values and emotions are linked, if they are? I am still trying to figure out if there is a distinction between emotions that lead us to the path of our values and others that are litteral. I thought the first one was more of an insight origin compared to the others. However, insight seems to have nothing to do with ACT but with a more traditional approach. So I am still exploring this.
I suppose many problems are
I suppose many problems are mainly linguistic problems (what is not a little problem); so I agree very much with ACT advise about "deffusion of the language" (or something like that).
IN my oppinion, from a constructivist point of view, everyone of us is the very protagonist, the only builder of his own life; so, we can chose to build our life based on:
a) social rules we take as paramount trues (included main belief sistemes or more or less "scientific" paradigms). The accomplishment or not of those rules, generates emotions, hopes, disappointment and many mixed feelings...
b) emotions we feel and that we (I insist: WE) confer the top importance as life guidances. When we follow that emotional path, our behavior can collide -or not- with our sisteme of social rules and so, it can generate new emotions, hopes, disappointment and many mixed feelings...
c) personal values we chose to follow for moral or intellectual reasons. And that choice is based on personal reflections, commitment... but also in our rules, beliefs, etc. As that values are our personal choice, we can not be sure they are the "real values" we must follow, so that generates emotions, hopes, disappointment and many mixed feelings...
d) a compound of all elements expresed above. As we have not a manual of instructions in order to live our life, we are not sure about what should be the most important compass, so that generates emotions, hopes, disappointment and many mixed feelings...
d) any other elements I do not imagine at this moment (but perhaps in some minutes I´ll be able to see)but that is not gods´voices, so they generate emotions, hopes, disappointment and many mixed feelings...
William Glasser have written about his newest theory to complete his former "Reality Therapy" (that is nothing "new", in fact): The "Choice Theory" is another way to remind us about our capacity of choice in any situation. (He underlines an old stoic concept: there are not the events, but your opinion about events what affects you).
Viktor Frankl´s "Logotherapy" underlines the three sanest ways (in his personal opinion that I much agree with) to confere meaning to life: your actions, your accomplishements as specific productions from the person who you are, the feelings you "feel" (and you canalice in specific ways) towards other people (love, care, help, commitment with social actions...) and the personal attitude you convey (I am not sure this is the correct word) in front of "inevitable" events (as a fatal illness or Death) that express the kind of person you are and your real vital commitments.
So, there will be emotions in the path of our values; emotions against the path of our values, doubts about our values... doubts about our emotions... but it is up to us to decide the path (taking in consideration this or that emotion or not). At last, as ACT theory says (in my personal understanding): wellness is not the natural status of life, but doubts, pain, hope, fear, happiness, anger, sorrow, love, tiredness, courage... in a mixed way.
Even more, (I consider) if social pliance is not a funny way to guide our life, I do not think "emotional pliance" would be a more desirable way also. But, of course, I am free to consider my feelings as a valuable element (as I can consider a friend´s advice or a worthy reading...) in order to construct my personal path.
And, again, as Korzybski recommend to say, this is only my opinion for the moment.
Ramiro - Spain
a little more
about the links between values and emotions:
Can yu imagine the conflict in a Hindu farmer developer, working for an NGO in Afrika, trying to improve cows farming (cattle) in order to avoid people starvation? His conflict between religious feelings(sacred cows) and scientific and humanitarian values?
Or the conflict in a catholic woman´s mind facing, not only abortion, but even sexual act in order not to become pregnant? Her conflict between religious values and practical feelings?
The point I´d like to present is: values and feelings are not objective things (at least in a broader cultural point of view), but subjective ones. So, everybody sooner or later has to do a choice. The map for that choice can be a scientific one or a moral or a "pliance" map or a psychologic (wide variety of psychological maps), or a family map.
So, which one is the "true" map?
I prefer can manage many maps, but I try do not forget ther are only maps, not the Truth
... for the moment
Ramiro
Values and the observer
Hmmmmm. This is very fruitfull. If I understand, you are saying that emotion can lead to values or not and other tons of thing can do it and a mixing of all. This brings me to notice that values are maybe more linked to the observer or the presence that we have to our private content. Like being deep in ocean watching the waves on top and all variables. I think recently of an exemple when it was clear to me what to do in a situation. It was this state of observance that specified the choice. From this perspective, reside values and choice. Well maybe.... I guess the maps are the variables on top not the deep. Are values behind the maps or maybe always in a map, whatever we try to be free of. This is so enriching. Thanks. I am letting it pursue its path.....
a tiny remark on the mirror
What it is a wonder is that you could understand anything from my awful English. I am sorry.
A little remark I should like to do to your comment:
- You say: It was "THIS STATE OF OBSERVANCE" that specified the choice.
- I rather would say: It was "ME", who noticed this state of observance and specified the choice.
I think it is very important to underline the subject of every action because there is not exactly the same to think "my feelings (or thoughts, or mind or ideas...)forced to me to do..." than: "I did x or y in considering my feelings", as it is neither accurate to say: "my legs took me there".
Anyway, from that little remark, I think it is possible to make a better use of our feelings; it is as if you look at yourself in a kind of mirror. The image you see is not a real thing and it does not exist without your very presence. The image in the mirror does not put the eye-liner on your eye; you make the line yourself, but taking in consideration the virtual image of yourself that you are seeing in the mirror.
Of course it was in taking in consideration my feelings that "I" decided to marry my wife thirty years ago (and, of course, "SHE" agreed, with all her feelings, fears, doubts, hopes...).
You know, I see some new trends -more or less related with Psychology- searching for a more actif and "personal starring" theories. Some authors implied in motivational issues (more than clinical) as Stephen Covey (a "guru" of executive companys) are asking for a new consideration of psychological theories: not "reactive" theories (S-o->R) but purposed ones (s-O-> r1 or r2 or r3...).
And that is the attraction I see in ACT: the leading role of the person who decides his/her personal values, that has a commitment with them and that accepts anything that would appear in the way.
ACT is not a fight against any mirage in the mirror but a personal engagement with life
(at least, I see it in this way for the moment)
Ramiro - Spain (raining)
The automatic nature of values and choice
YEs, I do not mean to exclude myself from the choice but the choice come so clearly inside that I do not need to do any content operation from my identity system. It seems to be an automatic response, like an evidence. I got an answer from Phillippe Vuille also bringing the commentary of Hank Robb. "In truth, I'm still working out how, literally, to get myself to London economics-wise (e.g now the car needs TIRES!). Assuming my feet were
actually there, I'd be interested in hearing/participanting in a
discussion of "values" in ACT including the way augmentals could work to
enhance valued action rather than producing "merely" rule-governed
action. Is one ONLY "walking in a valued direction" or can one expect to
be "drinking from a fountain of refreshment" along the way? How
aesthetic, verses acetic, is the "act" and "experience" of "valuing"
from an ACT perspective and what light, if any, can RFT shed on these
issues? An expert chess player has a "feel' for the game a novice does
not have and in any context "values" have to be prioritized. How does
one develope a "feel" for the prioritization that isn't "just" "do what
FEELS RIGHT in the moment" but isn't OVERLY REGULATED by verbal
processes? Of course the answer is "by playing alot" but "playing at
what" and what, more clearly, would it mean to "win" when doing such
"playing." I find the reason Shiva's instructions in the 'Gita "work,"
and do so beautifully, with regard to choosing to follow is because the
"direction" is given by one's social class as, in my view, the text
makes VERY clear. But what about when one is "choosing a direction"
rather than "choosing to follow a direction?"" This is revealing for me.Cristel
"things"
Thoughts/feelings and "a chair" are both formulations of the mind. We name it "chair" and we think of it as a "single object", but it can be viewed or "formulated" as part of the furniture in a particular room. Also we experience it's presence in our "minds".
It's not a "conceptual" basis that we are aiming for. It's "bare attention". In "Get Our of Your Head and Into Your Life" there are instructions of mindfulness meditation. This lends creedence to my response I believe, although it is just my opinion.
Rob
mind and silent levels
Yes, that is a very interesting point; even "mind" is a formulation we do with our "body-brain-stored personal story-etc" (with our whole person). And, of course, "chair" is not a single object but the result of a continous process not only on the "story-of-that-chair" (the former tree, the wood, the carpenter´s work...) level but on its present ever-changing molecular level.
I have not read "Get Out of Your Head...", I have ordered it in Amazon (they have just told me that there will be a little delay...); the book it is not left in Spain yet and I am looking forward to read it. I find many coincidences among ACT, Buddihsm and General Semantics, so I think they are different maps of a same territory; each of them seems to give me a richer view.
I suppose everyone looks for his experiencial way and, everyone lives experiencially each very second of his life. But, when we begin to talk about our experiencial life (even if we talk to ourselves) we can not avoid "concepts". So, I prefer to talk not even about "bare attention" (that is another "concept") but about the "silent level" (a concep, too), separate of words, where life goes on.
And it is in that "silent level" where I better understand "acceptance" and "commitmment"; despite of any "bad" feelings I could feel or any personal conceptual considerations. I understand ACT as taking my personal values (or, at least, one of them) and sink with them in my "silent level": I do not pay attention (or I try) to any painful emotions or feelings or fears or... If they appear (and they often do!) I do not translate them into words, I do not value them, I only accept them and I follow my chosen way.
And, of course, I am talking about the remains of my dear old agoraphobia and my (not "therapeutical" but "commited") sailing trips (with waves over 2 metres; well, not allways, many times sailing is very nice) or airplane trips (many of them also very peaceful), or etc... and I swear to: these are not conceptual situations (from the agoraphobic point of view) and the role of emotions and feelings have to be secondary if you want to get free of your fears. Even the "silent level" does not exist or I can not get it in that kind of situations. Only the commitment with the task you have chosen to accomplish for the reason you have chosen it.
Ramiro
Silent level
I like that phrase. Thanks for your insightful post.
sure they have functions
Thanks for your answer. I took short-cuts by saying that ACT is ignoring the content of private experience. Since english is not my first language, some of my english friends told me my tendency to go right to the point without taking the time to make nuances. I understood already by my readings the contextual nature of private events including emotions. I guess by trying to make my point simpler, it got less precise. I appreciate how you made a precision concerning insight and ACT. This is new to me. I also got an answer from Dr Vuille giving me a reference [Kohlenberg, R. J. & Tsai, M. (1991). Functional Analytic Psychotherapy: A guide for creating intense and curative therapeutic relationships. New York: Plenum.] which was the subject of my question. I will pursue my reflection on all the interesting matters you brought in your answer. I am very happy to have such interactions. King regards.
Act and The Processing of Emotions
Although not from ACT, the book "Insight Meditation" by Joseph Goldstein, discusses this topic from his own experience. He is considered to be a "meditation master" by many in the American "Buddhist" domain.
In my view, ACT can be seen as a clinical approach that borrows heavily from this traditional method (being aware of the contents of consciousness but not identifying with them).
Anyway, Mr. Goldstein makes reference to how, with the development of greater "mindfulness" as one "progresses along the path", that various "mindstates (thoughts, emotions, sensations)- especially emotions", can provide progressively greater insight about one's psychological functioning (my words, not his), but not in an analytical sense.
He even discusses an insight he had (during meditation) with a psychotherapist.
It is a reasonable to assume, then, that while "mind-states" are just that, and they are not "us", they are not just "empty vessels" either. So, if one is inclined to practice deepening mindfulness, at a later stage, one can learn more about the significance of our "mind-states". Once again, this "knowledge" is not analytical. "Seeing deeper" is one way this greater awareness is described in the "meditation context".
I therefore believe that using ACT (or Insight Meditation for that matter) can provide a transformational "view, aka: perspective", of our lives, that is very liberating, however, it doesn't exclude using an analytical approach or another cognitive method, selectively, to solve emotional, or other significant problems, when applicable.
This is just one guy's opinion, though. I hope it's applicable.
ACT and the processing of emotions
Thanks for this reference. I took good note of it. It clarifies my question.