Therapy

Psychotherapist Nica Selvaggio on LGBTQIA Mental Health

An Interview with Psychotherapist Nica Selvaggio

Dominica (Nica) Selvaggio, LMHC is psychotherapist at Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC. Nica has experience working with clients on a wide variety of issues, including anxiety disorders, eating disorders, substance abuse, sexual orientation and gender identity, acculturation and systemic oppression related to race and gender, trauma and PTSD, mood disorders, personality disorders, self-harm, relational issues, and attachment struggles.

Jennifer Smith: Hi, thanks for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrists Interview Series. I'm Dr. Jennifer Smith, Research Director at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We're a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders. I'd like to welcome with us today, Dominica Selvaggio, who is one of the psychotherapists at our practice. Nica has worked as a therapist for roughly a decade in the Seattle area and works with adults and adolescents aged 13 and older. Before we get started today, can you tell our listeners a little bit about yourself?

Nica Selvaggio: Yes, and thank you so much for the introduction, Jen. I'm really excited to be here talking with you today. That's always such a broad question. I never know where to start, but I guess that is the place to start that from a very young age, I was diagnosed with ADHD, and so my inability to pick where to start is a reflection of what I deal with in my brain. I love being a neurodivergent therapist because it brings a sense of understanding and compassion for folks who struggle with this sort of tangential thinking or not knowing where to start, that I find really, really helpful and I just get a lot of joy out of it.

So all that to say, I'm your local ADHD therapist. I'm originally born and raised in Chicago, the Midwest, and I've been in the Pacific Northwest for most of my adult life. I did spend three years living in Hawaii, and that was a really life-changing experience. And ultimately, I came back to the Seattle area because this land really has my heart.

Jennifer Smith: Wow.

Nica Selvaggio: I always describe myself as someone who's incredibly creative and just a lover of nature.

Jennifer Smith: That's great. And so you moved to the Seattle area from Hawaii. So what would be your favorite parts of the Seattle area, or just Washington as a whole?

Nica Selvaggio: It's the land, it's the mountains, it's the water, the plant life, all of it. I always say because of growing up in the Midwest that I was raised in corn and concrete. So when I moved to the Pacific Northwest and saw these huge mountains for the first time, even after a decade of being here, I'm still in awe. Yeah, I just really, really love the landscape.

Jennifer Smith: That's great. What is it that got you interested in being a therapist?

Nica Selvaggio: Big question. There's this storyline of The Wounded Healer that I think a lot of us are familiar with, that archetype of someone who has gone through their own experiences of pain and suffering, have tended to them, and then turned that compassionate attention outwards towards others who are struggling with similar wounds. My story as a therapist is not so different from that. I became interested in working in mental health out of necessity of caring for my own mental health throughout my life.

I'm a former foster care survivor and an adult adoptee, and so I had exposure from a very young age to some of the suffering in the world and in my own world and experience. So walking that path has really led me to wanting to provide a hand to hold for other folks on their own paths.

Jennifer Smith: Wow, that's really fantastic. Thank you for sharing that. What areas or disorders do you specialize in, besides ADHD?

Nica Selvaggio: Well, I got my start working in the clinical world specializing in eating disorders. So the bulk of my career was spent working in high acuity treatment centers, inpatient level residential, partial hospitalization, intensive outpatient, and working with folks who struggle with things like anorexia, binge-eating disorder, bulimia, ARFID, avoidant restrictive food intake disorder, which is often accompanied with neurodivergence. And when you work with eating disorders, you work with everything.

So people often think of eating disorders as being about literally food and body, and while those are absolutely components of a person's experience with an eating disorder, it's a symptom for an underlying issue. And often what underpins eating disorders is trauma, depression, anxiety, huge contributing factor, and other ways that the brain is sensitive. So for example, someone on the autism spectrum might really struggle with their sensory experience with food, be labeled with having an eating disorder, when really, it's something that's going on in a sensory way for them. It's not accompanied by cognitions and things like that.

So that's the bulk of my experience and I could talk about that forever. But because I'm an ADHD person, I have a million interests and my path has diverged many a time from that foundation of working with eating disorders. So through that work, I found my way into the somatic world in treating trauma because trauma is a huge underpin of most folks with eating disorders. And I got my foot into somatic experiencing, which is working with folks more so through the visceral felt-sense experience of trauma held in their bodies and helping them to let go of it rather than talking the story to death, which can be re-traumatizing for folks at times. Absolutely has some value in reclaiming our narrative and making meaning. However, I found working in the body to be a lot gentler.

Through that world, I found my way into psychedelic assisted therapy. I did a fellowship last summer in Jamaica, working with mushroom assisted therapy, and I've done a couple of trainings in San Francisco for ketamine assisted therapy. So that is a world I'm very interested in. And then gender and sexuality. So I'm non-binary. My pronouns are she/they, and working with trans folks, working with gender sexuality came out of working with eating disorders as well because those populations tend to struggle with eating disorders, body dysmorphia, those sorts of things at a much higher rate than the general population.

Jennifer Smith: Wow.

Nica Selvaggio: And then from there, add in interest in couples work, sex therapy. So a little bit all over the place, but a really strong foundation underneath all of it.

Jennifer Smith: Wow, that's fantastic. And basically that means you can help a lot of different people, which is really great. Your online bio notes that you've been trained in several evidence-based approaches. Can you let our audience know what those are?

Nica Selvaggio: Yeah, and I'm noticing in myself through this interview, I'm talking very fast and not breathing very much because I'm oriented to my own body. I'm going to take a moment and just take a deep breath before I answer you.

Jennifer Smith: Yeah, absolutely.

Nica Selvaggio: Thanks. And if anything-

Jennifer Smith: Oh, I was just just saying-

Nica Selvaggio: Yeah, go ahead Jen.

Jennifer Smith: That's great for our audience to see too. You need a moment, take a moment. There's nothing wrong with that, and I think we could probably all do that at times and we just don't, unfortunately. And then we feel awful.

Nica Selvaggio: Well, we're not really given permission to in our culture and our systems that we operate in.

Jennifer Smith: Yeah, which is unfortunate.

Nica Selvaggio: Yeah. Which ties into that question a little bit about what evidence-based therapies I work with. Most of them I learned when working in treatment settings. So in a lot of eating disorder treatment centers, the foundation of the treatments are evidence-based therapies such as dialectical behavior therapy, DBT, which was developed by Marsha Linehan, and that was a therapy originally developed to treat folks who struggle with extreme emotional dysregulation who are feeling suicidal or are diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. So these extreme swings of mood and inability to regulate.

Off of that came... And that approach is really good for folks who are... The temperament under controlled. So under UC versus OC, under controlled versus over controlled, so more impulsive behaviors, you're going to see things more expressive. You might be able to tell I'm more on the UC side. DBT is great for that. And then on the other side, you've got OC, over control. Those folks are going to have higher levels of generally OCD type thinking, more restricted, flat affect, much more wanting to control their outer experience because their internal world feels so chaotic that it reflects on the outside. In those folks, you're going to see things more like anorexia, restricting behaviors, much more flat affect.

RO-DBT, radically open DBT came out of DBT to help over control folks. So those are two different therapies, even though they have the same name in them, but essentially they're both skills-based therapies that are laid on the foundation of mindfulness and some of our Eastern inspired practices. So as well as another evidence-based therapy that's used a lot in treatment centers, ACT, acceptance and commitment therapy by Stephen Hayes. But these therapies are really trying to bridge the worlds of that grounded mindfulness foundation with concrete skills that people can use to actively change the behaviors that are causing them distress in their lives.

I love a lot of those therapies so much because they work, they can really shift things quickly. I often use those in conjunction with therapies that maybe don't have as much of a robust research base because they haven't had the time or the funding or whatever it is, such as somatic experiencing and more experiential therapies. I went a little bit all over the place.

Jennifer Smith: Thanks. And what about your treatment approach? What's that like?

Nica Selvaggio: Yeah, so I was trained in a clinical mental health counseling master's program and the foundation of my training and program was person-centered humanistic therapy. So for folks who don't know what that means, my foundation of who I am as a clinician, as a counselor is very much through the egalitarian lens of I am not an expert in your life. You are the expert in your life and I'm coming here to join human to human to witness and perhaps equip you with skills that you need in order to change the things that you're wanting to change.

That said, that's the foundation I weave in depending on what a person needs after collaborating with them on what sort of therapy they're interested in working with, all different kinds of approaches. So again, the somatic work is a huge part of my work, bringing in the body. I also do a lot of parts work, internal family systems, and for folks not familiar with that, that involves accessing the different parts of ourselves that are often in conflict. Everyone has different aspects of self that they might connect with at different times. The part of me that's doing this interview with today is my manager part, right? I'm going to present my best self today, but maybe my inner child part is like, "This is scary. I don't like talking in front of people that I can't see." That's an example of parts work.

Who else? Again, super interested in growing more in the psychedelic assisted therapy world. It's really profound powerful work that can really jump start a person's journey, but not to be used without caution and a lot of discernment and support. Yeah, it's just different for everyone.

Jennifer Smith: That's fantastic. I'd like to go back and talk about one of the areas that you can help clients with, and that's regarding their sexual orientation and gender identity. And I was reading on The Trevor Project’s website that they offer 24/7 free, secure access to counselors for young people who are LGBTQ. In a nationwide survey that 41% of LGBTQ people age 13 to 24, so the younger range, seriously considered committing suicide in the past year.

So clearly something's going on here that's severely impacting this population's mental health. So I just have a few questions regarding this, that maybe you can shed some light on.

One is, what types of issues does someone usually struggle with regarding their sexual orientation or gender identity?

Nica Selvaggio: Yeah, I love this question. Thank you for asking this. And first I want to name... I always experience a lot of heaviness in my body when tapping into the sense of powerlessness or hopelessness that comes in for a person to feel like the best option is to end their life, that they've exhausted all of the avenues and this is the best way to escape the pain that they're experiencing when that becomes the option in their brain. This is for so many different reasons and ties to what a lot of folks in the LGBTQIA+ community struggle with, which I want to differentiate that struggling to know what your sexual identity is or your gender identity is, is not in and of itself a pathology or an issue that someone's struggling with.

What people are struggling with is how the systems in the world, how our culture, how our families, how our religions, how all of these things reflect our worthiness of access to resources, safety, the right to use the bathroom in the public. Our daily lived experiences of oppression are the issues that we struggle with, not the fact that we are part of the rainbow community.

So that being said, because of operating or living in a system that... And I can give so many examples of it's February 1st and how many anti-trans legislation bills have been pushed forward this month in January alone? The visceral, physiological, emotional, spiritual, psychological response to being faced with that. Those issues can look like suicidality, that can look like depression, that can look like anxiety, that can look like a nervous system that's chronically stuck in fight, flight or freeze because they're in survival mode because the world is reflecting to them that they're not safe.

Things more classically associated with folks in the LGBTQIA community are things around identity formation. How do I know who I am? How do I put a word or a label to who I am? Do I even want to do that? Is there even a necessity for me to come out and name myself as such? Where do I fit in and belong in this LGBTQ community? How do I move through the world in the straight world? A lot of identity formation issues in that. And again, that's not an issue of pathology in and of itself. Culture's response to that question is the issue.

Substance use is often higher. Again, this is a way of coping with all the things that I've named and eating disorders and body dysmorphia tend to be much higher incidences in the trans and LGBTQ community.

Jennifer Smith: Wow. And eating disorders too, they're often highly correlated with suicidality, correct?

Nica Selvaggio: Yes, yes. Can be. Not all, but yeah, they tend to be.

Jennifer Smith: Wow. Another question I had is often when you're doing paperwork now for a medical provider or surveys, they ask about someone's preferred pronouns. And can you talk a little bit about that, preferred pronouns and how can that affect someone's mental health? Why do they matter? Why do pronouns matter?

Nica Selvaggio: Yeah. Yeah. And I love how you changed the sentence at the end. Why do pronouns matter? Because even the language of preferred can insinuate that it's someone's choice in terms of... Okay, how can I put this? If you knew that the sky was blue and someone came up to you and was like, "You're nuts. The sky is not blue. I see yellow, and you are bad and wrong for thinking that the sky is blue. How could you?” Take it a step further: “You're going to a bad place because you think this sky is blue."

And then I said to you, “Well, you just prefer it to be blue.” Is that a preference or is that just what you see? So a person's preferred pronouns implies that it's an actual preference, when in reality, it's just their lived experience. And so when someone is vulnerable enough to even name their pronouns, even if we don't understand, even if we think the sky is yellow, the reason it's important is because it indicates a level of belief that that person understands and knows themselves better than we could possibly know, their internal experience.

Jennifer Smith: Right.

Nica Selvaggio: It indicates respect for their beingness, and it creates a level of safety for that person who may have moved through many different systems in their life where it was not accepted or not safe for them to use the pronouns that fit for them.

Jennifer Smith: That's fantastic. Thank you. One anecdote that I wanted to share is that in our practice, we were trying to decide internally, "Should we all put our pronouns in our signature block?" And I'd say one-third were gung ho for, "Yes, we should." One-third didn't care. And there were other people who didn't want to, and one of the members of our team said, "Maybe we shouldn't do this, because if a person isn't comfortable saying what their pronouns are, we're forcing them to either disclose their pronouns or force them to put stereotypical pronouns that you would think that they should be.” And for me, that was really eye-opening.

So for that reason, I went on the bandwagon of I'm not putting pronouns. That way, if someone else didn't want to, they didn't feel like they had to as well.

So I thought that was really interesting, that pronouns can really mean so much to a person and just... Yeah. So thank you for explaining that, that it really does matter.

Nica Selvaggio: Yeah, absolutely. And I love, thank you to that person who brought that point up because that's always what I like to... Oftentimes when we're trying to show up as allies in support of a community that we're not part of, it's easy to misstep and to do things out of good heart and good intention, but ultimately can contribute further to harm. And the pronouns in the bio or in your email signatures requirement is one of those ways where it's like, "Oh, we're trying to help normalize it for everyone." But again, you don't know who you're requiring to out themselves or to live falsely.

Jennifer Smith: Right. That's fantastic. And that's why part of the reason that we do this series is to help educate people and just explain things. Thank you.

Nica Selvaggio: Yeah, thank you.

Jennifer Smith: Yeah. So what can you say to people who simply might not have any understanding or have confusion about what we've just been talking about and just don't understand the distress that some people might have about identity or orientation or pronouns? Why is it a big deal?

Nica Selvaggio: Yeah. I always come back to why do we need to understand? I don't even understand myself. Why do I need to understand another person's experience for their experience to be legitimate and valid for them? I don't. In fact, it's often impossible to try. I can do my best, but I can't ever fully step into another person's experience. And so we don't actually require understanding. We require respect and compassion, just to be believed. Right? And you can compare this across many different experiences of identity. I will never know what it's like to walk through the world, say, as an Arabic man, I don't know what that is.

Jennifer Smith: Right.

Nica Selvaggio: It's not for me to try to understand. It's for me to listen and believe and provide respect. So first throwing away that word understanding, we don't need to understand. What I would say is have you... I would invite folks who really just don't get what the big deal is about to reflect on if there's ever been something in their own life that was really important to them, that they really cared a lot about, but that was dismissed or diminished, or they were told that they were foolish or crazy even for caring about that thing.

And we can do this together too, but just to take a moment and really call to mind that feeling, that memory and see what happens inside. So I notice immediately I start to contract, I start to constrict, and I start to want to feel small and to hide myself. Other folks might have a different experience. Maybe they feel angry, they want to fight back. There's no wrong response here. Just notice how do you feel when you're invalidated, misunderstood, and told that you're wrong to care about the things that you care about? Generally not pleasant.

So when we show up in that way, we're often perpetuating more of the same for people around us. If we've experienced that, then we're going to put that out on others too. Like, "Well, I had to conform. I had to shut down this part of myself, so how dare you not do that?" Right? We face a lot of anger from folks oftentimes as a result of that. Yeah. And what would the world be like if we had more spaciousness for those pauses to actually feel into, what am I reacting to in my not understanding? Am I being reminded of a time that I didn't feel understood? How can I show up in a more compassionate way?

Jennifer Smith: That's great. Thank you. Our final question, which I'm a little bummed to say because I thought this has been great. Do you have any words of advice or anything else that you'd like to say to our listeners today?

Nica Selvaggio: Be gentle with yourself. Working as a clinician, as a counselor, as a therapist, through some of these major world and global events that we've been experiencing collectively over the past decade, something I've noticed in the broader populations is that levels of fear are very high. Anxiety is very high, which makes sense. And levels of burnout, feeling like we just cannot continue on are very high. Levels of trauma and secondary trauma are very high.

In the midst of all of that, I want to invite all of us to both stand in the center of honoring and witnessing our sacred human struggles together, and also find those spaces in which things feel a little bit lighter, or we can expand more and access things like rest and pleasure and resilience, and that both of those things need to coexist in order to show up in a more whole way. So gentle, gentle, gentle, gentle. Show up when you can. Rest when you can.

Jennifer Smith: That's fantastic. Thank you so much, Nica, for finding time to speak with us today.

Nica Selvaggio: Thank you for having me.

Jennifer Smith: And for our listeners, if anybody is interested in scheduling an in-person or telehealth appointment with Nica, you can do so and self-schedule at seattleanxiety.com. Thanks again and have a great day.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychologist Monica Reis-Bergan on Personality Psychology

An Interview with Psychologist Monica Reis-Bergan

Monica Reis-Bergan, Ph.D. is Professor and Assistant Department Head of Psychology at James Madison University. She specializes in the personality psychology.

Kendall Hewitt:  Hi everyone. Thank you for joining today for this installment of The Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Kendall Hewitt, an interdisciplinary research intern at the Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We're a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy practice, specializing in anxiety disorders.

I'd like to welcome Dr. Monica Reis-Bergan today. Dr. Monica Reis-Bergan is a professor and assistant department head of psychology at James Madison University. She's an expert in the field of personality psychology, health psychology, and addictive behaviors, and has written several articles on the topic, including The Impact of Reminiscence on Socially Active Elderly Women's Reactions to Social Comparisons, and Self-esteem, Self-Serving Cognitions, and Health Risk Behavior. Before we get started, can you please tell us a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in studying health and personality?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  Hi. Well, first of all thank you for talking with me today. My interest in personality really comes from the opportunity to teach personality at James Madison University. In my research field in health and social psychology, personality is often a variable that's measured and sometimes just controlled for to see how different interventions might impact individuals. Over my time at JMU, I have really learned to love it as a teaching domain and also use it in my research, especially more recent research looking at health and social media.

Kendall Hewitt:  Perfect. So, would you give us a little description of what personality psychology actually is and why it's interesting to researchers?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  So, personality psychology is a relatively large and yet small area of psychology. So, it's large in that it impacts so many different disciplines in psychology, but it's small in that the researchers and theorists that focus on it and would focus only on it are very tiny. So, within personality, we talk about what is personality, and even looking at the definition of personality as something that different theoretical viewpoints don't always agree on as far as what it is. But in general, when we talk about personality, we're talking about some kind of enduring characteristic behavior pattern. As I like to tell my students, it's something that you know the person has and is often very difficult to change.

In terms of why is it interesting to researchers and really anyone, it's that for whatever situation you might have or even research paradigm, we recognize that people are coming with their own individual differences, and one of those individual differences is these elements of personality. So, trying to assess what that is, and then also, can you change it, and then the impact it has is what makes this such a great field.

Kendall Hewitt:  Awesome, thank you so much. And I know we've talked a little bit about what personality psychology is, but in the way of categorizing personality, that's changed over time in my understanding. So, can you expand a little bit on that topic a little bit more and explain what system we use to categorize personality psychology today?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  Well, I think that I would say that if you look at how do we categorize, and I think you're using that kind of making types or quality approach, it is changing and it will continue to change. As I tell my students, what they're studying today could be very different than what they're going to find in 2050. As we develop our assessment tools, we develop the ability to look at things in more and more detail and look at those differentiations. Each domain of personality also has a different way of thinking about it. So, if you look at a psychoanalytic perspective, you're often talking about types.

If we look at it from a trait perspective, the Big 5, HEXACO model, what are the models of the future in that sense? And then also, as culture changes, we start to develop different personality variables that we think are important. So, 30 years ago, we wouldn't have had a measure of FOMO or something of that nature. So, I think it's really important, especially when we look at personality, to have a contextual understanding of what do we have today, how do we think about it today, and that will be different tomorrow.

Kendall Hewitt:  And then how are you able to use your knowledge of personality psychology in the real world? Do you often find yourself analyzing others around you and using your knowledge to understand them better?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  That's a good one. In a sense that I think I'm always thinking about people, but I'm not sure that's because I'm a personality researcher that I would do that. I think we all naturally think about people and notice differences in people. I think that's why it's very interesting for people to try to create a type or a characterization of a particular type of person. My orientation is much more a social psychology with a personality perspective. So, I'm always looking at the social environment to see what factors I think might be related to why a person is displaying a certain behavior that they have. So, I'm not as true personality as some people might be in that sense.

Kendall Hewitt:  And then what is one piece of your research that you've found the most interesting in your time when looking at personality? And is there any research questions or topics within research for personality that you want to explore more?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  So last year, and we're in the process of working on this manuscript now, I worked with an honor's student that was very interested in TikTok, and to be honest, she thought TikTok was terrible for people, and that's a different conversation topic. But what it led to was really good conversations about what are some of the factors that might make... what are some people who might be impacted by TikTok more positively or negatively? And the personality variable that we chose to study was social comparison orientation, and this is the individual difference variable in terms of how much a person compares themselves with others in their environment, just more generally.

Specifically, the study that we did looked at TikTok engagement and young college women, and so how much they clicked on, they liked, those kinds of things to different kinds of TikTok material. And what we found was that individuals who engaged in TikTok, so liked, all of those things, in addition to having high social comparison orientation, meaning they were more likely to compare with others, had more of the negative body eating disorder types of symptoms associated with TikTok. So, while we couldn't say that TikTok was bad for everyone, we could say there does seem to be a relation between TikTok engagement and this personality variable on this outcome variable, so.

Kendall Hewitt:  That's super interesting. Is there anything that you hope to research in the future within the personality field?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  So, some current studies right now are students that are looking at super fan behavior. So, the idea that 20 years ago we would've maybe read a book about someone, but now, influencers, celebrities, we have almost daily information about them, especially if you're someone that's scouring multiple social media sites and other kinds of information. So, what types of people are more likely to develop these parasocial relationships with celebrities or influencers? And specifically, are there certain personality indicators that might make some people more likely to be super fans?

Kendall Hewitt:  That's very interesting. I'd be very interested to read that research in the future.

Monica Reis-Bergan:  We just finished data collection and we did find among our college students that about 50% identify as super fans or “stans”, I guess, is the word.

Kendall Hewitt:  Got it.

Monica Reis-Bergan:  So, we found that super interesting,

Kendall Hewitt:  Very interesting. And then going into that, many children and adolescents these days are using BuzzFeed quizzes or magazine quizzes to find what their personality type is. How do you feel about that and how accurate would you say that those are?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  So, as you know from my class, I really believe that if we're going to have a measure, we really need to look at the reliability and validity of that measure. And that's often a pretty painstaking process in psychology to make sure we have enough types of validity evidence to really have faith in our measures. So, a lot of the measures you're going to find on TikTok or BuzzFeed or wherever are not going to be particularly valid. However, I think that there's a lot of value in talking about personality and talking to your boss or your friends or your family, just about the enduring characteristics, the behaviors that you perceive for yourself to be stable, that is valuable self-knowledge.

We do know that our own perceptions of our own personality have what we might call causal force. Like, if I think I'm really friendly, I'm more likely to go and do things that I think friendly people do. And then if other people think I'm friendly, they're more likely to select me to be in clubs and organizations. So that self-knowledge piece, even if it's not the exact correct number, maybe you're really a 35.7 instead of a 23.2, but just the knowledge that you have about yourself I think is very valuable.

Kendall Hewitt:  So, do you think it would be beneficial for people to actually take valid and reliable quizzes to know what their personality type is?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  I mean, I do think that especially that's part of that metacognitive self-discovery if someone's so inclined. However, I honestly think people can live happily ever after without ever knowing their score and extraversion as well. So, I think it really comes down to a lot of psychology is when you have a problem, let's explore what the problem might be. In that case, I think personality is a great thing to look at what kind of enduring beliefs, cognitions, behaviors do people have, especially that don't seem to change based on situations, as a great way to see how can this be an issue, likewise people who are striving to be better, to also have that self-reflection. But I don't think it's necessary.

Kendall Hewitt:  And then how popular and accessible do you think the study and research of personality psychology is compared to other psychology disciplines such as social psychology? I know you mentioned that earlier. How accessible do you think that personality psychology is to the general public?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  I'm going to start or stage back from that question. I think personality research is almost everywhere because a lot of your clinical research, your I/O research, your health research, they're including personality measures in them, because as they try to look, they're going, and we're going to account for this individual difference. We're going to measure this difference. We think this difference might be important. So, it really transcends far beyond personality journals per se. So that's number one. But as far as the general population, I do think that the language we use in personality is so universal, and so it comes from language in part.

We talk about, where did our traits come from? They come from the differences in people that we notice and then we create a word for that difference. And then we have that word in our language. Allport used the dictionary to help determine what kind of traits people might have. And I think that happens in every culture, not just the English language. We want to notice and identify those people that we want to seek or we want to stay away from. So, I think it's there whether it's always in the language that researchers or theorists use, maybe not. But I also think FOMO is a great example. Fear of missing out came in part from culture as a variable that people notice this person has this fear of missing out. Okay, let's develop a scale to measure it.

Kendall Hewitt:  Yes, that's really interesting. I feel like there's always new scales coming out. You mentioned that personality psychology is always going to consistently change. And I want to take a step back, could you explain your education and career path that brought you to where you are today? And if someone were to take a similar career path, what advice would you give them?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  So, as I mentioned at the very beginning, I don't necessarily consider personality psychology as part of my professional identity. I'm really more of a health social psychologist. In the part of my college degree, obviously, I took a personality class. We obviously measured personality in almost all of our studies, but I didn't think of myself as a personality psychologist because I wasn't... At that time, I felt like because I wasn't trying to understand what personality was, instead I was using personality to ask other questions and being like, this might impact these people in a different way than it would impact people with a different personality per se. And that's really how I think about myself today as well. I appreciate personality, I love teaching it but to try to actually understand it from just the sole study of personality, I'm really more interested in how it's related to other kinds of behaviors like social media, health, substance use, those kinds of things.

As far as advice to other students, I think I tell all of my students to look and see what you're curious about and realize that those curiosities can change. And personality finds itself in a lot of different domains, whether it's cognitive, it can be I/O, it can be all of these different areas that students might be curious about, and then think, oh, what personality individual difference might be important to study? So, personality is really nice to teach because I feel like students have a lot of different opportunities of which to interact with it and may pursue it more depending on the opportunities they have.

Kendall Hewitt:  And once you finished your bachelor's degree, did you go straight into a master's and then straight into a PhD, or how did that fit into your life?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  So yes. So, I went directly from my undergraduate degree into a PhD program of which I got my master's degree as part of that, and all of them at the same school.

Kendall Hewitt:  Oh, wow. What was that like for you? Did you enjoy doing the master's along the way programs and finishing your PhD that way?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  Yeah. So, I was a little bit strange in that I was an elementary education major, who then had a double major in psychology that started as a minor, and I actually was planning to teach and I also happened to be doing research, a paid research assistant, and it just came about that I was so curious. It was in the early '90s and some of the questions about HIV/AIDS datasets that we were working with and just questions about people's health cognitions was very curious for me. And so, I just started doing the lab work and then I happen to have an extra class, so I took an advanced statistics class and then they were like, oh, have you considered graduate school? I'm a first-generation college student, I really hadn't. And then it was like, well, apply to graduate school. And so, I didn't really have the knowledge, skills, or experience to really scope out schools and think about it in that way. I was very fortunate that I had people that saw in me that this might be a good career path.

Kendall Hewitt:  Very nice. And then once you graduated from your PhD program, did you go right into teaching psychology at a university and just begin research through that?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  So obviously, you do a lot of research in graduate school. And in my case, I also did quite a bit of teaching. So, my first personality class, I actually taught at community college while I was working on my PhD and teaching at the university. So that was a lot to do, but I loved teaching personality. It's such a fun topic to teach and students are so excited to learn about it. So, a little different experience than my teaching statistics that they're not always so thrilled about. So definitely, I was looking for an academic home where I would have the opportunity to teach, as well as the opportunity to do research and work with students in that way. So actually, when I got here, I really hoped I would teach social psychology because I love social psychology. But I've been here for 23 years, and that class has always been filled by another faculty member, and so I just keep teaching personality very happily and health psych and research methods and statistics. I guess my position at James Madison is what cemented and really made me appreciate even more personality.

Kendall Hewitt:  That's very interesting. And you've mentioned, so as a health and personality expert, are there any tips that you would give college students or research excerpts that you believe would be beneficial for everyone to know?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  I don't know that I have a really great answer to that, but I think one of the things from teaching personality, and I'm just going to talk a little bit about my final project in my personality class, is that I have students who are already so interested in people, do a psychobiography project, and in that psychobiography project, they study someone in depth and then they think about how the different personality theories, which are pretty different from one another- you have a psychoanalytic theory, you have a phenomenological theory, you have trait theory, you have social cognitive theory- really fundamental different ways of thinking about what personality is and how it impacts people, to take those different lenses and look at one person. And when we look at the reflections from that assignment, what I find is that a lot of students start to realize that you have this person and this behavior, and it can really be interpreted in a multitude of different ways.

And I think that, that appreciation I think is what's important. So, when you see someone and they're behaving in a certain way, one of the questions might be why, and that why really depends on the view or the lens or the perspective that you're looking at. And the next steps really depend on the perspective you're looking at. So, I think it's important for students and people to be open-minded in that process of, there's not just one answer, they don't have a personality type, they're not an X person, for example, but let's look at it from all these different perspectives.

Kendall Hewitt:  Very interesting. And then lastly, is there anything else you'd like to share with our listeners today?

Monica Reis-Bergan:  Personality just is this great phenomenon. I always tell students, it's within the person. You can't go to the store and buy a new one. It's not like a backpack on the first day of school. And so, I think we will continue to be perplexed by what it is, to see how it changes. The more we learn about biopsychology, the more we learn and study how... biological functioning, the connection between mind and body, we might even learn more about personality from that. And then at the same time, our cultural world is changing, looking at how COVID could change locus of control and those kinds of things. So, I think it's just a really great and exciting place to study and to think about.

Kendall Hewitt:  Well, thank you so much for joining us today and giving all your insight. I hope our listeners enjoy!

Monica Reis-Bergan: All righty. Thank you.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychologist Rebecca Shiner on Narrative Identity & Personality Disorders

An Interview with Clinical Psychologist Rebecca Shiner

Rebecca Shiner, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Colgate University. She specializes in the intersection of personality, clinical, and developmental psychology.

Sara Wilson:  Hi, everybody. Thank you for joining us today for this installment of The Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Sara Wilson, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We're a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders.

And today I'd like to welcome with us clinical psychologist, Rebecca Shiner. Dr. Shiner is Charles A. Dana Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Colgate University. Dr. Shiner is recognized for her pioneering research at the intersection of personality, clinical, and developmental psychology. In addition to the books Handbook of Temperament and Handbook of Personality Development, she has written extensively on the assessment causes and consequences of personality disorders in youth. So before we get started today, could you please let us know a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in studying personality development and its implications?

Rebecca Shiner:  Okay. Yeah, thank you so much for inviting me to do this, Sara. I'm really looking forward to it. I got interested in studying personality development when I was in seventh grade. I'm not sure if you want me to go back this far, but anyhow, I will tell you briefly the story. So when I was in seventh grade, I had to write my first term paper, and it felt like a very big deal and very serious. And so I went to the library looking for sources of inspiration, and I came across a book that was a children's book about Freud. And so it covered all of Freud's theories in age-appropriate levels of description. It went and talked about the anal stage, the oral stage, the Oedipus complex, all of that. And when I read it, I thought, "Oh my gosh, this is amazing. I can't believe that no one ever told me about this."

And I was just completely captivated. There was something about taking seriously the idea that there's continuity across the course of people's lives, but also that people change over time that just grabbed me. And so I wrote my term paper on Freud, and that really has been my passion ever since. And so when I got to grad school and I realized that I could actually study people's development over time, that I could look at longitudinal studies where they follow the same group of people and I could look for traces of continuity and change, I decided that that's what I wanted to do.

Sara Wilson:  That's beautiful. I love that.

So in a recent talk you gave about narrative identity in the context of personality disorders in adolescence, you've discussed three levels of personality over the course of our development. Could you introduce each of these to our audience?

Rebecca Shiner:  Okay, sure. So personality is more than just people's personality traits. So I think often when people hear the term personality, the first thing they think of is personality traits. And that really is an essential part of our personality. So our traits are the ways that we tend to be at least somewhat consistent across situations and across time, and they summarize general ways that we have of interacting with the world. A good example of a personality trait that everyone knows, I think, is extroversion versus introversion. But another trait that's really relevant to clinical psychology is neuroticism, which ties into Freud. And also really what it reflects is our individual differences in how much we're prone to experiencing negative emotions like anxiety and irritability, vulnerability, and so on. So those are traits, and those emerge early in terms of our temperament. Some of the traits even emerge within infancy, although they change considerably over time.

Okay, so that's the first level, level one. Then the next level is level two. And level two, it has different names. Sometimes it's called characteristic adaptations, but level two has to do with tendencies that we have in terms of what we're trying to accomplish and the goals we're pursuing, the ways that we're motivated in our daily lives. So for example, people vary in terms of the goals that they have for themselves. So for one person, it might be deeply important for them to connect with other people, and then another person might have really strong motives for achievement, or you may have different goals depending on the context you're thinking about. So that's level two, and then that emerges elementary school age when kids start to be more able to control what they're doing and are able to really act as motivated young people.

And then finally, the last part is level three, it's narrative identity. And so that's what we're going to be focusing on today. This does not emerge until adolescence. And narrative identity has to do with individual differences in the way that we make sense of our lives, in terms of the stories that are important to us that we use to tell who we are and what we are about, how our past is connected with who we are in the present and the future. So we vary, very much in terms of the way that we narrate or tell the stories of our lives.

So a good example would actually be the story that I told you about why I decided to study personality development. That was a narrative describing how I came to be excited about this area of research, and we could analyze it in terms of different themes that pop up or how the emotional language in it is positive versus negative and so on. So we all grow in terms of the stories that we tell. As I said, it starts in late or middle to late adolescence, and then it's something that we're really working on over the whole course of our lives.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, so interesting. Yeah, that example's so good too.

Now, where does a personality disorder come into all of this, and why is narrative identity relevant? What is a personality disorder?

Rebecca Shiner:  Okay, okay. So yeah, we'll start by talking a little bit about what a personality disorder is. Personality disorders are distinguished from other psychological disorders that people might have in a couple of different ways. The key features of them are that people are experiencing persistent difficulties in terms of their sense of self or sense of identity and/or, in most cases, and, they're struggling with different aspects of how they're relating to other people. So it's a fundamental disturbance in both the sense of self and in the sense of relatedness to other people. And so clearly identity is part of that because some of the disturbances in the self have to do with disturbances in the person's sense of identity, in terms of how they understand themselves, say across time, or how they see themselves in terms of their self-esteem and so on. There is a very big burst of interest right now in trying to understand how narrative identity relates to personality disorders because people haven't really been studying that directly until I would say the last five years or so.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, I think that this topic is so interesting, especially narrative identity, just because you have, in some sense, so much agency over the active construction of this self, and then at the same time, it's like a working schema that affects the self directly. So it's like this feedback loop.

Rebecca Shiner:  Yeah, I agree. I think it's an exciting area to research because I think there's... And it's exciting from a clinical perspective too, because I think there's more of a sense of potential for making significant changes in narrative identity, in part because it's likely to be less heritable and is really evolving over time. So yeah, there's the potential for change there.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. One thing that I was very curious about was how does narrative identity differ from our actual real identity? And I don't even know what that means, I guess.

Rebecca Shiner:  No, no, it's a great question because I think that there are different ways of conceptualizing identity. So very often when people think about identity, they think about it in terms of just how we see ourselves in terms of our role, in terms of our sense of vocation. So for example, a person's identity may involve their race or their sex or their sexual orientation. It may involve the kind of occupation that they have or their status as being a married person or a parent and so on. And those aspects of identity are fundamentally important to who we are as individuals, but they're distinct from narrative identity because narrative identity really has more to do with how we tell the stories of our lives. So you could be someone who has exactly the same sense of identity across all of these dimensions as another person, and yet your narrative identity is still going to be distinct to you because it's going to have to do with your own history and how you make sense of how your earlier experiences have impacted who you are now.

Sara Wilson:  Now, as you have conveyed in a lot of your work, feeling a lack of agency over your life can really be the root of enduring mental health and personality problems. But then on the flip side, it might also come with this immense pressure to define who we are and take action because our narrative isn't going to write itself. And I was curious how, from your point of view, we should go about reconciling this kind of tension that comes with narrative identity.

Rebecca Shiner:  Yeah. So let me say a little bit about what agency is and how that links up because I think that these ideas can be very abstract and hard to understand. When people share a story from their past, those stories that they tell, you can actually look at them across a bunch of different dimensions. And when people are doing research on narratives, what they do is they ask people to tell the story about something significant, for example, a turning point that helped establish their sense of who they are. So you can take those stories and you can code them along dimensions that typically characterize stories that people tell.

And so one of the really fundamental dimensions that you can look at, or you can at least look for in any narrative is a sense of agency. That is considered a motivational theme that gets at how people understand themselves in terms of how they're moving through the world, how they're motivated. Agency has to do with having a sense that you are the director of your own life. So you tell your story in a way where you're in control of the things that are happening to you, and you are active rather than just being a passive victim at the whim of your circumstances. So you're making things happen, you may be growing and changing and so on.

And agency has turned out to be one of the most important aspects of the way that people tell their stories, because across a huge number of studies, looking at a lot of different outcomes, having a stronger sense of agency, being the author and the director in your stories, it's linked up with all kinds of well-being. So a greater sense of satisfaction with life, lower levels of different psychological symptoms like depression and so on. So it seems to be really good and really positive in general.

Yeah, one other important finding that's been found by John Adler, he did a study where he was looking at the narratives that people wrote after they had therapy sessions, so while they were in the course of therapy. And people who produced stories after each therapy session that were characterized by stronger agency tended to be the ones who are getting better over the course of therapy too. So it actually seems to be not just a correlate of doing well, but seems to be an active ingredient that helps people to do better. But your question is about a sense of agency, how we go about creating that. Is that what you're asking? I want to make sure I'm answering the right question.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, and also maybe are there any caveats or trade-offs when it comes to just this pressure to define who we are. As we're shedding more light on it in a clinical context, I was wondering if there's any trade-offs to agency?

Rebecca Shiner:  Yeah, that's a great question. I think that if it's agency that's being forced by someone else, it's not really agency at all, because that would be... If a person is feeling a kind of pressure to be agentic, in a way that is undermining the very essence of what it means to have a sense of agency because it's action that's initiated on your own and where you see yourself as freely choosing to act and to do things in your life. I don't know of any studies that have found a negative relationship between agency and well-being. There are definitely studies where it's not related to the outcomes that they're looking at.

Sara Wilson:  This is very interesting. It's a very promising finding with the therapy sessions and the really tangible effective role of narrative identity and meaning-making and agency being very interconnected with our belief systems.

Rebecca Shiner:  Right. And I think it's important to note too that it's not like people are consciously... Normally, people aren't consciously necessarily deciding that this is how they're going to tell their story. I think they could. They could. But in most of these studies, it just seems to be a process people aren't even necessarily aware of. And so the people who tell those stories with a sense of agency do turn out to be doing better.

Sara Wilson:  On that note, what is the role or importance of meaning-making and why is there this focus on the client's relationship to their beliefs, narrative therapy, and in other therapeutic techniques more broadly?

Rebecca Shiner:  Yeah, that's a great question. There's a whole separate line of research that's about meaning-making in life and purpose in life that in general finds that it's really an essential component of wellbeing. It's not the same as being happy, for example, but it's another really important sense of thriving in the world. So meaning, being able to make meaning out of your experiences, I think especially negative or traumatic experiences I think is fundamentally important. People can make meaning in different ways. They can make meaning by pursuing something that they feel called to do. They can create meaning by doing something in service of other people, for example. But narratives also give us a way of making meaning, because it's our way of trying to understand how the things that have happened to us have affected us, and how our own choices and ways of navigating the world also are impacting the way that we're doing right now.

I think narrative is another important contributor to a person's sense of meaning. So for example, if someone has had something very painful, very traumatic happen to them, one way of trying to make sense of that is to try to understand the impact of it and to really find a way to weave that into the story of your life rather than having it be just this standalone, horrible thing that has happened. So there's something very powerful about the process of trying to understand the impact and how perhaps you can carry that with you moving forward. That is really helpful, and I think that that is part of what can happen in the process of therapy.

Sara Wilson:  I think that this is so fascinating, especially because it's not really the content necessarily of the narrative or your belief and/or your story that's changing, it's the meaning around it and the organization of it, and I guess the degree of how attentive you are to certain things, how integral they are to you, which relies a lot on your relationship to this content.

Rebecca Shiner:  That's right. I think that's right, because it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to change the content of what you believe, but through the stories that you tell yourself about what you've experienced, it may affect the way that you can imagine yourself moving forward into the future.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. One study of yours that I was very curious about your paper, “The Relations between Narrative Identity and Personality Pathology among Clinical Adolescents: Findings from a Multi-Ethnic Asian Sample”, this was the first study to assess the links between themes of narrative identity and personality disorder domains in a clinical adolescent sample. Could you explain the study a little more to our audience, why you chose the participants you did, and just your findings more broadly?

Rebecca Shiner:  So this is a paper... The first author of this paper is Amy See, who at the time that she did this study was a PhD student at Utrecht University in the Netherlands working with Theo Klimstra, who is a colleague of mine whose studies actually identity development in adolescence. Amy See herself was from Singapore, and so she was very interested in trying to look at whether the narratives of adolescents are linked with their emerging personalities and particularly personality difficulties that they might be having. As I mentioned, adolescents, teenagers are really in the very earliest stages of starting to develop their narrative style and are really starting to have a richer sense of what are the most important episodes from their lives.

What Amy did was she recruited a clinical sample. These were teenagers who were being seen at the largest mental health clinic for adolescents in the country. And so she asked them to write about a turning point that they had experienced. And a turning point is a specific kind of narrative where you ask the person to share something, to share an experience that they've had that really informed the way that they understand themselves, that really changed the way that they perceive themselves. So she asked them to write about that, and then she also asked them to fill out a questionnaire about difficulties they were having in terms of their personalities. So these were not young people who were diagnosed with personality disorders, they were having clinical struggles, and they were just reporting on personality difficulties they were having.

So the most striking finding from it was that there was a particular dimension of those narratives that was related to personality difficulties that the young people were having. And that dimension is one I haven't mentioned yet, which is communion. Communion is a motivational theme similar to agency that describes how much the person tends to talk about positive, loving, close relationships with other people, with friends or romantic partners. If you're looking at a sample of adults, it may also be caregiving relationships or any sort of feeling of connection with other people.

And so what we found in this paper is that the teenagers who were having more personality difficulties tended to express lower levels of this kind of positive communion with other people in the turning point stories that they told. We're not sure which came first. We don't know if it may be that they were having problems in their relationships, and so then that's reflected in their narratives. It could be that the way they tell stories was affecting their mental health, for example, by making them more depressed. I thought, if it's okay, I could share a couple really short narratives from that study because I think it will make the findings a little more concrete. Is that okay?

Sara Wilson:  Yes, we would love that!

Rebecca Shiner:  Okay, so here's a first turning point narrative from one of the teenagers. "I was diagnosed with depression one year ago. I was not myself and caused a lot of problems for my family. After a number of sessions with the psychologist, I started understanding myself better and why I behaved the way I did. This made me change my mindset, and I told myself to enjoy life more. I am now feeling happier and approach life in a more positive manner." So this person is talking about learning and growing through the process of therapy, but they're also suggesting that they had been having a lot of problems with their family. But they're talking about this positive connection with the psychologist and this more positive mindset that came out of it. So they're expressing a sense of communion.

In contrast, here's one from a participant who expressed a low level of communion. "So I was sexually abused by a family member a few months ago. It made me feel hurt, horrible, and disgusting. I now flinch when someone touches me, and I hate this feeling. This has made me less trusting of others, including my family." So you can see this is a turning point for this young person when asked to think about an experience they had that really changed their sense of self. They describe something that's really painful, and they talk about that painful experience of abuse leading to them not trusting people anymore. So you can see this clear distinction in terms of that theme of communion there.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. And whether the turning point itself is articulated in positive or negative terms.

Rebecca Shiner:  Right. Yeah, in this case, there's a clear difference in the overall tone of those two narratives that you can see there. But I think it's interesting too, this is an Asian sample, and so in general, Asian cultures tend to be more collectivistic and to have a stronger focus on interdependence across people and stronger need to think about the group rather than just the individual. Whereas a US sample, for example, is more individualistic. So it would be really interesting to know whether the pattern would replicate in a Western sample where maybe communion is not so clearly linked with problematic personality traits.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, Because I noticed in your results that communion was perceived as more a significant dimension in that sample in particular, as opposed to agency.

Rebecca Shiner:  Right, which is an unusual finding actually. Agency is more consistently associated with wellbeing in general than communion is. There are a lot of studies where communion is just not related to whatever positive outcome measures you have. And so it raises questions about whether maybe this is a cross-cultural difference that I think would be worth studying more.

Sara Wilson:  Right, yeah. It also definitely raises the question of how narrative identity is highly convoluted by nurture and just your social situation and upbringing. So it's subject to change I guess.

Rebecca Shiner:  Yeah, absolutely. I think narratives are a place where culture plays a big role because different cultures have different preferred ways of telling stories. US samples have a very strong preference for redemption narratives where things start out bad, but then by the end of the story, they turn out to be positive. We love a good redemption story in the United States. And that's not always necessarily a positive thing, but it's a clear cultural preference that we have.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, it's so interesting because it's not real in some sense, it's very socially and culturally dependent and context relevant, but then at the same time, it manifests itself in very real situations. It very much changes your belief systems.

Rebecca Shiner:  Right. That's right, but the outcomes may vary again, depending on the culture. So I think it's important in thinking about narratives to not assume that narratives that are positive in one culture are necessarily going to have positive outcomes in another.

Sara Wilson:  One more study I wanted to talk about. Can you discuss a little about your study exploring narrative identity and PTSD symptoms in veterans? I was especially curious about the finding that even if patients experienced a loss of control during traumatic military experiences, it may be possible to help them find ways of narrating their life in more agentic terms in the present through the process of therapy.

Rebecca Shiner:  Yeah, let me describe that study. This was a study that was actually inspired by one of my honors students at Colgate, and this is before I really had done much narrative research. So I had a student who wanted to study veterans for his honors project, and he wanted to look at PTSD. And so we hit it on the idea of asking veterans to tell us about their most stressful experiences that they had had in the military. And we wanted to look at whether their way of narrating those really stressful experiences was predictive of whether they had PTSD symptoms or not. It's really interesting because in a lot of the literature on PTSD, there's the assumption that the memories themselves are highly relevant to developing PTSD or not, but they're not looked at in terms of narrative identity, they're more looked at in terms of whether the memories are fractured or fragmented or not.

But we thought that it seemed likely that the narrative style, the way that people tell the stories of those really stressful experiences would be highly relevant to whether people have PTSD symptoms or not. So we collected stories about the most highly stressful military experience in a sample of veterans. We found that, in fact, there was a link between narrative identity and PTSD, so specifically the veterans who told these stories in a more agentic way and also with a stronger sense of growth tended to have lower levels of PTSD symptoms. So I think this is really, really important because it suggests that, again, those memories are important because they become part of a person's narrative identity. There may be ways of working with those memories to help people to begin to narrate them in a way that is going to bring some relief to them.

It's really interesting to me that the treatment method that has the most evidence for its effectiveness for treating PTSD is something that's called prolonged exposure, which is where the person with PTSD is asked to tell, in as much detail as they can, the traumatic experience that they have had that has left them with PTSD. So they have to recount in great detail everything that they can remember about that experience. Which is obviously extremely difficult and painful to do, particularly the first time. And then they're asked to retell this story and actually to listen to recordings of them having told the story themselves. The contention is that the reason this is working is because it's exposing them to the story or the memory of something that they have been trying very hard to avoid having direct contact with.

And I believe that that's true. I believe that it's exposure that helps them put aside the avoidance that is playing a really important role in why that model works for helping people get over traumatic memories. But I also expect that there's something about the retelling of that story that helps people to actually gain a sense of mastery over it. And I think it would be really interesting to actually do a study where you looked at whether those stories change in terms of whether the person feels a greater sense of agency in the retelling of the story over time.

Sara Wilson:  This is such amazing research, really, and such important implications, and it's just starting to be tapped into its full potential. Yeah, I totally definitely agree with you. I think it's very good work that you're doing.

Rebecca Shiner:  Thank you. I feel very lucky to have had people who are willing to let me collaborate on this kind of work with them.

Sara Wilson:  When you discuss this epistemic gap in clinical theory regarding personality disorders, I think it's interesting that you cite one of the reasons for this deficit in knowledge to be the desire to protect youth from stigmatizing diagnoses. How might a diagnosis in any domain, I guess, actually contribute further to poor narrative identity? How can we go about this maybe more carefully or be more sensitive to this in therapeutic practice?

Rebecca Shiner:  Yeah, it's a great question. Historically, there's been a lot of hesitancy to use labels of personality disorders for teenagers. And in fact, the diagnostic manual, the DSM has encouraged clinicians to be cautious about using personality disorder diagnoses for people below the age of 18, even though it's recognized that these personality patterns start earlier in life, so they don't just emerge out of nothing when a person gets 18. And this has been because in the past, people saw personality disorders as being chronic and very hard to treat, like once you have a personality disorder, you are destined to have that personality disorder forever. And that seems too stigmatizing to apply that to a young person.

However, it turns out that there are a bunch of mistakes that have been made in those assumptions. It turns out personality disorders are amenable to treatment. It turns out that they do naturally change over time even without treatment. And it turns out that personality disorder problems actually may be at their worst during adolescence. And so that suggests that there may be value in at least thinking about personality disordered patterns in young people like paying attention as a clinician to whether the young person you're working with has problems with their sense of self and identity, or chronic problems and how they're relating to other people.

That being said, I have a lot of sympathy for this concern about using personality disorder diagnoses on young people. And that is because as we've talked about, teenagers are in the process of developing their sense of narrative identity. They're only just beginning to figure out what are the important stories from their lives, how do their past experiences affect who they are now? And so there is a great risk, I think, actually in giving them a label that would lead them to formulate a sense of identity that is going to be really pathological, that is going to discourage them from feeling hopeful about change.

And I'm especially concerned about this now because on social media, there has been this profusion of teenagers and/or young adults self-professing that they have personality disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder. And there's a strong tendency for people almost sometimes to almost relish having this diagnosis that makes them feel special or celebrates their sense of being a victim in a way. This has become rampant on TikTok with mental health in general, young people posting TikToks about their diagnoses and so on.

And so this is something that I have actually been gradually rethinking for myself, because in the past, I have encouraged clinicians to think about personality disorder diagnoses for young people and to very carefully present that information to young people. But I think that as those diagnoses have been promulgated in social media, I am beginning to see more and more the potential risks that are associated with that, especially because of young people's emerging sense of identity and the way that that diagnosis may play a part in how they're crafting the narratives of their lives.

Here's where I'm at on this at this moment. I may change my mind again, I still think it's vitally important to be paying attention to those core personality disorder features for people who are working with teenagers to really pay attention. Is this a person who's struggling with intimacy, is struggling with how they see other people? Do they tend to view other people in a black and white way, for example, that might characterize borderline tendencies? Is this a young person whose sense of identity is so profoundly unstable that they're having trouble beginning to navigate decisions about what they want to do after high school and so on?

So I think those are things that clinicians should be paying attention to and should develop some competence in learning how to treat, because those problems are significant for a large number of teenagers with clinical problems. On the other hand, I think that there's a really important role for being cautious about giving a personality disorder diagnosis. And I think it's important to be careful in how that is articulated to the young person. And I think explaining it in the kind of language that I've been using, it's likely to be more helpful, that these are ways of seeing the self and seeing other people interacting with them that are profoundly important, but also open to change so that the young person can start to develop narratives about who they are that are both realistic and more healthy.

Sara Wilson:  Yes. Yeah, I think that expressing a critical sensitivity to narrative identity and the reality of it in therapy especially, will inevitably strengthen the therapist-patient relationship just because a lot of traditional therapeutic practices stigmatize the client's point of view as something that's disordered or subjectively inaccurate. But instead of discrediting the content of the narrative itself, the narrative therapist helps to consciously separate the story from the client and sees narrative identity as a construction over which we have agency that's separate from our core.

Rebecca Shiner:  I agree. Although I think that there's a place too for reality testing in the sense that I think that the best narratives are in contact with reality, but are also healthy. A narrative identity that is entirely positive, but disconnected from a person's actual reality is going to be a problem perhaps in a different way than a narrative that's unduly negative, if that makes sense, yeah. So I think that it's important for the person's sense of identity to be both flexible and reality based, and ideally positive because there's the potential for change there.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. Thank you so much for joining us today. I really think that this is such an important concept right now, especially as so much research on the self is emerging and in our relationship to selfhood, what is the self? And there's obviously so many levels to it with so many pressing implications and very real importance for who we are and for wellbeing. So I think that this is very, very important research and a very cool concept. Is there anything else you would like to share with our audience today, Dr. Shiner?

Rebecca Shiner:  I had one last thought that I wanted to mention. There's a brand new study, it actually hasn't been published yet, but it's been accepted for publication, that was looking at this construct of the hero's journey. This is a popular motif that a number of people have recognized that the most loved stories across many different cultures seem to take this form of the hero's journey, where the person begins in the dark, but then they feel this calling to leave their safer childhood home, and they venture out and they find a mentor and they have to battle the foes that may thwart them and so on. So there's a particular form that this hero's journey story takes.

Anyhow, this study has found that there's actually value in telling your own story as a hero's journey and being able to see your life in terms of that pathway from a maybe sheltered existence, but moving forward into facing your foes and your challenges and being defeated, but then continuing to move forward. This was a series of studies that showed that actually adopting that kind of sense of your own story as a hero's journey, it's good for us, and maybe it gives us courage to face the things that are inevitably going to be painful and difficult.

Sara Wilson:  I wonder, do you think that we inherently value that as an intrinsically good narrative organization, or do you think it's maybe very convoluted by cultural norms, what we've been accustomed to?

Rebecca Shiner:  Yeah. Right, that's a great question. I think that part of the impetus for studying this is that this is a very common narrative format across historic time and across place. There's something about this kind of story that deeply appeals to all of us and suggests that there may be something universally, humanly relevant about it.

Sara Wilson:  How would you suggest that someone goes about trying to develop their narrative identity?

Rebecca Shiner:  Yeah. I have a few ideas. One is I think reading good books is a good way of doing it. Actually, over Thanksgiving break, I have gone back to... I pulled out one of my childhood books that I love very much called A Little Princess. It's like a classic, classic girl's book. Anyhow, and just reading it actually makes me really... It actually follows the hero's journey pathway. And I realized how much I internalized that narrative form as a kid when I was reading it.

So anyhow, I do think there's a place for watching good movies and reading good books and so on to have a sense of the narratives of other people's lives. I also think that there's really good value in well done therapy. I definitely think some therapies are better than others for developing a sense of narrative. I think all therapies do it, but I think for people who are trying to gain more of a sense of understanding of themselves, I think some of the more traditional therapies like psychodynamic can be especially useful. I think journaling. I really think anything that has to do with self-reflection and deep thinking about yourself.

Sara Wilson:  So interesting.

Rebecca Shiner:  Very useful, yeah.

Sara Wilson:  How many layers there are, and how many different ways there are to get in touch with yourself and make real change. Yeah, I've been very interested in the concept of self throughout my psychology and philosophy major at Colgate. And the more I study it, the more I'm just blown, mind blown. It really is such an incredible concept. It's just unbelievable how much there is to it. And the more I study it, the more I'm just dubious of what it even is, what it even means. The research is just so interesting. And I think it's so relevant nowadays, especially right now with so much more research going on with regards to what mind is and major developments in neuroscience. And I think that this very much deserves to be paid attention to, especially in neuroscience and the mechanisms behind this. It really is just unbelievable.

Rebecca Shiner:  It's fantastic that you've been able to study it. Yeah, my hope is that people will be inspired to learn more about it. I highly recommend anything that has been written by the person who developed this concept, who I should have acknowledged at the very beginning of this interview, who is Dan McAdams, a psychologist at Northwestern, who really I think pioneered the... Who was drawing from a lot of existing traditions within psychology, but really helped to pioneer the empirical study of narrative identity. So I commend anyone looking up Dan McAdam's work.

Sara Wilson:  Thank you so much for joining us today. It was such a pleasure to talk with you. This was Dr. Shiner.

Rebecca Shiner:  Great questions, yeah.

Sara Wilson:  Of course. It was so amazing.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

CEO RUTH STRONGE ON BUILDING RESILIENCE & REDUCING ANXIETY VIA DONKEY EXPOSURE THERAPY

An Interview with CEO Ruth Stronge

Ruth Stronge, MA is the CEO of Snowdonia Donkey Sanctuary. She has a master's degree in environmental and development education, and a master's degree in clinical and health psychology. She specializes in helping children, teens and adults build resilience and mitigate various anxiety disorders at her farm sanctuary.

Jennifer Smith:  Hi, thanks for joining us today for this installment of The Seattle Psychiatrist Interview series. I'm Dr. Jennifer Smith, Research Director at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We are a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders.

I'd like to welcome with us Ruth Stronge, CEO of Snowdonia Donkey Sanctuary, located in Bangor, Wales. She has a master's degree in environmental and development education, and a master's degree in clinical and health psychology. Ruth was a primary school teacher by training, and with the founding and development of Snowdonia Donkeys, she has been able to combine her passions. Before we get started today, Ruth, can you tell our listeners a little bit more about yourself, and how the rescue organization got started?

Ruth Stronge:  Hi. Well, thank you for inviting me. Yeah, I would say I have a passion for donkeys, and I have always loved donkeys. Maybe about 12 years ago now, there came an opportunity for me to get two donkeys, and I got two little donkeys. I kept them with my daughter who had a pony, and my children were older, my daughter had a pony, and our son was at the village, so we never rode our donkeys. We always took them for walks. And for me, spending time with those donkeys before work and after work were just the best time of the day. I would do it before I'd go to school where I was teaching, so then I was ready for school. And then on the way home, that would be my downtime of reflection. It went on from there and people, our friends that we knew said, "Please, can we come and walk the donkeys with you?"

And then we would bump into people with our donkeys, and they would say, "Oh, it's been ages since we've seen a donkey." And then, people just wanting to come and spend time with our little donkeys. It grew from there in as much as I wanted a donkey to ride, so I got another donkey. And then a group of friends, when we were out walking the donkeys, we were talking and decided if we could help any local donkeys, we would do that. We set up a small charity, and that was just 10 years ago now, a small charity to help local donkeys, and that's how we began, really.

Jennifer Smith:  Wow. That's great. Your website has a large banner that states, "Rescuing donkeys and changing people's lives," and I think that's a pretty moving statement, and I'd like to talk about some of the work that you do there. One of the first courses that you developed was for vulnerable adult learners, so that they could help build confidence by working with the donkeys. Can you tell us a little bit about that? How can caring for donkeys help someone?

Ruth Stronge:  It was a chance meeting with another organization, and telling them about the looking after the donkeys we do, and how volunteers were coming to help us, and how we were working with just giving people opportunities and time to spend time with the donkeys. And it was an organization in the center of Bangor who worked with adults, providing them with opportunities for support if they had mental health difficulties. And I invited their manager to come out and see the site that we worked on, and go through some of the activities that we did of how we managed our donkeys, which was following a simple routine in a quiet place, and basically just really being quiet around the donkeys, and being around each other, explaining to people how some of our donkeys are not used to people, and how we have to approach them, and how we read their body language so that we can support them in the best way.

And it was that opportunity and those conversations that allowed us to run a small program of one afternoon a week for people to come spend time outside with the donkeys. Initially, our volunteers and staff had done all what we would class as the "donkey work", so they'd done all the cleaning out, and the working out, and the feeding. But then just giving people time to brush a donkey and learning which brushes to use, how you would approach a donkey, basically reading body language, as well, of an animal, and giving them the story of the animal, and finding their character was the start of all that then, really. And for some of the people engaged with us, they became more and more interested, wanting to come more often, be more involved with what the animals needed for their welfare needs. And one of the really important things that we took from it was that it was a conversation piece for people. They had something to talk about with other people, what they had done.

Jennifer Smith:  Wow. Oh, that's great. And just for our audience to know, I actually met Ruth when I went for a tour of Snowdonia Donkeys, and it was really fabulous just getting to spend time with the donkeys, and I have to say there is something very soothing about it. Just brushing them, like you said, just petting them, just having that quiet moment, it really is nice. And going for a walk, and seeing beautiful scenery with them is a wonderful thing. I think you've stumbled upon, and definitely have built, a beautiful organization.

Ruth Stronge:  Oh, well, thank you for that. But I would say it's how I want to spend time with my donkeys. I know it works for me. And sometimes when I'm talking to people, if we're explaining the kind of work we do, and with our young people as well, and I would have to say it isn't for everyone, and that's okay. If you are more interested in fast moving things, and you are boisterous, and you are running around, then we are actually not the right place for you to be, because you would frighten the donkeys. And it's a case of, okay, let's take a step back. And our donkeys and our organization is very good at supporting quiet, anxious people, because that's the way we look after our donkeys in a quiet way, building confidence, following routines. And partly that has just evolved, but also my training as a teacher, I was an early years teacher, so the routines and the structures that we put in place to take away too many decisions initially for people were simple things like which donkey you're going to work with.

Well, if you've got a pink brush in your hand, then you are going to be brushing the donkey that's wearing a pink head color. The one in the picture behind me is wearing a pink head color. So you would know, she would have pink brushes, a pink bucket for her feed, and if you were going for a walk with her, she would have a pink lead rope. It sounds simple things, but it takes away anxiety from people if they don't have to ask questions. Some things are just pointed out for them, and next time they come, that routine is built upon.

Jennifer Smith:  Wow, that's wonderful. Through a partnership with Adult Learning Wales, you run an accredited course on animal care, which focuses on supporting young adults. Can you speak about what that entails, and how can young adults psychologically, emotionally, and socially benefit from that course?

Ruth Stronge:  Again, you realize as you do these other, things happen by meeting and talking to people. Behind the scenes, the young people that we work with, or the adults, for them, they don't always know where the funding comes from as enablers to deliver sessions for them. So behind the scenes, it's a bit like a jigsaw puzzle so that they can have the best opportunities. And if they are interested, they can stay as long as they can if we can afford them to stay, and to progress their development. So Adult Learning Wales are a national organization here in Wales that fund accredited and non-accredited courses for people over 16, and we had been delivering some courses that it called engagement courses, which were non-accredited. But working with some of our other young people who had come through us from another grant program which allowed them to do one-to-one sessions with an adult and a donkey, basically just being in a nice quiet environment, having someone to talk to if they wanted to, or just spending time with a donkey.

We were looking for a next step for some of these young people when we identified that for a vast majority of them, they hadn't engaged with the education system at all. They had, whether it be anxiety built on after COVID, or for whatever reason that they had, not been in the education system, so there were no exams, and there was nothing on paper for them to take their next steps. With the program that we had delivering one-to-one sessions, we then built on that, offering them some small group sessions, which for us would be no more than four or five at the most for a few weeks. And then Adult Learning Wales, because myself as a trained teacher, I can be a tutor for them, I approached them and said, "I have this group of young people, who some would like to go to formal college in the future, but I want to be able to acknowledge the progress they've made. And also once the summer holidays comes for some of our other young people, what do they do for six weeks?"

And I wanted them to be able to come and work with us, but we didn't have any funding to enable that to happen. So Adult Learning Wales helped me find a couple of, we would call them entry level modules, so not too high, but requiring some academic input on animal care. We would do things like how to muck out, and how to brush an equine. And the young people that we had focused on having come for one time, one session a week as an individual, and then as a small group, were then asked to apply, we knowing that they would always get on the course, but to give them a formal leading to it, to apply us for a fortnight, coming every day to take part in practical activities and record those activities using photographs and written work so that they could then submit it for an accreditation from one of our organizations, Agored Cymru which accredits their work and then they can build on that.

That was a journey. We've been plotting a journey for some of those young people, and they themselves wouldn't know who had funded their journey, but behind the scenes, we were able to do that. And for our funders, that's interesting as well, because they like to see that it has an impact, which it certainly does.

Jennifer Smith:  Oh, that's really fantastic that you help people to transition in that way.

Ruth Stronge:  And one of the things you asked was about their anxiety and their social skills, so that because they had had those small steps before they got to something that we called education, but we often didn't use that term, then we were trying to look at adding one new thing every time they came. If they were all familiar with the setting, then one-to-one was their first step, be familiar with the setting. The next change would be to work with a small group of people, and then to come every day for a longer period, so trying to increase that confidence, and reduce the anxiety as they took on new things, then.

Jennifer Smith:  Oh, wow. Yeah, that's similar to exposure therapy, correct? And like you said, to lessen their anxiety, the social anxiety and such, that's wonderful.

Ruth Stronge: By the time they got to the accredited side, brushing a donkey was what they would do automatically, so it wasn't the new thing. The new thing may have been recording or talking about what you'd done. So yeah, it's those small steps, and just building on that was really important.

Jennifer Smith:  Ah, fantastic. You also offer one-on-one sessions for those with additional learning needs. What types of conditions is this specifically geared for, and who can benefit the most from these sessions? Would it be people with social anxiety like you mentioned, or general anxiety, or anything else?

Ruth Stronge:  A lot of people with either social anxiety or general anxiety, and we do quite a bit with people with autism as well, who have communication difficulties. Communication difficulties on the side of struggling to verbalize their needs, or anxiety, or shyness, or selective mutism. And again, through following those routines and building that confidence, we've worked with quite a number of young people in that way to increase their confidence. And again, hopefully moving from one-to-one sessions onto small groups. For some of the people that we work with, it isn't always appropriate to do that, but if we can, we can do that, or we would then change or build on the activities that they're doing, so they are being more engaged in different activities. Some of our work, we also work with young people who may have learning disabilities, and may have reduced cognitive abilities, and again, we would match the donkey to their needs.

Some of the autistic people we have worked with are very sensory, some of them like to throw things around, so sawdust moving around the place obviously isn't appropriate for all our donkeys. And so, we've got some donkeys who are very chilled, and don't mind those things happening. But I would say where I find most pleasure is working with people with anxieties, and shyness, and quietness, because to see them make that progress, and to be able to talk, even to their families, about the donkey that they've worked with is just amazing, really.

Jennifer Smith:  Wow, that's wonderful. In terms of the people who have the mutism, as you said, or if they're on the spectrum and not very, or nonverbal, have you noticed where they do become more verbal, or this therapy isn't really applicable for that? Have you noticed a change?

Ruth Stronge:  We do notice a change, yes. And for us, it's trying to not put them into situations where they become more anxious, or it's not putting them in those situations where it makes it more difficult for them to speak. Just by following those routines every time they come, and building a rapport with one of our support workers, and especially with the donkey, then we found almost that the donkey acts as that diversion, that there's someone else, so there's something else to talk about, to be involved with. And then our staff are very much aware of the sensitivities of some of the people we work with, and wouldn't then ask them direct questions. They are very good at supporting the people to shine, and to build on the skills they've got, so almost praising them in a positive manner, using the language of support, and making suggestions together to do things is the way that we tend to build on people's development.

Jennifer Smith:  That's fantastic. And this sounds so perfectly suited for you and your background. It's really wonderful that you've been able to develop this.

Ruth Stronge:  It has just been amazing. Yeah, I feel very privileged to be able to do that, and also then to look around at the other people that I work with and say, "Yeah, I couldn't do it all myself," because there's not enough hours in the day, but we have some lovely members of staff who themselves have maybe been through some of our systems as well, and are able to talk about how working with the donkeys, and following the routines, and just being out in the fields with them doing field work, and then having something to talk about to people. Because we have visitors coming to see the donkeys, and they've got something that they can talk about that they've achieved, they know about this donkey, in a supportive environment. There would always potentially be a member of staff or a key volunteer who would be around, if we saw them faltering or being more anxious, could then step in and support, so that they didn't have extra worries themselves then.

Jennifer Smith:  That's fantastic. Can you tell us about the program that you run with the BBC Children in Need? What is it, and who does it serve?

Ruth Stronge:  Okay. BBC Children in Need is a national charity, a national grant-giving charity here in the UK, and we've had funding for quite a few years from them. And our program for them has always been targeted at young people, so for them, that's under 18, who have social and communication difficulties. And that can be, from our point of view, I guess it started with shy people and quiet people with anxiousness, and that's how we've kept on going with that. We offer them one-to-one sessions for an eight-week period of an hour with an adult and a donkey, in a quiet period of our week. And then, if they are keen to carry on, then we offer them small group sessions for a longer period. So that, again, a bit linking what you were saying back to the exposure therapy, they are quite familiar with the donkeys and the donkey routine when they've done the one-to-one sessions for six to eight weeks, and wanted to come for longer.

The only thing that is different then is there may be more people around. The staff tend to be the same, so they've got familiar people to support them. They know the donkeys. It's just extra new people, then, and that seems to work quite well. And those groups then go on as they get older, and we've had some people with us for quite some time now, so we've moved to being volunteers, or we call them supportive volunteers. Again, they are supported by key staff, funded by Children in Need, familiar adults who know or are aware of their own personal needs. But the older young people then, one of the targets is to take our donkeys to a local agricultural show, and show the donkeys to be part of something bigger, and that works really well. We do that as a day out, so they take the donkeys out for the day.

The show is a four-mile walk to get to, so they have to come the day before and get the donkey ready for the show. Then they have to come early on the day it's happening, walk the donkey to the show, be in the show ring. They will have spent quite a few months actually preparing for all this, but that is on those following through, and that's what we aim for them to be part of, so that then, again, following the journey with Children in Need, then they can be active volunteers then, in some respects giving something back to us, as well as their own lives then.

Jennifer Smith:  Wow, that's a fantastic cycle. Like you said, people get help, and then they help others, and it's just a wonderful thing.

Ruth Stronge:  It's really important for me behind the scenes, to provide that route for people. And I guess that's not just my teacher background, but also the psychology side of it is where do you go? Where is your journey on it? And I would say that I actually do that for all the donkeys as well. They all have a learning journey, too, and targets that I need them to achieve, and things that they can be good at, and stuff like that. But if the young people or the adults coming to us on the one-to-ones are making progress and want to stay with us, then we discuss with them those journeys we would like them to be able to take, if that's what they want, and how we can best support them on that.

Jennifer Smith:  Wow, that's wonderful to have those specific goals to try to reach for, if they're able and want to. One thing I saw on your website was that there was a video showcasing the experience of Zoe, who is 16 years old. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about what she experienced in life, and why time at the sanctuary has been essential to her mental health? And this is just one story, but I think it really signifies what your sanctuary can do to help people.

Ruth Stronge:  Yeah. Zoe has been with us for quite a few years now, and when she first joined us, as with all our children funded through BBC Children in Need, we asked them to be referred to us by a professional working with them. That could be a school nurse, it could be a teacher. We have something we call CAMHS over here, which is Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services so that we had some kind of filtering system, and we'd sent information to our school nurses and CAMHS, and also I often will give talks to the local authority, and give them some examples so that we work with the right people, so that we can have those best outcomes for ourselves, and for the people we work with. And Zoe was referred to us by CAMHS. She had moved to Wales just before COVID time, it was. She'd moved to Wales with her mother.

It was a one-parent family, and moved to quite an isolated place in Wales, as well. Quite in the countryside, quite remote, but didn't go to school, so was homeschooled as well as moving to a new place with one parent. And so Zoe came to us doing one-to-one sessions for her eight weeks. We had to let Zoe know before she came which donkey she would be working with, which adult would be there, reassure her that the adult would be waiting for her when she got there, again, to remove all those anxieties. And we actually sent her, before she came to us, a picture of the donkey she would be working with, so that she had some knowledge of what she was going to be doing. We knew that Zoe liked animals, and this was a good opportunity for her.

After her one-to-one sessions, she wanted to carry on coming, which was wonderful. And so, she joined a group that stayed for more, so she came from morning session again, five or six children at the most, with adults that she had met. But again, those preparation time and the information, so she knew what was coming, who she would be working with. Zoe had quite a lot of anxiety, as it sounds like, obviously when I'm presenting that to you, quite a lot of anxiety. And her anxiety would not only manifest before she came, but also during sessions, as well. If there was going to be something new happening, we would tell her beforehand.

There would be a lot of demonstrations. If it was maybe learning how to tie the donkey up, then a lot of demonstrations, let her do it without being watched, because she found that very anxious to be watched, or if she felt she wasn't achieving it, or couldn't get it right. A lot of support for Zoe in that way, repeating, and again, positive reinforcement, the things that she had done right, and then taking those small steps.

Zoe came when we were talking before about the two-week course. Last summer, Zoe came on that course for two solid weeks and she had never been... She was 16 then. She had never been in education since 11. That was the first time she'd ever done anything like that. In order for her to get support at college, which she then managed to go to college on the basis of having spent a fortnight with us and could demonstrate to college that she could commit to something, and was able to do that.

She had to have a psychology report, an educational psychologist's report. And what I personally found quite touching, and also quite a big responsibility, is that we were actually the only outside organization involved with that child, because she was homeschooled, didn't attend anything. There was nobody else to talk to the psychologist about her needs, and how best she learned. I spent a lot of time with the team that would've been supporting Zoe when she moved on to college, with the local authority, explaining how we supported Zoe. And again, I would say had I not been in the profession I was, I wouldn't have liked to have taken it on. And fortunately for me, the psychologist who was assessing Zoe, I knew her from school. She used to be my Ed Psych in school, so it was like, oh, that's great. We knew the language we could talk, which was really useful.

Having set that up for Zoe, and then her doing the two-week course, she was keen, and as she said in the little video clip, she was keen to start college, and excited to start college. And she has now just completed her first year at college, and has had really good attendance, a few ups and downs along the way, as most teenagers would do, but was very pleased to have finished her first year, and be accepted into the second year. We are just so pleased for her.

And the time with the donkeys, when you listen to her talking about it, she has a favorite donkey, and that's the donkey she's drawn to every time she comes, and the conversations that she would have with that donkey to help her work through some of her anxieties, and also helping him to work through some of his, because sometimes, we ask our donkeys to do things they don't necessarily understand. And it is those conversations that are helping the children or the young people that we're working with understand why we're doing this with the donkeys, and how do we teach them to do that, enables them themselves then to think about themselves, and how they can move forward as well.

Jennifer Smith:  Oh, wow. I recall also in the video, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Zoe was initially homeschooled due to bullying, and she developed some severe depression. And it sounds like because of the social support that you offered her as an adolescent, which is really critical to maintaining good mental health, that she was able to really develop great resilience. And, like you said, now she's in college, whereas before, it sounded like her life was almost at a debilitating level, where she was unable to really just get out there and function with others.

Ruth Stronge:  Yeah, it is amazing when you listen to what she says that we were the only place she would come, and then small number of people around her was all she could cope with. She wouldn't talk to anybody else. And some of the young people that we work with in BBC Children in Need who did that video always ask us can we give them a case study? They'd asked before, and Zoe wasn't ready to talk, because, and this is something we've had on a couple of occasions from our young people, when I come to the donkeys, this is special and I don't want anybody to spoil this, so I don't want to tell people at school, because that isn't a nice place where I want to be. This is my safe space.

For Zoe, on a number of fronts, it was very brave of her to talk about, not just what she had been through, but then almost that this is what she does, and she loves what she does, and she's a wonderful advocate for it. But it was an incredibly brave thing for her to do. And the amount, like you say, her resilience, and how far she has come is all credit to her. She's worked really hard.

Jennifer Smith:  Oh, fantastic. And the donkey that she likes is Norman, am I correct?

Ruth Stronge:  No, that's Walter. It's Walter.

Jennifer Smith:  Oh, Walter!

Ruth Stronge:  She likes Walter, and she says they have the same birthday. They're exactly the same age. Yeah, he's her favorite, and she does have a special relationship with him. He can be, as most animals can sometimes, he can be quite cheeky, and she won't stand any nonsense from him. One of the wonderful things that they did with this group of donkeys, and she was in charge of Walter, is one of the walks, I know you went on one of our walks, and one of the walks that we do, there's a little bridge going over a small stream, and if we could cross the bridge, we can go on longer walks.

But Walter couldn't cross the bridge. He just couldn't cross over this bridge, because of the running water underneath it. He was quite frightened. And for long, I'm saying years here, we would stand and look at this bridge. And one day I was on site, but I wasn't leading the group that Zoe was with. I think there was four young people with one of our other members of staff. And apparently, they'd gone out for a walk, and I knew they were due back at a certain time and they were late coming back.

As you do, I was worrying, where had they all gone? The parents were arriving, and they all came back laughing, but very late. And I said, "So, where have you been?" And Zoe said, "Well, I just said to Walter, 'today is the day we're going to cross that bridge. Sometimes, we have to do things like that. It's hard, but we can do it.'" And she got him to cross the bridge, and they all went over the bridge and could go for a walk. But he couldn't come back over the bridge, so they had to walk the long way round. They were all laughing. These young people were just howling with laughter that they've managed to do this with Walter, and Zoe had been wonderful and got him over there, but he said once was enough.

Jennifer Smith:  Oh, that's wonderful. And what a fulfilling experience for her to be able to get across, at least that one time.

Ruth Stronge:  He will go now. Next time, he was fine. He was just once was enough on that day. Because we do say to him now, "Zoe, are you going over the bridge?" and she says, "Yes, and we're coming back over the bridge, too."

Jennifer Smith:  So Walter had his own exposure therapy, it sounds like.

Ruth Stronge:  His own exposure, but for her, when she was saying to him like, "Walter, we look at this so often, we are going to do this bridge now." And that was just like, yeah, you are an amazing young woman to be able to say, yeah, I'm going to do this, and do it for herself, and for him. So, yeah, it's lovely.

Jennifer Smith:  It's very empowering. That's wonderful. Thank you. During the pandemic, you started a Long Ears Listening Project. I know donkeys have long ears, but what is this project?

Ruth Stronge:  Long Ears Listening is really all my passions all in one place, which was quite a privilege to do. As an early years teacher, when I left school, I knew I still wanted contact with young children. We do a lot of work with young people and with adults, but young children is an interest I've taught all my life in the early years, we would call it here in the UK, and outdoors and environmental education is my other interest.

When I left school and worked with the donkeys full time, when the pandemic came, we have a lovely patch of woodland that we manage, and it was used a lot during the pandemic by people visiting. I would leave activities and resources in for people to use, and then when we could meet together, we started a formal parent and toddler group for parents, and it's outdoors in the woods, and the donkey comes every session and carries some of the resources. With a focus on language and literacy through storytelling, then, we have a group of parents who meet every Monday morning and share time together. And whilst it is an emphasis on language and literacy for them, it's also a time for them to get together and just be outdoors enjoying themselves, and giving their babies and young children exposure to nature, access to animals, in a friendly, supportive environment.

Jennifer Smith:  And the benefits of nature therapy, or ecotherapy, like you said, just spending time in nature, and then you're with an animal, and then there's the reading... It's just beneficial on so many levels.

Ruth Stronge:  It's been a fascinating journey, that one, as itself has developed, too. And we have a small number of songs that we now use every time we meet in Welsh, so that we are then doing that bilingually for them. And they are about donkeys, obviously, so we do a few counting rhymes that we have. If you've ever met early years teachers, they'll sing to anything, a song, a counting song or anything like that, to a familiar tune, so we've made up a couple of songs that we sing about donkeys to start it off, and just a relaxing place for them to be out there. And they all have a little activity bag, which would have some sensory activities in, and a book. And again, that bit started with COVID when we couldn't share resources the same, so everyone had to have their own resources, and we actually just kept that up. If the child is not old enough to walk around, they've still got activities that they can do and interact with their babies with, then.

Jennifer Smith:  Oh, that's great. This has been extremely informative, and I think this time has unfortunately flown, for me, anyway. As we wrap up, is there anything else that you'd like to share with our audience about the sanctuary, or anything else mental health related at all?

Ruth Stronge:  Yeah, I think one of the things that it makes me realize is that I started it probably by accident, and because I know the benefit I got from being with the donkeys, and stroking them, and mucking them out before and after school, and then part of my work, making time to be out of doors in nature was so important to me, personally. And to be able to offer those opportunities to other people that, as you said, I went back to Uni to do my clinical health psychology degree, because I'm thinking, I don't want to just be the person that says, "I know it's good, and it really is nice." I wanted to embed it in the research, really. And we still work with Bangor University to try and get the psychology students to use as case studies. And for us, it's often another pair of interested hands as well.

But we're really keen that the work we do is the best it can be, not only for the people we work with, but to give the work that we do with donkeys, who often get quite a bad press, or are often looked down upon, and they're very hardworking animals, to give them a value as well. Because it just doesn't happen by accident. If it looks from the outside that it's easy, then sometimes, I think, well, actually that means we're working really hard, and it is working well. But behind the scenes, all that theory, and the small steps, and the thinking about how people need to move forward, and how we can help them do that is important. And I guess I would also throw in as well that for our staff and volunteers, we try to make time for them always to have what we would call "donkey time," so that they have their own mental health moments where they can just be with the donkeys, and enjoy doing those things and being in the moment with them.

Jennifer Smith:  Oh, that's wonderful. For our audience listening, for those of you who are local, or plan on traveling to Wales or the Bangor area, we're definitely going to link up in the interview so people can check out your website. Also, learn about different ways to support your group, sponsorship opportunities. I know you have some wonderful little knitted donkeys. I forgot to bring mine. (*photo at bottom of page)

Ruth Stronge:  I forgot to leave one out as well. Yeah, should have done that.

Jennifer Smith:  Yeah, different ways to support you guys and this wonderful mission that you're doing, that's helping both donkeys and people in a really wonderful cycle. So, again, thank you Ruth Stronge, for speaking with us today. And tell Jenny the donkey that I said hello. That was my friend that day. And we wish you all the best.

Ruth Stronge:  Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you, and we would love to see people over here. It'd be amazing.

Jennifer Smith:  Thank you.

Jennifer Smith with Jenny the donkey. (left)

A souvenier “knitted donkey” from Snowdonia Donkeys posing for a picture near the sanctuary in Bangor, Wales. (right)

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychologist Albert Garcia-Romeu on Psychedelics & Consciousness

An Interview with Psychologist Albert Garcia-Romeu

Albert Garcia-Romeu, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He's a founding member of the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research and the International Society for Research on Psychedelics. His work specializes in the clinical applications of psychedelics, particularly as it applies to addiction treatment.

Sara Wilson:  Hi everybody. Thank you for joining us today for this installment of The Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. My name is Sara Wilson, and I'm a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We're a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders.

Today, I'd like to welcome with us psychologist Albert Garcia-Romeu, PhD. Dr. Garcia-Romeu is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. His research examines the effects of psychedelics in humans, with a focus on psilocybin as an aide in the treatment of addiction. His current research interests include clinical applications of psychedelics, real world drug use patterns, diversity in science, and the role of spirituality in mental health.

He's a founding member of the Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research and the International Society for Research on Psychedelics. He serves on the board of directors for the College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD), and is an associate editor for the journal Psychedelic Medicine.

So before we get started today, could you please let us know a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in pursuing psychedelic research as it relates to the study of consciousness, selfhood, and therapeutic development?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah, absolutely. So thanks for the intro. My name is Albert Garcia-Romeu. I'm a researcher here at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. And let's see. I mean, it's a long story in terms of how I got involved here. I've been doing this work here at Hopkins for over 11 years. And so before that even, I became interested in this area.

But initially, my work in graduate school was not even focused specifically on psychedelics. It was really much more driven by curiosity about the intersection of spirituality and mental health, and also how certain types of spiritual experiences could interact with mental health in both positive and negative ways.

And so I think a really good example of that is that people can have spiritual, or transcendent, or other types of peak experiences that can be tremendously helpful for them in a developmental state, in terms of how they developmentally are able to move throughout the lifespan and help them build resilience against difficult life events that they may face.

But other people have really powerful, intense experiences that sometimes have more negative repercussions. Things like developing psychotic and delusional states and sometimes dealing with persisting mental health challenges.

And so that was the starting point for me. My undergraduate work, I had been exposed to both eastern religion and spirituality, and philosophies like Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism. And that also came along with practices like meditation that I found very compelling. And I had some very powerful experiences in the meditation club that I joined during my undergraduate when I was studying philosophy and psychology at Tulane University.

But that really translated later into a curiosity about where the overlap and where the divergence was between all these spiritual and philosophical schools and what they thought about in terms of mind and selfhood, and all of the Western psychology that we learned. Including things like neuroscience and behavioral and other paradigms of psychology.

So that kind of led me into studying other schools of psychology, including humanistic and existential psychology, which Maslow was a big proponent of. And one of his areas of studying self-actualization specifically also brought in this concept of peak experiences and the idea that people could have peak experiences that help them become more self-actualized.

And so that was really a jumping off point for me in graduate school to start studying these types of experiences that some people might consider altered states of consciousness, and that they have some relationship to things like psychedelics or meditation practices.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, thank you. I think that it's really interesting, this intersection that you've achieved in your research among existential philosophy, and therapeutics, and spirituality. I think that it's very, very good work that you do.

So now, arguably there is no single thing that is more real and immediately known than our own consciousness. However, the specific constituents of this sense of self and sense of conscious experience remains highly elusive, even among the seemingly intuitive conviction that we all have. So I was wondering before we get into the nitty-gritty, what is meant by the term consciousness, and how is this distinguished from the brain?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah, that's a great question. I would say I don't have a good answer for you. And that was something that I was very interested in early on in my research and studies when I was in undergraduate and even in graduate school. I was really curious about consciousness and what does that mean, and where does it come from?

I've gotten a little bit more frustrated with the field over the last 10 years or so, feeling like in many ways you're kind of stuck because... And we've talked about this I think in our prior email conversations, but the idea of this hard problem of consciousness is one that we're kind of at an impasse perhaps in terms of what we're able to observe, measure, and study in an empirical manner.

But consciousness is hard to define, and it's a very slippery term. But I tend to think of it as a sort of sum of all of the things that we're aware of, both internally and externally. And so we're aware of what's going on around us in the environment, and we're also often aware of what's going on in our bodies if we're feeling certain sensations or we have emotional states that we're going through. And so this is a sort of immediate first person experience that we're living in. So that's typically what many of us think of as consciousness. And of course, that's changing from moment to moment, and that can also be altered by using certain practices like meditation or psychoactive drugs.

But there's probably not one definition of consciousness that everybody would agree on. And that also makes it really hard for us to find meaningful ways to study that phenomenon. Because when we're talking about consciousness of certain stimuli, for instance, we can start to look at what are the component processes that the brain is going through to be aware of, say something like a sound, or something that we're seeing visually.

But when it comes to the whole gestalt or the whole first person experience that we're going through in a subjective experience at any point, there's really not a good explanation for the mechanics of that, how that comes to be, where it comes from, and why it even is that we have the type of experience that we have. And so that then makes it very difficult for us to be scientific about studying it, although there are lots of folks who are working on in that area, many of whom are very interested in brain related mechanisms and processes. But eventually, I sort of veered away from that and much more towards clinical work.

Sara Wilson:  Right. Yeah. I remember you saying in an interview with the American Psychological Association, that many of these trials with psychedelics, for example, are focused on how the brain is responding to these drugs. And you say that it's more of a question of how the mind is responding to these drugs, which I think is definitely conversant with the hard problem of consciousness, because that's where you start to see changes in self-identity in a way that allows someone to fully live their life. And maybe that can manifest itself in measurable behavioral changes or brain functioning, but it is hard to clinically measure. So I guess that's an enduring problem in both psychology and philosophy, I guess, and many other disciplines.

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah, yeah, I agree with you. We kind of run up against a limitation of what we're able to observe, because consciousness is in many ways, a first person phenomenon. So even the idea of whether or not other people around us are conscious, or whether the kind of consciousness that they experience is similar or not to what we experience is hard to say. I mean, we can't really tell that for certain. And so that makes it a sticky problem for something like empirical hard sciences to wrap our collective minds around.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. So you already touched on the hard problem and the problem of other minds, so I think it's fair to move on. I was just curious, why do you enjoy studying consciousness through catalysts such as meditation and psychedelics? Why is this research important in a therapeutic context?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah. To me, that was a really important jumping off point just because the idea that there's a sort of baseline state of consciousness as people like Charlie Tart have posited, and that we're kind in this baseline state of consciousness much of the time without knowing that, that we flip channels between being awake, being asleep, sometimes dreaming, and then that there's these other channels or modes of consciousness that we can enter, really became clear to me when I started practicing meditation initially when I was in undergraduate, and having specifically a really powerful experience practicing a meta loving kindness meditation, and having this feeling of... I don't really even know how to explain it, but there was this strong feeling of love radiating out of me all throughout the entire universe. And also just sitting there, and then all of a sudden opening my eyes when the bell rang, and just having tears streaming down my face, and a lot of really intense emotions coming along with that.

And realizing, "Wow, the way that I'm walking around most of the time doesn't mean that that's the way that I always have to be feeling and experiencing the world," and that there are these very powerful tools that we have at our disposal, these techniques or these practices, to change that way that we're experiencing things.

And that was an important realization for me that led to an ongoing fascination with what is consciousness and what are altered states. And eventually, really zeroing in on how we can use these in a way that's pragmatic and helpful.

Particularly for things like mental health conditions like major depression, anxiety, substance use disorders, where you might even think of the actual condition as almost a state of stuckness of consciousness to certain patterns. Getting trapped in these loops over and over again, thinking about oneself, thinking about negative things that could happen or that have happened, or being constantly focused on certain compulsive behaviors, or obsessive thinking about whatever it might be. Substances, for instance, is a great example. And how do we shake one out of those dysfunctional loops, so that they can get back on with their lives?

And so that was eventually where I landed. It took quite some time from initially being interested in what are these altered states and how do we elicit them, to finally getting to a point of saying, "Well, now I know more about what they are, but now we need to understand, how do we use them?" And that's kind of where I've landed most recently.

Sara Wilson:  Right. Yeah. I think that you touched on a lot of very interesting points in that response, particularly ramifications of being conscious with your sense of self and a sense of agency over self. I feel like humans have a tendency to think of the world and think of self as fixed entities that we don't have much agency over.

So I guess bringing the conversation more towards selfhood, in your article “Self-Transcendent Experience: A Grounded Theory Study”, you discuss self-transcendence. What is self-transcendence, and how do participants describe a self-transcendent experience?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  That is difficult to pin down, because just like consciousness, the idea of what the self is isn't really any... There's no conclusive sort of definition that everyone's going to agree on throughout different disciplines and psychology and philosophy. But there is, again, a very intuitive sense that many of us have that I am this self, I am this person, and that's a collection of memories, and experiences, and also behaviors and habits that we kind of grow into and develop over time. And of course, that also encompasses our bodily sense of self, us being this being in the world that's moving around in space and time.

So the idea of that self then becoming enmeshed with or entangled with something greater than itself. So connecting with something bigger. And that's often a theme that you find in things like spiritual experiences, for instance, or these types of peak or mystical type experiences. Where the feeling of selfhood is temporarily almost offline, such that the boundaries between what I thought of as in here myself and out there, everything else, are very blurry.

And then all of a sudden, there's this sense of interconnectedness between what's inside and outside, or even this sense of non-duality that there is no inside or outside, that there really is just one entire organism or process, if you will, that's happening, and that you're just one part of that process.

And losing that sense of selfhood can both be frightening and overwhelming. And that can often happen to people when they're having experiences both in meditation and using psychedelics. But that can also be a very ecstatic type of experience, and it can lead to a lot of positive emotions, and potentially, I think psychological healing.

And that's really become one of the main areas that we've been focusing on specifically with therapeutic use of psychedelics, because these self-transcendent experiences outside of psychedelics and psychedelic research, they tend to be difficult to elicit. We can't make them happen when we want them to happen. They tend to occur spontaneously a lot of the time. When I was doing that small study that was part of my graduate dissertation work, I had interviewed a number of people about experiences that they considered transcendent, where they felt like they were in touch with something larger than their normal sense of self.

And what struck me is that there were a number of different triggers or catalysts that seemed to help people get there. And some of those included taking psychoactive substances like psychedelics. But also, others included engaging in spiritual practices, meditation, going on retreats, having different types of fasting or prayer practices that they were engaging in.

For other people though, this seemed to happen much more spontaneously. I mean, it would just come out of the blue. There wasn't necessarily any intentional practice to get there. And that was also something that maybe was elicited by something like being in nature or being around something that could be awe-inspiring like a waterfall or the Grand Canyon.

So the idea that we can't necessarily have these transcendent types of experiences happening when we want them make them very hard to study, we kind of have to do it retrospectively and try to put the pieces together.

But the exciting thing about the research with psychedelics over the last few decades has been specifically that in many people, it seems like we can, by using both careful preparation and then high dose psychedelic administration, help people get there in a much more reliable fashion. And then that allows us to study these types of experiences in a way that's much more convenient and easy to do, even in a laboratory setting.

So that's I think one of the major ramifications of the work we're doing, is that it allows us to really put these experiences under a microscope. Whether we're putting people in brain scanners, or we're just having them on the couch and then asking them about what it is that they're going through.

Sara Wilson:  What are the perceived therapeutic outcomes of having a self-transcendent experience?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  That can be really hard to say, because it varies so widely between people. And for some people, this can be a short-lived just moment of “Aha”, this feeling of insight or realization, and going back to the way they continue to operate for some time.

For other people, it can actually sometimes be not so therapeutic, and it can be distressing, and it can lead to some destabilization, I would say. And even for some folks, in extreme cases, they can end up having delusional thinking or psychotic types of symptoms, which can be short-lived or sometimes persisting. So obviously, that's something to keep an eye on and to be concerned about.

But for other folks, there's definitely what you would consider benefits, therapeutic types of effects. So I'm just coming out of a room from a session where we're doing here for one of our studies, and the person really describing to me that the experiences that they've had here with psilocybin, which really were a powerful altered space, were really helpful in a lot of ways for them outside of the session room and in real life.

For instance, one thing that I was just told was - it was feeling that oftentimes, when people are treating her in a way that's not healthy or positive, that her gut reaction was just to let it slide, not to say anything, and just to kind of move on and suck it up. And that since she's had the experiences here in the study that she's been in, she's been much more forthright about the fact that it's not okay with her to be treated that way, that she's not comfortable with certain things, just being upfront and honest about it.

And so changing that pattern of communicating and socially interacting with people in a different way, which she also felt has been much better for her in terms of her mental health and feeling like it was really nice to get that off my chest. And that when I responded in that way, people also responded in kind and said, "I'm sorry. I shouldn't have been acting that way. That was a misstep, and I apologize."

So there's often shifts that can come along with these types of transcendent experiences that people can have, where it kind of shakes them out of some of their old patterns. And some of those old patterns might be behaving in ways that are not healthy. And if you can help instill in a person this movement in the right direction, then these experiences can be very therapeutically helpful to overcome some of those negative past patterns, and to put in place things that we hope are healthier and more adaptive.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, I think that you definitely bring awareness to the fact that we need to be aware that not everybody is ready for these catalysts of self transcendent experience. So to be aware of important markers of when somebody might be ready to transcend the boundary of self.

And I think it definitely also speaks to the importance of acknowledging a person as a being that goes through stages of development. So I know that in major depression or the dissociative disorders, maybe schizophrenia, it's characterized by a lack of a foundational sense of minimal selfhood. So maybe in order to transcend self, it's important to still have an effective sense of self before you can get to that next stage.

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Absolutely. And so we think about that. In different terms, you can talk about, for instance, having sufficient ego integrity. But yeah, having that sense of self that's stable enough that it can be shaken up a little bit, or that some of those boundaries can get blurred without necessarily leading to adverse reaction, or a feeling of total destabilization, or getting immersed in chaos.

I think it was... Gosh, I forget who said it, but I think it was Joseph Campbell who said, "The person who's going through psychosis is drowning in the same waters that the mystic is swimming in."

And so it's this idea that for some people at certain times in their lives, they can go into these transcendent or peak experiences and lose their sense of self, and it can be therapeutic or it can be beneficial for them in the longer term. And for others, they may not be in a place where having that kind of experience is a positive one, and it can actually lead to more disorientation, distress. And so that's something you have to be mindful of, certainly with psychedelic therapies. But even with things like meditation, where you've seen that certain folks can have difficult experiences that can sometimes lead to ongoing problems.

Sara Wilson:  Right. Yeah. One question that came to mind from an evolutionary perspective was, how could it ever be adaptive to lose ourselves? How could it ever be adaptive for any organism to overcome self-interest?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Well, you can think of the evolutionary purview in many ways for us to survive, procreate, keep the organism alive, basically. And so that means find food, find safe shelter, safe haven, avoid things that are trying to harm you, and find potentially a mate and procreate, and then keep the biology going. And on very simple terms, that's what we're programmed to do.

But you can also think of all of the culture, and language, and stuff that we built up in the history of humankind. And obviously looking at things like social media, or how many followers do you have, we can get very entrenched in this tunnel vision. And I think that's something that we've seen ever since post industrialization for sure, but maybe even earlier on, is that people get sucked into certain things that they're very perhaps over-concerned with. And that may be things like status, it may be things like social standing, how other people perceive us. And that can potentially lead to this ongoing over concern or rigid pattern of really reifying these things, these constructs, whatever they may be.

And so when we get stuck in these patterns and we potentially end up in pathological or unhealthy ways of being and thinking and feeling, so exactly that is when the idea that you could get outside of those loops or those patterns, I think is when we'd be able to potentially have a therapeutic intent to go in there and then shift those patterns, get somebody out of these maladaptive ways of thinking about themselves or the world.

So you can think in a very basic sense, if somebody's got just a very negative view of themselves in the world, and that's the way that they see things, and that's the way they sort of have landed in terms of their worldview and their way of thinking about things, then that would be a really nice thing to be able to transcend out of, to then potentially see other ways of seeing the world in themselves and say, "Oh yeah, I've gotten really stuck, entrenched in thinking about things this way. But there are other ways of thinking and seeing things, and maybe I can practice some of that, and maybe I can become part of my repertoire that could then lead to a healthier mental mindset."

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. I think it's very hard to extricate ourselves from a lot of our daily practices once we become so entrenched in them, and not even fully comprehending what it's doing to us, to what it's doing to our ability to interact with others, and perceive our world, and how we perceive ourselves. And I think the importance of having an existential experience related to a core selfhood is maybe one of the only ways to really get out of those patterns, of those maladaptive patterns.

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah. And sometimes, something that's adaptive at a time, at a certain stage or phase of our life or of our existence, may not be later on down the line. And so in order to get from point A to point B, we may need to transcend ourselves multiple times over time, the lifespan.

And just thinking about something as simple as object permanence or conservation from Piaget in development, when children go through these stages of not knowing that when you're playing peekaboo, that you're not disappearing, that you're still there. And then all of a sudden, having this kind of transcendent realization that, "Yes, even when I can't see them, they're still there." And then moving on up through that.

Those are in ways, key developmental milestones where all of a sudden, we've shifted the way that we understand the world around us. And so I think it's kind of inbuilt in us in many ways to continue to transcend.

However, it's also extremely common nowadays, I would say, for adults to sort of get to where they're at in perhaps their twenties, thirties, and so on, and stop developing in some ways, and becoming stagnant.

So it can lead to what my mentor and professor at graduate school, Jim Fadiman used to call this psychosclerosis, this hardening of the attitudes where we just kind of like, "Well, I know everything I need to know. I'm a fully formed person, so what else is there to do or to learn?" But if you keep having this idea in the back of your mind that there is more growth and there is more development, then that allows us to keep visiting that transcendent territory, and hopefully becoming a better version of ourselves.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, for sure. Yeah, I love that. So we've already touched on this quite a bit actually, but could you explain to our audience what psychedelics are, and what specific altered states of consciousness can occur with psychedelic interaction?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah. Psychedelics are a fascinating class of substances. And I even hesitate to use the term drug. I mean, you can say drug because some of them are molecules that were made by humans, but many of them are just these naturally occurring, found in nature molecules. And psilocybin is a great example.

It's something that is an alkaloid that's produced by over 200 different species of mushrooms. Why exactly do mushrooms make this specific chemical? We don't know. But for whatever reason, it interacts with our brain's serotonin receptors. And specifically what we call the classic psychedelics, including substances like LSD, psilocybin, DMT, mescaline. Many of these are occurring in nature, and then they're something that people have had a longstanding relationship with, have used for a long time. These mushrooms, for instance, that are containing psilocybin, because of their psychoactive effects. And so in terms of how they work, we believe that the serotonin 2A receptor is a big part of the puzzle in terms of the neurotransmitter, the pharmacology of the drug.

There's more to it than that. And we're slowly unlocking these mechanisms as we do more science to really drill down on what's happening in the brain when people and animals are exposed to these substances. But they have these really profound psychoactive effects, which I think is one of the reasons why people have taken them for so long.

And so for instance, we know that for thousands of years now, people have made artifacts around these types of mushrooms, showing that they have a sacred status in ancient and indigenous cultures. And the Aztec people, for instance, called the mushrooms teonanacatl which roughly translates to the divine flesh.

So for a long time, people have known about these substances, they've used them. And in terms of what they're doing, they can produce changes in our perceptions, and changes in our cognitions, the way that our mind is working and that we're thinking, and intense changes in our emotional state. And when that's happening, people are under the influence of psychedelics. It can last, depending on the substance, six hours, eight hours, or even longer.

And during the drug effects, people feel these altered states of consciousness. So their brain and their mind is working quite a different way from their normal sense of self.

But what's also very interesting and what we found in more contemporary research over the last 20 years or so, is that those temporary altered states of consciousness also seem to have an association with or can be linked to altered traits or altered ways of being in the world, and altered ways of experiencing ourselves and the world.

And that from a psychotherapist standpoint is very exciting, because one of the key things that people come to therapy for is because they want to find some way to change something that's not working for them, or somewhere where they feel stuck.

And so there's something about the altered consciousness that psychedelics can bring about that seems to lend itself to helping people make these longer term trait changes, which is fascinating because there's not a lot out there that we know of that can really do that in a reliable way.

Now, in terms of what kinds of altered states that people experience, it really runs the gamut because people can have... And it depends on the dose, which is very true in pharmacology in general. If you have a little sip of wine, it's going to be a very different experience than having a whole glass or a whole bottle of wine. And so the dose definitely affects the way that the drug is experienced.

But on lower doses, people often are having visual perceptual changes. It also depends on the drug, because they all have a slightly different pharmacological profile the way that they work and bind to different receptors.

But generally, these serotonin 2A agonist classic psychedelics are causing both these visual and perceptual changes, which are reminiscent of the types of tie-dye and paisley art and imagery that we see from the 1960s when psychedelics were a big part of the counterculture.

But then there can be certain characteristic types of experiences that people have when they're under the influence. And some of these can include autobiographical content that can come up.

I've talked to people, for instance, who have said they've taken ayahuasca, which is a DMT containing psychedelic mixture that's used in Amazonian cultures in Central South America. And what they've said about their experiences, it was almost like their brain was playing a highlight reel for them of all the terrible things they ever did in their lives, all of the things that they regretted, they felt bad about. And that in through going through, that they were also in a way able to go back and come to terms with and forgive themselves for having gone through that, and realizing maybe I knew better, and I needed to learn from that experience. Or maybe I didn't know any better, and that was just an honest mistake that I made.

But by going through that process, it can be very helpful, or at least people have told me that can be very helpful for letting go of some of these feelings of guilt and shame about things that have happened in the past.

Besides autobiographical content, though, people can have all sorts of really unusual content. Whether they feel like they're seeing imagery. And some of that imagery may be very basic geometric shapes and colors. But other times, people can find themselves in whole alternate dimensions where they see themselves in outer space, underwater, seeing themselves interacting with other creatures or beings. Some that might be experienced as having sentience or consciousness of their own.

Sometimes, people feel as though they're having encounters with higher power of some sort, and that may be a deity like Jesus Christ or some sort of incarnation of a Buddha, for instance, or saints, or visions of other types of spiritual figures.

Sometimes, people talk about having experiences where they're in contact with lost relatives and loved ones that they're no longer with us, but that they're able to re-contact during their experience.

Sometimes people can also have very challenging and frightening experiences where they feel paranoid, they feel strong anxiety, they feel a lot of disorientation. So that's something that we have to work with acutely when people are here in the dosing sessions. And it's also something that we see obviously, when people are using these substances recreationally. And sometimes they need to be cared for either by medical or psychological people, or by friends and loved ones who happen to be there.

And another big experience that we see and that we've spent a lot of time studying is this what we call mystical type experience. But I think that can really be interchangeably called a number of different things, whether we're talking about a unit of experience, or a spiritual or transcendent experience.

And really, there the key is just this sense of oneness with everything around us or with the universe. And I think that sense of unity is one of the key features that people will often describe when they go through these high dose experiences.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. In your article “Clinical Applications of Hallucinogens”, you find a meaningful interaction between mystical experience and the big five personality traits, particularly increased levels of openness to experience. And I was wondering if you could explain these findings a little bit for our audience.

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Sure. And so that's from some early work that was published out of this lab here at Hopkins. And what I think is more interesting now is that we've seen a shift in the data. So they're not all consistent, and that's not uncommon in science.

But what I would say is that really, the initial cohort that went through some of the early studies with psilocybin here at Johns Hopkins, this was work that was conducted by Roland Griffiths and Bill Richards, and others who were here at the time, Mary Cosimano.

And what they found though, was they took a bunch of healthy people. So they weren't people with any particular mental health condition like depression, but they actually had a clean bill of mental health. And they volunteered to join the study where we would give them a high dose of a psychedelic drug. Many of them had never taken any type of drug like that before.

And what they found in these early studies were that those people were coming in with a high level of baseline openness, higher than your average, at least average college student, which is what a lot of these data come from with psychological tests and inventories.

However, what they also found was that the greater mystical type experience they had under the influence of psilocybin, then those individuals were having increases in their personality openness, which is one of the five domains that's been proposed within this model of five factor model personality. There's openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.

And so what we found with healthy people is that when you get people who have mystical type experiences with psychedelics, that increases their personality openness. And that's actually quite interesting, because personality openness has got a number of little subdomains or factors. But that includes things like aesthetic appreciation for art and music, and also open-minded tolerance of others' viewpoints. And so by being more open to others' views, that's something that could really be helpful in a lot of ways, if you think about what we find ourselves in contemporary culture.

Now, that data though, now that we've kind of zoomed out... And I recently came back from the Psychedelic Science conference in Denver where I went with a group of my colleagues here from Hopkins, and one of them, Nate Sepeda, was presenting on some data that we'll publish soon.

But he looked at data from hundreds of people that have gotten psilocybin in these different studies. And what he was finding was that there wasn't one clear path in terms of how high dose psilocybin was affecting your personality. But that for instance, different groups of people were showing different patterns.

So one of the things that's been found is that, for instance, people with depression, they tend to come in with higher baseline levels of neuroticism. And that tends to be something that comes down after treatment with psilocybin. And for some people, there's also increases in things like extroversion. Or basically, the ability and the desire to be social with other people.

So I guess the story here in terms of impact of psychedelics on personality is still taking shape, and it's still a little unclear. But depending on where you start, we can say that there's potentially some type of response that you may have in terms of your personality possibly being changed after these experiences. And for some people, the mystical type experience, certainly for healthy people, can lead to increases in openness. And for other people, we can see different changes like reductions in neuroticism or changes in some of these other factors like extroversion.

And so there's still a lot more to study there. But I think one of the takeaways there is that it sort of depends on what your personality is like when you go into that, which is a big maximum of psychedelic research, this idea of set and settings. So the person that's going into it is going to be impacted differentially because of who they are when they show up to that experience.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. Okay, yeah. This leads us really nicely actually into my next question, which is, are the changes in personality elicited by psychedelics encouraging or bringing out traits that were already in the person?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  So that's a difficult question to answer. We can't really say yay or nay on that, because it's kind of unclear where a person's, what their inherent tendencies are. You can say psychedelics are really uncovering who a person was all along, but it's hard to say yes, that's who the person was all along, in any sort of authoritative way.

But there's an idea in psychedelic therapy, this idea that psychedelics can kind of help people get in touch with parts of themselves that perhaps have been obscured or maybe covered over by life experience. And by getting back in touch with those parts of ourselves, they can help us get to where we're supposed to be going or develop more towards our true self, whatever that is, leading us towards more authenticity. So I think that that's certainly a working hypothesis that many people have brought to this psychedelic therapy and research space.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. I guess regardless of whether it's helping us get in touch with our true self or helping us get to where we ought to be going, I think it definitely does illustrate the positive, powerful potential in the human brain as something that we can unlock certain things, whether that's who we are or where we should be going.

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  And really, what I think is more pertinent is that if you think about people, a lot of who we are is predicated on what we experience and what we're taught. And so for instance, a person who's raised in a certain family, and culture, and environment may take on lots of ideas and beliefs that they may not have chosen. They're just what were thrust upon them as they were children and then growing up.

And so what's really nice about psychedelics is that it seems like it can help people to take a step back, and reexamine those beliefs and those ways of thinking about the world and themselves and say, "Now how much of this is actually true? How much of these are beliefs that I want to hang onto and that I feel are authentically a part of who I am?" And how much of this can I say, "You know what? That was stuff that other people basically spoon fed me, and I don't think I need to be this way, feel this way, think this way anymore." So you can think of lots of examples.

But being raised in a xenophobic, or racist, or homophobic type of situation I think is a great way to think about when we're spoon-fed some perhaps not particularly healthy ways of thinking about the world, and we're able to step back and say, "Is this really who I am or who I want to be?" And then making a more conscious, informed decision as an adult.

Sara Wilson:  Why do you think it's difficult for people to address deeply rooted issues naturally, and how might psychedelics help facilitate getting in touch with our subconscious?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  That's a great question. I think it really depends. But oftentimes, just like what we're just talking about, when we have big experiences, traumatic experiences even, they can be so overwhelming that, again, the ego integrity, our ability to really process those experiences just isn't there yet.

And so it may be something that we just don't know what to do with. It's almost like you're handed this big experience that is really powerful, and intense, and disruptive in a way to one's worldview and one's sense of self and saying, "I don't know what to do with this. I have to put it somewhere where it's out of sight and out of mind," so it can stay there for many years for lots of people.

And I should say I'm talking more now from clinical and lived experience and less from empirical data here. But it seems to me that when we go through these types of really difficult experiences... And it can happen at any time of our life. It might be childhood, but it could be in adulthood, it doesn't matter. It can be so frightening, powerful, or overwhelming.

And you can think of, for instance, a veteran who's in a combat zone and is in an experience where their life is in danger. They may see other people that they're with being harmed or killed. And again, their number one priority at that point is survival, make sure I get through this. So they may not have time to even then as adults, process that experience then and there. And it may be so unpleasant and so intense that again, it kind of gets swept under the rug.

So we have a tendency to often have these big experiences and try to get past them, move beyond them, but perhaps not really deal with them to the level that they need to be processed for us to make sense of them and to come to terms with them.

And I think psychedelics have a really powerful way of sweeping out whatever's under the rug for us to see and say, "Hey, this was important." Whether you were able to deal with it or not, now is a time for us to go back to this and look at it, and try to put this together with the rest of the life experience in a way that is cogent and makes sense, and that we can also come to some sense of acceptance or at least acknowledgement that yes, this is something that occurred. This is a part of my life story, whether I would've chosen it or not. It is there. It is what it is. And from there, I think you can get to a place where from a therapeutic standpoint, people can engage in some healing around that.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. What would the introduction of psychedelics look like in therapy, and why is it important to couple talk therapy with the psychedelic sessions?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  So because of the powerful alter state of consciousness, I think it's really important to have some level of psychological support around that. And it may not necessarily be a formal psychotherapy, like cognitive behavioral therapy, or ACT, or motivational interviewing, but it could be. And that's something that we've used. We've used these types of therapeutic modalities successfully in different studies here, and other labs across the country, and even overseas. And what we're doing there is a couple of things. And they're very basic, but at the same time complicated in many ways.

So the basics are that first, before there's even a real therapeutic process, we're often screening people just to assess their level of physical and mental safety to undergo this type of experience. I think this is a really important part of the process that doesn't get talked about enough, because people often want to jump right to the drug experience or to even the therapy.

But before we start the therapy, it's kind of like when people are coming in for any sort of medical procedure, we want to make sure this person is going to be able to go through this safely. And that could both mean looking at their liver and kidney function, looking at their cardiovascular function, but also looking at their past history of mental health and their family mental health history.

Because sometimes, there's clues there that perhaps this person may have an adverse reaction. And obviously, you typically are trying to avoid that, specifically in cases where you think you might trigger something like a latent psychosis or a potential bipolar mood condition. So those are the types of things we're doing before we even get started in the process.

But when we get into the actual psychedelic therapy, we're often starting with several weeks of just rapport building. Meaning if I'm sitting in the sessions with somebody, before we give them the drug, we're going to spend six to eight hours with them over the course of several weeks, getting to know more about them, making sure that they feel comfortable with us, getting a good sense of their life story. Particularly formative events.

And that can mean anything from their childhood and family history, growing up, going to school, important relationships, friendships, mentors, romantic relationships.

And then going from there, to just develop a sense that you're safe here with us. You're in a place where you can be yourself and be honest and open with us. And then developing that I think is really one of the first steps to doing psychedelic therapy safely so that even if people encounter these really scary or difficult parts of an experience, that they can work together with the facilitators to make it through that in a way that's not harmful.

The other big piece of this preparatory process is twofold. The one is explaining to people what it is that they're going to be potentially experiencing, because it is a very strong altered state of consciousness that includes intense emotions, changes in perception and thinking. That can be disorienting and frightening.

And so giving people a lowdown and saying, "This is what sometimes happens. And we don't know what's always going to happen, but we want to give you a sense for where we're at and what could occur." And finally, setting some form of therapeutic intention. Specifically when we're doing this as part of a therapy package, that typically is going to come along with some sort of therapeutic target or indication. Major depression, tobacco use disorder, existential distress related to illness.

And so part of understanding the person's life and their life story is where they're at now, and what's brought them here to us, and what is it that they're dealing with, and what does that look like in daily life when you're depressed or when you're struggling with an addiction.

And then that then sets the stage for saying, "Well, this is where I'm at." And then kind of determining, so where do you want to be? Or what would you like to get out of this process? How can we help support that? And what would life on the other side of a successful treatment look like to you?

And so really helping the person envision that, and also come up with strategies. Because it's not just a matter of, bam, take the pill and all my problems are gone. But it's really about on the ground, how do you make this something that's a sustainable change that's for the better for this person?

So that's really I think what the whole supportive therapeutic process is about, is getting somebody ready to go through the experience, providing the safe container for them to have the experience during the drug session or sessions. Sometimes, we'll go up to three sessions or more. But then also afterwards, providing a supportive process for integration where if there were insights, if there were difficult memories or difficult parts of the experience, or really anything that came up during the sessions, that you're able to work together to make sense of it, and take away anything valuable or useful from that. And put it into practice, so that it's more of a long-term change and not just, "Wow, I had this realization. But now I'm going to go right back to the way I was beforehand."

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. Okay. So in your article “Clinical Applications of Hallucinogens”, you claim that it is a moral responsibility of biomedical researchers to explore every possible treatment, which I think is very interesting. Could you talk about this a little more for our audience?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah. Well, my main thrust there is that there was good research in the 1950s and '60s and '70s to show that when used responsibly and carefully, that psychedelics would be really potentially useful for a number of different types of mental health conditions, including things like alcohol use disorder.

Now, the data weren't always consistent. Part of the problem there being the early research, they didn't necessarily have a good grasp on what the proper model was to use these types of tools. They were very new at the time. LSD was not even really discovered until 1943, psilocybin not until 1958. And so when using these new tools, there were different results in early research, but there was still an underlying thread there that this could be helpful.

And unfortunately, this really got wrapped up in a lot of politics, the counterculture. And I wrote a little blog for Psychology Today about this as well called “Psychedelics Reconsidered”, where I really talk about more of the historical arc of this culturally.

Because at the time, psychedelics and cannabis got really associated with the counterculture, and the counterculture was seen by the powers that be at the time, and certainly the Nixon administration, but just conservative politicians in general as a real threat to the status quo.

And so as a result, there was a huge amount of energy put into stigmatizing this idea that these were dangerous, that they're going to destroy your children's lives, and that they're something that need to be banned, put under lock and key. And as a result, it became very taboo to think about doing the type of research that we're doing now from 1970 on.

And so it took several decades until you finally start to see that thaw, where scientists like Rick Strassman, Roland Griffiths, Franz Vollenweider and others begin to set the modern era of research underway, Dave Nichols. And they're really starting to bring it back to, "Okay, let's see, can these things be useful? Or are they just these dangerous drugs of abuse, like many people have been saying for years?"

And come to find now that absolutely, there are ways that we can use these therapeutically, and they seem to hold a great deal of potential. And there's a lot there that we don't know yet, but there's been studies from various labs around the world showing robust, rapid acting antidepressant effects.

And when you're dealing with a large number of people who are struggling with major depression, and a not inconsequential number of people who are refractory to treatment, meaning that we give them the best medications and talk therapy that we have, and that they're not getting much better, then I think it is our moral responsibility to explore all the avenues available. And psychedelics represent one area of that, but there's lots more going on.

So it's a pretty exciting time, I think, for mental health research. And we're seeing a lot more outside the box thinking, which is I think a good thing.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, certainly. So I don't think that there's an obvious answer to this question, but feel free to postulate. Your studies really illustrate not only what consciousness is and the current metaphysics of mind, but also what consciousness can be, and what it can mean to be human. Based on the research you've pursued, do you think that there's a higher level of consciousness that can be achieved, and maybe what might this look like?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah, that's a really interesting question to sit back, and ponder, and hypothesize about. Lots of different people are going to have different answers to this question.

I think one of the most compelling accounts that I've seen of this type of thinking of higher levels of consciousness is really from philosophers like Ken Wilber, and others whose work he based his work on, like Jean Gebser. Beck and Cowan who did Spiral Dynamics.

So these thinkers have sort of postulated that just like a regular single human being is going to go through different phases of development in the lifespan, and just like we're talking about with cognitive development and Piaget, and this idea of developing object permanence or getting to a level of understanding conservation.

As we move through these stages, one might say that it's a higher level of consciousness, or one might say simply it's a different level of consciousness, where we've reached a different level of understanding, again, of ourselves in the world. Now what's higher or lower, what's better or worse? Some of that can be relative. And certainly, there's also cultural differences that come to play here.

But I do think if you want to step back and look at us as a species of creatures that live on a planet with finite resources and other creatures on the same planet, that there are certain things that work better than others. And if we're going around, for instance, killing off all the other species, or even harming each other, whether it be across racial boundaries, or across territorial or religious boundaries, those are not necessarily outcomes that are desirable.

And so many thinkers like Wilber and others have seen that as humans develop over time and go through different phases and stages of development, that perhaps cultures also do the same thing. And that in that regard, perhaps higher states of consciousness and cultural development as well are those that are leading us to live in more peace and harmony with ourselves and with other cohabitants of the planet where we are.

And so that's probably my best answer, my best guess as to an answer is really anything that leads us towards having a more peaceful and harmonious existence with one another and within ourselves. And so coming back to the individual level is, how do we get to this state of optimal well-being? And how do we then put that into practice by hopefully having positive and peaceful interactions with the people and creatures around us?

Sara Wilson:  Yeah. So as this very stimulating conversation is now coming to a close, I wanted to ask you, is there anything else you would like to share with our audience about avenues of research you are finding most exciting right now, or just more broadly?

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  Yeah. I mean, there's a lot going on with the field of psychedelic research, which I'm heavily involved in. But I find it really exciting to see both this area of clinical and therapeutic research is really taking off, both doing bigger and more well controlled studies and conditions like depression and substance use disorders.

But also starting to explore new conditions. Alzheimer's disease, chronic Lyme disease, different areas that we're starting to dip our toes in the water to see, can we use psychedelics for these populations? Can we help people with end of life existential distress? Can we help people with chronic illnesses?

So that's a really exciting area. And we're seeing more and more research too on the mechanisms of, how in the world do these drugs exert these long-lasting changes and benefits that people are reporting? So brain research, neuroimaging, animal research, cellular molecular research is elucidating the mechanisms of how these drugs work, which is, I think, really exciting.

And then the other stuff that I think is also really important and is a little bit outside of the medical arena is the idea that we can also use psychedelics in other areas. Not just for people with mental health conditions or with physical illnesses, but also with people who are healthy and who are wanting to have spiritual or different types of altered states that may be helpful for their development.

And so as Bob Jesse puts it, for the betterment of all people, using psychedelics for people who are healthy in ways that have nothing to do with illness. But are really about promoting health, wellbeing, and even creativity.

And this was something I was just talking about a little while ago with a reporter from Scientific American. But this idea is not a new one, which is that in the 1960s, they were studying psychedelics as agents to enhance creative problem solving. And lots of people like Steve Jobs, Kary Mullis, and others, who have talked positively about the impact of psychedelic experiences on their own innovative ways of thinking, and the products that then led to down the line for them.

And so it's, I think, really exciting to think about using psychedelics outside of the medical model. But for people who are wanting to connect more with their spirituality or people who are wanting to change the way that they're thinking, or view themselves, or different problems that they're working on from a different perspective, which could potentially then lead to some new ways of approaching some of the big problems that we're facing now. Whether we're talking about climate change, ecological crises, etc., there's a lot of problems that need to be solved. So anything that we can use as a tool to help us solve those more quickly or more efficiently, I think is welcome.

Sara Wilson:  Yeah, thank you. Well, thank you so much for joining us today. This was such a cool discussion. And I really think that every human being, no matter your discipline, can learn something incredibly valuable from your practice. I think that this has major promising implications not only for personal well-being, but as you were speaking about, societal harmony, and how we treat each other, and our environment more broadly. So thank you for having this conversation with me.

Albert Garcia-Romeu:  My pleasure. Thanks for having me on.

Sara Wilson:  Of course.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Social Psychologist Sharon Goto on the Mental Health of Asian Americans

An Interview with Social Psychologist Sharon Goto

Sharon Goto, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychological Science and Asian American Studies at Pomona College. She specializes in Asian American psychology, cross-cultural psychology and issues of intergroup relations.

Kaylin Ong:  Thank you today for joining us for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview series. I'm Kaylin Ong, an undergraduate student at Pomona College, and a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We are a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders.

I'd like to welcome with us Dr. Sharon Goto, Professor of Psychological Science and Asian-American Studies at Pomona College. Dr. Goto has a PhD in social psychology with minors in industrial and organizational psychology and quantitative psychology, and has also published several papers within the field of Asian American and cross-cultural psychology.

So before we get started, can you please let us know a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in studying Asian-American psychology?

Sharon Goto:  Thanks, Kaylin. So happy to be here. I’ve taught at Pomona College in Asian American psychology and Asian American studies and psychological science department for over 25 years. Currently, I am chairing the Department of Asian American Studies, and I have been teaching a class called Asian American Psychology. That is one of my favorite classes to teach along with some other classes. It's been really fun to see how the field has changed across the years. I also do research and my research is generally trying to understand how bicultural individuals navigate different cultural worlds, different racial worlds, and trying to understand the psychological processes related to that. And in addition to that, I guess, let's see, my pronouns are she/her, and I have a lovely family, my husband and two daughters who are currently home right now back from college and my two adorable stray cats. So happy to be here.

Kaylin Ong:  Yeah, thank you so much. So your research explores the prominent role that culture plays in self-construal. Can you explain what this means and talk about some ways you studied this in the lab setting?

Sharon Goto:  Yeah, so self-construal is a way that people kind of define or think about themselves. So it's a series of different theories about that and there's been a lot of empirical work on it. And it's slightly different from the way that Freud, for example, would learn about them, the self and just sort of through introspective techniques, it's more empirically driven. So there are some theories that talk about the difference between the ought self, the ideal self, the actual self. There are some distinctions between the public self, the private self. What I'm really interested in is the differences in the distinction between the interdependent self and the independent self. In some ways that I studied or has been studied and I study as well is we look at, for example, just simple self-report, for example.

So, you could ask a person to measure the level of interdependent self-construal. How important is it to include other people when you're trying to make a decision for independent self-construal? It's really important for me to make decisions on my own, agree, disagree, how much agree to that. So that would be different ways to tap those using self-report measures.

And the reason why it's such a big deal to look at interdependent independent self-construal when you're looking at cross-cultural research is because it actually predicts a lot of variance in behavior and attitude. So it really turns out to be super important when you're looking internationally, globally as well as within a particular culture. And there are also more experimental ways to understand self-construal, like using electrophysiological measures and trying to understand the way the brain is processing information differently based on their cultural orientation of interdependent versus independent self-construal. So it's not alone. There are many people who have come before me. It's really, I think, a super interesting construct that has really stood the test of time.

Kaylin Ong:  Yeah, that sounds really interesting. I think cross-cultural psychology is such an interesting field and has so much depth. So yeah, thank you so much for sharing. So on that, cross-cultural research often uses the phrase collectivist versus individualist to talk about, for example, cultural differences. Can you explain what these two terms mean and also give some examples of how this might manifest itself in human behaviors and attitudes?

Sharon Goto:  Yeah, so if you're not familiar with the terms independent and independent self-construal, you might be familiar with the terms collectivism and individualism. So that's probably a more well known, maybe more interdisciplinary approach. It was probably one of the entrees into psychology about how culture was first studied. And it does look at the amount of importance the group carries over the individual. So collectivism is more cultural level and individualism is more cultural level or aggregates of people level constructs. So groups of people can be more collectivist in nature, more group oriented or more individualistic in nature or more self-oriented or individually driven. And it turns out some important things are, for example, the way that rewards are distributed. It's very interesting. It varies very much by collectivists versus individual orientation, for example, in terms of how people think reward distribution is fair or not.

So, for example, collectivists might be very happy if rewards are distributed equally within your group. So, everyone gets $5 and that feels good. Versus individualists might tend to be more what's called equity based. So, they want to earn their money, so they're really okay if some people that do more work get $10 and other people that don't do the work get $0. So, it's a different way of distributing and a different way of really defining what is fair. And it's really interesting that the very notion of what is fair is actually culturally driven and understood by collectivism versus individualism, for example.

Kaylin Ong:  Thank you. I had a quick question. So collectivist versus individualist. I think a lot of the times I've associated, for example, collectivism with East Asian cultures or just eastern cultures in general, and then Western cultures are a little bit more individualist oriented. Would that be correct or accurate to say?

Sharon Goto:  Yeah, so there have been a lot of studies that have done, starting with Hofstede’s original studies, looking at the amount of collectivism versus the amount of individualism in different nations. And you're exactly right. So East Asian cultures tend to be more collectivists and less individualistic. And Western European, North American cultures tend to be more individualistic and actually more individualistic than basically the entire world. So very much outliers. And I do want to say that although it's important to understand the idea of individualism and collectivism at the aggregate level, there's analogous to interdependent and independent self-construal at the individual level. So collectivism tends to be comprised of people that have high interdependent self-construal individualism tends to be comprised of people that have high independent self-construal. But it's also really important that you have that distinction because just because you're in North America doesn't mean that you're necessarily individualistic. You could have very strong interdependent self-construal tendencies as well. Does that make sense? So it really allows for that's not just so essentialized that you really do have a broad representation.

Kaylin Ong: Oh, thanks for the clarification. Okay, next question. So, one of your most recent publications focuses on cultural priming effects on the N400. Can you explain for our listeners what the N400 is and why it's been an essential component of your research?

Sharon Goto:  Yeah, so the N400 is like a time locked event related potential. So basically what you do is you attach these fancy electrophysiological equipment to the scalp, which people have probably seen. And based on surface level activity, you have some insight in terms of the brain processing, the neural processing that's going on. So basically, what we do is show you stimuli and about 400 milliseconds afterwards, you are getting some gauge of semantic processing, which is the amount of sense making a person is doing.

So, for example, if I were to tell you ‘The boy gave his dog a bone.’ Okay, that makes good sense. Versus, ‘the boy gave his dog a bugle.’ That's a little bit more confusing, and there's probably a little bit more processing that's going on to make sense of that. So it turns out that the semantic processing of information can vary by culture, and it's a more dynamic way to understand cultural differences, particularly for example of bicultural people who might move in and out of different cultural frames. It's also very sensitive, and that's why we have tended to use it in our lab.

Kaylin Ong:  Right. That's very, very interesting. So in your lab, do you collaborate with the neuroscience department or neuroscience students, for example?

Sharon Goto:  Yes, absolutely. So our lab is called the Cultural Race and Brain Lab, and I'm one of the professors and also Professor Richard Lewis who has an appointment in neuroscience. And our students are a combination of people that are in Asian American studies and psychological science and in neuroscience, all interested in culture and the brain.

Kaylin Ong:  Oh, great, thank you. So, you've briefly studied the role of discrimination on the mental health of students of color, and as a professor with a background in organizational psychology, how do you see your findings as being relevant today?

Sharon Goto:  Yeah, that was an interesting sort of study that I had done with a student actually as a senior thesis at Pomona College. Pomona College students are amazing. So it's been known that discrimination is a stressor and it leads to negative mental health outcomes. And what we wanted to do is we wanted to look at the mechanism for that. So we were wondering if one of the mechanisms of being in a stressful organizational setting, so either educational or workplace setting, if that would lead to more psychological distress. And if the mechanism or the reason why that might be the case would be what's called depletion of self-control.

So, the idea is self-control. There is a limited amount of self-control we have. It takes energy to maintain our self psychologically and physiologically. And whenever there's a stressor, it kind of depletes it a little bit, and one of those stressors could be consistently being in a hostile environment or an environment where you have to be wary. And what we showed empirically is that, yes, for students of color being in a psychologically stressful environment, for example, a classroom setting in a predominantly White institution can lead to psychological distress. And the mechanism for that is depletion of self-control.

So, self-control is really interesting because you could also learn to build it up a muscle, you could exercise it, but at a particular time you're using a lot of energy, if that makes sense and that's why you have the depletion.

Kaylin Ong:  That makes a lot of sense.

Sharon Goto:  So yeah, I think that's particularly relevant now with the racial tensions and it's definitely whether you're in education in the classroom or in the workplace or whoever it might be, if you're in a setting where you're thinking about these issues, you're worried about issues related to discrimination, then it's probably taking a little bit of a mental toll and cumulatively it could have a negative effect on your psychological distress.

Kaylin Ong:  And the next question I think is a little bit related to that. So why is cultural diversity important in the workplace setting? And have you done any sort of research on this topic as well?

Sharon Goto:  Yeah, so that's one of the reasons that I really got into this area, just looking at the demographics, I understand that workforce diversity, just diversity in our society in general is only going to increase. And to pretend it's not is just probably not the most productive way to go. So, counter to what some of the recent Supreme Court decisions have been that have made decisions against the role of affirmative action, there's a really long-standing tradition of empirical tradition: understanding that diverse work groups do better in many ways. They come up with more creative solutions. If you have enough time to work together, people are very satisfied with their interaction within a diverse setting. There's really fantastic outcomes that come to play. So it's really, really super important.

And although I haven't done research looking at, for example, diversity and group performance for example, I do indirectly look at it because I'm looking at how bicultural individuals might interact or be in a workplace with culturally different or racially different others. And I'm trying to work from a model where it's not necessarily an assimilationist model. So, where you have to become completely like those people in the workplace that you're seeing, shed your language, shed your cultural values and shed your cultural behaviors. But rather what are ways that those cultural differences benefit the workplace and what are ways that being different from others can be enhancing and not self depleting? So that's what I do.

Kaylin Ong:  I think especially as a student, and obviously Pomona College is a very liberal institution and it's very, very diverse and I feel very grateful to be surrounded by just such a diverse crowd and so many diverse students of color. But yeah, I think just because of the affirmative action and just the recent events, I mean, I guess surrounding that and the dialogue, I feel like it's particularly relevant today for students.

Sharon Goto:  Yeah, it's really interesting. I mean, there really is a trickle-down effect in terms of the way people think about each other and what their goals are. And so I'm really hoping that this time is a time where people just really keep the conversations and communications going.

Kaylin Ong:  So it's clear that the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound impacts on mental health across the globe and research states that Asian Americans in particular have been affected by the pandemic more than other racial groups. And so I wanted to ask you, in what ways have they been affected more and how would you potentially explain this finding?

Sharon Goto:  Yeah, so I am a little bit less interested in the comparative experiences of the COVID pandemic across different groups, but I have seen a lot of research that was looking at the effects of the pandemic on Asian Americans in particular. And you really do see faring worse during and after the pandemic. So it's really due to health related stressors, economic related stressors, social stressors, like racial discrimination and the pandemic, that physiological, everything is a stressor that has affected, in particular, some people within the Asian American community more than others. So I think those are just things that need to be looked at more carefully.

Kaylin Ong:  I think the social determinants of health in particular are very, very interesting and sometimes they get overlooked. And so I also wanted to ask a follow-up question. Do you consider, for example, historical trauma at all and in your research, or I guess what is your take on that in implementing a broader scope of history and the historical traumas or generational traumas that Asian Americans have faced?

Sharon Goto:  Yeah, I think that's something that is really so important. It's actually one of the reasons why I got into this area in the first place. I was really taken by my Asian American psych class as an undergrad that Stanley Sue taught and really wondering within my own personal family, what would be the negative impacts of internment, which my parents had both faced in terms of long-term consequences.

I haven't looked at it directly as a research question, but some people have Donna Nagata and University of Michigan, and I think empirically you're seeing it more and more in research. I would love to adopt some frameworks and some theories about it. What's really interesting is we just finished a study looking at older adults and help seeking within the Asian American community. So it's a community based sample. We're wondering about how the COVID related incidents, both due to the virus and also due to increased racial discrimination and violence really has affected older adults, and in turn, whether or not and how they help seek or not.

What was really interesting is yes, so there was some reluctance, some stigma as you might imagine, but also people would come up to us after and they would say things like, "Our community," or, "I've been through so much before that this..." They wouldn't say is nothing, but, "I know I can make it through this." So it was really personal testimony and resiliency that I wish that... Maybe it will be our next study. I thought it was so very interesting. It wasn't outside the kind of questions we're asking, but you could really see it as the strength of the community.

Kaylin Ong:  No, I think that's a very, very interesting topic because I'm also Asian American and my grandparents, they lived through the Great Depression, they're very old now. But they were saying very similar things where it's like they've been through a lot and they're very, very resilient and it's just unlike anything our generation has experienced. And so that difference in generational knowledge and generational experience and also help seeking behavior and health seeking behavior is very, very interesting to me just because I feel like there is a fine line between older individuals who are reluctant to seek help even when they may need it. And so it's just that line between they're very resilient, but at the same time, I feel like more outreach maybe needs to be done, especially because the pandemic has affected older populations, especially my grandparents and my great aunts and uncles who are still around. So yeah, it's very personal, but very interesting.

Sharon Goto:  Yeah, yeah, very personal, very interesting and really super important. So there's more people that do this kind of work. We always need more people to do this kind of work.

Kaylin Ong:  Yeah, it's very, very interesting to me. So my next follow up question, it's pretty general. What can be done to potentially address the declining mental health of Asian Americans throughout the pandemic?

Sharon Goto:  I mean, think it's about making sure that people have the resources that they need. One thing that we did find is that the older Asian Americans were likely to seek help from friends and family, surprisingly equally likely from law enforcement, just in case there were race-based situations, but much less so statistically, significantly less so for mental health resources. So trying to get the mental health resource piece together, it's been long standing in the community based on stigmatization and access and that sort of thing, but particularly stronger now. And what's interesting in our data, it suggests that when people are thinking about seeking help, the collectivism piece comes back. So thinking about how I am seeking help now from friends and family will help share my experiences so they will know what happens.

So the old adults in my sample, they were really thinking about younger people too, setting a good example. They're wondering if other people are going to be available and willing to listen. They're wondering about whether the police are going to be available, if they ask, reach out. They're also asking questions about the social norm around help seeking. That was also really big. So really looking differently than other samples that are less probably interdependent self-construal would probably look at our sample, which you would guess was very normatively driven, very collectively driven. So I think what can be done would be to do things like attack the problem of stigmatization, show role models of people who have sought help from mental health and have done better.

I remember in graduate school, for me, mental health help seeking was not something, not a tradition in my family that we really talked about. I remember there was a graduate student that was a little bit older than me that I really looked up to, was profoundly smart, had their act together so much, and then she would talk about how she would see her therapist, and I thought, "Ah, maybe that's the ticket."

So role modeling, more communication, more availability, more help to access the resources if they want to seek mental health. That would be a big step: resources. That would be a big step I think of in terms of, right, you could do now, right?

Kaylin Ong:  Yeah, I think the Asian American community especially, there is a mental health stigma and asking for help and reaching out for help. It's definitely a barrier. And it comes from a lot of personal experience, and I'm sure you've had very similar experiences as well. And yeah, I think it's cool that it's this collective experience that we have and it's something that we can overcome together through collective help and just an increase in resources, like you said.

Sharon Goto:  Yeah, absolutely. You could probably link it to one of the, again, once again, that some of the collectivist values of not wanting to be a burden on other people. If you think about a really tight group, then you know, want to try to hold your own, other people don't have to worry about you. And so, it is a little bit driven by that.

Kaylin Ong:  And then moving on to our next question. So before the pandemic, what were the biggest mental health challenges typically faced by Asian Americans?

Sharon Goto:  Before the pandemic, I think you would hear about differences or difficulties in acculturation or adjustment, immigration adjustment or acculturation adjustment, discrimination, racial discrimination, and also stereotyping. So having to live with one way or the other, the model minority stereotype is a big stressor on the community. So, I think those were things that would appear in the literature before the pandemic.

Kaylin Ong:  Yeah. Could you elaborate a little bit more on the model minority myth for listeners who haven't really heard of that term?

Sharon Goto: Yeah. So, the model minority myth stereotype is the idea that Asian Americans, and it  was originally with East Asian Americans, but also now extended to South Asian, Southeast Asian. It just is a really strong stereotype, very persistent. They are the model. They don't need anything. There's something about their culture that's special. They work hard, they don't complain. They do their work, they don't need any extra resources, they don't need any help. They figure it out themselves and they do a good job.

So on the surface, the model minority myth sounds really fantastic. "Oh, yes, I am a part of a model group." But there’s really a little bit more difficult of a read in it. So if you dig down a little bit deeper and you see when the stereotypes started to occur, I think it's not an accident. And many others think it's not an accident that it started to be more popular during the civil rights movement. So when other groups were really asking for more justice for them, so African Americans and Chicanx populations were really asking for more justice for their own situation, then, then popular media, politicians, et cetera, were saying things like, "Well, we don't need to change our structure. Our institutions look at the Asian Americans. They're doing really well." And that's really the beginning.

So, it really did then, and it does now, it really creates a wedge with using Asian Americans as a wedge group to divide people of color. Does that make sense? So, to deny that racism exists in our institutions.

Kaylin Ong:  Right. And I think that goes a little bit back to what we were talking about with affirmative action. I think there's a very interesting stratification between different minority groups now, especially Asian Americans sort of being grouped with White Americans as opposed to all other minority groups in higher education. And I think that has so many implications right now. And so it's interesting to see how things come back and things are very interconnected right now.

Sharon Goto:  Yeah, I think that's a really good point. So yeah, with affirmative action stuff now in educational settings, you have to, and it's really been a rough place for Asian Americans to continue to build their coalition among Asian Americans, because yeah, the umbrella of Asian Americans are very diverse, different ethnicities, different languages, different experiences within educational settings. And so I think particularly if you think about in workplace settings, extending that to workplace settings, and all of a sudden it's all gone in terms of the model minority and everybody and needs a little affirmative action. I know that I benefited very much from some mentorship that was based on race. Yeah.

Kaylin Ong:  Very interesting issues.

Sharon Goto:  Yes, yes.

Kaylin Ong:  All right, so just wrapping up, do you have any other advice or anything else you'd like to share with our listeners today?

Sharon Goto:  Well, Kaylin, I wanted to thank you for really doing your research, asking really super good questions and bringing this important topic out to people that might be listening or thinking about these issues or maybe wanting to know a little bit more, benefiting from a little bit more. So thank you for that. My message would be that our communities are really rich. There's a lot of strength in our communities and in our families. And so I think the best thing during hard times would be to really lean into the strengths.

So if you need help from people that have always been there for you, that would be the time also to ask for some assistance. And the flip side of the coin is if you're in a position where you're seeing someone else and they may not be asking you explicitly, but you think that maybe you could share some stuff, some time just listening, maybe some advice, some resources, or just really just being there for someone. I think that would be my best advice. Very simple, every day things, just the humanity that we have for each other, I think would be, and really relying on our cultural strengths, would be the best advice.

Kaylin Ong:  Yeah. Thank you so much. Yeah. And on that, thank you so much just for being willing to answer my questions and sharing your knowledge. And I think it's so important to be generous with our time and share stories and listen and whatnot. So yeah, thank you for joining me today, and I wish you the best in the future.

Sharon Goto:  And right back at you. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychologist Daniel Keating on Stress, Anxiety & Adolescent Mental Health

An Interview with Psychologist Daniel Keating

Daniel Keating, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology, Psychiatry, and Pediatrics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He specializes in adolescent development and adolescent psychology.

Mai Tran:  Awesome. Okay. Hi, everybody. Thank you for joining us today for another interview in our Seattle Psychiatrist Interview series. My name is Mai and I'm a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We are a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders. Today, I'd like to welcome Dr. Daniel Keating.

Dr. Daniel Keating is a professor of psychology, psychiatry, and pediatrics at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. And Dr. Keating is an expert in developmental psychology and he specifically focuses on the integration of knowledge on developmental processes, social factors, and population patterns in developmental health and how they affect individual and population health.

He's made significant contributions to research in the field and some recent academic articles that include "Cognition in adolescence and the transition to adulthood", "The Kids Are Not All Right: Adolescent Sadness, Hopelessness, and Suicidality are Skyrocketing. What to do?" And his book "Born Anxious: The Lifelong Impact of Early Life Adversity - and How to Break the Cycle."

All right. So before we get started today, can you please tell us a little bit about yourself and why you initially became interested in studying developmental psychology?

Daniel Keating:  Sure. So it's a long story, but I'll condense it. I did my graduate work, my PhD, at Johns Hopkins. And the work that I was doing at that time was really focused more on individual differences rather than developmental differences. But the focus was on early precocity, that is to say individuals who were advanced in during their early adolescence in terms of their math and scientific expertise and measured in a variety of ways. And so there was a developmental component to that obviously in terms of how people came to those things. There was also one of the giants in the field of developmental psychology was also was a professor at Hopkins when I was there, Mary Ainsworth, who is responsible for a lot of the work that's been done on attachment and the sequelae of attachment from early childhood. So I managed to come by some of that knowledge through her being on the faculty.

My first tenured position was at the Institute of Child Development at the University of Minnesota and increasingly began to focus on a variety of things having to do with how the differences develop as opposed to just that they exist and how we might deal with them.

And then I subsequently moved to the University of Toronto and was invited then somewhat out of the blue to take on the task of setting up one of their networks in a think tank called the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. And it was on human development and it went across the board from sort of molecular and single-cell neuroscience all the way through anthropology, sociology, and so forth.

And then that really sort of provoked my interest in how both, individually, how the things develop, but also in terms of the population impact of a variety of things, focusing as I think the evidence led us to look at what are the circumstances that lead some individuals to thrive and other individuals to struggle. What are the kinds of things that are going on? And, of course, in that context, early life adversity plays a major role. So that's the very thumbnail version.

Mai Tran:  Yeah. And I also recall reading some of that in your book "Born Anxious."

Daniel Keating:  Right.

Mai Tran:  And I'm really interested in one of the concepts that you kind of laid out in the book, social epigenetics, and the links to stress dysregulation. So can you explain what these are to our audience in layman terms?

Daniel Keating:  Sure. So let me break it apart a little bit. So epigenetics is a relatively new field of study, certainly as it bears on behavior. And basically, the idea there is that of course we all know that the DNA you get at the moment of conception is the DNA blueprint that you'll carry throughout your lifespan, that doesn't change. But what does change is when we take a closer look at how genes function, and among the things that how genes work, basically, is that they're, if you think of them as little manufacturing centers and they're producing certain things that they're designed to produce. All of them have a region, it's called a number of things, the promoter region or the regulatory region of the gene. And what that does is in a sense, whatever it is that that gene does, the promoter region tells us when to do it, how much to do it, when to turn off, when to turn on, et cetera.

That portion of the gene is malleable. It can be affected by a variety of different things. It can be changed by physical exposures like toxic exposures. One of the best documented is in terms of the impact of cigarette smoking makes a lot of epigenetic changes that are thought to play a significant role in the development of cancer, for example. But the breakthrough from our point of view is the other term, social. And basically what was emerging and discovered and since has exploded is in really around 1999, 2000, was that first with animal studies and later with human studies, it turns out that social experiences, especially stressful experiences also cause epigenetic changes.

And some of the most important of those, we don't know all of them for sure by now, but some of the most important of them, earliest documented and most frequently documented are changes to the stress regulation system, which is basically what causes our stress system to respond, how much does it respond, how long does it take to go back to baseline and so forth. And so obviously, I think we all know that a stress system is essential for survival. We need to have it, but when it gets overly engaged, often because of stress exposure either in infancy or even in the womb, that then can make an epigenetic change that can carry forward in terms of how that stress system works.

Mai Tran:  Right. That's really interesting. And I am sure that a lot of people would be curious to know as what specifically are some of the most common environmental factors that can cause changes to your epigenetics?

Daniel Keating:  Right. Well, as I say, the stress response and the stress influence on this is the one that's, at this point, the best understood, although it's still not by far completely understood. But basically what we're looking at there is exposure to stress in a variety of ways. And it depends, of course, on the age of the organism.

So in the womb it's relatively straightforward in the sense is that if for whatever reasons the mother to be is experiencing high levels of stress or adversity, all the way from worries about sort of getting the material necessities of life or shelter, food, that kind of thing, or more seriously if they're in an abusive relationship and have stress because of that. So kind of those as the extremes, those, if they are sufficient, or if the mother's response to them is sufficient, that it produces a level of cortisol, which is one of the main products in the stress response system, if that cortisol is at a sufficiently high level, it can break through the uterine barrier and enter into the womb. And if those circulating chemicals then include cortisol at a sufficiently high level, they can trigger the epigenetic changes in the fetus even before they're born. So that would be one pathway that happens.

After being born, the first year to two are the most sensitive periods. And stress can come in a variety of ways. It's largely around the absence or a dysfunctional nurturing of the infants. So if they're not being taken care of, whether it's in terms of meeting physical needs or meeting comforting, nurturing needs like being held and that sort of thing, that then can elevate the stress level as well.

And then as individuals get older, those are the most sensitive periods, but it can happen later as well. But basically what that does is set up the stress response system, that high stress during those critical periods, sets up a system whereby the organism learns, in a sense, biologically, that it's probably a not very safe world out there. It's a dangerous world out there. And so if you're going to survive in a dangerous world, what you want to do is to have a stress response system that's more like a hair trigger. Even things that most folks might see as neutral, they would regard as dangerous and do that and respond excessively. And then excessive cortisol has a lot of negative consequences behaviorally, health-wise, and so forth.

The other thing I just want to point out is that we often speak of it, and I try to avoid it, but it's not easy, is to think of this as a problem or a deficit or whatever. I think it's better to think of it as an adaptation to what the organism perceives as a dangerous environment. So if in fact you are in a highly dangerous environment, having that kind of quick trigger stress response and immediately engage in fight or flight is perhaps survival, helpful.

And it doesn't do a whole lot of good for your body, but it does in fact maybe keep you alive. So think of the predator in the bush or a tiger in the bush. If you're in an area that's relatively safe and all of a sudden it's invaded by new predators, organisms that respond quickly to that are more likely to survive than individuals who don't. And so we have to understand, although in our environment, that's typically not the kind of environment we're living in, but the system doesn't know that, and so it doesn't know where the stress is coming from. And so it's typically more problematic for individuals with that stress response dysregulation, even though it really is evolutionarily an adaptation to dangerous environments.

Mai Tran:  Right. Yes, that's really interesting to hear. And speaking of that kind of stress adaptation, how would you describe what it feels like to experience that kind of constantly elevated stress response or as you called it in the book, a stress response system that is constantly locked on?

Daniel Keating:  Right. So basically the experience of it is just an elevated version of what all of us experience at one time for another. So if we're all we're anxious about a big test coming up or we're fearful about something that's happened, we respond with... And one of the adaptive purposes of cortisol is to activate your system. So it's actually in many ways beneficial. It focuses attention, it increases heart rate, lung capacity and all those other sorts of things that make it possible to react and to do stuff. In a system that is more or less locked on, not totally locked on, but sort of on a continuum, it's certainly more so. You have that experience a lot all the time. And so you're kind of on edge, nervous, agitated, concerned about things that may not really exist as dangerous to you or as problems or challenges for you, but you perceive them to be so.

And so it's important to recognize that, of course, once you've activated that, and it can be an internal activation, it doesn't have to be an external threat. And that is a lot of the anxiety disorder, you're activating a system that's actually not in response to some challenge in the real world. So if you're doing that a lot, you're constantly kind of on edge or restless or concerned, and the body doesn't know whether that stress response has been triggered by an internal thought or an external threat. It activates and then it causes these changes. So essentially you're looking for a flight, fight, or you're looking to run away, even though nothing particularly problematic is actually out there in the external environment to provoke it.

Mai Tran:  Yeah. And I know that sometimes it can get pretty serious. So what do you think would be the short and long-term consequence of that?

Daniel Keating:  Well, they're very similar in some ways in the sense that they're across the board. So it can have behavioral consequences. So you are quick to anger, you go into reactive cycle more readily than other individuals, which then certainly doesn't endear oneself to people around you because they can't predict your behavior, what's going to set you off. So there's a behavioral consequence, which is then because of the accumulation of various kinds of things, can cascade into various kinds of psychopathology, externalizing being kind of the excessive fight response or internalizing being the excessive flight response going inside or at another level of freeze response where you just don't react at all to anything because it seems too dangerous. So there's all those behavioral consequences, there's mental health consequences. And I think what has now started to enter the common understanding is that it has massive health consequences.

So individuals, some of the earliest studies, this is prior to epigenetics, but some of the earliest studies showed that the sort of fetal environment is predictive of cardiovascular risk in your fifties and sixties. So it is a lifespan kind of thing. We now understand that most of that is occurring not only, but largely through the stress response system. So one of the superb scientists in this area, Bruce McEwen, who passed away relatively recently, is responsible for a lot of that work and showing why it is at a stress response system that is dysregulated, remembering it's adaptive in some sense, but this kind of dysregulation provokes this kind of sustained cortisol level. And his term for that was "allostatic load". You're carrying too much around all the time. And as it turns out, cortisol can be toxic to almost all organs of the body.

So essentially it can show up in health as cardiovascular problems, as a whole host of other kinds of metabolic problems, and so forth. The link to cancer is not that clear. There's probably a link, but it's not as clearly strong because a lot of those come from exposures to carcinogens in one version or another, physical exposures. But a lot of these things that we, sort of at a population level, of course, we wouldn't know these things if we didn't look at populations. For a given individual who shows up with a medical problem at some point in their life, what the decades long history that brought them there, we don't know all of that. But if we look at populations, it gives us an idea of what kind of consequence or sets of consequences it has.

Mai Tran:  Right. Yeah. And what do you think when the stress response becomes maladaptive to us, what do you think is a good way for us to receive help or help ourself in those situations?

Daniel Keating:  Right. Well, for that, I think the place that we would be looking is into the literature on resilience in one way or another. And so the literature on resilience has mushroomed in recent years in parallel with our better understanding of trauma and stress and so forth.

And again, this is far from settled issues, but I think that if we look at the big picture, one of the big, and probably the most well-documented way to redirect that maladaptive pathway is through social connections. That is through positive social connections. And so that can come in many, many different forms. So it can come in childhood by sort of having a responsive extended family network who can help to deal with issues that are not working well, parent, child. And so that's one example where it can happen. We have good evidence that particularly in late adolescence and early adulthood, close friendships, intimate friendships, romantic relationships can have a similar effect, if the romantic or friendship partner is supportive and has the capability to help one learn how better to regulate these sorts of things.

And there's very good evidence of this in many ways, what is come to be known as a Romanian orphanage study. Looked at infants who, for a variety of political and economic issues at that time, there were many, many orphans who were not being cared for. There was large numbers of them, a government policy of promoting birth but not supporting families. And basically those individuals, those infants were in situations where basically the most minimal things to keep them alive were done. So they were provided with physical nourishment, food, water, milk, that kind of thing, but not much else. They were pretty much left unsupported or non-nurtured.

What we know is that those individuals, certainly up to about age one, maybe a little after that, if they were adopted from those circumstances, and there are some, it's a very tragic story, but individuals who were adopted into highly nurturing families by around age six or five or seven, looked pretty much normal. They didn't seem to have that stress dysregulation going on, or at least it wasn't affecting their behavior in major ways.

After that time, they pretty much do have lifelong consequences. So there's something about it becoming biologically embedded during sensitive periods that make it difficult to deal with. But the way that it does, those circumstances where it does work almost always involves some level of a change in the social network of closer affiliations and so forth. And so I think that stands out as the most well-documented one. Certainly in terms of particularly in childhood, things like parent-child therapy can help, right? To establish if there's enough capability for change to change what is a dysfunctional relationship in a direction that is encouraging of relational health, for example, can have a similar kind of effect, but that's of course a person to person thing as well. It's just guided person to person kinds of interactions.

The other one that stands out, and it goes by so many names, it's hard to give a comprehensive one, but it has aspects of the mindfulness approach, aspects of acquiring a set of purposes and goals and values and wanting to do some particular kind of thing. Having a focus can also be helpful and restorative in terms of giving some shape and substance to what it is that one might want to do.

Mai Tran:  Right. Thank you. That was a very extensive answer. And now I'd like to move on to your recent Psychology Today article, which is really useful. It takes on the really crucial topic of dealing with adolescent sadness, hopelessness, and suicidality in a society that keeps on triggering these responses. You mentioned a misdirection to avoid is to ignore the existential stressors in favor of the seemingly more manageable phenomenon of screen time and social media when you were discussing the effects of issues like gun violence. So how do you think we can offer help as loved ones for adolescents and prevent this epidemic of adolescent sadness, hopelessness, suicidality as these situations keep on occurring and we don't really have control over it?

Daniel Keating:  Right. So I think one of the things is that I largely think the high focus on social media as the cause of all of these mental health problems in teens is misdirected. Which is not to say that it might not be harmful for some individuals, but careful studies with large samples followed longitudinally essentially say that if there is an effect at all of screen time and social media, it's really kind of small. It's not that big a deal for most individuals. If you break it down a little bit further, it does look as though individuals who may have preexisting difficulties or challenges may accentuate it. On the other hand, there are individuals for whom it is beneficial, who might have difficulty maintaining positive relationships, and social media may well be a boon to them. And of course, we saw examples of that every day during the pandemic where teen peers are just enormously important and salient. We can see it in the brains to teens.

If you say, "No, that's it. You can't have any connection," it is likely to be very dangerous. So individuals who were in social groups and maintained them through a variety of uses of social media was beneficial. So I think we have to weigh that. And it's probably just for the vast majority of kids in the middle, it doesn't matter one way or the other, right? Particularly so, or at least we don't have any evidence that it does. So there may be effects, but the effects are relatively small. My problem with that view that it's the source of so many of the problems is that it blinds us to the fact that the other problems are much more important. So I've started to call this a stress pandemic. And it's not just in the US, it's not just teens. It really is a kind of universal phenomenon. And it's hard to ignore the fact that that's because so many things are going wrong, taking the US as our prime example, right?

Concerns about climate change... Now that will probably affect youth more because they understand they're going to bear the brunt of it than the folks who are making decisions, who are the CEOs of oil and gas companies or whatever. So they're going to suffer. So they're aware of that. Growing up, figuring out how to avoid active shooters is bizarre, right? That's just an enormous stressor. It is a huge stressor. And you can go on and on with other kinds of things. And so what I think we need to think about are at two distinct levels of this. And one of which we should focus on and we focus on a lot, but we don't focus on the second one.

The first one, Desmond Tutu, or at least a quote attributed Desmond Tutu, is that in addition to trying to scoop folks out and help them who are coming down the river with all sorts of problems and try to support them, we need to go upstream and find out why it's happening. And so the downstream stuff, I think, is what we are attempting to do when we do sort of psychological interventions, when we try to create therapeutic circumstances for individuals to figure out how to do it, and more broadly, sort of communicating effective techniques for coping with stress.

And of course, we know that some individuals are resilient without intervention, they wind up doing fine. The problem with relying only on that is that then we can tend to blame the individuals who don't succeed, who have had long histories of problems and stressors, and most of them without some kind of major support will not succeed. And so we don't want to blame them for that. We created the burden. We don't want to blame them for carrying the burden and not being able to overcome it on their own. And I think the techniques there, a lot of them are out of the resilience literature that we just talked about, which can be therapeutically supported by intervention, clinical, if it's serious enough by prevention programs or just general education. So you can have universal programs, targeted programs, clinical intervention programs, all of which are helpful, but it's not helpful enough to save everybody or the vast majority of people.

And the more folks who are coming downstream, succumbing to the stress, the less effective we are in terms of how many people we can help. The upstream problems are what we tend to ignore. Why have we created a world in which the stress level is so high? And I think if we fail to attend to that, it's a problem. That, by the way, in terms of the resilience literature about the second issue around purpose and goals and so forth, I do think that for youth, for teens and young adults and so forth, I do think that a lot of them have figured out that focusing on trying to change the big picture is actually beneficial individually. They feel efficacious, they connect with other people with similar views and so forth. And we often talk about adolescent risk-taking, which is another area that I'm working on now as a negative thing. And we're concerned about it when it is a health risk like reckless driving or substance abuse and that kind of thing.

But there's this tendency to be exploratory, to try new things, to push ahead, this also has positive sides. And that's what I think we need to encourage. So coping with the stress that you can't avoid, yes, but also breaking out of yourself and figuring out how do you create networks and alliances to address the upstream problems is something that I think is also a very valuable. We don't have as much evidence of that as we might like to have, but I think the evidence is trending in that direction.

Mai Tran:  Yeah, I really appreciate your perspective on trying to address the issue at the roots instead of shifting blame on other miscellaneous issues that may or may not contribute to the problems.

Daniel Keating:  Right.

Let me just mention, I do think on the social media side, let me just be clear. I think we do need to change how we're approaching social media. It's a proprietary, obviously, setup, so we don't have, from outside, much influence on it. But to the extent that the algorithms aggravate problems, I think we should be addressing that. I think we just shouldn't be laying it all off on that and ignoring the other big existential problems out there.

Mai Tran:  Yeah, definitely. And I also know that you advocated in your article that psychologists should not, quote, unquote, "stay in their lane" by helping kids with the consequences and ignoring the roots of those existential stressors like you just mentioned. So how would you recommend for professionals in the field to take steps towards addressing the roots of these issues?

Daniel Keating:  So I think there are a couple of ways. One is, in the individual therapeutic relationship, I think creating the space rather than focusing down on what the sort of immediate stimulus was for the problem the individual's experiencing is creating enough space for kids to open up about what it is that's truly worrying them. And that is happening. There are some relatively new therapeutic interventions that focus on climate fears, for example, or other kinds of things. And I think we need to create a space for individuals to be able to do that. And so I think that being more broader in the therapeutic content that we would entertain, I think is potentially a very helpful kind of thing. I think the other thing about not staying in the lane is essentially to say, "Well, my goal," and I'm working very hard at it as a therapist, "is to get as many kids out of that downstream before they go over the falls as I can." And that occupies me. That's what I'm doing.

And I think in many ways, that's great, but I think to not recognize what might be going on upstream and how do we try to deal with that because we are encroaching on other disciplines, we're encroaching on sociology or politics or economics or whatever, we should not be intimidated by that. We are, or claim to be, the experts in behavior and things that cause problems for individuals in their life. Well, let's look at that, right? Let's not be put to the sidelines when the sociologists get ahold of it. And I have lots of very good sociologist colleagues and whatnot. So it's not a matter of individuals, it's a matter of who owns what part of the problem. And our Canadian Institute for Advanced Research was designed specifically to overcome that so that we would have force and interdisciplinary dialogue across these many different dimensions and bring all of that expertise to bear in an integrated fashion.

So I think it's basically, it has an impact on the therapeutic relationship, but it also says we shouldn't just stay in our silos that even if we're doing great work in what we're doing, I think being aware of the fact that the problem is bigger than that and trying to speak to it when we can in whatever way we are capable of or comfortable with, I think is, er, not comfortable with, we should be uncomfortable, but that we should embrace that discomfort and deal with those and try to deal with those kinds of issues.

Another is I don't think we're ever going to be addressing successfully the issue of how racism affects youth in this country without being discomforted, right? It's not just an easygoing, "Oh, okay. Everything's rosy now." No, it's not. We need to figure out what's the impact of the legacy and how do we deal with it? And all of those problems that we're talking about have long legacies. I think we need to understand why and try to figure out how to address those as well and in concert with others who do different perspectives on the problem.

Mai Tran:  Yeah, I definitely hope that we'll reach that point in the future soon. And you also just mentioned briefly that you've done research on adolescent risk-taking and risk-taking behaviors. And I also read in your recent review article, "Cognition in Adolescents and Transition into Adulthood", you also discussed the paradox of development versus the high mortality rates in adolescents. Can you explain why this may be the case and what efforts have been done to alleviate this problem?

Daniel Keating:  Sure. Well, there are a number of different angles, different angles to it. I think that one of the things that we need to understand is that when it comes to health risk behavior, the big reason we're interested in it, of course, is not just the scientific part of it, but it is in the impact on everyday lives. And so we know that the rate of morbidity, significant illness, injury, and mortality is way higher than it should be based on how physiologically sound that period of life is. So in many ways, it's a pinnacle of physiological health. So that population particularly, so let's say in the second decade of life, is one where individuals have managed to get through exposures to all sorts of childhood illnesses and exposures and whatnot and have arrived at adolescence.

And we also know that in a variety of ways, different things begin to accumulate. So by the third decade and fourth decade and beyond of life, those things start to manifest. So it should be the healthiest period of time, but we know that the levels of morbidity and mortality are much higher than, in a sense, should be just based on the physiological aspects of that age group. The reason for that is what we've come to call behavioral misadventure, in one way or the other, that individuals are engaging behaviors that have a high risk for mortality or morbidity, and that we need to think about how we might... We want to understand the basis of it more. And we want to figure out how that helps inform our approach to trying to mitigate this problem.

Now, we do have some very good examples. There are ways of modifying population behavior in this age group. One of the best documented is in terms of graduated driver licensing programs, where most states now have a period of time where you gradually get to the point of being able to operate a motor vehicle under any circumstances and includes things like not having unrelated gears in the car or minors in the car, maybe some restrictions on nighttime driving or highway driving or other kinds of things.

There's been very, very good essentially econometric studies of that showing that over the last several decades that the rate of mortality attributable to teen driving has dropped in the 40% to 50% range. So it's not impossible. We can do that. Similar things, not just specifically aimed at teens, but in the population or the society as a whole are issues around smoking essentially by changing the attitude about smoking, right?

Now, I know a lot of youth are into vaping and so forth, but certainly the smoking rate has gone down dramatically. So the point here is that we can identify, or at least in some areas, we have been successful in identifying ways to mitigate that risk for adolescents. The big areas that remain in terms really of morbidity rather than mortality are things like substance use that can turn into substance of abuse or substance use disorders of one kind or another.

The unprotected sexual activity is another one that's a significant contributor to morbidity to various sexually transmitted diseases and infections. And part of that is we seem to be going in the wrong direction, or at least in some places. So there are state by state changes or differences in how sex education is handled in schools. So if we just look at that, there have been studies where we've looked at many different influences in terms of sex education and so forth. And if you put it on a continuum from, "The only thing we're going to talk about is abstinence, that's it. Just don't do it and therefore it will reduce it." So if everyone followed that, yes, that would reduce it, but it's not realistic. That is not how the world works, how human bodies work. So there's that end. And then the other end is a very comprehensive sex education with lots of information and even with community support to get easy and non-embarrassing access to condoms and so forth and so on.

So if we look at the state differences and what's taught in schools, which is not a massive influence, but it's a significant influence, the rates are dramatically different in the sense that the abstinence-only sex education leads to higher levels of unwanted teen pregnancies, higher levels of sexually transmitted diseases and infections, and a whole host of the attendant problems that go along with that. So there's an example of one where we kind of know the evidence is real clear what we should be doing. There's then political and sort of, for some individuals, moral opposition to that. But we definitely know that we have a massively positive impact on that health risk if we just said, "Comprehensive education is what we're going to always do and community support for safe sex."

Mai Tran:  Yeah, I can recognize that that's definitely important, especially education-changing policies and community support. And so finally, would you like to share any additional messages or advice to our audience today?

Daniel Keating:  Well, I think we've covered a lot of the territory. I think I would sum up by saying I would encourage folks on either side of the therapeutic relationship become more aware that it's not just an issue in your mind. If you're having problems, it's not just a problem in your mind, that it is rooted also in the body. We use the term biological embeddings going back a few decades now. And it really does, it gets embedded in your body. And so you need to think about how at both ends of that relationship, to what extent are those contributing factors? How are they operating? And what kinds of things do you want to do? So for example, I think that a shift towards more trauma-informed practices, a shift towards focusing on the key role of relational health as an adjunct to a specific mental health kind of thing is where we need to be going.

I think that we need to have a broader view and a more interdisciplinary view that brings together the biological, the psychological, and the social. And those directions I think will necessarily point us toward looking at the bigger picture that we need to think about changing if we want to create a more less stress inducing world, less of a stress epidemic. And by we, I mean encouraging youth to become involved in that. They're already more involved in many ways than middle-aged and older adults. But I think that encouraging that youthful effort to change things, I think, is really important.

It can be overwhelming and so just ignoring it, in a sense, in some ways is coping, but it's not the best kind of coping, it's a kind of an avoidance coping. And that it also then can have a very positive impact on the individual's sense of efficacy and self and meaningfulness. And we are already seeing that. I think the, that generation, Gen-Z generation in particular is much more involved in these kinds of issues and thinking about these issues. And we need to find ways to support that. I think in many ways the answers will come from that generation if we can support it or at least get out of the way of the kinds of things they might want to be trying to accomplish.

Mai Tran:  Yeah, definitely. Thank you so much. That was really great advice. And if anything, I think we've managed to take away today that to be more aware of environmental risk factors, as you've mentioned extensively about that. So yeah, thank you so much. It was really lovely to finally meet you, and thank you for all the great nuggets of wisdom that you've offered us today. And I will definitely recommend everyone checking out Dr. Keating's research articles and his book "Born Anxious". And finally, thank you everyone for tuning in, and we'll see you all next time.

Daniel Keating:  Thank you.

Mai Tran:  Yeah, thank you.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Certified Mental Performance Coach Lauren Becker Rubin on the Mental Health of Athletes

An Interview with Certified Mental Performance Coach Lauren Becker Rubin

Lauren Becker Rubin is a Hall of Fame field hockey & lacrosse athlete at Brown University. She is an advisor to Haverford College’s varsity teams to ensure their mental health well-being as competitive athletes.

Jordan Denaver:  Thanks for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Jordan Denaver, research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialist. I'd like to welcome Lauren Becker Rubin. Ms. Becker Rubin is a certified mental performance coach who works closely with Haverford College's varsity teams. She also works with collegiate and high school teams as well as individual athletes. Before we get started, can you please tell me a little bit more about yourself, any sports that you may have played that made you interested in studying mental performance?

Lauren Becker Rubin:  Absolutely. Good morning and thanks so much for having me. I've been involved in the mental performance space for about 30 plus years, and I think why I'm so passionate about it and why I love it so much is because I was absolutely the athlete that needed it. I was a collegiate athlete at Brown University. I played field hockey and lacrosse. Honestly, if you look at my athletic resume on paper, you would say, "Wow, you had a lot of success, a lot of awards, a lot of accomplishments." But my day-to-day didn't feel that way. I was often frustrated. I had a very hard time dealing with pressure and stress. I didn't feel like I was consistent, I wasn't meeting the big moments and I think mostly I had a really terrible relationship with losing.

I know most athletes don't like to lose, but I really took it personally. I would lock myself in my room after a bad game for hours in the dark and it would take me days to get over things, and it was just a super unhealthy relationship with how much pressure I put on myself, how I never thought I was good enough or never played well enough and just was really unhealthy, so this was 30, 35 years ago when I was in college. One day our lacrosse coach took us to the counseling center and we met with a psychologist who was dabbling in sports psych, which is pretty rare for the 35 years ago - it wasn't as common. A light bulb went on for me and it flipped a switch. I was like, "Wow, this could really help me and it could make me feel a lot better." And it did help me a little bit.

As an athlete, I found it late. That was my junior year, but it really changed my life. I just really got involved in mental health around athletes and mental skills coaching, mental performance as it pertains to athletes in sports just became my life's work.

Jordan Denaver:  Nice. All right, so then into our first question. In your experience, what are the mental health challenges that athletes may face during their participation in sports?

Lauren Becker Rubin:  Great, so athletes face a lot of the same mental health challenges that everybody does. It just gets ramped up a little bit because we're performing. Athletes are on a public stage, so everything they're doing is out in the open and then there's the pressure of winning or losing or playing. The mental health issues are similar. Stress, anxiety, pressure, worry, a lot of fear - fear of losing, fear of winning, fear of embarrassment, fear of getting injured, fear of losing social status, fear of losing your position - so there's a lot of fear of worry, stress, anxiety about performing.

I would say embarrassment is a big one that affects mental health. There's also injury really plays into mental health issues, not playing, being left out, being isolated plays in. I'd say a big one that really affects mental health is loss of identity. If you get injured or maybe you're not playing or maybe you're not the star anymore, athletes identify as being athletes and for their whole lives that's their number one thing and then all of a sudden it's either over or it's taken away, so struggling with identity really affects what's my next identity? What else do I identify with? Affects mental health as well.

Jordan Denaver:  Definitely, I've experienced that too as an athlete. It's definitely tough.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  Yes. I think one of the hardest things for athletes, especially the higher you get at collegiate level, pro, Olympian is when you don't play, whether that's somebody else is playing in front of you or you're injured and it's taken away from you, it's very difficult to process those feelings and it definitely weighs on your mental and emotional wellbeing.

Jordan Denaver:  Speaking to that, what are some positive mental health benefits that athletes can experience?

Lauren Becker Rubin:  There are a lot of them, and one of the biggest is social connection. I remember reading maybe 10 or 15 years ago an article from the “Happiness Lab” at Harvard that said the number one indicator of wellbeing is social connection. Being part of a team, being with people really bumps up wellbeing and mental health. The other pieces of participating in and benefits of athletics is you're part of something bigger than yourself, you're finding meaning and purpose, you're all working towards a common goal, so there's some shared humanity in that. That shared humanity when you win feels good, but also shared humanity when you lose and you have other people to work through it, and those are all really good health benefits.

The other things that athletics has shown to do is build resilience. It shows us we can do hard things. It makes us more adaptable, and because you never know if you're going to win or lose, you have to start learning how to manage emotions around that, and that's very correlated to life. There's ups and downs, there's good things, there's bad things. You have to learn to be able to manage your emotions around that and athletics really helps you do that.

Jordan Denaver:  I think one of my favorite things about working with Haverford College on the lacrosse field is being a part of that team. I love the sport, but on the other hand I love being a part of the team and being with the girls.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  That makes a lot of sense. Connection, community is just so huge for wellbeing and mental health.

Jordan Denaver:  I think we touched on it a little bit, but then on the other hand, what are some potential negative mental health impacts that athletes may encounter?

Lauren Becker Rubin:  They're there for sure. Athletes tend to be very hard driving, type A, on a mission, goal oriented, so with that comes some issues around perfectionism and not feeling good enough, not meeting moments which could lead to some issues with low self-esteem. There is the managing the emotions around stress and pressure and anxiety of games. We did touch on a little bit sometimes when you're injured or maybe you're not playing, you could feel a little bit isolated. That I think some of the other negative things that happened with athletics is maybe some shame around not performing. Then one of the biggest things that could be negative is if it's a toxic culture or toxic coach or toxic teammates and you're in that environment all the time, that really could be negatively impacting your mental health.

Jordan Denaver:  Definitely. All right, so what do you think are the mental health differences in competing in sports on a competitive level versus recreationally?

Lauren Becker Rubin:  It's a great question, and I'm not an expert on recreational sports, but I have read a ton of research and there's a lot of literature out there that about just the benefits of exercise and movement. If you're doing something recreationally, whether it's walking or yoga or Zumba or playing tennis for fun or running a 5K just to collect the T-shirts and it's something that you're doing for fun, it increases mood, it builds the positive feel good hormones. Again, there's social connection in that, and there's a lot of benefits around fun, having fun and a lot of research these days on just doing play. We play as kids and that's one of the most enjoyable parts of the day, but then as we get older, we start losing that playfulness. Doing things recreationally is play, and play enhances a lot of wellbeing, and on a physical, emotional, mental level, we just feel better.

I do want to say there are a lot of health benefits for competitive sports too, and we touched on a little bit about meeting and purpose and being part of a community, but sometimes people throw around the term like pressure is a privilege, and what's behind that is if you're feeling pressure, it means what you're doing is important to you. If you're involved in something that's important to you, there's going to be some benefits there by seeing it through, so there are health benefits of that pressure and of that competition that add to the movement, the exercise, the fun, the social connection that you get recreationally. There are benefits for both, but I think recreational athletes are enhancing mood, they're connecting, they're feeling good, they're having fun, they're playing. There's a ton of benefits there as well.

Jordan Denaver:  Yeah, I agree. I think the pressure of the competitive play definitely works into some of the mental health effects for college athletes.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  And I feel we'll talk about it, but it's how you interpret pressure, which really correlates directly to your mental wellbeing and your mental health. If you feel pressure is something that helps you, helps you get ready, helps you get your body activated, helps you focus because this is something that's really important, then it's a positive benefit. If pressure really makes you shrink and it really makes you worry and it really raises your cortisol and all the not so good hormones, then it's a negative. A lot of it comes to how you interpret what's going on.

Jordan Denaver:  Then on that note, are there any unique challenges or stressors that elite athletes face in terms of their mental health?

Lauren Becker Rubin:  Here's really interesting and what I've found in my practice working with youth, high school, college, and even professional athletes, the challenges are similar. Even the youth athletes and working with the 12 year-olds right now, they feel frustration, they feel stressed, they feel pressure, they have anxiety over performance, they worry about things, so many of the challenges are the same. I think for elite athletes, what makes them unique, and this is college, pros, Olympic athletes, is that they need to be “all in”. They need to be solely focused and it's not a balanced life.

One of my favorite people in the mental performance space right now is David Goggins. And in his last book he called it “Savage Mode”. Elite athletes have to be in savage mode all the time, and that means you have to be selfish, you have to prioritize yourself, you have to prioritize your mission or your goal. I think sometimes that puts you at odds with people in your life. Relationships suffer. I think people judge you. I think it's a little bit isolating. People don't understand you, they want to bring you down.

So I think that is a real challenge for somebody who's trying to be elite, where they just have to be all in, solely focused, very selfish. I think the consequences of that is that people don't get them, and people want to judge you and they want to bring you down or tell you what you're doing is not balanced, but I think it's very hard to be balanced and be elite. I think when you're on that path to being elite, you have to have your blinders on and be all in to get what, to accomplish what you want to accomplish.

Jordan Denaver:  I think just to tie into the pressure, I think especially on an elite level, maybe higher up college like D1 or pros, the pressure of a fan base too really plays into the pressure that athletes feel.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  I think you're absolutely right. I think social media and fans and money and contracts. Imagine an Olympic sprinter who trains for four years and then has 10 seconds to do their craft. I just think that everything we talked about, pressure, stress, anxiety, worry, isolation, just really ramps up the higher you get.

Jordan Denaver:  That ties into our next question a bit. How do you think societal expectations, performance pressure, and competition affect an athlete's mental wellbeing?

Lauren Becker Rubin:  This is a great question because this is the work, and I'm going to give you a roundabout answer to that and not direct answer only because the answer to that is it depends, it depends on the work behind how you allow that to affect you. How it affects you depends on what your skill set is, what your tools are, what your strategies are, and then this is absolutely the mental skills work or the mental performance work or the sports psychology work. It's about having skills and tools and techniques and strategies to manage societal expectations, the performance pressure, the emotions, the competitions, because at the end of the day or the beginning of the day, all those things are always going to be there. The pressure, the emotions, the adversity, the challenges, the social media, the judgment, all of that is going to be there, but if you have skills and you work on the skills and you practice and you train that part of your life or the game, then you have some techniques and strategies to work through those.

One of the things I really like to say is mental toughness and mental performance, managing the mental part of sports is directly linked to mental wellbeing. The skills translate, the more you train and develop the skills that help you perform, the more skills tool strategy you have for mental wellbeing and mental health. The work is training it and the work is doing and the work is having it be part of your daily protocol, building a platform so that when societal expectations ramp up or when you're preparing, feeling performance pressure and it's always going to be there, the adversity, the challenges, the setbacks, it's always going to be there. You have skills to help you navigate it so that it directly correlates to how it's going to affect you. The more skills you have, the more you work on it, the more it becomes part of your daily protocol, the more you can catch it and work with it. Does that make sense to you?

Jordan Denaver:  Yeah, that definitely makes sense. I think especially as you gain more experience, you just know how to deal with the mental pressures of playing at elite levels and just the performance pressure in general and societal expectations.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  And I think the more you replenish yourself, you bolster yourself up with things like breath mechanics and mindset or visualization and imagery, focus, working on resiliency, working on your belief system or limiting beliefs. All of this skill, all of these skill sets becomes part of your toolkit, so then when you're feeling that performance pressure or you're not feeling your best physically, you don't go down a rabbit hole, you go back to... I know with the team sometimes we use physical things like pound your chest, get your energy up, or maybe some EFT to bring down your stress and your anxiety. There's lots of skills and tools that you know can just proactively set yourself up to be in a better place, show up as your best version of yourself, but be able to reset quickly. All of those things weigh into how does it affect you? It affects you different ways when you have skills to counter it or to proactively set yourself up to be in a better place even before that happens.

Jordan Denaver:  Our team does love the heart tap.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  Tap your chest or get big, expand yourself, take up space to feel power. There's just lots of anchors and tools that we can use to help ourselves navigate that, those pressures, because they're always going to be there. It doesn't go away. We just get better, more adaptable and more flexible with working with it and that directly ties into our wellbeing. That's the coolest part of the mental health and mental performances are tied together. We work on skills for helping us play better, but those same skills help us feel better, our overall mental health.

Jordan Denaver:  That's very true. All right, so what role does the team environment and social support play in promoting positive mental health among athletes?

Lauren Becker Rubin:  If the team culture is good, then we're talking about community. Again, connection, fun, shared experience, being in a group, striving for something bigger than ourselves. There's so many positive environmental and social support benefits of being part of a team. There's also teamwork and leadership opportunities, trust building, all these things are great for mental health. Then the vice versa is also true. If the culture's not good, if there are toxic teammates, then the environment weighs in a negative way, but being part of groups is really a great social support network if it's a positive culture. Do you feel that way on your team? On the field stuff helps off the field stuff. We're striving to win games and win championships, but then your group becomes your social support network off the field as well, I would imagine.

Jordan Denaver:  Exactly. My best friends are the girls on my team, and I think we work really hard on building up our team culture, so that takes a lot of time to build that team culture outside of sports and outside of practice and that's why doing a lot of team activities, just like getting to know one another and building that culture and that trust outside of the field, it helps so much. Then you'll see that trust and that support play out onto the field when we're playing games and during practice. I think that's so important.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  Yep. It's bidirectional. It really is on the field, off the field. I love that you used the word trust, because trust and confidence go together. In fact, I think the root of the word confidence is an inner or intense trust, so the culture builds trust, trust builds confidence. The more you trust each other, the more confident you are, the better you play. The more you love each other, the better you play. It is really bidirectional, so culture, environmental, social support really is very entwined.

Jordan Denaver:  I remember it was a semifinal game of this past year and our coach, Coach Zichelli, she said that you need to play for your teammates. I think that speaks a lot to what we're talking about. She's like, "Play for your teammates, play for your seniors who are leaving." So I think it's a lot for just playing for each other and in that way you tend to play well because you're playing for each other. You want to boost people up, you want to show off your teammates, and I think it just all ties together very well in the field.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  I love that concept. Playing for something bigger than yourself, playing for each other really helps us step up into the moment because we don't want to let people down, we care about them, we love and it really brings out the best in us, so I love that concept.

Jordan Denaver:  All right. Next, how do you think athletes can take care of their mental health while participating in sports?

Lauren Becker Rubin:  I think this is an important question and I'm glad that you're bringing it up to the forefront because it's not always upfront. Sometimes it's in the back in crisis, what do we do? So I feel like having it upfront, making athletes know that they have resources. I think how athletes can take care of themselves is to use their available resources, teammates, coaches, counseling centers, mental performance coach like myself, know that those resources are there and don't be afraid to use them and ask for help. Don't hide it. That's another way that you can take care of yourself. We need to change the stigma around mental health, that it's a weakness and by bringing it up, it's really a strength. That means you're working on something just like we would do a physical skill. In lacrosse, if your non-dominant hand isn't strong enough, you work on it. If your mental health, if you're struggling with mental health, you work on it, you don't hide it, you don't lock it away.

And I would say one of the biggest things, ways an athlete can take care of their mental health is to be proactive. Meaning make this part of your daily protocol. Do things every day that build your foundation and get that foundation as big as possible. What I mean by that is sleep, nutrition, working on recovery, maybe meditation, watching funny movies, doing social things that are fun, having friends, going out in the sun or nature, getting a massage every now and then. Every day as an athlete you're doing a lot of things that are depleting yourself, physical exertion, mental exertion, stress, pressure around your sport. You have everything that's depleting you. Not to mention in a college setting all the academic pressure. You have to balance that out with things that replete you, replenish you, and you have to do that daily, know what those things are.

And if it becomes part of your daily protocol, then every day you're having mini wins, mini win, mini win, mini win, mini win. What that does, it adds up to big wins and it builds this great foundation of strength so that when you do have a setback or you might be feeling a little bit off or something really knocks you over the head that you weren't expecting, you're coming at it from a more replenished space. The biggest way I think to help with dealing with mental health is to build up wellbeing and make it part of your daily protocol so that when you do get whammied, you've got some resource already built in.

Jordan Denaver:  Yeah, I agree. I think having that framework is so important, so that you can fall back onto what you know and what skills you've built. Are there any strategies or interventions that coaches, trainers or sports organizations can implement to support the mental health of athletes?

Lauren Becker Rubin:  I think the biggest strategy is to normalize the conversation around mental health. Just normalize it. Just like we normalize that sports are hard and that it's going to take some effort and we're going to get knocked down and get back up. We normalize that life is hard. I think we have to normalize that there are mental health issues with athletes, and when we normalize it then we aren't afraid to talk about it. I also think that coaches and trainers can bring in resources, they can bring in a mental skills coach like myself. They can bring in counseling, they can bring in speakers, they can bring in resources like books or articles or webinars that normalize that, "Hey, this is mental health issues are part of life of being an athlete and things are going to come up and we can talk about it."

I think the other biggest strategy that coaches, trainers, or organizations can layer in is bringing fun to whatever they're doing. Just because you're training hard and you're trying to be the best version of yourself as an athlete, win games, win championships doesn't mean it can't be fun. I did read a research article about this. The best teams, the most accomplished teams over time combine two things and that is grit. Angela Duckworth from Penn has written a lot about hard work over time, perseverance over time, that's grit. You have to do the gritty work, you have to get in there and you have to do the hard stuff, but when you add it to fun, grit, and fun, that's when teams are most successful. That's when athletes are most successful, so I think in a proactive intervention besides the resources and besides normalizing, just make it fun. Make it fun, make it enjoyable, and that really helps support athletes' mental health.

Jordan Denaver:  We talked a lot on our team is bringing the fun back into the sport because I think when you're younger, that's everything that you have really is the fun and the love that you have of the sport you're playing, but as you enter the more competitive level like college, pros, you lose that fun and now you're suddenly just in this space where you're just working to win or you're working in this competitive, this nature and you lose the fun that you used to have as a child and the love that used to have for the sport sometimes. We focus a lot on trying to have fun and bringing back the love that we have for the sport because that's why we play it.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  I love that you're talking about it and that it's an emphasis, because I think it gets lost a lot in college sports where it becomes a job and you lose the fun. I think it really not only affects performance and success on the field, but it definitely affects mental health and wellbeing. I love the fact that you talk about it and that it's part of your culture.

Jordan Denaver:  All right. Next, are there any specific warning signs or indicators that athletes, coaches or peers should be aware of to identify mental health issues in athletes?

Lauren Becker Rubin:  This is a great question and it's a great thing to have some awareness around because sometimes there are no signs. Sometimes, especially for athletes, they want to suffer in silence and they're afraid of the stigma or the shame around mental health issues and the stigma or the idea that athletes have to be tough and strong and show no weakness. Sometimes there are no signs, and that's really tricky when some major mental health crisis happens, everyone says, "How come I didn't see it?" But a lot of times there aren't any signs.

Here are sometimes signs that come up that you could look for: different behavior. Is somebody who's normally social not going out and isolating themselves? Maybe somebody's drinking more or someone who used to drink is not drinking alcohol and drugs. A change in behavior, like someone who is normally loud and social, is being really quiet. Other signs might be someone skipping team functions, maybe sleeping a lot, or maybe you have a teammate that's going home every weekend, that could be a sign that something's going on. Then some of the more obvious signs is someone's just unhappy or they're appearing depressed or somebody is losing a lot of weight or gaining a lot of weight.

The signs are look for differences, somebody's acting, looking, behaving differently. It could be a sign that something is going on behind the scenes that they're not expressing outwardly, but they're trying to deal with inwardly. I would say another thing to look for is if you have a teammate, is it who's injured? I think being injured really plays into mental health and mental wellbeing for athletes because again, you're pulled out of what you identify with and what you love and it's very isolating. If you have a teammate that's injured, I would definitely check in with them and make sure they're okay and make sure they're still feeling included.

Jordan Denaver:  I can speak firsthand to that because I've been injured and I've spent time on the sidelines because of an injury, and watching your teammates play and on the field, it's really hard sometimes knowing that you can't be out there to help them or support them and that your role on the team has changed in a way, especially when the injuries are potentially season ending. It's very difficult.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  For sure. How did it affect your mental health and how did you work through some of those things?

Jordan Denaver:  It was hard. I was out for I think five, six months. I think I recognized that my role on the team was different, that I was on the sidelines and that I had to be more of a cheerleader and less of a contributor on the field, but then I think there was also a lot of hope that I will come back soon, which is also scary too, because coming back from an injury and you haven't played in six months, that's really tough too, but I think the team's very good about it. I think also making sure that you're not isolating yourself. Still maybe attending practices and just watching, still attending those games, still attending other team activities to keep yourself integrated even while injured is super important.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  Well, I want to applaud you. You used a lot of great skills and when you're in a difficult time, sometimes it's really hard to find the things that pull you out of it. One of the biggest pieces of working on mental skills, mental health, mental performance is not being stuck, not being either stuck in one place or spiraling backwards. Do we want to keep moving? And part of keeping moving is shifting out of it. I love that you said I needed to find a new role. If we can use our mindset, "Okay, I'm not on the field, but what role can I take? How else can I look at this where I can be the best teammate? Or maybe I could be a good scout or maybe I could watch film." So you're shifting your mindset to find a different role is a great skill.

And you also use the word hope. Having hope, having faith, believing in things that you don't necessarily have all the proof of yet keeps you moving forward and it keeps you on a path of, "Hey, this could work out, this could be good." So those are all great strategies to keep you from staying stuck where you were or spiraling backwards. Great job of keeping yourself working on... Using tools to get you moving in the right direction.

Jordan Denaver:  Thank you. Let's see what's next. What steps can be taken to reduce the stigma surrounding mental health in sports? I think we touched on this a little bit.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  Some of the things we mentioned about normalizing it and bringing resources I think helps reduce the stigma. I think on a broader level, I know that the NCAA is doing a lot of research and work and education on this topic where they are providing resources to colleges just to make them aware that this is an issue. In fact, I read one of the NCAA research studies they did where they found that for collegiate athletes, 24% of male athletes experienced some mental health issues and 36% of female athletes surveyed expressed mental health issues. I do know that also self-reporting is lower, so it's probably even a little higher than that.

I think education and providing resources by the NCAA would help on the collegiate level, but I really think what helps reduce the stigma is when people step up and talk about what's going on with them. Like Michael Phelps talking about anxiety and other pro athletes like Simone Biles in the Olympics, her anxiety got to her. Kevin Love in the NBA was talking about pressure and stress and some of his issues, and Naomi Osaka from the tennis world. When professional athletes step up and say, "I am working on this, I'm dealing with this. It's not preventing me necessarily from performing, I just have to manage it, influence it, control it, work on it, but it's part, it's there for me." I think it really helps normalize it and it just shows that everybody's human and it's okay not to be okay.

I want to take it into the weeds just a little bit further and say, I think the culture around this could start changing in youth sports. The message just tough it out, run through walls, get up, when someone might be having a mental health crisis is not the right message. We have to do hard things at athletes and we have to push ourselves, and getting out of our comfort zone is one of the most important things that we have to learn how to do, but I think if coaches have an awareness and players have an awareness that there could be something else going on, then there's more language around it, there's more education around it, there's more compassion around it, and it becomes more normalized as part of, this is part of sports, this is part of life, this is part of who we are and let's have some resources to work on it.

Jordan Denaver:  I agree. I think it does start younger because those messages start a little bit less, so when you're younger and they really build as you get older. I think too, having more public figures, spread awareness on it too helps people like college athletes, high school athletes recognize that they're not alone in their anxiety. That these people performing at super high levels also feel it too. I think that's really helpful. I think just spreading awareness of it will help reduce the stigma for sure.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  Right. I agree with you. Kristin Neff, who's a psychologist that specializes in self-compassion is out there with her method, which is breathing and mindfulness, but a piece of that is shared humanity. “Other people are going through this, I'm not alone.” I think as athletes, one of the most difficult things that we struggle with is being compassionate to ourselves because we're so used to being tough and strong and do hard things, but the research that doesn't support that is that when we're more compassionate to ourselves, when we don't play well, when we make a mistake, when we lose, when we're having a mental health crisis, the quicker we actually rebound and reset. That compassion piece is really important. I think the more we normalize it and the more education is out there and the more the culture changes around it, the more compassionate we are to ourselves, actually, the better we can cope with the setbacks and the struggles, because like I said, they're going to be there. That's part of life, that's part of sports. The more we normalize it and then the more we can manage it.

Jordan Denaver:  I agree. All right. Are there any notable research findings or studies that have explored the mental health impacts of participating in sports? I know you mentioned a couple.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  Yep. I mentioned the NCAA one. In fact, I went to that lecture and heard the psychologist that works with the NCAA delivered just how prevalent their mental health issues are with collegiate athletes because of the pressure and there's money and scholarship and losing your college education tied into it, so that's really high. I did read a research article from the American College of Sports Medicine recently that said 35% of elite athletes struggle with mental health issues including eating disorders, burnout, depression, anxiety, social anxiety. At the elite level there is also a lot of mental health issues. There are pros too. I've read plenty of research on what participating in sports, the positive parts, it improves psychological well being, it can improve self-esteem, it can lower depression, anxiety and stress. I read articles where participating in athletics decreases suicidal behavior and substance abuse and reckless behavior, and that piece is maybe being accountable to teammates and to the team.

There's definitely a lot of research on increasing resilience, confidence, empowerment, empathy, just because you're going through shared things. A big thing about participating is increasing healthy habits. When you are active and you're participating in sports, it bubbles over into other parts of your life. You're eating better, you're not doing substance things that you just get on a path. There is a lot of research both ways and I think the research is still developing here, and also the research around how to deal with the pros and the cons is developing as well. It's a rapidly changing space around research and interventions, both positive and negative.

Jordan Denaver:  I think having you speak to our team, I think it's almost biweekly at this point, is so helpful. I know it helps the girls and me too so much, and I think that's a big thing too. Bringing in people to speak to the team and to speak to these issues that are a little bit more stigmatized helps normalize it, because it brings you into a space where you can talk about it, where you have resources to air mental health issues.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  I agree. I think the more you talk about it, the more resources, the more... What's really cool about this space and why I think I'm so passionate about it, as you can tell I love it, is it's ancient wisdom and modern science. The people I've been talking about, a lot of these things, the ancient stoics and Buddha and a lot for years, and now modern science is catching up and the research is backing. Breathing, compassion, visualization, self-talk. All of the tools that we're using are now research-backed, so the ancient wisdom is being supported by the modern science, and I love marrying the two. Giving a concept about manifestation, put it out there the way you want it to happen, and then having research back it up. It's a lot of fun to have the two worlds combined together.

Jordan Denaver:  Actually I've used a lot of the breathing techniques just completely outside of sports. Just any anxiety or stress I'm feeling like, "Okay, I'm going to do a box breath right now." And it's so helpful. It really is.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  I love hearing that. Obviously I want you to be the best lacrosse player that you can be and be the best version of yourself as an athlete, but I really want you to be the best version of yourself as a human being. That's why mental performance and mental health directly intersect. What's so amazing about what I do and why I'm so in love with the mental performance world is because these skills translate to life. The fact that you're using it for anxiety off the field or stress or pressure or in relationships is just really satisfying. What I hope I'm doing is creating opportunities for the athletes and the teams that I work with to reach their full potential, to be their best versions of themselves on the field and off the field.

Jordan Denaver:  And as you said before, a lot of the negative mental health issues that athletes face or a lot of just normal issues that non-athletes face and it just ties more into playing sports. Those are still stressors that people feel outside and breathing techniques and even the heart tap, that helps a lot. It's completely outside of lacrosse and sports.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  Yes, for sure.

Jordan Denaver:  All right, then I think it's our last question. Do you have any final words of advice or anything else you'd like to share with our listeners today?

Lauren Becker Rubin:  The biggest piece of advice, and ironically when I'm first working with an individual athlete or a team, I often lead with this because I feel it's so important. The advice is that mental toughness, mental strength, mental mastery, mental health is not about making it all go away. It's not about making the stress, the anxiety, the pressure, the challenges, depression, fear, worry. It's not about making it go away. It's really about hanging in there long enough so that you can shift, that you can shift out of it, that you can create enough space and awareness that, "Hey, this is going on." And then start using your tools and your strategies.

If you can recognize that these things are normal, start with the premise that life is hard, sports is hard, these things are going to happen. Hang out in it long enough that you can start using your tools, your strategies, your techniques to shift out of it, to move a little bit to get on a different path. I think that's my biggest advice is hang in there long enough that you can shift. Part of that shift though is building the resources on your own with other people, using support so that you have tools and strategies to help you shift out of it, but just to summarize, the advice is don't think that it's good feel... Feelings and emotions are not good or bad, they're just information. Use all the information, hang out long enough, shift out of it. Use your tools, your resources so that you can keep moving down another path.

I think most of us want to close the gap to where we are now and where we want to be, and the work that around the skills, around mental performance, around mental health helps us keep moving towards where we want to be, but where we're now is part of it and it's normal and sometimes it's difficult. When we go in with that mindset, then we're more adaptable, we're more anti-fragile, more flexible, and having that mindset that, "Hey, we could get knocked down, but we're going to get back up. We're going to learn, we're going to grow." Like a growth mindset that we talk about a lot with the team. It keeps us moving, so my advice is build up your resources, have tools, have strategies, know that it's going to be hard, that there's going to be setbacks. Hang out long enough that you can shift out of it and just try to keep moving.

And then my last piece of advice is don't suffer in silence. Get help, reach out, use your support, use your networks. Don't think you have to do it alone. My last piece of advice, sorry, I'll wrap it up, but growth happens when we get outside of our comfort zone and that's called adaptability. Sometimes people call it anti-fragility, but when we stress ourselves, we grow, but our body and our mind, our emotions, our thoughts, all of that stuff, we don't like to be outside of our comfort zone. When we get out of our comfort zone, what happens is we adapt and that adaption keeps us on the path of wellbeing and positive mental health. Getting stretched and getting out of our comfort zone, getting knocked back, initially it's not going to feel good, but with resources and with skills, we'll adapt to it and we'll grow. Adaption and growth is mental health and mental wellbeing, so stay in the fight long enough to grow and to adapt, and that's how we can build our mental health and our overall mental wellbeing.

Jordan Denaver:  I completely agree. I think that's some great advice. Thank you so much for doing this and for joining the Seattle Interview Series.

Lauren Becker Rubin:  You bet. Thanks for having me. It was a lot of fun.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychotherapist Jerome Veith on Existential Therapy

* Note: Video is unavailable for this interview.

An Interview with Psychotherapist Jerome Veith

Jerome Veith, Ph.D. is a Senior Adjunct Professor of Philosophy and Psychology at Seattle University. He specializes in the process and healing from traumatic experiences and helping those struggling with issues of purpose, meaning, and personal identity.

Jennifer Smith:  Thanks for joining us today for this installment of The Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series! I'm Jennifer Smith, Research Director at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We're a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders. I'd like to welcome with us today, psychotherapist Jerome Veith. In addition to his work as a therapist at our practice, Jerome also teaches at Seattle University. He designs interdisciplinary courses for students in Psychology, exploring the significance of trauma and what it means for us to process and heal from traumatic experiences. Jerome has also published numerous articles, a number of literary and philosophical translations, and a recent book focused on understanding our relationship to our past. Prior to his graduate studies in Psychology, Jerome earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy, making him an exceptionally good fit for clients struggling with issues of purpose, meaning, and personal identity.

To get started, can you tell us a little more about yourself?

Jerome Veith: I divide my work fairly evenly between teaching philosophy and psychology at Seattle University (where I’ve been working since 2012), and practicing therapy at Seattle Anxiety Specialists (where I’ve been since SAS’s inception in 2018). I really enjoy both of these lines of work - they complement each other superbly! Beyond work I read, cook, spend time with friends, listen to music, and occasionally try my hand at playing it. Since moving here over 20 years ago and falling in love with the Northwest, I’ve made a point to get to know the area more and more.

Jennifer Smith: What are your favorite parts of the Seattle area, or Washington as a whole?

Jerome Veith: In Seattle it depends on the weather, and if I’m wanting bustle or seclusion (or a mix of both). I gravitate toward places with character, atmosphere, trees, or a view: parks, pubs, lookouts, and bookstores. Further afield, the Peninsula exerts a particular pull on me (I look for the mountains every morning), and I try to make it to a little island in the San Juans at least once a year.

Jennifer Smith: What is it that got you interested in becoming a therapist?

Jerome Veith: A half-joking answer would be: drugs! Perhaps like many a teenager who dabbled in psychedelics, I fancied myself an oh-so-wise shaman-apprentice, ready to guide others through their ego-death. Luckily that hubris wore off fast. Psychedelics did spark an abiding interest in the depth and breadth of the mind, though, and that’s been a thread of my studies ever since.

A more serious response is that, while majoring in philosophy and psychology at Seattle University, I learned not only that entire therapeutic movements had been influenced by existentialism, phenomenology, and hermeneutics - which by then I considered my intellectual homes - but also that SU has a graduate program dedicated entirely to training those kinds of therapists. The folks in and around that program seemed to have a distinct way of listening to experience: a way of being inquisitive together, of allowing more to be questionable and meaningful than we commonly permit ourselves, and of noticing the interpretive moves we’re always making. That attitude (or mode, practice - whatever you wish to call it) resonated powerfully with me, and pointed toward my eventual therapeutic path. First, I went off to get a PhD in philosophy, though.

When that (seven-year!) process atrophied something in me and I desperately needed therapy myself, I experienced firsthand how illuminating and revitalizing it is to be heard in therapeutic relation. That’s when I knew this was work I wanted to do, and I enrolled in SU’s therapy program.

Jennifer Smith: You were born in the US but raised in Germany, and you lived there until you came to the US for undergrad. Your schooling before the US was entirely German, while your home life was American. Has this informed your thinking or your practice at all?

Jerome Veith: It has influenced so much! My upbringing shaped my identity profoundly - along with my eventual interest in identity itself, and certainly my way of holding identity in therapy.

Growing up in Germany at the end of the Cold War, adjacent to a US military supercomplex and near the French border, surrounded by facets of history both buried and bare, greatly shaped my attunement to all sorts of cultural edges. I became aware very early on how much is at stake in having and expressing an identity, yet for all sorts of reasons I couldn’t easily inhabit just one - but laying claim to many was also challenging. That suspension between cultures eventually became a quite generative space: one where identity is resonant but never fixed, and one that invites free exploration.

That isn’t to say that finding this space was easy or comfortable. It takes an ongoing effort to maintain. For this reason, I resonate in my work with folks who experience cultural othering or inhabit several cultural positions. They might struggle with all sorts of outsider-ness, as this can be a blessing and a curse. One sees differently from the margins, but this isn’t always a welcome or comfortable perspective. One might not be seen at all or as one intends. There is also an immense pain in exclusion that can open onto deep uncertainty about one’s permission to be, and about one’s and aspirations and possibilities of experiencing home, community, or belonging.

Jennifer Smith: What areas or disorders do you specialize in?

Jerome Veith: This is difficult to label on a diagnostic level, because the DSM’s taxonomy is so problematic and fails to capture so many of the nuances of human experience. I tend to be a good fit for clients whose anxiety, trauma, stuckness, or lostness resonates with questions of identity, self-worth, or wider meaning. Another way to put this is that I work with clients who struggle to integrate with some aspect of themselves, of the world, or even with the world as such.

Jennifer Smith: Can you talk a little about your treatment approach?

Jerome Veith: I mentioned before that I tend to work well with clients who experience deep questions underneath their presenting symptoms. However, it’s not always clear from the outset whether or how these questions are present. Discovering that, and allowing one’s questions to find articulation, is part of the work of therapy. Without talking through what’s happening, it might seem like one simply can’t manage the stresses of daily life; one might simply feel lost, stuck, or out of balance. Sometimes it only becomes clear belatedly that one needs new language or a different framing of the issue. Sometimes that reframing is the entire work of therapy; sometimes that’s just where the exciting work begins.

That said, much of my approach is a shared noticing of what’s going on - on affective, embodied, cognitive, and relational levels - both from within the client’s experience, but also from the stance of someone alongside that. Being accompanied in this noticing can be immensely helpful. It’s not that I necessarily have a better perspective, but I do sometimes have a different one; and often that’s sufficient space for new interpretation.

Jennifer Smith: As a professor of philosophy, do you find that being a therapist helps you in the classroom - and conversely, does being a professor help you in any way as a therapist?  

Jerome Veith: Yes and yes! I have a sense that years of university teaching - and doing so in a spontaneously responsive sort of way - prepared me both for the unpredictable conversations one has in therapy, and for the mode of listening that these require. Sitting with confusing texts and ideas, often for immense spans of time, turned out to be great preparation for the attentive mode in which I accompany my clients.

My therapy work has, in turn, deeply informed my teaching. In working through real and deep issues with people, I’ve come to recognize layers of human experience that are rarely captured in academic writing. I try to point my pedagogy toward these lived textures, either by way of more experiential media (film, literature, poetry, music) or by bringing in direct case material.

Jennifer Smith: Do you have any words of advice or anything else that you would like to share? 

Jerome Veith: Nothing has been more impactful for my sanity than receiving, internalizing, and continuing to give myself “permission” - whatever this might mean in a given context. For me, it’s often permission to pause, play, or ponder without needing an outcome. In a culture that seems to demand perfection from us at all turns, this can be a liberating practice.

* For those interested in working with Jerome, click on our appointment page to see his current availability.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychologist Ann Haynos on Eating Disorders

An Interview with Psychologist Ann Haynos

Ann Haynos, Ph.D. is a an assistant professor in clinical psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. Her research specializes in destructive excess goal pursuit and restrictive eating disorders.

Ananya Udyaver:  Hi! Thanks for joining us today for this installment of The Seattle Psychiatrist Interview series. I'm Ananya Udyaver, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. I'd like to welcome Dr. Ann Haynos, an assistant professor in clinical psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University. She's an expert on the field of neuroscience and clinical science with an interest on the phenomenon of excess goal pursuit that leads to destructive health outcomes. Her research is primarily focused on restricted eating disorders and how they can become consuming and life-threatening. She's written several articles on the topic, including “Beyond Description and Deficits: How Computational Psychiatry Can Enhance an Understanding of Decision Making in Anorexia Nervosa” and “Moving Towards Specificity: A Systematic Review of Cue Features Associated with Reward and Punishment in Anorexia Nervosa.”

So before we get started, can you please tell us a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in specifically studying restrictive eating disorders?

Ann Haynos:  Sure, absolutely. So just briefly about myself, I guess. So I am new faculty member here at VCU. I just started last August, and before that, was on faculty at the University of Minnesota for several years. And so a lot of the research I'll be talking about was actually performed in Minnesota. I had gone there as part of my training and stayed on with my lovely colleagues to go into a faculty position there. So more generally about my background, I've been working in the field of eating disorders for a long time, since I was, I suppose an undergrad.

And along the way, have also become interested in some sort of intersecting fields like those pertaining to emotion regulation, reward, neuroscience, and have taken so those bits of training and integrated it into the work I'm doing. So as you mentioned, I do a lot related to the clinical neuroscience of eating disorders, but I also have a treatment arm of the research I do. And the hope is that our lab integrates both. So as far as how I got interested, I think the thing that really drew me to the eating disorders field was some early experiences. I grew up in sort of the DC metro area and went to a small all female school there. And when I was there, my graduating class was something like a class of a hundred, and we had a disproportionate amount of people affected by eating disorders in my class. I would say... Maybe the average estimates of how many people are affected by anorexia nervosa or something like 1%. And I would say, just based on my knowledge, something like 10% of my graduating class probably met criteria for anorexia nervosa.

Ananya Udyaver:  Yeah. Wow. That's a lot...

Ann Haynos:  And some of these people, I was quite close to and could see really upfront the devastating effects of these illnesses and would often get disheartened about how people would think about eating disorders in the lay public as sort of a disorder that might be something about wanting to look a certain way. And I could just tell people, based on firsthand experience, that it was so much more devastating to the people and the families affected by it. And then also as part of that experience, I saw some of the people I knew who were struggling with eating disorders got treatment and got better and seemed to recover without as much effort. And then some people really struggled to find the treatment that worked for them and continued struggle with their eating disorder for many years. It just really struck me that we needed more options for people, especially those who don't respond to initial treatments. So that's sort of what sparked my initial interest.

Ananya Udyaver:  Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. Okay. Well, I read a little bit in your most recent article about excess goal pursuit and how that can affect psychiatric illnesses like anorexia nervosa. Can you please explain what this means and how it pertains to your study and understanding of anorexia nervosa?

Ann Haynos:  Yeah. So sort of the background on thinking about anorexia as a disorder of excess goal pursuit is... A lot of studies in psychiatry and in psychology tend to look at places where people with psychological disorders or mental health problems have deficits in some sort of ability, right? For instance, the assumption would be all of us should have self-control and people might have problems with self-control, and that could lead to different sorts of problematic behaviors, like say drug use or something like that. Or maybe everybody should have the ability to manage their emotions effectively and people with psychological problems might have problems with doing that.

And one of the things I started to find when I was doing research on folks with anorexia nervosa, and I'm sure this is true of other clinical populations too, this is the area I worked in the most, is that I would find certainly some areas where there were deficits or problems and certain abilities, but I also found places where I was seeing actually distinct strengths in abilities that we usually think of as good, like the ability to inhibit impulses and work towards long-term goals. Society usually thinks that's a good thing. And so I would see the strengths. And the problem is a lot of times, those strengths get missed because people are so busy looking for the weaknesses that might lead to mental health problems.

And one of the things that concerned me about this bias towards looking at these sort of deficits or relative weaknesses that might lead to mental health problems is that there is a possibility that certain things that we really encourage as a society, like self-control, like the ability to focus on a goal very narrowly and intently, if taken too far, could actually cause some problems. But we encourage those things as a society. And so one of the ways I've begun to conceptualize anorexia nervosa is this may be a disorder where people with this disorder are doing what society has told them to do. They are pursuing a goal. And specifically, they're pursuing what is often a socially sanctioned goal, which is weight loss. They just keep going and going past when most people would stop. But I think it can be very confusing if you're told, "This is the right thing to do and this is a thing that will be rewarded," and then at some point people say, "Oh, no, no, no, stop doing that thing." Right? And so that's how I started pursuing that area of research.

Ananya Udyaver:  Okay. Makes a lot of sense. And it's really interesting, the idea of goal pursuit and how you also have to consider patients' strengths and not just their weaknesses when you're looking at disorders like this. So when you talk about computational psychiatry in your research, what does that entail, and how does it relate to treating anorexia?

Ann Haynos:  Yeah, I'm smiling because it's such a complicated... It's an umbrella term, and it's very complicated. I think a lot of people who even work closely on areas related to computational psychiatry get a little confused about exactly what it means. So basically, the field of computational psychiatry developed mostly out of partnerships with neuroscience. So over time, mental health fields have been more and more drawing off of some of the tools and theories that neuroscientists have been using to look at things at a much more fine-grained level, like how brain circuits work. And one of the things that neuroscientists have learned is that there are different ways that our brain makes mental calculations to solve different problems. So you could have a problem in front of you, like there are different types of reward in front of me. Which should I pursue? And there are many different mental calculations that should go into how you make that choice.

So you could mentally calculate, what is the cost of pursuing option A over option B? You could calculate the relative reward of these different options. You can calculate, how much do I know about option A, option B? And all of us do this throughout the day in living our everyday lives. If you think about where you choose to get a sandwich for lunch or whatever, you're usually doing some sort of probably quick, but mental calculations, weighing out familiarity, effort to get someplace, how much things cost, et cetera. Now, the idea of computational psychiatry is that sometimes those mental calculations can be either over applied in certain situations, or applied insensitively, or otherwise just go awry, and that can lead to mental health problems. So again, taking the example of the mental calculations that go into getting your lunch sandwich, let's say you are always selecting the deli downstairs, except that costs a ton of money and you don't have a lot of money.

Well, suddenly that's a problematic way of making that mental decision because it's leading over time to bad outcomes. You just don't have enough money in the same ways we can make mental calculations that can over time lead to mental health problems. So some of the... One example from my work in anorexia is we're starting to see some evidence that people with anorexia nervosa make decisions... They form preferences very quickly and stick very rigidly to their preferences about things. So that can translate to, if you have decided that the thing you really care about pursuing is weight loss, maybe you may be quick to jump to that as a solution to certain problems, and it might be harder for you to stop and say, "No, I need to do a different thing at this moment."

Ananya Udyaver:  That makes a lot of sense, and that was a really great analogy with the sandwich.

Ann Haynos:  Maybe it's just cause of lunchtime and I'm hungry.

Ananya Udyaver:  Yeah. Okay. So I guess you kind of answered this question in this sense of what is the difference between under responding and over responding and how an individual can recognize that type of response within themselves.

Ann Haynos:  And so when you refer to under responding and over responding, are you talking about to rewards?

Ananya Udyaver:  Yes, or to...

Ann Haynos:  Okay.

Ananya Udyaver:  Yeah.

Ann Haynos:  Yeah. Okay. So as far as rewards go, all of us want to seek out things that are going to be pleasant or enjoyable or give us some payoff in life, right? And there are some problems that can arise with mental health where people over respond to rewards, generally speaking. So let's say, for instance, this is something that could lead to impulsivity. If you were just saying like, "Ooh, food, ooh, drugs, ooh, sex," whatever, all the rewards, that's going to lead to not making sensitive decisions about also the cost of those behaviors.

On the other hand, you could have a problem related to overall under-responsivity. So that might look like what you might see, for instance, in people with depression, where nothing really interests me, nothing's that rewarding. Not just like, oh, I don't care about the food, sex and drugs, but I also don't care about talking on the phone with friends or watching a movie. And that would be a really clear example of overall under responding. Your brain is just not gravitating towards any rewards, which is problematic because you need your brain to want to do some things in order to function in the world.

The other thing we tend to see in eating disorders specifically, and I'll talk about anorexia nervosa here, is that some disorders are associated with over responsivity to some rewards and under responsivity to others. So one of the things we found in anorexia nervosa is that... And not just us, a lot of research. This is summarizing a lot of researchers findings, but people with anorexia nervosa tend to show a lot of under responsivity to rewards that the average person would find enjoyable, like winning money, seeing pleasant videos, or having social interactions, but tend to respond to rewards related to their eating disorder, so things like exercise cues or weight loss cues, or engaging in eating disorder behaviors. And that imbalance is also a problem. Because if you only have these sort of problematic weight loss things that make you feel good and nothing else really makes you feel that positively, then you're just going to keep going for the same rewards over time, even when they're problematic.

Ananya Udyaver:  Right. Yeah. That makes sense. Okay. My next question was actually about rewards and punishments, but I feel like that question was kind of answered by your last response. Yeah. So do you think it's important for individuals suffering from eating disorders to understand the psychiatric basis behind their thoughts and actions? And if so, why?

Ann Haynos:  I find a lot of folks with eating disorders are very interested in understanding sort of the neurobiology and some of the psychological and psychiatric mechanisms that underlie their disorder. At this point, I've run a lot of people with eating disorders through research studies, and they're often very eager research participants, because A, they know how much they've suffered from their disorder and they want to help other people. But B, I think a lot of times people are confused about what's driving their behaviors. They know they're really stuck in their eating disorder behaviors, and they know that they try really hard at times to get out of those behaviors, and it's very difficult. And so I found that by describing some of the neurobiology and other research that has helped to understand how eating disorders function, a lot of times, that can be helpful for people to just understand themselves, and also, I think hopefully can relieve a layer of self-criticism and self-blame.

Ananya Udyaver:  Right.

Ann Haynos:  This is another reason why I've gravitated in my work to towards looking at things that could be strengths that also could be problematic. I think that allows me to say to people I work clinically with, "Look, this set of skills that you're using is great, and if applied in to the right things and in a judicious way. I don't want to get rid of your hardworking nature, your willing to use control and effort. All of those things are not bad in themselves. We just got to attach them to good outcomes, and also make sure you balance it out with the ability to be flexible and give yourself a break sometimes." So I tend to, when I work clinically with people, try to bring in as much of the research as possible.

Ananya Udyaver:  Yeah, I think that's a really great way to motivate your patients to want to do better and get better. So that's really interesting. Okay. And then I read about in your research, the positive effect treatment and as a cognitive behavioral intervention. And I was wondering if you could please more explain this intervention.

Ann Haynos:  Yeah. Absolutely.

Ananya Udyaver:  Yeah.

Ann Haynos:  Oh, sorry. Sorry, I had a little bit of a delay talking over you.

Ananya Udyaver:  It's okay. Go ahead.

Ann Haynos:  Do you mind just saying the second part of your question again?

Ananya Udyaver:  Yeah. Just explaining the intervention and its potential benefits for patients.

Ann Haynos:  Wonderful. So positive affect treatment, I'm really excited to talk about this right now because we're sort of in this pivotal stage with this research that I'll talk more about. But positive affect treatment, which is abbreviated. We call it PAT, but the person who developed it calls it PAT often. But it was originally developed by Michelle Craske at UCLA. She developed it as a alternative treatment for depression and anxiety. And the idea that motivated her developing this treatment is a lot of treatment for people with depression and anxiety is focused on reducing negative emotions.

And we know those work, but we also know that in addition to having high negative emotions, people with anxiety and depression often have low positive emotions, and decreasing the negative emotions does not always lead to increasing the positive emotions. So a good example of this is antidepressant medications often help people feel less anxious, less depressed, but also often have the side effect of making people feel kind of numb, less interested in things around them. So that's an example of decreasing negative, but also just not helping positive emotion at all. So she had really good initial findings from delivering this treatment in depression and anxiety, basically finding that this treatment could reduce depression and anxiety symptoms, as well as suicidality. So we learned about it, and we're really interested in translating it to anorexia nervosa. This is me and my colleagues at University of Minnesota. Dr. Carol Peterson is the main person I've worked on this work with.

And what appealed to us is this treatment is really designed to target the neuroscience of reduced positive affect. So what goes on in the brain, and how can we correct that behaviorally for people who are just under responding to the rewards in their environment like we described before? So what we wanted to do is take everything that works so well for that set of problems, and then we added on some additional components of the treatment that target the over responsivity to weight loss rewards that we might see in anorexia. So the way we talk about this treatment is we tell clients our goal is to grow your life and shrink your eating disorder so that your life is so good that you don't need to rely on your eating disorder to do whatever it was doing for you in the past. So we just finished writing up our initial manuscript of our pilot study for this treatment. And the treatment involves some sort of cognitive behavioral interventions, as well as some mindfulness and self-compassion interventions, all targeting increasing positive emotions outside of the eating disorder.

Ananya Udyaver:  Right.

Ann Haynos:  And what we found is that this treatment was associated with people who went through the treatment, decreased their eating disorder symptoms and increased their body weight, which is what we want for people with anorexia nervosa. And also, unlike other treatments for eating disorders, we saw that anxiety and depression also really decreased...

Ananya Udyaver:  Wow.

Ann Haynos:  ... during this treatment. Yeah, which we were really excited about because a lot of times people will say, "My eating disorder is better, but I'm still miserable." Right? So we're about to publish... Well, we're about to submit that for publication. But the other really exciting thing is we're going to start a new study piloting this treatment for people stepping down from higher level of care after they've had an acute episode of care for anorexia nervosa in residential or partial hospitalization or intensive outpatient treatment. And we're going to be doing PAT and comparing it to more standard eating disorder treatments during that sort of pivotal step down period. And the treatment's virtual, so anybody across the country could participate in it. So if anybody's hearing this and this sounds like an interesting option for them or their clients, hopefully while this is up, we'll be running the study.

Ananya Udyaver:  Yeah, definitely a lot of people that are interested in getting help will be reading and watching these interviews, and this is a really great study that you're doing because I'm sure people will definitely want to join. And that was actually one of my questions, which was, do you have any potential treatment options or a study going on that could help people watching these interviews and seeking help? So that's a really great thing that you're doing.

Ann Haynos:  Absolutely. And I'll just put in one extra pitch, which is, one thing, you could do this treatment study while also doing other treatments. So it can be the only treatment people are doing, but it could not be as well. The other thing is it's completely free. And in fact, people get paid to participate in the research side of things. So this is a good option for folks who might not be able to financially access other eating disorder treatment during their step down period. So if anybody out there is listening and interested, please reach out to our group. We'd be happy to see if you'd be eligible. (email: haynosa@vcu.edu)

Ananya Udyaver:  Definitely. And we'll make sure to put all your information on the website so that they can contact you.

Ann Haynos:  Wonderful.

Ananya Udyaver:  And then just to wrap things up, since we are coming to the end of our interview, as a professor in the field of clinical psychology and a researcher, do you have any other advice or recommendations for our listeners who may be seeking treatment or suffering from a psychiatric illness?

Ann Haynos:  I think first, for anybody who's acutely struggling with an eating disorder or any other psychiatric illness, I guess I would say as a first thing, that I recognize how difficult that is, and it can feel at times near impossible to get the right type of treatment or the right type of resources to help alleviate your symptoms. So I guess the first thing is, I know it's hard. And I guess I also want to instill some hope. We do know that there are... Taking disorders as an example, even among people who have been struggling with their eating disorder for very many years, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that most people do recover, even if it takes a while to do so. I think we are trying to get better as a field about understanding how to help people with the right treatments at the right time. But I would just always say to keep that glimmer of hope.

I've worked with so many clients who, at the moment when I've been working with them, have been just severely struggling, very uncertain about the directions to go in, not certain if they can overcome their psychological problems, whether that be eating disorder, anxiety, depression. And then I'm lucky enough to have people keep in touch with me sometimes and tell me where they are several years later. And a lot of times, they've built these beautiful lives. I think the other thing I'd recommend is just, to the extent you can, do the research about what are the evidence-based treatments for you. There's a lot of non-evidence based treatments for eating disorders and other disorders out there. And I think a lot of people get stuck in a place of getting treatment that actually is not going to benefit them for too long. And so that would be the other piece of advice. And get a support system to the extent you can, because it's hard to go through dealing with mental illness on your own. And having more supports, even if that's just your therapist, anything can be really helpful.

Ananya Udyaver:  I think that's amazing advice and definitely very motivational to anyone who is seeking help.

Ann Haynos:  I hope so.

Ananya Udyaver:  Yeah, thank you so much for that. But anyway, thank you so much for your time and for your willingness to participate in our interview series. It's been a pleasure speaking with you, and we wish you the best on your future research and hope that you find more interesting things that can help people out there.

Ann Haynos:  Wonderful. Well, thank you so much for having me.

Ananya Udyaver:  Of course. Thank you.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychologist Travis Osborne on OCD & Hoarding

An Interview with Clinical Psychologist Travis Osborne

Travis Osborne, Ph.D. is the Clinical Director at the Evidence Based Treatment Centers of Seattle (EBTCS), as well as the Director of the Anxiety Center and Co-Director of Research and Outcomes Monitoring at EBTCS. Dr. Osborne specializes in the treatment of anxiety and related conditions, including OCD and hoarding disorder.

Tori Steffen:  Hi everybody. Thank you for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview series. I'm Tori Steffen, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We're a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders. I'd like to welcome with us today clinical psychologist, Travis Osborne. Dr. Osborne is the clinical director at the Evidence Based Treatment Centers of Seattle (EBTCS), as well as the director of the Anxiety Center and co-director of Research and Outcomes Monitoring at EBTCS. Dr. Osborne specializes in the treatment of anxiety and related conditions, including OCD and hoarding disorder. He has multiple appearances on the television show, Hoarding, Buried Alive on the Learning Channel TLC, and he is also a longtime consultant to the Seattle OCD and Hoarding Support Group and is a training institute faculty member of the International Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Foundation, IOCDF. So before we get started today, Dr. Osborne, could you let us know a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in studying various obsessive compulsive spectrum disorders, including OCD and hoarding?

Travis Osborne:  Yeah, well thanks for having me today. So as you mentioned, so I'm a clinical psychologist, so the biggest part of my job is actually working with clients who have anxiety and related conditions. And the center where I work, in addition to being an anxiety specialty center, is also known for being an OCD specialty center. So when I joined that, when I joined EBTCS about 16 years ago, I actually had never treated clients with OCD before. I had treated anxiety, but I hadn't treated OCD. And so pretty quickly had to learn the treatment for OCD and get up to speed.

So I actually attended a training with the IOCDF International OCD Foundation, which you mentioned a minute ago that does these really great three day intensive trainings to teach clinicians how to treat OCD from an evidence-based perspective. And they're really doing a lot of good work to try to train as many therapists as possible to treat OOC because there's a huge lack of specialists trained in that treatment. So pretty early in that work went through that training, really fell in love with both the treatment but also working with OCD in particular.

One of the great things about the treatment, which we might end up talking a bit about today, exposure and response prevention is that's incredibly effective. Research has actually founded it to be one of the most effective forms of psychotherapy across all disorders. So it works well, which is exciting. And OCD is a really complex disorder. The symptoms can be very difficult for people to manage and figure out how to overcome on their own. So it's super rewarding to be able to deliver a treatment, has a lot of science behind it, and actually see the vast majority of people that do it get better. So fell into that work and then it's become one of the bigger parts of the work that I do over time.

Tori Steffen:  Awesome. Yeah, that sounds like a very rewarding field.

Travis Osborne:  Yeah, for sure.

Tori Steffen:  And I'm sure it's nice to have more specialists for the OCD and hoarding, so that's awesome. Well, getting down to basics, could you explain for our listeners what OCD is?

Travis Osborne:  Absolutely. So OCD used to be classified as an anxiety disorder, so that's kind of how it was thought of in the field for decades. And then around 2013, a new version of the classification system for psychological disorders came out. It's called the DSM-5 for a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, version five came out. And in that version there was a major reorganization of several conditions and OCD and hoarding were a part of that major reorganization. And after a lot of research and work by the committees that put this together, there was a decision made to move OCD out of the anxiety disorders into its own new category called obsessive compulsive spectrum disorders. And as part of that decision, there was also a decision to make hoarding disorder formally its own disorder. So previously it had been considered a type of OCD, there was a lot of research suggesting that was not quite right, which we could talk about today.

And it also became its own disorder. So OCD kind of now anchors this whole new category that's been created. And so what OCD is, is a combination of intrusive thoughts and those can be words or images or kind of movies playing in one's mind that are very distressing, cause anxiety or related emotions. And then people do a whole range of rituals or compulsions, which are behaviors that are done repetitively over and over again in an attempt to bring down their anxiety and distress. And OCD can present in an infinite number of ways, but there are seven or eight kind of really common kind of subtypes, ways that it can show up, but really can be just about anything as long as you see this combination of these repetitive thoughts that are really bothersome and then these repetitive behaviors as an attempt to reduce that distress.

Tori Steffen:  Gotcha. Okay. That definitely breaks it down for us. And then hoarding disorders, since those are two separate things, could you explain for us that one a little bit?

Travis Osborne:  Yeah. So as I mentioned prior to 2013 hoarding had always been considered a subtype of OCD. So if you had hoarding behaviors, you came to a mental health professional, you would've gotten a diagnosis of OCD and they would've just said that the subtype that you had involved hoarding behaviors. Unfortunately, what we discovered is, I've mentioned a little while ago that the treatment for OCD works very well. It's an incredibly effective treatment. And so we had several decades of research showing that this treatment, ERP or exposure and response prevention works great for OCD when they started doing some more fine grain analysis of what happens when we looked at just the subgroup of people in those research trials that had hoarding symptoms, what they found is those folks were actually doing terribly. So the treatment was not working for them very well at all, but it was working for all these other OCD presentations.

So it kind of started giving us the hint that something is different about these symptoms and the way that we're treating it isn't working for these folks. So a fair amount of work in the '90s, early 2000s went into flushing out some more specific diagnostic criteria for a separate hoarding disorder diagnosis would look like. And then also developing a completely different treatment approach for the disorder given that ERP was not working very well. The other thing that was discovered is that if OCD, if hoarding was a subset of OCD, we should see really high rates of other OCD symptoms in people with hoarding if it really was a type of OCD. What they found is only about 18% I think it is, of people with hoarding actually meet criteria for other OCD behaviors.

So it's a pretty small group. So there was all this research that started coming out, but these are different things. So in 2013, hoarding disorder actually became its own standalone disorder. So that's not that long ago, it's less than 10 years ago. So if you think about that in the history of mental health field, that's a pretty new classification of disorder. Obviously the symptoms have been around forever. What that means though is that the treatment research and the research on hoarding is lagging decades behind disorders like OCD and depression and anxiety, things like that because it is a pretty new kind of standalone disorder. And so what the criteria for hoarding disorder look like is people basically holding onto or saving a large number of things regardless of their actual value, having considerable difficulty getting rid of things and often only get rid of things if sort of pressed by others.

So it could be other people living in the house or landlords or other outside entities that might be involved and a fair amount of distress when faced with actually having to get rid of things. And then what that leads to is a tremendous amount of clutter in people's homes and an inability to use their homes as they're designed. So perhaps the kitchen table is so cluttered you can't actually eat at it. Maybe your kitchen counters are so cluttered you can't use them to prepare food. Your bed might be so cluttered you can't sleep in it, so you really can't use your home as it's intended. And so when we look just at the symptoms, they're actually pretty different than what OCD looks like. OCD, we have these recurrent thoughts and then these recurrent behaviors that people are doing in response to those thoughts.

And although hoarding could be seen as a compulsive behavior, it's a much more varied and complicated picture. And then you also have all these physical belongings that make it very different too. So the good news is a new treatment has been developed, that treatment is showing good promise, certainly much better promise than what we were doing before. But it has also really helped us understand that these are two very separate disorders. People can have both, but the majority of people that have one don't have the other. It's a relatively small number of people that have both.

Tori Steffen:  That's pretty interesting. It sounds like there's a lot of differences in the way that they present themselves as far-

Travis Osborne:  For sure.

Tori Steffen:  ... as symptoms go. Are there any ways that OCD and hoarding disorder are connected?

Travis Osborne:  I think the shared connection, and I think this is reflected in this new category of DSM that I mentioned of obsessive compulsive spectrum disorders. So they're both sort of under that umbrella, which is a recognition that there are some shared components. I think the component that probably would be arguably the most shared is that the compulsion, if you will, in hoarding is saving things. So not getting rid of things. And then for some people excessively acquiring things. So not all people with hoarding acquire things at a really rapid rate or excessive rate, but some do. And I think that as described as a compulsive type behavior, you could argue sort of fits, but there's actually I think actually more differences than similarities, kind of reflecting the division of them. For example, in OCD, the emotion that tends to be most predominant when people have their obsessive thoughts or encounter triggers for their OCD is anxiety usually, or fear.

There are other emotions too, but that's the most prominent. And anxiety is not necessarily the most prominent emotion in hoarding, it could be loss, feelings of sadness and loss when you get rid of things or anger when people suggest that you do get rid of things or try to help you get rid of things or push you to get rid of things. And so there's just a lot more variability in the emotions that come up, what those emotions look like. Whereas in OCD we see a lot more kind of narrower range of it typically looks like fear and anxiety, some other emotions sometimes. So they're pretty different in terms of the emotions that pop up too.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. That definitely makes sense as far as how they can be differently understood. So I saw an article on the EBTCS site that noted most OCD symptoms can begin in childhood. Do signs and symptoms of OCD tend to defer among children and adults?

Travis Osborne:  That's a great question. So the vast majority of people with OCD do show symptoms in the childhood or teen years. It can come on in adulthood, but that's more rare. And when most adults look back, even if they didn't have kind of full-blown OCD, they can see the traces of those behaviors. What's interesting is the symptoms themselves look pretty similar in childhood and adulthood.

So the subtypes that I mentioned of OCD that are pretty common are kind of the same subtypes show up in kids as show up in adults and what the big broad categories of those look like is contamination concerns where people probably the rituals are engaging a lot of hand washing or showering or washing their clothes, cleaning that kind of stuff, doubting whether you've done something. So did I check the stove? Did I check the lights? Did I check the car? The fear being that something bad could happen if I didn't do those things. And then the checking behaviors that can go along with that.

Obsessive thoughts about harm are really common. It's one that's not talked about a lot, but they're very high number of percentage of people who have what we call harm obsessions, which could be worries that they're going to harm other people in some way or concerns that they're going to harm themselves. And then usually lots of avoidance of situations where that could be potentially possible. Another major subtype is sexual obsessions, people having unwanted sexual thoughts. And we see this in kids and teens just as much as we see them in adulthood as well. And then what we call just right obsessions, which are needing things to be a particular way. And that could be anything from needing things to be symmetrical or done a certain number of times or done a particular way or doing something until you get a feeling that it's right. And then you can see a lot of repeating of behaviors until you get it right, in some sense.

Probably forgetting one of the subtypes. But those are the main kind of subtypes. And then from there, OCD can really be about, oh, the other one is called scrupulosity. So this kind of either religious or morally themed obsessions about, "Have I done something wrong? Have I done something sinful?" And then lots of rituals usually that are related if it's religious like praying or confessing or things like that. If it's more moral, it could be asking reassurance about whether somebody else feels like maybe you did do something wrong or whether you did X or Y or trying to evaluate whether you have made some kind of mistake or transgression or things like that. And so what we see in kids is the same subtypes, but maybe the way they show up just isn't as developed as it might be in an adult brain. But the things that kids with OCD worry about essentially are the same things that adults with OCD worry about.

Tori Steffen:  That's very interesting. It sounds like anxiety and then fear are probably the main symptoms that show up for OCD. Are there any that we're missing from there?

Travis Osborne:  So sometimes people can have disgust and disgust can show up in different types of contamination. So people feel like if food is rotten or if they feel like it's spoiled. Or some people with contamination concerns won't handle raw meat or eggs because they worry about salmonella or they worry about other diseases. They can actually feel fear, but also just like, this is gross, this is just kind of a disgust response. So disgust can definitely come up. And then I think guilt and shame can come up a lot when people have harm and sexual obsessions, so worries that they're going to hurt people or behave sexually in a way that's inappropriate. People can feel a lot of shame and guilt about those thoughts as well. So fear is kind of the biggest one and then disgust and shame and guilt can sort of pop up too.

Tori Steffen:  Okay, great. What kind of treatment options are available for those with OCD and hoarding disorder or maybe just OCD and/or hoarding disorder?

Travis Osborne:  Yeah, yeah. So for OCD two, clear treatments, one would be medication. So medication has been very repeatedly proven to be helpful with OCD, particularly the SSRI medications, which are also used for things like depression and other kinds of anxiety. Those can be extremely helpful for folks. The caveat is oftentimes for people with OCD, the doses of those medications need to be higher than for depression or other types of anxiety. And not all medication providers have that training. And so don't always know to try higher doses if lower doses aren't working, the medication can be very effective. And then the therapy that's most effective, as I mentioned, is something called exposure and response prevention, ERP for short, that's a treatment that was developed in the '80s and has 30 plus years of data behind it. There's probably somewhere between 40 and 60 randomized control trials evaluating that treatment with kids, teens, adults, very robust database.

And what ERP involves is having people systematically approach the things that trigger their OCD, make them feel anxious, and then have them practice not doing their rituals, not avoiding in response to it. And doing those two things together kind of helps people learn new ways of facing their OCD symptoms and breaks the cycle of OCD that people get stuck in. It's hard to do because it involves facing your fears, but what I usually tell clients is that, "It's no harder than living with OCD because if you have OCD, you're also feeling fear all the time anyways. At least with treatment, if you're feeling fear, it's in the service of you getting better as opposed to your OCD you're feeling fearful all the time, but you're just stuck in this endless kind of loop."

So the treatment for hoarding so far, we do not have any medications that are a clear home run for hoarding symptoms that is unique in the psychiatry psychology world. We do have medications for most disorders and we don't have a clear medication for hoarding. So what we think about for medication with hoarding is treating other conditions that might go along with it. So if someone is hoarding and also has depression or has a problem with hoarding and also has anxiety or an attention deficit disorder, we think about using medications to treat those other conditions because sometimes they make it harder for the person to do all the work involved of going through all their belongings and getting rid of stuff. There's no medication yet specifically for hoarding.

Then the treatment, the therapy that's been found to be most helpful for hoarding is a type of cognitive behavior therapy or CBT that has been specifically developed for hoarding that teaches people strategies that address the three components of the problem, which would be acquiring if they're bringing things into the home, the saving, not getting rid of stuff, and then the clutter that develops in the home.

So there's different strategies to help people tackle each of those things. And it's a pretty hands-on treatment, like ideally it's actually done in people's homes. So therapists often go into people's homes, actually help them go through their belongings, learn how to make decisions about what to keep and what to get rid of, and then actually practice going through that process until it becomes less distressing and they get better, better and better at it. Can take a while as you can imagine if a home has a lot of things in it, that process can take a long time, but for now it's the only treatment that we have that has some research behind it.

Tori Steffen:  Well, it's good to hear that there is the research out there and techniques that can help people with both hoarding disorder and OCD. So thank you for explaining that. That was very educational. Well, a past interview of yours with NPR notes that one goal in treating OCD as you mentioned is to limit that amount of ritualizing. Can you explain for us how that's usually accomplished in the treatment process?

Travis Osborne:  Yeah. So that part of the treatment is the response prevention part. So the exposure is facing the thing that makes you anxious and the response prevention is the trying to not ritualize or avoid in response to that. So I think there's lots of ways. Some people we can get them on board with just stopping certain rituals and they're able to do that in response to very specific situations. They might not be able to stop the whole thing, but if we're working on something, they might just be able to say, "Okay, I will work on just not doing this ritual and I will ride out this wave of anxiety that I'm having." Not everyone can just do that.

So other ways that we help people is usually rituals are pretty repetitive. Someone's washing their hands, they might be washing their hands multiple times. Usually the rituals take up quite a bit of time. So if there's a way we could say, let's say somebody always washes their hands like five times, can we go from five to four? Can we go from four to three? Can we go from three and fade out the hand washing over time? That's one way we might do it. Or maybe they're just at the sink for 20 minutes and they're just washing the whole time. Can we go from 20 to 15 to 10 to 5 getting down to what would be a normal 10 20 second hand washing? Sometimes we have to shape things in the right direction, slowly cut things out.

For other people; let's say some people get really stuck when they're leaving the house. They have a whole sequence of things that they have to check before they leave to make sure everything is safe. So maybe they check the lights and the stove and the door locks and make sure they unplugged anything that was plugged in anywhere and they go through this whole sequence before they leave.

In that case, what we might do is eliminate one step at a time. So for this week, could we eliminate this particular thing and you're going to do the rest of it, and then next week could we add another thing? Could we slowly cut down that? And so we have eliminated all of those things, but what we're always looking for is how to create a pathway for people to get to where we want to go at a pace and a way that they feel is doable. So if someone can just say, "I could just stop doing that," then we'll do that. If they can't do that, then we'll start thinking, "How do we get you from where you are to where we want to get you and how do we slowly break that down into smaller and smaller steps?"

Tori Steffen:  Okay, yeah, that definitely makes sense how that could be helpful to phase people out if needed. So that's great. And one thing we also touched on earlier is the success rates for treating OCD. They're often much higher than other mental health problems. Do you have any ideas what might cause the differences between the success rates?

Travis Osborne:  Yeah, that's a good question. So anxiety disorders, broadly speaking, have pretty high success rates. So I think part of it is as a field we understand fear a lot better than we understand a lot of other disorders. And I think our science has helped us figure out what are the strategies that worked for fear. And what's interesting is intuitively we all know that to get over fear, you have to do it. So the way you get over fear is by doing it. So it's like you're afraid of swimming, what you need to do is get in a pool. If you're afraid of flying, what you need to do is fly more. We know that as humans, but it's so hard to do that a lot of people just end up avoiding and not actually doing it.

So I think because we have some pretty good basic science around fear, what's actually happening in the brain around fear, what happens when you don't avoid that has really led to the development of treatments like exposure therapy, which turned out to be really effective because they're really linked to the science of what happens with fear and treating fear. And I think with other disorders we're still trying to understand better what's happening in the brain? What's some of the basic science of what's happening, and then how do we link treatments to those things? And then some other areas I think we just don't have that quite figured out as well. So exposure turns out to be a really powerful intervention that works well, which I think is why we see such big effect sizes in the studies that show that it works.

Tori Steffen:  Gotcha. That's great that we have those scientific backed up techniques on how to treat that.

Travis Osborne:  Yeah, I mean one of the things that's incredible to me is prior to the 1980s, OCD was really considered a form of severe mental illness that was largely considered untreatable. We did not have treatments really that worked well for OCD and it was considered a chronic untreatable or not very successfully treated illness. Then the '80s we had these two breakthroughs, we had the breakthroughs of SSRI medications that started to be found to be really effective. And then we have the development of ERP exposure therapy in the early '80s as well. What's amazing to me is just in the span of 30 years, 20, 30 years, we went from OCD being essentially a untreatable severe mental illness to the disorder that has some of the highest success rates in the whole field, all driven by science, all driven by evidence based procedures, which I think also just underscores the need for science backed treatments like that basic science that helped us understand what's happening in the brain when fear is activated, what happens when we do exposure and stick with the fear, how that changes things.

All that sort of led to the development of a treatment that now is highly, highly effective, which is super cool and exciting. And how in that span of... well, some people's lifetimes, I've treated clients who were much older who when they were kids, teens, early adults, there was no treatment for their OCD then by the time they were older, there now was a treatment for their OCD and then they finally got the treatment that they needed and it worked really well for them, which is pretty life changing.

Tori Steffen:  Absolutely. Yeah, that's really good to hear that a lot of people have been helped by that. So hopefully those scientific findings can keep coming and helping us for other disorders as well. So in an article, you mentioned that hoarders can sometimes perceive themselves as collectors. Could you explain maybe the difference between a hoarder and a collector for the audience?

Travis Osborne:  For sure. Yeah. I think the term hoarding and hoarder are so negative and have so many negative connotations in our culture. That makes a lot of sense to me that if somebody is struggling with clutter, it's way more comfortable to see oneself as a collector than as having a problem with hoarding. So I think people will gravitate toward that term because it's just not a term that has a lot of negative sort of bias and kind of stigma attached to it. When we look though at what collecting looks like and what hoarding looks like, they're totally different things.

So most people who are collectors, it is true, they might have a lot of possessions and they might have categories of things that they collect a lot of whatever, whatever it is they collect, whether it's baseball cards or fashion or artwork or cars or whatever it is they collect, they probably have a lot of those things and they may have a hard time actually getting rid of things that they collect because they're pretty attached to their collections, they like their collections and they've spent a lot of money and time on their collections.

So parting with those things could be pretty hard. However, they don't tend to have any issues with acquiring other stuff. They don't tend to have any issues with getting rid of other stuff. And most people who collect are super proud of their collections and will go to great lengths to display them in their homes, keep them really organized and beautiful. They get a lot of joy from sharing their collections with other people, showing people their room that has baseball memorabilia in it or whatever it might be. It's something that they get pride from, share with others, and there's a lot of joy around that.

In hoarding what we see is the complete opposite. So there's rarely organization, there's a lot of clutter and difficulty to navigate or find things. And most people with hoarding do not want anyone coming into their home. So whereas a collector might love having somebody over and sharing their collection with somebody, somebody with hoarding typically does not want anyone seeing the state of their home that would cause severe shame, distress, they actively work to actually keep people out of their homes and keep people away from their homes.

And most people with hoarding, some people with hoarding do only hoard specific things, but a lot of people with hoarding the stuff is the collecting is or the acquiring, accumulating is pretty broad based. They have too much of all over the place, too much of everything and it's not usually as specific to something like a collection. And then of course they also have the broad base difficulty with parting with things. So I think what the home looks like is pretty different between collecting and hoarding and then the fact that people with collecting want to share it, want to show it off, get a lot of joy from that versus the sort of shame and keeping people out away I think are some pretty big differences.

The other thing is that for most collectors it's not getting in the way of their lives and hoarding really gets in the way of people's lives. They usually can't socialize in their homes. They often can't have family or friends over to their homes. They can't find things. Sometimes in more severe situations there's health hazards or for older adults like falling hazards and tripping hazards. It actually gets in the way of living makes life harder. Whereas collecting usually doesn't make life harder typically.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah, definitely some pretty big differences there between the two. So while treatment options are best and ideally done under the guidance of a licensed mental health professional, what are some things adults can do on their own to, or even children as well to potentially reduce or lessen any symptoms of OCD and hoarding disorder?

Travis Osborne:  Yeah, well for folks here in Seattle, and this is true in other major cities too, there actually is a free OCD and hoarding support group here in Seattle. That is an awesome resource, particularly for adults but also for family members and friends. So parents of kids or teens with OCD or hoarding behaviors, ocdseattle.org is the website for that. They have free meetings that are a huge source of support and help for folks. So looking for local support groups that are often easier to access sometimes than therapy, maybe less scary to access than therapy sometimes can be good. There's also great self-help books. That's so readily available online now, the internet has helped with that.

The IOCDF or international OCD foundation that I mentioned earlier has tons of not just resources, but they have an annual conference every year that's open not only to professionals but also people with OCD and hoarding disorder. They now actually have separate hoarding conference as well. Those are really helpful resources and they also run some other programs throughout the year that can be of help. And like I said, some great self-help books as well. I think all of those are kind of resources that can be useful to folks. I think the reality is most people with hoarding and OCD are going to need some form of professional help typically because it's just a very complicated problems to solve, but some people can often get a lot out of those other resources too.

Tori Steffen:  Okay, that's good to know. I'm glad to hear that there's those resources out there. So thank you for sharing that info. But yeah, like you mentioned, it's with the success rates, I'm sure it's most ideal to seek out professional help.

Travis Osborne:  Yeah, for sure.

Tori Steffen:  Well, Dr. Osborne, do you have any final words of advice or anything else that you'd like to share with our listeners today?

Travis Osborne:  I think just the key thing that like OCD has come so far in the past 30, 40 years. I mean, we really have great treatments if folks are willing to do them and just the awareness that folks should have that we are still figuring, hoarding out because it just became its own disorder just under 10 years ago, has really put the research behind. So we're moving in a good direction, but I suspect in another 10 or 15 years we're going to have even better treatments than we have today.

Tori Steffen:  Awesome. Yeah, I'm definitely hoping as well that the research continues for that. Well great. Well thank you so much Dr. Osborne. It's been really nice talking with you today and thank you for your contributing to our interview series.

Travis Osborne:  You're welcome. Thanks for having me.

Tori Steffen:  Absolutely. And thanks for everybody for tuning in and we'll see you later.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Professor Gabrielle Lindstrom on Maslow & Indigenous History

An Interview with Professor Gabrielle Lindstrom

Gabrielle Lindstorm, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in Indigenous Studies with Mount Royal University and an Educational Development Consultant (Indigenous Ways of Knowing) at the University of Calgary. Dr. Lindstrom is a member of the Kainaiwa Nation which is a part of the Blackfoot Confederacy.

Theresa Nair:  Thank you for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Theresa Nair, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We are a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders.

I'd like to welcome with us Indigenous researcher, Gabrielle Lindstrom, who is an Assistant Professor of Indigenous Studies at Mount Royal University. Dr. Lindstrom is a member of the Kainai Nation Blackfoot Confederacy. Her teaching background includes topics surrounding First Nation history and current issues, Indigenous studies, Indigenous cross-cultural approaches and Indigenous research methods and ethics. She recently co-authored the article, Reconsidering Maslow and the Hierarchy of Needs From a First Nation's Perspective.

Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Lindstrom.

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  Thank you, Theresa. [Dr. Lindstrom introduces herself in her traditional language]. Greetings, everyone. My name is Dr. Gabrielle Lindstrom, and I just introduced myself in my Blackfoot language. My Blackfoot name is Tsaapinaki and it translates to slanted-eye woman. I'm happy to be here.

Theresa Nair:  Thank you so much. Before we get started, could you tell us a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in studying the relationship between Abraham Maslow and the Blackfoot peoples of Southern Alberta?

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  Yeah, of course, Theresa. I was born and raised on the Kainai First Nation in what is now Southern Alberta in Canada, a province in Canada. I've been doing a lot of my research in community, and a lot of my research is concerned with knowledge and with reframing how mainstream society thinks about Indigenous people, as well as offering clarity around misunderstandings of who Indigenous people are.

I've done quite a bit of research with my colleague, Dr. Peter Choate, where we looked at traditional parenting practices from a Blackfoot perspective. We've done some research with Indigenous elders, Blackfoot elders, where they've given us ideas of what traditional parenting practices look like. That's some of my research on that end.

Dr. Choate approached me and said, "This is an idea that I have around looking at the work of Maslow. We hear these tensions." I've certainly heard it as well, how Maslow was in the Siksika Nation in the 1930s, I think it was 1938 to be exact, and he spent some time there. Out of his time there, he was supposedly influenced in shaping his hierarchy of needs. Of course, I've heard the hierarchy of needs, I've seen it in multiple disciplinary contexts, used in disciplinary contexts. The opportunity to do research with an elder is something that I'm always deeply honored to engage with. That's how I started this in this work with Dr. Choate and with elder, Roy Bear Chief. Really, it was certainly eye-opening and it was very interesting. I found it a very interesting process, for sure.

Theresa Nair:  That's great, thank you. I do strongly encourage anyone watching this to go and read the article that they wrote because it is quite a fascinating article. As you mentioned, we do know that Maslow visited the Siksika Nation in the summer of 1938. That was several years before he published his Theory of Human Motivation. Could you tell us what prompted the visit and what type of research he conducted once he arrived?

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  Sure, Theresa. Maslow was sent to the Siksika Nation at the direction of his mentor, who at the time was Ruth Benedict, an American anthropologist. He was there to do his social index testing, the social personality index testing. At the time, he thought she was really onto something with that. He went into the Siksika Nation, as I said, at the prompting of his mentor. At the time as well, she was challenging this idea that there had to be some kind of competition in Western society, this inherent competition. Benedict was challenging this idea that human beings had this inherent competition within them.

She asked him to go there, and she also wanted him to go because he had some good ideas and wanted him to explore them in that context, but his perspectives were quite narrow because he had never really been and had that cross-cultural experience. That was what prompted him to go. He was really looking at that social personality index, that's what he was really interested in expanding his ideas around, and thought that going into this very diverse cultural context he could make some generalizations that would be applicable across the human experience.

Theresa Nair:  Okay, thank you. When he arrived, how was his research perceived by members of the Siksika Nation? What do we know about his efforts to follow culturally appropriate guidelines or any customs while he was there?

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  His research, he wasn't received in a very good way because he was asking questions of the community members that were perceived as being disrespectful, that were perceived as being quite inappropriate. According to the Siksika elders, he came in with an existing agenda, which for the Siksika, this agenda was socially unacceptable to them. He ended up only observing behaviors and, of course, interpreting them from his Eurocentric filter, his Eurocentric frame of reference.

While he wanted to gain more, just get a better understanding of the human experience in the context of his social personality index test, he wasn't able to engage with Siksika members because, as I said, what he was asking, he was unaware of the protocols, the Nation protocols, in terms of what he could ask, what he couldn't ask, and so he was basically left to only observe rather than ask questions.

The Siksika elders, they said, "Okay, you're asking these very inappropriate questions really around sex and interpersonal relationships." We don't talk about things like that, we don't, it goes against our social norms as Blackfoot people. They said, "You could stay," they told Maslow, "You could stay, but you can't ask those kind of questions." They tolerated him, they tolerated his presence, and he was only left to observe. He couldn't ask those questions.

I don't know what kind of effort he made to follow culturally appropriate protocols or guidelines or customs while he was there, because as I said earlier, he didn't have any cross-cultural experiences with Indigenous people in the past, so this would've been entirely new for him. I don't know really how he was prepared, what kind of background research he'd done.

But what I find interesting is, from a Blackfoot perspective, you can't really be trained on how to act within another cultural context. Either you go in there with an open mind and an open heart of coming from a good place of respect and you build relationships and you experience those relationships in authentic ways. You can't be trained in how to be a relational human being. Either you are or you aren’t, and the only way you can learn is through experience. That's anyways what the research has shown, is that he had this agenda, he wasn't prepared, didn't know what the guidelines, the protocol. So, yeah.

Theresa Nair:  That's a good point, I think you made a lot of good points, and just the importance of being respectful. Thank you for sharing that. One of the biggest questions that come up when discussing this period of Maslow's research is how much influence this visit had over the hierarchy of needs that he later published and became quite famous for. In your research, did you find any evidence of traditional Blackfoot teachings in Maslow's theory?

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  See, the thing about it is, is there's such a disconnect in paradigms between the Western and the Blackfoot paradigm. It would've been very difficult for Maslow, coming from his Western paradigm, to authentically capture meaning from a Blackfoot perspective. It would've been very, very difficult. This notion of peak experiences that Maslow describes, that's come up in our research, but what he didn't get and what he didn't appreciate, or what he didn't understand, was the nature of relationships in Siksika culture. He didn't understand that, the connections to land, the connections to each other, the complex dimensions of spirituality. Relationships aren't about hierarchies. They're about interconnections. For Blackfoot, for Siksika, these relationships are holistic and our relationship to satisfaction, our relationship to the human experience, it doesn't exist along a hierarchy. It really is about these interconnections.

He didn't understand the traditional parenting styles of the Blackfoot and he didn't understand the notion of the child as already being self-actualized when they're born, the child as already being self-fulfilled when the child is born. When the Blackfoot child comes into the world, they already have a name, they know their place in society. They're essentially sung into their relationships that have already been established in utero.

It's very difficult to say what kind of influences, because there's such this diametric opposition, but in speaking with some of our interviewees in our research, we certainly were given some insights into how his ideas were changed. He went into Siksika really this hard science sort of guy, he was very much based in the scientific paradigm and he published around that. When he came out of that, his experiences in Siksika, he developed a more humanistic perspective, where he's looking at his observations, interpreting those observations around altruistic behaviors in the Siksika.

I think that really sort of ... Well, I should say I think, but that was what we found in the research, is that that did influence him to some degree, but we have to keep in mind that everything he observed, he was essentially integrating and filtering through his Eurocentric Western/American frame of reference. That's the thing, it's pretty difficult for me to say what kinds of ideas was he able to, how much of an influence. I think there was some influence there, but then we also have to see those cultural disconnects for what they are.

Theresa Nair:  Yes, it does sound like maybe it did influence his interest in more of a humanistic approach to things, at the very least.

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  Yeah, for sure. It definitely did. He found clues about the altruistic nature of human beings through his time in Siksika. Very much in our society, and I think at the time, and this is what one of our interviewees in our research had pointed out to us, is that Maslow was very individualistic. He came into his time at Siksika and he witnessed behaviors amongst the Siksika people, where people were just helping each other, just with no benefit to that individual who's helping the other individual, no benefit whatsoever. Maslow struggled with that, because when you enter into a relationship in our society in mainstream society, you enter into it because in some way or another you're going to benefit from it.

That was what Maslow was, I think, really struggling with, at least this is what our research found, struggling to figure out why are these Blackfoot people just helping each other out like this, why are they just doing this, what are they getting out of it? What are they getting, these kinds of experiences. Yeah, I think he was influenced, but the degree to which he could authentically and meaningfully and accurately interpret what he was observing was really lacking because of the cultural disconnect.

Theresa Nair:  Maybe part of it was him trying to understand that kind of selfless helping of other people in part of the process.

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  Yeah, absolutely.

Theresa Nair:  That leads us to our next question about when he presented his theory, do you think he was trying to incorporate what he learned and maybe just misunderstood it due to cultural differences, or does it seem from your research that he was trying to present a completely different theory that he just thought he came up with on his own?

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  This is also a difficult question for me to answer, but when we think about this in psychological terms, we can see that there's an attempt to bring a Western scientific lens to relationships, that's exactly what Maslow was trying to do. He was trying to bring this lens to relationships, but that's not what they embody in their relationships. The Siksika and other Blackfoot Nations were about interconnections, interconnections with the universe and we exist within this web of relationships.

This individualized perspective that Maslow brings to the hierarchy of needs is not the way in which Siksika exists and it's not the way that we think either. Bringing in that Western scientific analysis, that lens that very much shapes the hierarchy of needs as we know it today, it's misapplied in the context of Blackfoot peoples.

It's hard to know. I think he was influenced, and our research found that he couldn't have, because we've heard this before, is that Maslow got it wrong or something, that he tried to convey the knowledge, his observations and what he saw in Siksika and tried to translate that into his hierarchy of needs, but our research finds that it was not so, it couldn't have been so, because of these diametrically opposed paradigms. What Maslow was drawing on certainly was drawing on some of his experiences in Siksika, but ultimately I think he still had his own agenda.

Theresa Nair:  He may have gone in with that agenda and maybe even looking to justify it while he was there. Okay.

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  Yeah, he had his own agenda, exactly. Our research, and in our article, we definitely talk about that, we talk about that quite a bit. The purpose of this isn't to say that Maslow's research or that his hierarchy of needs is... We don't critique it, necessarily. It wasn't to discredit it or anything like that, but it was really about trying to deconstruct that notion that the hierarchy of needs is based in Blackfoot knowledge. That's what we were really interested in doing, because there's definitely those that say that, that have suggested that there is this link that Maslow was trying to portray Blackfoot knowledge but that he got it wrong.

We concur and we agree that our research found that he was certainly impacted by his time in Siksika, but I don't think there that he, or I should say our research, we find that it couldn't have been so.

Theresa Nair:  That's a good point, thank you. I think that's an important clarification, that whether or not his theory or his hierarchy is accurate is an entirely different topic from whether or not it was influenced by Blackfoot teachings. Those are two different questions, so I think that's an important distinction. Next, I was wondering if we could discuss the hierarchy of needs and mental health. In Maslow's theory, anxiety develops when the need for safety is not addressed and depression is a result of self-esteem needs not being met. Would you say that this part of the theory is similar to Blackfoot teachings on anxiety and depression, or would traditional teachings present an entirely different perspective on these two topics?

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  Theresa, it's very different. In my own research around Blackfoot resilience, this is where my research would come in, is it's very unnatural for a Blackfoot person to be depressed. It’s not even a part of pre-colonial teaching, it's not even really ... We're so relationally oriented, within this relational paradigm. We often say this as well, our elders will say this, or even I think this too, when I'm feeling down, I remind myself that I'm never alone and we're never alone. This idea of not having your needs met, I think it's not necessarily ... I'm not saying that's correct or that it's right, but if we are trying to understand a Blackfoot way of mental health and we're trying to understand it in the context of how Blackfoot people think about wellness, it's not just mental health, we might think of it as a spiritual wellness is what it is. It's spiritual wellness.

When your spirit is well, you're connected. You're connected to your ancestors, you're connected to the land, you're connected to each other, you're connected to the universe, you're connected to your more than human relatives. You are so connected within this web of relational alliances. When you are not connected, then there's an interruption in that spiritual wellness, there's a fracturing in that spiritual wellness, so of course a person is going to feel disconnected. It's not so much depression as it is disconnection for us. That's how we might think about it, the differences.

Theresa Nair:  That's a really interesting point, because that is a completely different perspective.

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  It is.

Theresa Nair:  Yeah, the importance of being connected to something larger and that it naturally addresses depression and anxiety as well. I think that's interesting.

We've been talking a little bit about traditional perspectives on mental health. I'm wondering if this relates to modern perspectives on mental health within the community, either within the Kainai Nation or the larger Blackfoot Confederacy. Are there any specific mental health concerns within the community, and what is the view on paths of mental health treatment? Is it generally more of a traditional perspective or what is the approach to mental health now?

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  It really is, as I mentioned, it's about spiritual wellness and connection and relationality and restoration. That's really what we're talking about. I know that there's been some work within our Blackfoot Nations, around indicators of wellness, of Blackfoot wellness. What are indicators of Blackfoot wellness, how connected are you to your language, how accessible are elder teachings, how active are you in ceremonies, all of that.

See, it's even hard for me to try and wrap my head around now, as Westernized as I am. It's very difficult for me to separate mental health from spiritual wellness, spiritual connection, from physical, all of that, because it's all so interconnected. You can't just address one aspect. It's a very holistic way, a very holistic pathway. Today, we're experiencing an extreme disconnection, disconnection from our language, and this has been ongoing, but we feel it so acutely these days because it's intergenerational. With each generation, the further away from being Blackfoot it feels like we are.

Now, some of our Blackfoot health researchers, and I'll name one that I'm very influenced by, Bonnie Healy, she talks about how far away are we from being Blackfoot. Now, the focus is on creating pathways towards coming home to being Blackfoot. That includes everything, that includes access to our lands, and I'm not just talking about the small remnants of reserves that we're left on, it's access to lands, it's access to language, it's connection, all of that.

Those are the discussions that are happening in terms of addressing mental health, if we think about it in a Western construct. We're really about restoring, restoring and having that sovereignty again in terms of how we define and how we embody our connections and our relationships.

Theresa Nair:  That's a really interesting point. With the current confines and restrictions, would it be possible then to achieve the ideal of mental health? I know it's difficult to even look at mental health as something completely separate when you're looking at a more holistic approach, but would you say those obstacles are preventing people from even reaching the state of mental health that would be the goal?

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  Oh, there's always barriers. That's the nature of our existence, is there is always going to be barriers that are cropping up that are going to push us off balance. For Blackfoot, and I'm sure for other First Nations, Indigenous Nations, I won't speak on their behalf, so I'm just going to talk about Blackfoot, it's life exists, our ontological responsibilities really are around the maintenance of balance. This is even before colonization and even now.

Is it possible, you asked me Theresa, to have optimal mental health, even in today's society, even with all of these disruptions to our traditional lifestyles? I would say, yes, it is. As long as you feel connected, as long as you are connected, as long as you can hear your language, you can hear your songs, you can sing them, you can be in ceremony, those things are still alive. Our culture is still alive and we very much are a living culture.

What Maslow brought and what he thought when he went into the Siksika community very much embedded in that salvage anthropology, that he's going to observe a people that are dying. That's not the case, we are still here and we are still achieving that optimal search and balance, because that's what it's about. You're never there, you're never just optimally have this perfect mental health. It's always about finding balance. Some days were pushed off balance, other days were very balanced. This pathologizing of those who are not in balance in that moment, that's not helpful. What we need to focus on is bringing people to balance, and that's something that no pill is going to solve. That's something that Western therapies alone don't have the answer for.

It's about a person having an opportunity to express how they are already self-actualized, because we always say in our Blackfoot ways, you are already born a perfect human being, as Creator meant you to be, but it's as we're going through those life challenges that push us off balance. What ends up happening for so many Indigenous people is we're just completely pathologized in Western mainstream society. We internalize these, and these messages push us off balance and they keep us off balance. It's very difficult to try and regain your balance when you're constantly seeing these messages in media and all of that. Yeah, that's what I have to say about that, Theresa.

Theresa Nair:  You're making some great points. This has been really insightful and I appreciate you sharing this perspective on it. As an Indigenous researcher who specializes in communicating topics related to Indigenous and First Nation communities, do you have anything else you'd like to share with our audience?

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  Well, Theresa, I think I've shared quite a bit, but what my research has really led me to realize is, and it's really, for me, doing my research is really about coming home to being a Blackfoot woman, and I'm not the first to say this, but we'll see this in even in Western concepts, is in our Indigenous ways, we have our parallel concepts. Again, I learned this, these aren't just something I come up with, this is something that these are what I've learned as well, these ideas are what I've learned from the elders. It's about understanding that we can't just do things interchangeably and interchange Western concepts with Indigenous concepts, that's not what paralleling is about. It's really about experiencing relationships.

Indigenous people have experienced relationships with Western folks on the terms of Western people, that's what I'll say, on the terms of Western people, but Western folks have not experienced relationships on the terms of Indigenous people, they have not done that yet. But if they were to do that, could you imagine the opportunities for being in balance, for being in relationship?

Hopefully, if one of the messages that I leave the audience with is, is that that pathway to transformation is really about stepping out of comfort zones and experiencing relationships not only on your terms, but on the terms of Indigenous people. Our terms, they're not oppressive, they're not assimilationist or anything like that. If anything, the Indigenous paradigm is inherently inclusive. That's what I want to say.

Theresa Nair:  That's wonderful, thank you so much. I really appreciate you participating in our interview series, and both for sharing your knowledge of the historic event between Maslow and visiting the Siksika Nation, and also for sharing this perspective on mental health as well, and more the holistic perspective from this aspect. I really appreciate it, thank you so much for joining us today.

Gabrielle Lindstrom:  You bet, Theresa.

Dr. Gabrielle Lindstrom beside a picture of her paternal grandfather, Mokakin (translates to Pemmican), Pat Weasel Head.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Internist Howard Schubiner on Mind-Body Connections

An Interview with Internist Howard Schubiner

Howard Schubiner, MD is an internist and both the founder and director of the Mind Body Medicine Center at Ascension Providence Hospital in Southfield, Michigan. Dr. Schubiner is a clinical professor at the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine and is an expert in the mind-body connection, as it relates to one’s health.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Thanks for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrists Interview Series. I'm Nicole Izquierdo, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists, and I'd like to welcome with us Dr. Howard Schubiner. Is that how you pronounce it? Is that correct?

Howard Schubiner:  It is.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Okay. So Dr. Schubiner is an internist and both a founder and director of the Mind Body Medicine Center at Ascension Providence Hospital in Southfield, Michigan. He is a clinical professor at the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine and is a fellow in the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics. He has authored more than 100 publications in scientific journals and books, and lectures regionally, nationally, and internationally. So before we get started with the official questions, would you like to share a little bit more about yourself with our listeners, and what made you interested in becoming a physician?

Howard Schubiner:  Well, that's a great question. First of all, it was a long time ago. It just seemed like a good idea at the time, I guess. I wanted to do something that would be useful and meaningful. I wanted to work in a community. And I was in university at the time, and I don't know, I just thought I would see what it was like. I took a few science classes and I found them to be not too difficult, and it just kind of led from there. I started volunteering at a free clinic and learned more about healthcare and medicine and some of the problems in medicine, frankly. Even way back then in the 1970s, it was becoming very clear that the biotechnical approach to medical problems had tremendous potential and tremendous value, but it also left things lacking. And it turned out, as my career has meandered and wandered over the years, that I've come to a place now where my main work has to do with the failings of biotechnological medicine and the promise of more simple and more patient-centered approaches.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. So you specialize in the mind-body connection as it relates to one's health. Do you mind defining what that is to our listeners?

Howard Schubiner:  Sure. Everyone knows the brain and the body are connected. The mind and the body are connected. When you get embarrassed, your face turns red. When you have to give a speech, your stomach may flip into knots. Everyone knows that. But it turns out it goes much, much deeper. It goes deeper in the sense that we have learned, in the last couple decades or so, that our brains actually create all of what we experience. Which is really a revolutionary concept. And it's called predictive coding or predictive processing. And so when you touch a hot stove, it's not your finger causing pain. It's actually the brain. The nerve signals go up to the spinal cord into the brain, but the brain makes a decision. It sounds weird, but the brain makes a decision whether to turn on pain or not. And we know that, because a lot of times, people have injuries without any pain. And we also know that the brain can activate pain or anxiety or fatigue or depression or insomnia when it's under stress. It's like a warning signal.

And so pain is a protection. We need pain. The reason we have pain is that it warns us that there's something wrong, usually wrong physically in the body. But our brain can turn on pain, the same pain, exact same pain, when we feel trapped or emotionally in danger, and that pain is real. And so it's really important for people to understand that pain and anxiety and depression are actually generated in the brain, and they're generated in the brain as a warning signal, as an alarm, like a smoke alarm.

And so it's up to us to figure out what the message is, why that's happening. If you have pain in your back and it's a kidney stone, then that's the message. You need to deal with the kidney stone. But if you have pain in your neck because you're in a
job that's untenable and harsh or you're in a relationship where you get betrayed, then that's the message. But the pain can be exactly the same. The anxiety can be exactly the same. So once you understand that the brain creates what we experience, now you have an inroads for understanding how we work, what makes us tick, and how to deal with it.

Nicole Izquierdo:  So would you say that those instances where it's more like a psychological stressor causing let's say neck pain or a headache or back pain, would that be, what's the term, psychophysiological disorder, or is that something else?

Howard Schubiner:  No, that's exactly right.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Okay.

Howard Schubiner:  In the old days, they used the term psychosomatic. They still use that term in Europe, but we don't use it here because it seems mean. But the fact is, since our brain controls what we experience, it's not mean. The fact is that we are psychological beings, we are emotional beings, we are social beings. And so the fact that we can get... If I have pain and I know it's from my brain as opposed to from my body, I'm happy. It shouldn't be stigmatizing, because the symptom is real. It's not imaginary. I tell people, anyone who says the pain or the anxiety or the depression or the fatigue or the insomnia is all in your head, it doesn't understand how things work. It's real. It's not your fault. It's not because you're crazy. It's not because you're weak. It's not because you're deficient. It's not because you want it. It's because your brain is sounding an alarm. There's something important that's going on in your body or in your life, and so it's up to us to figure that out.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Yeah. That's nice that the terminology is changing to capture that change of... Because it is invalidating, telling someone, "No, it's fake. It's not as bad as a 'real' injury or 'real' pain." And "real" in quotation. Are there any specific examples of these disorders? Like diagnostic names, diagnostic criteria?

Howard Schubiner:  Well, yeah. We have developed a lot of diagnostic criteria for these disorders. And, well, first of all, people who develop these mind-body conditions or what I sometimes call neurocircuit conditions are more likely to have stressful childhoods, more likely to have histories of trauma, more likely to feel like they have been criticized or feel they are not good enough or put other people first and not stand up for themselves. They're more likely to be in difficult situations currently in their life.

And the symptoms that they have are more likely to turn on and off, to shift or move. And we see, what's interesting is we see, because as we understand the brain creating these conditions, we frequently see that some people may have headaches for a while, and then the headaches go away, and then they get back pain, and then the back pain goes away, and then they get anxiety, and then the anxiety goes away, and they get fatigue, and then the fatigue goes away and they get irritable bowel, and the irritable bowel goes away and they get depression. And these can shift and move, sometimes within days or hours or weeks or months. And you can see the pattern where you can see that someone's been under stress and their brain has created a variety of different warning signals. And so we're looking very carefully at people's stories and listening to them. And, as you said, validating them, caring for them, being compassionate toward them, and helping to understand them and understand that their symptoms may be reversible, as opposed to being incurable.


Nicole Izquierdo:  How would you recommend that sometimes to get to that point, once you check everything else off the list that is let's say a kidney stone, for the back pain. How would you recommend going about it so that patients that do struggle with this aren't also struggling with the toll of going through a bunch of tests or the cost associated with those tests?

Howard Schubiner:  Yeah. That's a great question. We always recommend getting testing. If you have anxiety, you need to have your thyroid checked to make sure that you're not hyperthyroid. If you have anxiety, you need to have your heart checked to make sure you're not having a tachyarrhythmia or something like that. If you have depression, you need to have your thyroid checked, you need to have your hormones checked. These are obvious. If you have back pain, you need to get your back checked.

But we don't want to over-interpret things and we don't want to make people think that just because their symptoms are chronic that means that they're incurable. There has been a lot of research showing that, for example, in neck and back pain, that most people have abnormal MRIs. The MRIs are going to be abnormal. They're going to have degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, things like this. But those things are common in people who have no pain at all. So you shouldn't be saying, "Oh, that's the cause of your pain, because you have these mild abnormalities that everybody else has."

Similarly, with anxiety and depression, I feel strongly that we shouldn't be telling people that... And I know this is controversial and some people in your groups may disagree with me, but when we tell people that the problem is inflammation of the brain or it's genetic problem, what we're telling them is that it's not fixable. What we're telling them is that they're doomed and that they'll just have to cope with it. And that's the same thing doctors tell people with back pain when they see an abnormal MRI. And so we're trying to break out of that rigid biotechnical model to embrace this mind-body model or this predictive processing model, because it's much more optimistic and much more hopeful about making changes and getting better.


Nicole Izquierdo:  So one of your books is titled Unlearn Your Pain, and we actually have several clients that come to us seeking relief for chronic health issues, many of which included chronic pain. So without giving the entirety of the book away, can you explain how this could be possible?

Howard Schubiner:  Sure. Well, it starts with what we've been talking about. It starts with understanding predictive processing. It starts with understand how the brain works. And then it's an assessment, so it's making an assessment to make sure that there's nothing actually structurally wrong. And most people with chronic pain do not have a structural condition. Most people with headaches, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel, chronic abdominal pain, chronic pelvic pain, chronic neck and back pain, do not have a structural problem in their body, and I would assert the same is true for people with chronic fatigue, insomnia, anxiety, and depression. So the first part is that assessment. And then after that, there's three types of things that we help people to work with. One is we call pain reprocessing therapy. The second, we call emotional awareness and expression therapy. And the third is making changes in someone's life and dealing with their current issues in their life.

Pain reprocessing therapy can also be used for anxiety and depression, and what it is, it's a process of changing your relationship to the sensations you have in your body. Instead of fearing them and focusing on them and trying to figure them out and trying to fight them, it's actually being with them and tolerating them and knowing that they're not serious, that they can't hurt you, that you're going to be okay, and it's practicing graded exposure to gradually do more and more and tolerate the sensations of these uncomfortable, unpleasant physical sensations, and by changing your relationship to them, you're calming that danger alarm mechanism in the brain, which will then turn down the symptoms. That's the first step, the first treatment.

The second treatment is emotional awareness and expression therapy, which I developed with my colleague, Mark Lumley, and that involves dealing with the emotional issues that people have been through. Dealing with the emotions of anger and fear and grief and sadness and guilt, and moving through those to compassion for one's self. And it's a process instead of trying to just moderate the emotions to actually feel them, identify them, feel them, and express them in safe and healthy ways.

And then the third step is what do you have to do in your life? Sometimes, people need to make a change in their life. You need to set boundaries or make changes in their relationships in order to free their danger signal from continuing to create the pain or the fatigue or the anxiety or whatever.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you for sharing that. Would you say that there is an evolutionary reason for something like the brain turning on those pain signals when there is no physical or structural issue?

Howard Schubiner:  Yeah. It's speculative, of course. We can't really go back in time and understand. But the way I think of it is that pain is a protector. Anxiety, depression, fatigue, they're protectors. Our brain is turning them on as a message to protect us from something, to alert us to something. When we get a broken ankle, our brain turns on pain in order to tell us to stop walking on that ankle, get rest, get help. So way back in hundreds of thousands of years ago, Neanderthals lived on the earth and homo sapiens did. Neanderthals were bigger, smarter, faster, they had bigger brains, they were better hunters. Why didn't they survive? Homo sapiens survived because they worked in clans. They got together in groups and they communicated and they hunted together and they looked out for each other. And that's, we think, why we, so to speak, survived.

And so if you were back in those days and you got bit by a tiger, obviously, your brain, you want pain. You break an ankle, you want pain. But why would you want pain or other symptoms in an emotional situation? Well, if you survive because of your clan, if you get kicked out of the clan, you might die. That's a life-threatening thing, to get kicked out. Why would you get kicked out? Because of shame, because of guilt, because you did something wrong, but you beat up somebody or you betrayed somebody. And then the group would enforce the rule by shaming you or yelling at you or criticizing you, or whatever. And then you would be in danger of ostracism, which could mean death. So from my point of view, it makes sense that our brain would turn on a very strong reaction not only to a physical injury but also to an emotional injury. And I think that's why that occurred, but it's a bit of speculation, of course.


Nicole Izquierdo:  So you were featured in a new documentary titled This Might Hurt, which follows three chronic pain sufferers and offers solutions to such suffering. So your paradigm for diagnosis and treatment was found to be effective in several randomized trials, and it was actually listed as a best practice by the HHS's taskforce to combat the opioid epidemic. Can you speak a little bit more about this film and what has led to the ongoing opioid epidemic in the US?

Howard Schubiner:  Sure. The film is This Might Hurt. It was directed and produced by Kent Bassett and Marianne Cunningham, two young people. Kent himself had chronic pain and cured himself by changing his mind, changing how he related to it, changing his understanding of it, without any medical intervention. He had very severe chronic pain that it was incapacitating for quite a while. So he wanted to make this movie, and the movie kind of shows the real-life issues that people with pain have. One of the women in the movie was bedridden for eight years with chronic abdominal pain. And after going through this program, she got up, she got out of bed, she could work. She went back and got a job. I mean, it's amazing what can happen when you have this different way of looking at it, as I was describing, this whole different way of looking at it and different way of treating it.

Because the main paradigm for treating chronic symptoms in our medical world, chronic pain, is that you're going to have to cope with it. We'll give you medications, injections, physical therapy, acupuncture, meditation, all these things to help you cope with it better, but they're not offering, actually, to make it better. And the research shows that the coping method doesn't work all that well with chronic pain. And similarly, I would argue, with anxiety and depression and chronic fatigue, we're finding that the coping model of doing a little bit of this and a little bit of that doesn't... It has kind of a ceiling effect. You're saying, "Well, you can get better, but you can't get all the way better." And so you're stuck in this danger signal in your brain. And so we're trying to think of these things in a different way, which I think is actually scientifically valid. It's not pie in the sky or just rose-colored glasses. It's actually based on the neuroscience of how the brain works.

And so the opioid epidemic was a response, but it was a kind of neurobiotechnical response. You have pain. There must be something wrong in your body. We have to treat the pain. We'll have to give you medication because there's nothing else we can do. And so over time, more and more people got more and more medications. Of course, the drug companies were complicit in this, in trying to tell doctors that these medications weren't addicting or weren't as addicting as people were concerned. And in addition to that, our society has basically been falling apart in a lot of ways. And so that clearly weighs on people's minds and makes people much more likely to turn to pain relievers, because their lives are so difficult.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. So our practice specializes in treating anxiety and anxiety-related disorders, and so we were particularly interested to see you have another book titled Unlearn Your Anxiety and Depression. Do you mind elaborating on how this might be possible, and whether this is something that someone can do by themselves, or whether it has to be under the care of a mental healthcare provider like a therapist or a psychiatrist?

Howard Schubiner:  Yeah. Good question. When I started working in the field of pain, and so I saw a lot of people with pain and I learned a lot. I've been doing this for almost 20 years now. So I just learned a lot about pain, and what I saw over time was that frequently, the people who had chronic pain also had anxiety or depression. If you're in a counseling center and you're seeing people with anxiety and depression, about 50% of your patients are going to have a chronic painful condition. So there's a tremendous overlap in these conditions, number one. Number two, there's tremendous interchangeability of these conditions, as I mentioned before, where you see people where symptoms will kind of come and go, and anxiety may be replaced with pain and pain may be replaced with fatigue and fatigue may be replaced with insomnia and then depression. And so when you see that in people, you can see, well, gee, the brain may be turning on one set of symptoms and then may be turning on another set of symptoms.

And what I've found over the years is that if you apply the similar diagnostic assessment tool mechanism to people with anxiety and depression as I did with people with chronic pain. Again, really not a structural problem, and looking for the clues that suggest that it is a neural circuit problem, number one. And then number two, using the changing your relationship to the symptoms. For example, if someone has anxiety... What I'm doing is not rocket science, not super complicated, but it's very optimistic, and it's saying that you can change.

And so if someone is having anxiety in a certain situation, in elevators or in work meetings or in family situations, the first step would be to have them imagine that situation in their mind. And when you imagine that situation in your mind, what happens in your body? What response do you get? And so if you're imagining being in a work meeting and your stomach starts to flip into knots and you feel a little bit trembly, then that's your brain turning that on. You're not actually in the situation. You're just imagining it. And that's a low-level exposure. And then we help people to smile at that, to calm their brain, to soothe the brain, to treat the brain like a scared child lying in bed, fearful of a monster in the closet, and to give themselves love and compassion and caring, give their brain love and compassion and caring. Recognizing their brain is not the enemy, it's just afraid. It's just afraid of the situation.

And then we use these techniques to help calm those symptoms, calm the stomach, calm the trembling. And then go back and imagine the situation again, and then calm the sensations. And then imagine the situation again. And you keep doing that, and then it's just like the old classic way of treating a
phobia of snakes. Desensitization. And then you gradually get people to go into those situations with this calmness, with these techniques. And the techniques are not all that brilliant. They're just the normal calming techniques. But it's knowing that you can do it. It's knowing you're going to be okay. Knowing it's just your brain that's afraid. And that's the key that can really help people to propel themselves to changing their symptoms. And then, of course, certain people may also need to deal with some of the traumas in their life, some of the emotional situations. And that's what we talked about with the emotional awareness and expression therapy part of it, as well.

Nicole Izquierdo:  So you would say it's ideal for this to happen under the care of a practitioner, developing the exposure hierarchy? Or even having someone there when you're experiencing those stressful situations to make sure they're not in danger?

Howard Schubiner:  Yeah. I mean, some people clearly need help and need a therapist. But there's not enough therapists in the world to deal with all the people who have chronic pain and have chronic anxiety and depression. There's nowhere near enough therapists in the world. So my view is that a lot of people can do this on their own. A lot of people can learn these techniques. And that's why I've written these books into a self-help guided recovery program that people can use. And I get emails all the time from people who are using these on their own.

And so it's really a question of what level of worry and concern and what level help people need, and what level of underlying trauma people have, what the severity of their situation is. So I think it's kind of a mixture. When I work with people, I work with them individually, but then I give them lots of homework, and I say, "Here's how you can start to practice this on your own. Here's how you can do this on your own." Because ultimately, we want people to be in charge of their own health, as much as possible.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. Yeah, I see something similar with that and what we're trying to do with our website with interviews and writing articles. Because some people can't afford to start treatment or continue treatment forever, so.

Howard Schubiner:  Absolutely.

Nicole Izquierdo: Nice that that was your goal with those books. I appreciate that. So we're approaching our final question. As a doctor specializing in the mind-body connection, do you have any other words of advice or parting words for our listeners?

Howard Schubiner:  No. I really think that the most important thing is
compassion. So many people who have been brought up in difficult situations have learned that it's much easier for them to be compassionate to others than to be compassionate to themselves. We see this all the time. And if they can begin to do that, if they can begin to look out for themselves, stand up for themselves, speak up for themselves. If they can recognize that they are, it sounds silly, but, worthy and deserving and worthy of being loved, just as everyone else is, that is just such an important step for people to take. And there's ways to do that, and there's books written about self-compassion, for example, that people can follow and learn to take care of themselves. Because what's happening is that their brain is reacting out of fear and worry, and some of the fear and worry they're actually putting on themselves because they're feeling inadequate. And so, to me, it really starts with compassion.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. So to wrap things up, we just wanted to let our listeners know that Dr. Schubiner has a series of animations on YouTube that are very insightful, so we will be linking those on our website. And I just wanted to say thank you so much for joining us and sharing your knowledge, Dr. Schubiner. We really appreciate you taking the time to speak with us, and we wish you the best.

Howard Schubiner:  Thank you. It's a pleasure. Thank you for doing what you're doing. I appreciate it.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Thanks.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychologist Bethany Brand on PTSD & Dissociation

An Interview with Psychologist Bethany Brand

Dr. Bethany Brand is a Clinical Psychologist and Professor of Psychology at Towson University. She is an expert in trauma and specializes in the assessment and treatment of trauma-related disorders, including PTSD and dissociative disorders.

Amelia Worley:  Thanks for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Amelia Worley, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialist. I'd like to welcome Dr. Bethany Brand. Dr. Brand is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Towson University. She also maintains an independent practice in clinical psychology, specializing in the treatment of trauma disorders, including dissociative disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders. She has numerous publications on trauma and dissociative disorders, including one of her most recent publications on the topic, “An Examination of the Relations Between Emotional Dysregulation, Dissociation and Non-suicidal Self-injury Among Dissociative Disorder Patients.” Before we get started Dr. Brand, can you please let us know a little more about yourself and what made you interested in studying trauma?

Bethany Brand:  Yes. Thanks for having me. Well, if we go way back, I had a friend in high school and she had been traumatized, and so had her sisters, and they had very different responses, and it just intrigued me trying to figure out how could people go through similar traumas and have very different outcomes? So then when I was in graduate school, I started pursuing it more seriously and asking supervisors if I could treat trauma. Then, I did my master’s and my dissertation on trauma. When I looked for my first position after grad school, I found a postdoc at Sheppard Pratt, and at that point they had a trauma disorders unit that was just opening. So, in that case, I was at the right place at the right time, and I got to work on their unit, which had mostly people with serious dissociative disorders, so I got great training early on.

Amelia Worley:  Wow. So, to begin, would you mind defining what dissociation is?

Bethany Brand:  Sure. Dissociation is a disconnection of what are normally integrated psychological constructs or functions. So, for example, a person may feel disconnected from their body. They may literally see themselves at a distance and be looking down on themselves, or they may feel very numb when they should have emotion. It's an emotional time. They're talking about something with that they might normally feel terrified about or ashamed about, and they feel nothing. So, that's that kind of disconnection. You can also have disconnection from your environment. So, it may be they're in a place that's familiar or with somebody they know well, and suddenly they don't look familiar or they don't recognize fully who that person is. They have some sense that they know them, but they can't really place them. They may have a disconnection in their memory where they feel like there's gaps in their memory.

They can't recall, it might be hours, days, or even potentially, from childhood. There might be years that they really don't recall. Within their identity, they may have a sense of being kind of fragmented where they feel like, more than people who are non-dissociative because we all have parts, but they may feel like they act so differently, seem so differently, behave so differently that at different times they feel as if they're almost different people, although nobody can have more than one person inside them. It's states, dissociative-self states. They also may have disconnection from behavior. So, they may find themselves doing something, see themselves doing it, and they literally can't stop what they're doing. Those are just some of the examples.


Amelia Worley:  How is dissociation linked to trauma? Are some traumatic experiences more likely to cause dissociative disorders?

Bethany Brand:  Yes, they are. So, we know that if it's particularly life-threatening, you might be more prone to dissociation. We know that
children are more likely to dissociate, and they lose that ability a little bit over time. So, for example, if there's ongoing childhood abuse, and especially if it's done by a caretaker, somebody who's in charge of the child, should be protecting them, and instead they're betraying them, we know from betrayal trauma theory that they're more likely in those situations to dissociate. So, it's particularly severe, ongoing trauma, but it can even happen for a one-time really serious car accident. Like I know somebody who, when they were in a car accident, they were actually seriously injured, but they didn't feel any of the injury. It wasn't, they hadn't had nerve damage. It was that they were at for a little while having what's called very traumatic dissociation, which is dissociation during the actual trauma itself.

Amelia Worley:  Wow. How might someone know whether or not they're suffering from trauma-related dissociation? What does it feel like?

Bethany Brand:  It's a good question, but it feels very different according to which one of those constructs is, they're disconnected from. So, do they, generally speaking, have emotions? Do they generally feel like the body is theirs or do they sometimes feel like that's not my body? It's not like, it's not a person getting older and looking at themselves thinking, that's not how I look. It's more profound than that. Like they might look child-like, or they may feel like they look at themselves and suddenly they look decades older, and it just, it's a strange sensation. They may look in a mirror and not recognize themselves. If a person is, has experienced or is experiencing a number of the things I've talked about, problems with feeling connected to their body, connected to their emotions, connected and oriented and aware of their surroundings, that probably means that they don't dissociate much.

But if sometimes their surroundings look far away, even though let's say, if they're hand looks like it's a mile away, like their arm has suddenly grown, there's really a huge distance, that's a type of depersonalization. Or if, let's say they're talking to a therapist and suddenly the room looks foggy, that's derealization. The world around them looks different. Or they can't hear their therapist speaking, even though there's nothing wrong with their hearing, that's a type of derealization. So, if somebody's experiencing any of these things, that might give them some indication that they possibly have trauma-related dissociation, and of course, have they been exposed to some kind of trauma? That's a prerequisite for trauma-related dissociation.

Amelia Worley:  So, what can trigger dissociation in an individual after the traumatic event has occurred?

Bethany Brand:  It may be that they're just hearing a sound that reminds them, a trigger. It could be a sound, an image of the light being a certain way. They might hear, they might smell a certain smell. Smells are very, very likely to trigger traumatic associations. So, it's when they feel triggered that then they may also start to dissociate. So, I'm careful, I'm a little cautious that some listeners might be a little triggered about what I'm going to say. So, I'm going to advise them if they want to just tune me out for a minute, but let's go with the example of smells. So, if somebody was traumatized by somebody who'd been drinking alcohol, if later, they smell alcohol, they can be triggered by that, and start to have their heart race, feel terribly vulnerable, like something dreadful is going to happen, or they may do that for a bit, and then disassociate, start feeling numbed out, kind of like things around them looking surreal in some way, or they might just really rapidly go to a dissociative state.

Amelia Worley:  That's really interesting. In your publication I mentioned earlier, “An Examination of the Relations Between Emotional Dysregulation, Dissociation and Non-suicidal Self-injury Among Dissociative Disorder Patients”, you talk about how this idea of emotional dysregulation. Can you explain what emotional dysregulation is, and how it relates to trauma-related dissociation?

Bethany Brand:  Yes. So, you know how we like to have very big terms in our field? Emotion dysregulation is basically difficulty dealing with emotions. Okay? So, people who have got, who've experienced a lot of trauma, whether they're highly dissociative or not, they tend to feel too much or too little. So, for example, let me go back to that past trigger example I gave you. Maybe that person normally has normal feelings. They can feel some happiness, some sadness, some anxiety before a test, whatever. But when they get around, let's say they are abused by a man. When they get around men, then they start feeling really scared. Their heart starts to race. They feel like, oh, I've got to watch behind me. I've got to watch this guy. That's feeling too much. The opposite can also happen where they feel too little. The examples I gave where somebody is numbed out, they don't feel connected to their body.

So, emotion regulation is when you have the capacity to know what you're feeling. They can identify the emotions, and emotions, how do we know we're feeling emotions? It's in our bodies. So, if somebody's angry, they might feel I'm imitating it for anybody who's not watching the video. I'm clenching my hands. I'm kind of raising my shoulders. I'm tensing up muscles. A lot of people feel that kind of muscle tension and agitation energy in their body when they're angry. If you're feeling, if you go back and forth between too much feeling, too little, if somebody starts getting angry and they're very uncomfortable with that emotion, they may shut it down and disconnect from their body. Maybe
anger is very scary, because maybe they were in a relationship that was physically abusive, and so they disconnect if there's anger. So, what happens when somebody's traumatized, trauma by its definition, it's overwhelming.

They may feel at risk for their life, and so the feelings are huge, way, way, way too big. Like that example I gave earlier with somebody who had peritraumatic dissociation, if you're so terrified, sometimes the brain, it's an automatic kind of a brain-based response, may start shutting down emotion. The person's not willing it to happen. It just starts to happen. Parts of our brain start kind of metaphorically going offline. They're not very active. So, later on, if that happened during trauma, that the person started dissociating when they felt too much, if later on after the trauma, they're starting to get overwhelmed with feeling too much, they may get scared of that, and at first, they may consciously, like, I don't want to feel this. I don't want to feel this. I don't want to think about this, and they kind of push it away.

That's normal
PTSD is you try and push away emotions and remembrances and memories, images. But over time, if somebody's also disassociated or starts to learn to dissociate, they can numb out and disconnect. If they avoid thinking about something enough or it's so awful, they really just, they're, they don't go there in their minds. Over time, they may have less access to that memory, and so they start maybe having the memory problems I talked about earlier. So, emotion regulation is intricately tied in with dissociation, because dissociation is a way of dealing with emotion, and a terribly threatening situation.

So, what we've looked at in some of these studies is, can we teach people who have very high levels of trauma-related disassociation other ways to identify what they're feeling, to not be so afraid of emotions, help them learn how emotions are helpful, and how to healthfully manage them in a range that's tolerable, so they're not flooded. They're not numbed out. They don't have too much or too little emotion. We found in this treatment study we did with dissociative disorders, folks, that as you teach them emotion regulation skills, then dissociation began to decrease some. They weren't needing to dissociate so much. We also found that self-harm decreased, PTSD symptoms decreased. Helping people learn to regulate their emotions is a really fundamental, crucial skill, in other words.

Amelia Worley:  So, continuing on that idea, can you talk a little bit about the most effective treatment approaches for trauma-related disassociation?

Bethany Brand:  Yes. So, the study I was just referencing indirectly is one called “The Treatment of Patients With Dissociative Disorders.” It's TOP DD, and that's for people who have really serious dissociative symptoms. We're in the process of doing a randomized controlled trial treatment, where we're checking out the program I was just referencing. So, we get people who have very high levels of dissociation, plus their therapist, who agree to be in the study. We have a number of videos where we teach them what trauma does in general, various symptoms related to trauma, then we get to dissociation what it is and how that was helpful, but also how in adulthood, when you're safer, if you're safer now, how it can get in the way. So, somebody not always knowing what they're feeling, maybe they're tuning out some important clues from their body, from their mind that a relationship's not safe, but if they're not in touch with their emotions, they may not feel that.

So, we know from research that people with lots of dissociation have high rates of being re-traumatized in adulthood. So, it's really important to help them learn to identify their emotions, and to gradually use less dissociation. So, we're, in that program, that's some of things that we're teaching and that's in general, whether somebody's in that treatment study or whether they're working with a therapist. The therapist, generally speaking, teaches them what dissociation is, the symptoms of PTSD, because they often have both. Then there's a technique called a grounding technique. So, let me, and I'm talking this out loud, just in case somebody can't see the screen. Dissociation’s on a continuum. At one end of the continuum is somebody is grounded and oriented in present reality. They can feel their body. They know where they are. They know what the date is. They're really hooked into present reality.

The other end is profoundly dissociated, where they don't necessarily, they don't recognize where they are. They're not feeling their body. They're really severely dissociated. Then in between, there's this whole range. What a therapist can help a client learn to do is recognize the early signs that they're beginning to dissociate. So, they might feel spacey or tingly. Those are just examples. So, the client learns when they start recognizing that warning sign, then they use these grounding techniques, and I'll just explain a very basic one that lots of people know. You can use this with
panic attacks, all kinds of things, not just disassociation. But you put your feet on the floor. I'm going to do it, because when I teach people, I always do it along with them. So, I'm pushing my feet into the floor, and trying to really notice what that feels like. That is using muscle movement, contractions, and trying to get them to feel that part of their body, assuming they're okay with feeling that.

Then I would also be having them look around where they are. If it's a Zoom therapy session, look around the room where they are. If we're meeting together, look around my office and find something that they can describe with all the senses. So, I've got a cup of water here. If they've got something to drink, can they feel the weight of the cup? Can they feel the coldness or the warmth, taste it, using all their senses? That actually helps wake up metaphorically, the parts of the brain that have shifted, and kind of gone offline while they're dissociating. So, you use the senses, all five senses to get the brain back online in the normal way that it should be. Those are grounding techniques. So, a therapist would be teaching them grounding techniques and having them practice that in session, and then also, out of session. Those are just some of the basic tools we use when folks have got a lot of trauma-related disassociation.

Amelia Worley:  Wow. Lastly, do you have any advice or anything you want to share with our listeners suffering from trauma-related disassociation?

Bethany Brand:  Yes. I would say one of the most important things you can do is to learn exactly what I was just talking about. Learn grounding techniques, and practice them, and learn healthy ways of taking care of yourself emotionally. So, many, many, many people who've been terribly traumatized feel ashamed of themselves, feel dirty. They feel like they're bad people. That's, those are symptoms of being traumatized. It's not the reality of who they are. It's a symptom. So, hopefully they can start thinking about that, looking into that. There are good books out there to read for trauma recovery. If somebody has a really serious, a lot of dissociative symptoms, if they have a therapist, if they want, and they can look into this treatment of patients with dissociative disorders study, TOPDDstudy.com, and we have that website. They can go there and look and see if we're still running the study.

There's also a professional website that has a lot of information for consumers and therapists. I'll say it slowly. It's ISSTD. It stands for the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation. That organization does a lot of training for therapists, and they have frequently asked questions on their website about disassociation. They have some questionnaires, people could even try and fill out and find out do they seem to be scoring fairly high, and learn a little bit about, do they have dissociative symptoms, where to go to get help. They have a Find a Therapist page on that website.


Amelia Worley:  That's great. Well, thank you so much, Dr. Brand. It was wonderful having you on our series today.

Bethany Brand:  Thank you so much. It's been an honor to be here.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Therapist Kate Willman on ACT & Writing Therapy

An Interview with Therapist Kate Willman

Kate Willman, LMHCA, MA, HCA is a Psychotherapist at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. She specializes in the use of ACT and the utilization of writing therapy in her practice.

Amelia Worley:  Thanks for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Amelia Worley, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. I'd like to welcome Kate Willman. Kate is an associate therapist here at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. She is also a founder of Ben's Friends, a community support group for restaurant employees seeking recovery from alcohol and drug addiction. Kate has worked on numerous research projects regarding psycholinguistics and providing therapy for those suffering from addiction, traumatic brain injury, emotional experiences related to death, and military populations. Before we get started, Kate, can you please tell our listeners a little about yourself?

Kate Willman:  Sure. Thank you so much for having me. And about myself, you said it, in terms of therapy. I am a native of Texas. I spent many years also in New York City and then moved to Seattle almost five years ago. And working in mental health is my second career, definitely my most happy and fulfilling career, but I spent a lot of years doing hospitality and it's also very fulfilling. I actually still do some work with my partner in restaurants. And there's a lot of crossover, actually. And I think that's an important part of, I guess, why I'm here and who I am, in that I've always been interested in people's stories and always been interested in serving people.

Of course in hospitality, it's a very literal serving and in therapy it's a little bit different, but that's definitely a core part of me is like this continuing interaction with others, usually in some form of service to others. And not in a completely altruistic way either. Right? I get a lot out of that. I get a lot out of being in those really intimate situations with people and learning what they need and hopefully being able to help them get that. I also have two cats and two dogs, so I'm a very happy animal mama. I love animals. I have always loved animals. That's a big part of who I am too. And then, I live in Seattle with my partner and taking it one day at a time.

Amelia Worley:  What is it that got you interested in becoming a therapist?

Kate Willman:  Yeah. Like I said, I was always involved in one way or another, serving others. And the thing that got me very first interested in it was being a volunteer, they call it peer-to-peer counseling, and this was on the East Coast when I was living there several years ago. I guess, another giant part of me and this goes into Ben's Friends, is that I identify as a person in long-term recovery from drugs and alcohol. And I spent the better part of a decade, really not in the service of others, definitely in the service of myself. And that set of addictions really took over my life. And at 25, I found myself really, actually very close to death, and there's a lot of other stuff to that story.

And after that, I got sober January 30th of 2013. Part of my recovery and part of my success in recovery was speaking with other addicts and working with other addicts at various points in their recovery. So, this peer-to-peer counseling thing was happening in detoxes and hospitals, rehab centers out in New York, New Jersey. And I had done it at this one hospital, pretty regularly, weekly, basically, for a couple of years. I knew the nurses and the social workers and stuff who worked there and they were like, "You know Kate, this is a job. You are a volunteer, but you could really do this. It's a real thing."

And at that time, my career in hospitality was actually at its peak. I was working in really great, four-star, New York City restaurants. I had become a maitre d', which was my goal. And so, I was at an interesting crossroads too, of like, "Oh, shit, can I make a new career?" I had never even considered that. Getting sober and just living had been the really cool thing that had happened. And so, I sat with that for a while and decided to try my hand at school. I had gone to school when I was 18 and studied hospitality management.

So, I was 27 and just, "Oh, can I even do college? I don't know." And I decided to try community college. I took some psychology classes and I just fell in love, and it was such a great turning point for me to go back to school. I went to community college, then I went to a four year, got that degree in psychology. And at the beginning I was like, lots of addicts do this, "I'll just be a substance use counselor. I'll just go to school and get this certificate for substance use counseling." And no, the more psych classes I took, the more counseling professionals to whom I was exposed, the more I wanted to do more and more and more, and the more my interests really grew in this realm. So, I ended up moving to Seattle in 2017 and had tried on a couple different programs, local and national, and ended up doing Northwestern's online master's degree. I was really impressed with that program and that it was available online.

I am an advocate of telehealth. And even before COVID, I was very much an advocate of that because of the accessibility it allows for people. So, in terms of me becoming a counselor, taking those courses online and being able to say, "Hey, online is where we should be putting energy for counseling and for counseling education." That was really important to me too. The program was three years, as of course, you and everyone else knows, then COVID happens and everything happened online anyway.

So, now I find myself really, really full circle, able to be a counselor, be an advocate for folks in that substance use realm, the same way that I was nine-and-a-half years ago needing that counseling, needing that guidance. And a lot of other different folks that I get to see and really use my experience, not just as a counselor and someone who's educated in this way, but as a person who was really in many, many low places over the years, and who's experienced a lot of life transitions along the way. And in counseling, this is when a lot of people will come in, is for these life changes. And when things become different is when we find ourselves needing help. That was a lot of roundabout answer, but that's how I got here.

Amelia Worley:  What areas or disorders do you specialize in? I know you talked a little bit about the substance use.

Kate Willman:  Yeah, I definitely feel super at home with folks who are struggling in substance use, substance abuse, and then even to generalize it even more and zoom out even more, a lot of the discussions today are just about relationships to substances, alcohol, even lots of behavioral addictions, right? Shopping, gambling, sex, pornography, internet use. There are a lot of behavioral addictions that we consider as well. And again, having been absolutely enslaved by my addictions for many years, I feel really at home helping folks in those arenas.

I also developed a very clear interest and, hopefully one day specialty, in grief counseling. And I found that a lot of my experiences personally and then with these addicts and self-described alcoholics that I was working with over the years, a lot of people were dealing with various versions of grief. And some of them, it was like, "Oh yeah, I had this near-death experience." Or like me, I was so addicted, I almost died. Or, I have a couple suicide attempts, right? There's a lot of people who have
considered suicide and who have really thought about suicide. And how does that affect a life? And we can use a lot of grief counseling in that area.

And then I mentioned, life transitions. A lot of grief being applicable in divorces or just changes, breakups, changing a job, losing a job. COVID was just a gigantic paradigm of lots of different layers and kinds of grief for people. So, I really find myself diving into more and more of the grief world, and all of the different applications of that. Certainly, within death, dying, bereavement. I volunteered in hospice for a while here in Seattle, too, for about a year, and really wanted to be in that world of death and how that affects us, the living.

And anyway, I could go on about that forever. I really like grief counseling and lots of different applications. And then, my time at SAS has really directly introduced me to the populations of folks who are aligning with symptoms of OCD, of ADHD, of these really specified types of anxiety, trichotillomania, excoriation, which is hair pulling and skin picking and stuff. And so, really, really niche, specified presentations of anxiety. These are things I was exposed to certainly in school and in my internships and some in my volunteer work for sure, but I've really gotten some great training and some great experience head on with these specific presentations as I've worked at SAS.

So, that's been a fun world to live into and to get exposure to doing exposure therapy and to just learning more about these struggles that folks go through in those areas and getting to see therapy, really nitty gritty therapy, and what real behavioral change can look like with a person. It's very, very exciting.


Amelia Worley:  Can you talk a little bit about your treatment approach?

Kate Willman:  Yeah. The easy, very general answer is that I'm eclectic. I think every grad student wants to believe that they're eclectic. And eclectic just meaning like, "Well, I'll do whatever the client needs, and I want to learn everything." And as we get more and more into the actual profession, it's quite impossible to be specialized in all of these approaches and get really good at them. It feels good to be good at something. Right?

So, I think there's a few that I come back to over and over again. Number one is
ACT, acceptance and commitment therapy. This is such a beautiful iteration of cognitive behavioral therapy. It's so flexible, its main goal is flexibility, not for nothing, but it's so flexible in terms of its application, what presentations we find it helpful for people when we engage in ACT. And so, I really like that. It's nonlinear. It's not really focused on symptom reduction, right? It's focused on a meaningful life. The word acceptance is in the name. And so, I find it really, really helpful for, again, a lot of different presentations, but even as therapy goes on for people and maybe their symptoms have reduced a little bit, to go a little bit further in finding how to live a meaningful life, despite what's going on with anything that's happening, any life change, any type of grief or whatever, any sort of internal experience. There is always, always, always this universal need for a meaningful life, and getting to explore that with people via the ACT method has been really, really cool.


And then, I pull from certainly an evolutionary approach. I really found it helpful in my own journey to look at comparative animal behavior, to look at the lives and the struggles of early humans, as we understand it at least. And see how these different parts of our brain, having evolved the way that they have, why do we have something like a fight or flight mechanism? Right? And why are there these ancient, ancient mechanisms in our brain that we just rely on so primally. And when we can identify those, even in our 21st century modern life, with this big old frontal lobe, being logical all the time, there's so much acceptance that can happen for people when they realize, hey, this anxiety that you're feeling over X, Y, Z, is not just because you're a bad person. It's not just because you are defective in some way. Actually, early humans or the animal brain really relies on this function to keep us safe. Anxiety in most of its forms is really there to keep us safe. And so, we find that with this evolutionary lens, there can be quite a bit of just normalizing, I guess, and a deeper understanding of self, that all of these things, they're causing us trouble, but they're really there to help us. And that shift in relationship to our anxiety, it can be so, so powerful. So, I love that one as well.

I definitely do some existential stuff, which is on the other end of the spectrum from any kind of CBT. But when we talk about meaning making and what is my purpose in life? There can be some fun, especially in the realm of grief, there can be some fun discoveries of self when we are looking through this existential lens for ourselves. And then in terms of techniques, CBT has a whole host of really cool techniques from ACT, from DBT, that I will employ as needed. And then I also really enjoy narrative therapy. There's a lot more even coming out now, narrative therapy-wise. Here's that frontal lobe again, we were talking about the other parts of the brain before, but we have a lot of research that's showing the power of narrative therapy in engaging and re-engaging that frontal lobe part, the decision-making part.

And when we are able to look at our lives and our struggles and our relationships, or our questions in that narrative form, we're employing and re-employing all of these tools that are already there for us. And it's really a discovery of self. I think that I say that a lot actually, but I guess to wrap up treatment approach, I'm very much an advocate of helping people see they already have everything they need to be successful, everything they need to even define what success is. Some people have never been given that chance. What is success? What does a meaningful life look like to me? And then how do I get it? It's not going to be, because I give it to them, it's not going to be because they picked the right self-help book or YouTube channel to watch. All of those things might be useful in self-discovery, but it's really a matter good counseling, in my opinion. The best approach in my opinion, is being willing to try on all these different things with a client, with a person, and watch them and assist them in discovering for themselves, what is most meaningful and what is best for them and their life experiences. And for that meaning, defining that meaning and then approaching that meaning for them. That is the best approach all of the time, no matter what.

Amelia Worley:  That's great. Would you mind sharing your experience in using writing as a treatment approach? What are the benefits of writing therapy?

Kate Willman:  Yeah. Yeah. So, you can tell how much I love it, because I was already talking about it. And again, humans, we know a lot or we think we know a lot, we know it as best as we understand it, other animals, while definitely really advanced in a lot of their communication, as far as we know other animals do not have this writing thing. Right? So, we can guess from that, that it is a purely human function, purely human mechanism that we are able to write.

And so, when we look at that spectrum of evolution, of mammalian evolutions specifically, we are again, hypothesizing that this ability to write and the benefits to write, from the evolutionary perspective, the theory is we don't do anything that isn't of benefit to us in some way. Right? So, there are these surface level benefits of writing, right? Okay. Well, now I'm living in a society with other humans and the writing will enable us to communicate in a different way, in the here and now. We also know that writing of course, allows us to communicate with generations past and future.

So, it's really, really cool that writing as a mechanism, really came out of evolution in that way. So, those might be the external benefits of the writing for us as a species, as organisms, but internally there's got to be usually a benefit too. And so now, over the last 20, 30 years especially, our brain scans have gotten so much more advanced. And when they've looked at these brain scans and they've learned more about that internal function of writing and looked at the frontal lobe, what they realized was in its most simplest form, and I hope I'm not minimizing in any way or being a reductionist in any way, but it's really just very simply, I have to think about something, right? If I want to write about my experience in COVID, let's say, if I write about that, I have to think about it, to come up with the words and the language, then I have to involve all these other mechanisms with my body and my brain to write it down.

And then, the third time is if I'm going to reread it. And we know that reading involves some other areas of the brain, but the point is there's at least three times, usually much more, but at least three times when I'm involving my brain to go and review this thing that I wrote. And it's just like hearing a story from somewhere else, that I might learn if I'm hearing that story three different times or 10 different times. And then I hear someone else tell that same story, 10 different times, of course, logic says I'm going to get some different things from those stories.

So, in the case of writing and in narrative therapy, what we try to do is employ those different inherent lenses and perspectives, but all within here and in that person's writing just for themselves. So, the therapist's role is to provide provoking questions sometimes, right? That if I just go and write my story in COVID, okay, I'm liable to learn a bunch of different things because of, like I said, the brain is automatically reviewing it. And that means that even the next day, I might be subconsciously thinking about it, even if I'm not actually reading it or rereading it. Right? So, that's happening.


And then, if the therapist is like, "Okay, Kate, you wrote your story of COVID, here's some provoking questions." That's going to cause me to, “ooh, now I have to use my critical thinking, which is also up there. And my problem solving mechanisms are all activated in that frontal lobe.” And so, you see the infinite nature of narrative therapy in engaging and activating all of these different parts of our brain to allow us to see things from a different perspective and thereby, gain things from those different perspectives that we couldn't do if we were just sitting here trying to think about, "Well, what was my COVID experience like?" We get that really cliche, "I'm stuck in my head about it. I'm stuck in my head about it."

There's definitely a magic to putting it on paper or putting it on a computer, just as there's a magic to putting it in the universe, telling it to somebody else like your therapist or your friend, but we are taking that to the next level, writing it, rereading it, having these provoking questions that we didn't really
come up with on our own. Well, shit, that gives me a lot of more perspectives, a lot of more answers that might come, that I'm just unable to retrieve from my brain alone.

The last piece, and this is my ACT brain coming in, ACT cheerleader maybe, not my ACT brain. ACT has this component of cognitive diffusion, right? That it behooves most of us and we have evolved to be fused to our thoughts and our feelings. So, when we defuse, that's that act of, we are not our thoughts, we are the thinkers, right? And we know when thoughts are so troublesome and we're dealing with OCD or anxiety or grief or whatever, by getting away from them for a moment, we are able to look at them a little bit differently and guide a little bit more, how much we want to connect to those thoughts, if we want to believe them or not.

And narrative therapy, in most of its forms, will also inherently engage in that cognitive diffusion, that I'm putting it out from me, again, in that same way when I tell someone, but it's on steroids, right? This ability to defuse and defuse and defuse. And we know that we just have much more autonomy and agency over those troublesome thoughts, while accepting them as there, and then deciding where we want to go forward. Yeah. That's narrative therapy.


Amelia Worley:  Do you have any words of advice or anything you want to say to our listeners?

Kate Willman:  Willingness is the key. We talk a lot and thankfully there's a lot of stuff out on the internet now, that's so accessible for people, maybe on social media, on TikTok or Instagram, people are getting help in ways that they have never been able to before. And so, I would want to say that I used to go to an AA meeting in New York City and it had on the wall, "There's no wrong way to get sober." And that used to piss people off. That used to make people really mad, like, "Oh, of course there's a right way to get sober." And I apply that now to therapy. There's no wrong way to try to feel better.

And that's a hot take, it's an unpopular opinion, right? Are there bad therapies out there? Yes. Are there bad therapists out there? Unfortunately, there are. There are people who might be more harmful than helpful, but I think the hardest step for most people is being willing to ask for help. And for some person that might be, I'm just willing to follow some accounts on Instagram and try to get some engagement from these people. And maybe I need help, being willing to say to ourselves, "I need help. I can't do this alone anymore."


And so, what I would say to people is, any level of willingness, wherever you are at in your mental health journey, in your becoming a counselor journey, on whatever journey you identify with, the willingness to keep going, the willingness to show up, the willingness to ask for help, the willingness to say, "I need a break today. I can't go any further right now. I'm not sure what to do." The willingness to say, "I don't know." Oh my gosh, what courage that takes.

So, willingness is the key to, so, so, so much in terms of success, in terms of meaning, in terms of contentedness and serenity. So, if you're feeling stuck and you can identify that, the next question might be, "What am I willing to do? How far am I willing to go?" And then, "Who or what am I willing to ask help from?" And just to love yourself, that's really one of the hardest parts too, huh? So, if you can find place for some love in your heart for yourself, I always recommend that too. No matter what.


Amelia Worley:  That's great. Well, thank you so much. It was really great interviewing you today.

Kate Willman:  Yeah. Thank you, Amelia.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Therapist and SAS ED Blake Thompson on Psychotherapy

An Interview with Therapist Blake Thompson

Blake Thompson, LMHC, MA is a Psychotherapist and Executive Director of Seattle Anxiety Specialists. He is a clinical supervisor and also provides both individual and group psychotherapy.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Hi, everyone. Thanks, Blake, for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. This is a special one, it's called Meet the Team. I'm Nicole Izquierdo, I'm a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists.

So Blake here, he is the practice's executive director. He serves as a clinical supervisor and he also provides individual and group psychotherapy. The first question for today is telling our listeners a little bit about yourself.

Blake Thompson:  Hey, thanks, Nicole. Yeah, that was a good introduction. Oh man, what to say about me? Well, I am married and I have a one-year-old daughter that keeps me up at night, but whom I love very much. I love reading. I find people really complicated and fascinating. A big part of what draws me to therapy still and to the field is that the more I learn, I feel like the more questions I still have. I feel like I haven't gotten bored yet. I still feel confused, so staying curious.

Nicole Izquierdo:  That's good. Let's start off with, what is it that got you interested in becoming a therapist?

Blake Thompson:  That's a good question. Well, one of my big inspirations for becoming a therapist was a comedy movie. I don't know if you've seen “I Heart Huckabees”. No? Yeah, older Dustin Hoffman, Lily Tomlin, Jude Law film. Great movie, very funny, but yeah, I think that put the idea in my head. I had been to therapy when I was younger and I think that experience really shaped me. Being a client, I think, was really impactful. But yeah I'd been really interested in philosophy in school and I don't think I ever really considered, you know, psychology. I think I took one psychology class in all of college. I was really not interested in psychology. The idea that I would do something professionally that was related to a subject that I just wasn't really interested in wasn't super appealing to me at the time, but as I went to graduate school in philosophy, more and more of the stuff that I was interested in philosophy started to bleed over into psychology and I got more and more interested.

In philosophy, a lot of what we're doing is conceptual analysis. We're thinking about not minds and brains, but the stuff that are the constituents of thoughts. We're really focused on ideas like justice and the good life and truth and causation and all of these ideas that are really central to the thoughts that we think on a day-to-day basis. I just got more and more interested in the machinery that realizes that and more and more aware of thinking processes as processes, and not just as like, you know, and less and less focused on abstract.

By the end of grad school, I think I was starting to think about a jump into psychology, away from philosophy. I was talking with people about just what there was in that professional space, and the idea of becoming a therapist hadn't yet coalesced, but I think talking with folks about what therapy was like as a profession, what was interesting in it, how it was different than other forms of healthcare, yeah that was definitely, those conversations really helped shape that direction.

While I was in grad school, I really didn't like teaching very much. That was not something that I found super rewarding, but I loved tutoring, doing one-on-one work with students. I think really reflecting on that process and how much more I liked tutoring than I liked teaching helped also solidify for me that I would like doing therapy, because it looks a lot like tutoring in a lot of ways.


Nicole Izquierdo:  With that extensive background in philosophy, how would you say it has impacted your therapy style and the way that you go about counseling?

Blake Thompson:  Yeah, cool. That's a good question. I think so much of what we do as therapists is we reframe things for clients. Clients come in with, something's happened, there's an event, a situation, or even just themselves presenting in a certain way, the various processes that make up our lives, and they've got a particular perspective on it. That perspective is part of what explains the way they feel, the way they're acting. We help clients to see different ways of looking at their lives, of looking at the situations that they're navigating. That helps them develop the psychological flexibility, helps them develop this ability to look at things from different perspectives and to free up the way they feel and free up the way they act to become less rigid, less stuck.

A lot of what philosophy is, is conceptualizing and re-conceptualizing things. It isn’t so much, it's not an empirical discipline, it's a discipline where we're thinking about, okay, well, what's a different way of looking at this, what's the right way of looking at something? It might not be contesting facts, it might be, it's often a question of what's the right frame to put on something.

So yeah, in terms of what philosophy looks like, there are a lot of similarities. It's less often a matter of what are the right facts and more often a matter of what's the right way to conceptualize a particular thing. So too for therapy, it's often not a matter of what are the right facts, like this person is just dead wrong about something, it's more a matter of like are they applying the right conceptual scheme to it?


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. Are there any areas or disorders or age groups that you specialize in?

Blake Thompson:  I pretty much only work with adults, rarely see adolescents and I don't work at all with children. I don't work with couples. Yeah, I pretty much just work with adults. I work with a pretty broad range of people, but I really enjoy working with folks who've got cluster C personality disorders, like avoidant personality disorder, dependent personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD).

I really enjoy working with folks who've got high functioning or low support needs, autism adults that are like, especially folks who struggle with deficit in theory of mind, which is really pretty common for folks who've got high functioning autism. They might not necessarily lack social skills, which I think is often how that gets conceptualized, oftentimes they lack awareness of how social interactions work and how other people think. One thing that I find really rewarding about working with those folks is that a big part of the work is explaining how other minds work to them and working with them to help them see that. That project is, for me, really rewarding. It becomes a really interesting, like theoretical discussion about how to make sense of other people and how to understand interactions with them and how to navigate those interactions. Yeah, it ends up looking a lot like philosophy tutoring.


Nicole Izquierdo:  I know you've touched on this a little bit, but would you mind describing how your treatment approach is, to make it simplified for the viewers? Is it solution-focused, do you help them manage stress with CBT techniques, or do you have other ways to go about it?

Blake Thompson:  Yeah. I'm somebody who thinks that the different approaches to therapy are all valuable, for the most part. Maybe not all of them are valuable, there's certain things, like primal scream therapy, that maybe deserve to end up in the dust bin. But among the well-regarded extent approaches to therapy, those pretty much all have a place in my mind. First, second, third wave CBT I think is great, and that stuff is especially great for what used to be called axis one conditions: major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, OCD.

I use
exposure therapy, I use ACT, rely on DBT principles. You know, sort of like broad, everything that fits within that broad CBT umbrella I think is super valuable, all of these insights from behavioral psychology and cognitive psychology. That stuff, in some ways it can be really solution-focused, it can be really focused on symptoms, but yeah, at the end of the day, it's evidence-based and often it doesn't take a million years to see some positive impact in someone's life.

There are other people who come into therapy who have more characterological, what used to be called axis two, issues, like maybe they're struggling with narcissism or entitlement, maybe it's like they find it impossible to stand up for themselves, they're constantly subjugating their needs, maybe they're perfectionists or workaholics struggling with unrelenting standards, chronic sense of defectiveness that they can't shake, behaving in ways that kind of perplex them, like they find certain behaviors necessary or are driven to do certain things that in retrospect they can't really make sense of but in the moment feel like they have to do them.

A lot of that stuff is the stuff that when it's more intense, we would call it a personality disorder, but most people struggle with some of this stuff to some extent. We used to frame this stuff as just neuroticism. Neuroticism has taken on a technical meaning in personality psychology, but it's the kind of stuff that would make you a really great sitcom character. Depression doesn't really make you an interesting sitcom character, but an inability to stand up for yourself makes you a great sitcom character. Narcissism, entitlement, particularness, perfectionism, workaholism, all of these things make someone an interesting character. Yeah, I find working with these folks really endearing.

I think psychodynamic therapy is a really, really helpful approach for this kind of stuff. I think even the CBT world has really acknowledged this, that the best way to help folks deal with this stuff really is a more autobiographical approach to therapy, it's an approach to therapy that is focused on looking back and reprocessing the unmet emotional needs that were the foundation for these behaviors, that were the foundation for these, what at the time were adaptations, but are no longer adaptive.

There are still other reasons that people come to therapy. Sometimes it's not that somebody has a mental health disorder, it might be that they just have a lot of environmental stressors. There isn't something wrong with them, there's something wrong with their environment. If you're the director of an environmental nonprofit and the head of the EPA is cutting all of the funding to protect the wetlands or something, you're scrambling to figure out what to do, you're sweating bullets, something that you really care about is under threat, you might lose your job, whatever, therapy could be helpful for you, but probably it might not look like CBT and it might not look like psychodynamic therapy.

It might look more like supportive counseling, it might look more like Rogerian supportive counseling, where maybe the thing you need is not to explore your relationship with your parents, maybe the thing you need is not to identify cognitive distortions. Maybe you don't have any cognitive distortions, maybe the reason that you're so stressed out is that you're seeing things accurately, but you need to process that stress. You need some place, someone to be a sounding board and to help you think through what you could do that would be an adaptive coping response. That, I think, is a big part of the work too.

A lot of people come to therapy not because they've got generalized anxiety disorder, but maybe because they just found out that their spouse is cheating on them or their kid just died or they lost their job or they just graduated from college and they don't know what they want to do with their life. There are these reasons that people come to therapy that don't have anything to do with having a disorder. All of that stuff might be causing stress, but it's not anxiety in a clinical sense. CBT and psychodynamic therapy might not really be well-suited to addressing those issues. I think that, what's often called the third wave in psychology, like Rogerian therapy, I think is really, really well suited to working with folks who are navigating normal life stressors and do want support with that stuff.

Yeah, and again, I think they're even more like what's the right theoretical orientation. It depends on the person, there's going to be for couples, Gottman approaches, EFT approaches. I think existential therapy is really helpful for folks who struggling with questions about meaning and purpose and identity. Those are things that CBT might not be able to tap into very well, psychodynamic therapy might not be able to tap into very well, Rogerian therapy might not be able to tap into very well, but having a working understanding of some sort might provide you with a leg up as a therapist to help you tackle these questions.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Yeah, I like that. There's not a one-size-fits-all approach, every client is unique with unique needs and unique environments and pasts. I like that, thank you.

How would you describe therapy to someone who's not familiar with it at all, or who's hesitant to start treatment, especially with the stigma on mental health treatment? Like you just said, I feel like there's a big misconception that people go to therapy because they have a mental health diagnosis disorder, but some people just go, like you said, when there's overwhelming environmental stressors and they need help with coping mechanisms. How would you describe it or reframe it to encourage those people that are hesitant?

Blake Thompson:  Yeah. I think people are hesitant for different reasons, and I think getting clear on our own hesitancy can be really helpful. We're often afraid of things that we don't know and afraid of things that have been stigmatized. A lot of men don't go to therapy because they find it hard to get help from other people. I mean, there's the cliché about men not asking for directions, not asking for help at the store. I think there's an extension of that for a lot of men around therapy, that they shouldn't open up, they shouldn't be vulnerable, they shouldn't share things. A lot of that is culturally normed. If that's what someone's struggling with, I think recognizing that is really the first step.

But there are other reasons why people don't come to therapy. In terms of OCD, for example, sometimes people have horrible intrusive thoughts, thoughts of like murdering people, for example, thoughts of deviant sexual acts. They might worry that if someone, if their therapist were to hear this from them, they might think that they intend to kill someone or kill themselves or what have you, and so they don't go. Suicidal people might not go to therapy because they're worried about getting committed to inpatient, or people struggling with
substance abuse might not want to go because they're ambivalent and don't really want to stop drinking or using whatever product they're using.

Often when people are struggling with the question of whether or not to go to therapy, there's some ambivalence within them. There's some part of them that wants to go and some part of them that is repelled by the idea. I think that it might be the right decision. I mean, I'm really open to the idea that therapy is not for everyone. Therapy is not this perfect cure-all that is going to save us from ourselves. It is really helpful. I became a therapist and I'm still a therapist because I really do believe that it is really, really helpful, and for some people really profoundly helpful.

But I think really what we can do, what we ought to do, is identify that ambivalence, try to articulate it. What is that, what is this tension? What's this part of me that, A, wants to go, why is that, and what's the part of me that's telling me not to go? What is that? Where is that coming from? There's a little microphone in my brain and who's at the microphone? Who's like issuing the instructions? This fear, is that being put into me by my culture, is that put into me by like my parents, is that my bully from my youth speaking to me? Trying to get some clarity on where did I get this idea from that I need to be afraid of this thing, why am I hesitant about this, just spending some time investigating that for ourselves, sitting with that ambivalence, trying to unpack it. I think that's really productive.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. You're also executive director at the practice. Can you tell me a little bit more about what this role entails?

Blake Thompson:  Yeah. As a mental healthcare practice, we've got a number of administrative functions that are just important on a yearly basis. We have to renew our malpractice insurance every year, we've got to renew our lease with our landlord, we've got to make sure that we've got working internet, we've got to make sure we've got tea and coffee for our clients, we've got to make sure that staff are getting paid on time. Basically, it's all of this kind of behind-the-scenes stuff.

Our office manager,
Jonathan, he focuses on really the day-to-day administrative functions of the practice. He's answering the phone, he's sending faxes, he's scheduling people, he's dealing with billing issues and all that kind of stuff. I deal with the longer-term administrative stuff, so I'm talking to our lawyers, I'm talking to our insurance companies, I'm talking to our landlord, I'm making sure all our contracts are in order, making sure paperwork for our clients gets updated as it needs to be. It's not like the most glamorous stuff, but it's important. It's all stuff that allows our therapists to just focus on being therapists and not have to worry about all of those questions and concerns that come up when you're in solo practice. Part of the benefit of being in a group practice is that, for most of the clinicians, not me, but most of them, they get to just focus on being a therapist, which is really nice for them.

Nicole Izquierdo:  This question is steering into the more personal direction, but how has becoming a parent impacted the way you view the world or the way you interact with your clients? Because it's this whole new identity, parenthood, that you're grappling with. If you don't mind.

Blake Thompson:  No, no, that's great. It's definitely opened my eyes to what parenthood is like. Obviously, not what parenthood is like for everyone, I have my own experience of parenthood. But I think being a parent is a lot more difficult and a lot more rewarding, both, than I sort of imagined it would be. I think it really does change the way that I look at, the way I think about my clients who are parents. It's helped me understand their perspective a lot better. It's also helped inform the way I interact with clients who are struggling with the question of whether to have kids. It's given me a lot of perspective there. I think in both of those areas, it's really had a positive impact on my work.

I think the area where it's had a negative impact is I get a lot less sleep sometimes now and that has unintended consequences. I think even during this interview, I'm probably rambling more than I would normally, but I'm running on like four hours of sleep. It is what it is.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. Again, another personal one, but where do you see yourself in five years?

Blake Thompson:  Oh, cool. Well, I'm really excited to continue to kind of grow SAS. I mean, I think that the one thing that we haven't done much of up to this point but that I'd like to see us do a lot more of is develop continuing education. I think that's an area that I'd like to have us devote more resources to, I think both in terms of providing good local, evidence-based therapy education, which is the thing that there's often not enough of, but also my particular background and my particular strengths as a therapist, I think having a background in philosophy, also having a background in psychology, I'm, I think, really well positioned to both provide existential therapy, but also to provide good instruction in it. I think over the next five years, I'm going to really work on developing curriculum so that I can provide really good continuing education in existential psychotherapy.

Nicole Izquierdo:  That's great. Last one, if you have any last words of advice for our listeners or anything else you'd like to add.

Blake Thompson:  Oh, well, if you watched, thanks for tuning in. The one thing that I'm really, I think, struck by, and that is, there are plenty of trainings in plenty of different kinds of psychotherapy, but one approach to therapy that I think doesn't get enough press time that I think is a really, really innovative and really, really helpful approach to therapy is ACT, A-C-T. I would encourage anyone who's a clinician or who's a client who's trying to figure out what else they can do to promote their own personal development, their own personal growth, either as a provider or as just a person in the world, I don't think ACT is everything, like I said before about approaches to psychotherapy, I don't think that any one approach can fully capture everything there is to being a person and address every sort of concern that we have, but I think ACT is uniquely helpful for how simple it is. I think it is remarkable how beneficial it is and how intuitive it is.

There's a great self-help book by Steven Hayes, who is one of the main developers of ACT, called “Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life.” There are millions of copies of this thing that have been printed, but I would encourage anyone who has any questions about how to apply therapeutic principles to their life, how to take the next steps. Sometimes therapy is too expensive, sometimes therapy is inaccessible, sometimes you feel like the therapists that you're finding aren't a good fit for you. There are really, really great therapeutic workbooks out there that are based on evidence-based psychology. This book by Steven Hayes, “Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life,” it's a phenomenal book and the ACT principles that it's based on are super, super helpful. I'd encourage anybody who's considering therapy, who's ambivalent about it, checking it out. Again, it might not be the thing for you, but it's about as close to a one-size-fit-all, helpful across the board approach to therapy that I've ever found. I really want to shout from the rooftops, everybody should know more about ACT than they probably already do.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Well, thank you so much for sharing that, and thank you so much for joining us, Blake. We really appreciate you taking the time to speak with us.

Blake Thompson:  Hey, thanks, Nicole.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Therapist Jim McDonnell on High-Stress Employment

An Interview with Therapist Jim McDonnell

Jim McDonnell, LMFT is a Psychotherapist at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. He specializes in working with clients in the tech industry and high-stress environments. Jim also has extensive training and experience providing couples therapy and family therapy.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Hi, thank you so much for joining us today on this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. My name is Anna Kiesewetter and I'm a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. I'd like to welcome with us today our own Seattle Anxiety Specialist psychotherapist, Jim McDonnell. Before becoming a therapist, Jim had a successful career in technology across two decades. With his experience as a researcher at NASA's Ames Research Center, as a senior program manager at Microsoft, and also as a senior business intelligence analyst at T-Mobile, Jim is an excellent resource for clients working in high-stress careers. So before we get started, could you please just tell us a little bit more about yourself?

Jim McDonnell:  Sure. Hi, Anna. Nice to meet you and thanks for organizing and running this. A little about me. I grew up in New York. I was raised just north of New York City. I've spent years in the restaurant industry, and then I transitioned into technology. I worked in startup companies in Silicon Valley and then moved up to Seattle, worked in the tech industry in Seattle for a number of years. I'm an outdoor enthusiast. I like being outside in the woods. I love to exercise and keep my body in shape. It helps my mind stay clean and clear. I'm a father, my daughter's in college, and I don't know what else to say beyond that. Yeah.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Yeah. That's awesome. So you mentioned you worked in tech in Silicon Valley before you came up to Seattle. Could you tell us a little bit more about what got you interested in making that switch?

Jim McDonnell:  Sure. The switch from being in tech to a therapist?

Anna Kiesewetter:  Yeah.

Jim McDonnell:  I've always enjoyed helping people and making people feel better. When I was younger I used humor a lot to do that. I can make people laugh relatively easily, and if a friend had fallen down and hurt himself, or if something happened, I would sort of employ goofiness and jokes and physical comedy and stuff to bring someone out of their sadness into happiness and laughter and sort of lighten the mood. And I really leaned into that early in my life. I was a joker, a jokester, a prankster, and I just liked laughter.

I also loved gadgets and technology and loved programming and trying different... I was always sort of buying the latest gadgets when I was a kid. I had these electronic dictionaries in the early '80s when they were super rare and I loved them. I was a bartender and I was going to college. My undergrad is in industrial organizational psychology. I had a research methodology focus so when I graduated, I got a job at a startup company doing statistical analysis and database programming. I really loved that.

And so I sort of left the helping laughter stuff behind and really leaned into this, and the whole country and the world was sort of embracing this and I thought maybe I was going to be a gazillionaire and get all sorts of stock options and stuff like that. And I pursued that for many years, but in the background was always this desire to be a helper.

And I should point out that I originally wanted to be a therapist when I was in college. And I had an advisor who, for whatever reason, I'm assuming their reasons were sound, but they advised me against it. So I was in a bit of an existential crisis, like, “Who am I? What's my purpose in this world?” And so I leaned into the research methodology. I still wanted to be in the psychology domain, but I, for whatever reason, just accepted that fact that I couldn't be a therapist. So I went that route.

And so for many years I was leaning into that. I really enjoyed my time in technology, in the tech industry. I really loved the people that I was working with and the projects I was on. But there was this sort of transition in my mind where I was becoming a bit disillusioned with the industry. I wasn't finding deep meaning in it. And it wasn't really resonating with this core value of wanting to be helpful to the world and to reduce suffering.


And so, as I progressed through my career, I started getting closer to a point in my life where maybe some people have a midlife crisis or something like that, and I just was like, "I'm no longer satisfied. I'm not happy." I was actually super anxious. I was having panic attacks and anxiety attacks in the workplace. And then I decided to make a change. So I had some people in my life that were pushing me towards this. They recognized that I had particular skills and personality temperaments, and some gifts and traits that would be really, really helpful to people. I actually received formal training in being a therapist.

So I made the choice to just try. I applied to a couple of graduate programs. I was accepted and I kept saying, "Okay, I'm going to do this for a semester. If I don't like it, I can always just drop out and I still have..." I was working full time my first year in graduate school. So I was holding down a 50-hour-a-week job and I was going to classes and working in the classroom while I was learning. I just really liked it. It resonated with me. And so I've just stayed with it.

I think the question was what prompted the shift. It was sort of like this awakening. To be more specific, my father passed away when he was 46. I was 46 at the time, around the time that I wanted to be a therapist. I was maybe 44 when I finally decided to start applying to graduate schools. But it was sort of like, "What am I doing with my life?" If I was my dad, I would've been two years away from death. "Is this the legacy I want to leave for myself?" That really pushed me out of my comfort zone, as well.

So all of that is the reason why I shifted out. Looking for more meaning, finding something that was better aligned with my skills and my values and partially just sort of a life cycle change of like, "What do I want next for myself?"

Anna Kiesewetter:  Wow, that's really powerful. I think it's really inspiring that you pushed forward to doing that, making that change and showing what you value. Do you feel like you kind of fulfilled that, that kind of wanting to find more of your life's values in the change, the switch between careers?

Jim McDonnell:  Yes. When I first started off in graduate school, my vision was to be working more with youth and teens. And so I did that at a community mental health during my internship, and it turns out it wasn't a great fit for me. It wasn't really aligning with my passions and through, I would say, serendipity, maybe, what's the word, synchronicity. Some kind of, if you want to think more spiritually, woo-ish. I found Seattle Anxiety Specialists when I was looking for a group practice. And the more that I started thinking about the practice's mission and the focus area of specifically treating anxiety disorders, the more it just sort of was like, "Duh, you've been anxious your whole life."

So to be able to help people who are in the industry that I used to be in, learn how to recognize why they're anxious, to help interrupt feedback loops and disrupt patterns that reinforce their anxiety and to find more confidence in themselves, in their ability to experience distress, to reduce how long it lasts and how intense it is, and to just generally understand how their particular mind works and why it responds a certain way, is so fulfilling to me.

I go to sleep at night happy, knowing that I haven't helped every single person in the world, I'm never going to eradicate all of the distress on the planet, but every person that I interact with, from a client-therapist relationship, I feel like I'm doing the best job that I can to make the world closer to being in that state than it was before I started, if that makes sense.

Anna Kiesewetter:  That's amazing. How do you think that being in the tech industry yourself has helped you to help these people now that you're working with them? Especially people who have been working in tech industries?

Jim McDonnell:  Yeah. I mean, I don't know what it's like to work at every single company. I don't have a visceral understanding of every company culture. I've never worked at Amazon or Google or Facebook or Apple. So I don't know what it's like specifically to work at those companies. And I know what it's like to work, generally speaking, in the industry. I know the expectations that are put on people. I understand how software is created and managed. So project management perspectives and program management perspectives and different kinds of software development methodologies.

I understand those enough to be able to speak the language of the person. So when they come to me and they're trying to describe what's going on in their life, they don't have to explain the culture of the company. They don't have to explain why it's stressful. I get it and I am able to speak their language. I use metaphors a lot in the work that I do and I bridge kind of how we go from, this is the way the product is now and here's how we want the product to be in the next revision, and here's what we're doing to make that happen and here's our timeline and our plan and all of the schedules and milestones.

And I kind of use that same approach for mental health. So here's how you are right now, version, whatever, one, of you. And then you want a new version where you're not as anxious and you're not as stressed out and you have a more adaptive response to these stressors. What do we have to do to get you from here to there? How long is it going to take? How do we know we're making progress? How do we measure progress along the way?

So that sort of understanding, being able to speak the language. I know the different terminologies and review cycles and pressures and sort of the cultural contextual factors that are feeding and reinforcing the anxiety. I'm really rambling on a bit here, but it's helpful for me and I think my clients appreciate that I have been in similar spaces to them and understand, generally speaking, what it's like and why it's stressful. So I think that's probably the best way that I can answer that question. It's just like there's familiarity with the context and yeah, I'll leave it there.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. You mentioned anxiety is one of the things that you see a lot in people experiencing workplace stress and having to deal with these issues. What other kinds of areas or symptoms or disorders do you often see in your patients who are working in high-stress environments?

Jim McDonnell:  Other symptoms? Well, if we're thinking about this from an experiential perspective, like what are they experiencing? Obsessive, intrusive thoughts that are generating distress, physiological distress. So there's muscle tension and dysregulated breathing and fidgeting, elevated heart rate, perspiration, that sort of thing, racing thoughts. Really, there's a lot of what are we call cognitive distortions in cognitive behavioral therapy. So a lot of stories that people are telling themselves about what's happening now and what's going to happen in the future.

Anxiety's generally a future-oriented experience. We're thinking about the future and we're worried about it. And then the predictions that we make. Our mind is a model maker, modeling the future constantly, trying to figure out how to make sense of the world. And that model has some distortions in it. Maybe it's predicting a tragedy constantly. Like, "This is only going to turn out bad," or we can only see things either or, either good or bad. I think I've forgotten the question. I'm a little lost in my answer now. Can you restate that question so I can refine it?

Anna Kiesewetter:  Yeah, of course. Of course. I was asking what kinds of typical, or maybe not typical, but what kinds of different symptoms and disorders do you see in people who are experiencing high-stress work environments?

Jim McDonnell:  Right, yeah, so symptoms versus disorders. The disorders tend to be generalized anxiety disorder. There's a lot of obsessive-compulsive disorder, but maybe less on the traditional or the technical way of interpreting that diagnosis. I look for obsessional thought patterns and disturbing, intrusive thoughts, and then compulsive responses to that. Things that people are doing in response to those thoughts that try to protect themselves from it.

I see a lot of that OCD, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, so people who, really, just there's runaway anxiety that leads to panic attacks, depression, as a result of that. So when you start to feel scared about your future over and over and over again, you can't figure out how to solve a problem, you end up becoming hopeless about the future. And so you can have people experiencing depression and anxiety simultaneously, which is a double whammy. That's not very fun.

I'm trying to think if there's other things. That is generally the areas that I focus on, things that I'm looking for or listening for. And then all of the physical symptoms that people are describing or experiencing, and the cognitive side of that as well. And the behavioral side of it. So what behavioral choices are people making? And again, it's typically in response to some sort of a trigger that's dysregulating a person, cognitively and physiologically, and then in response to that, they're making choices to protect themselves somehow. And sometimes it's just like fight, flight, freeze sorts of choices. Yeah.

Anna Kiesewetter:  I see. So when you're experiencing the patients with these different symptoms and disorders, can you talk a little bit about your treatment approach and how you approach therapy with these people?

Jim McDonnell:  Yeah. I'm generally using cognitive behavioral therapy as a therapeutic modality. I lead with a discussion around... How do I want to answer this question? My goal is to help people have an adaptive response to stressors. When you're in a state of constant anxiety, that's a maladaptive response to the stressor. So I want to help people get to that place where they can experience that stressor. They know how to process it, digest it, and instead of being stuck in an anxious feedback loop, they're able to resolve the thought, the feeling, the behaviors, and leave with confidence that they know what to do. Even if they don't know exactly what to do, they know generally what to do.

That sort of guides my approach. I want people to become consciously aware, explicitly aware of, what triggered me? I was doing fine and then suddenly I wasn't. What was it? Was it a thought that I had? Did I see somebody that reminded me of something? Did somebody say something to me? Was there an event that just happened, the anniversary of something that was traumatic? What is it? Because we're not just suddenly fine and then not fine.

So getting really clear on that and then getting really clear on what happens in your body when that happens. So that thought passed through your head and then your muscles tensed up and your breathing became shallow and quick and your heart rate elevated and you started sweating. Okay, great. So you understand the connection between why you're feeling this way in your body right now and what just happened. And then what stories do you tell yourself, your model-making machine, meaning-making machine? How do you make sense of this? Your prefrontal cortex has to tell you a story about, "Well, you don't feel good right now. Why? Oh, it must be because..."

And then that's where the cognitive distortions come in. "This is always going to be this way." I don't know. "I'm going to get fired. I'm going to get a bad review. My partner's going to leave me." Something. It's some tragedy. And then we feel hopeless about that. So getting really clear on the story, what's happening in our body, why, what the trigger was, being really clear on the behavioral choices we make as a result of that.

I want people to get bored with this because I'm going to keep asking them every session so it becomes rote so that when they feel something, they go... It sort of spurs a meta awareness. So like, "Oh yeah, I'm feeling anxious. Let me engage in this higher-level process to understand why." So then once they have that skill, how do we disrupt this pattern, this as-is experience?

There are physiological interventions, like learning how to regulate our breath and how to relax our muscles. There's cognitive interventions, like recognizing cognitive distortions and challenging them, coming up with ways to not lie to ourself about what the stressor is and why we're feeling this way. And also to feel confident that we know what to do in response to it. So appropriately sizing the stressor. So maybe I'm responding to it as though it's a 10 out of 10, but in reality, it's like a four out of 10.

So really right-sizing the way that we're thinking about problems, and then what can you do behaviorally that's different? So we're looking at this as a system and as a pattern, a template of a response to a stressor. And then we want to disrupt that pattern and template and replace it with a bunch of different choices along the way. And then if we score, how do I feel with version one versus version two? So long as we're feeling better with version two, then that's good. We're making progress.

So that's the approach I've taken. Lots of validation. There's no judgment in the process. What purpose does judgment have, right? We need to be able to just be honest about what we're telling ourselves and why. Positive regard. It's important for people, I think, to feel good about who they are, even if maybe they've made choices that they're not proud of, that at their core, they can feel as though they're good and they're seen as good. I think that's really important.

And I use humor along the way, as well, a little bit of levity. And then ultimately aligning all of this stuff with personal values. What's important to you? Who are you as a person? How does this map to your identity and how you see yourself? That's the best I can do in sort of summarizing. It feels complicated sometimes when I'm trying to describe it, but I try to keep it finite and relatively discreet so that it's not overwhelming, that a person kind of understands what we're doing. There's goals, there's structure, there's a plan, we're moving forward towards something. So that hopefully also communicates some confidence in the process, so that's how I do that.

Anna Kiesewetter:  That's amazing. Awesome. Yeah. Thank you so much for sharing that. Okay. We're approaching our final question: so, I'm just wondering if you have any other words of advice or anything else you'd like to say to our listeners before we wrap up.

Jim McDonnell:  I'm not sure exactly what to say other than perhaps we don't get to choose what happens to us in this world with 100% certainty, but we do get to choose how we respond to those things and suffering, while probably inevitable, is optional in many different ways. I didn't mention this before, but the core metrics that I communicate to clients is, how frequently am I triggered? When I am triggered, how intense is the response and how long does it last? So frequency, intensity, and duration.

We can't really always choose how frequently we're going to be triggered by something or how frequently the trigger is going to happen, but we do have agency on how intense the response is and how long that response lasts. So if people are experiencing a lot of anxiety, I think it's important for them to know it doesn't have to be that way. The world doesn't have to change in order for them to feel more at peace and they don't have to lie to themselves. It's not one of these toxic positivity sort of cycles where we just say, "It's all going to be great and everything's okay and stop worrying." I think that just actually reinforces the power of the stressor so we can't look at it with open eyes and accept things as they are.

So if a person is anxious and they've been anxious and they continue to experience anxiety, more often than not, it doesn't have to be that way. And there are people who can help transform the way that they're thinking and feeling in response to those stressors so that they just generally enjoy their life more. We don't get to live forever. We might as well learn how to use our brains to have a better time on the planet while we're here.

Anna Kiesewetter:  Awesome. Yeah, I like that a lot. All right. Well, okay. Thank you so much for your time and your insights coming on here today. I wish you the best and really hope to have you back for another interview in the future, if you're down for that. So this concludes this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. Thank you so much for listening and we hope you'll tune in next time.

Jim McDonnell:  Thanks, Anna.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychologist Michele Bedard-Gilligan on Trauma & Recovery

An Interview with Psychologist Michele Bedard-Gilligan

Dr. Bedard-Gilligan is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington School of Medicine. She is an expert in the field of trauma, focusing specifically on post-traumatic stress disorders and the mechanisms of recovery.

Amelia Worley:  Thanks for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Amelia Worley, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. I'd like to welcome with us, Dr. Michele Bedard-Gilligan. Dr. Bedard-Gilligan is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington School of Medicine. She is an expert in the field of trauma, focusing specifically on post-traumatic stress disorders and the mechanisms of recovery. She has numerous publications on PTSD and individual responses to trauma, including one of her most recent publications on the topic “PTSD in the Year Following Sexual Assault: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies,” co-authored with her close colleague and collaborator Dr. Emily Dworkin. Before we get started, Dr. Bedard-Gillian, can you please let us know a little more about yourself and what made you interested in studying trauma?

Michele Bedard-Gilligan:  Sure. Thank you so much for having me. I'm so grateful and happy to be here today. Yeah, I actually got my first experience working with people who had survived traumatic events right after I was an undergraduate. So after I graduated, I worked for a bit at the VA hospital in Boston and worked with veterans returning from conflict either recently or many years ago and did some work trying to understand mechanisms of recovery and how trauma affected them and really just became very passionate about trauma recovery from both a research and clinical perspective. And so from there, pursued that path of really that being my career in terms of studying and treating clinically working with and individuals who've been exposed to trauma.

And so, I'm a Clinical Psychologist by training. I, like you said, I'm faculty at the University of Washington School of Medicine in the Psychiatry Department. I have a clinical practice where I see patients for a variety of reasons, including reactions following traumatic events. And then I have an Active Research Program. So, I'm the co-director of the Trauma Recovery Innovations Program at the UW School of Medicine and the associate director of the UW Center for Anxiety and Traumatic Stress, which is affiliated with the Department of Psychology.

Amelia Worley:  That's great. So to begin, would you mind defining what trauma is?

Michele Bedard-Gilligan:  Yeah. It's a great question. Trauma is something that actually means something very specific in the mental health field. So in the field of the study of mental health disorders, when we talk about trauma, we actually talk about something very specific. So, we define trauma exposure as being exposed to an event that either causes injury or threatens injury or threat of death or is a threat to personal integrity or physical integrity. So that is meant to characterize events where maybe there was no injury or maybe not even threat to life but they were characterized by violation of one's physical being, if you will. So, things like sexual violence fall into that category. And those types of events that meet that bar or threats of injury or threats of violence have to be either experienced directly by the individual, witnessed -So you watch it happen to somebody else, or something that you're confronted with. So, you learn about it happening to someone you really care about or someone you love or someone you're close to.

And then finally, exposure to being confronted by a lot of violence or really negative outcomes or negative harms to other people if it's in the line of work. So, this is things like emergency personnel or people who work in combat zones or war zones who are exposed repeatedly to really terrible things that happen to others that they don't know. They don't know those people personally, but they're just constantly exposed to it because of their occupation. That is also concluded in our definition of trauma. And so really specific actually in terms of how the mental health field defines traumatic events or trauma exposure.

Amelia Worley:  How does trauma relate to post-traumatic stress disorder? Are some traumatic experiences more likely to develop into PTSD?

Michele Bedard-Gilligan:  Yeah, that's a really great question too. So post-traumatic stress disorder is one set of symptoms, one diagnosis that can develop following trauma exposure. But I also want to be clear that following exposure to the kind of events that I just described, it can lead to a host of negative outcomes. So, we can see people develop mood problems or anxiety problems, which I know is your specialty. We can see people develop substance use problems or thoughts about suicide that they didn't have before. So, it can lead to a host of negative outcomes.

The post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, is one of those and it's a specific set of symptoms that really involve the traumatic events specifically. So, it's a set of symptoms where the individual re-experiences the event in terms of having nightmares or intrusive images or really strong cued reactions to things that remind them of the traumatic event. It involves avoidance of things that remind them and things that are objectively faced. But because of their association with the traumatic event, the person goes out of their way to really avoid them, which can really narrow life and cause a lot of impairment.

PTSD also involves mood and thinking disruptions. So, if we see things like anger or lots of pervasive sadness or guilt. We see things disconnecting or isolating from others, as well as really impacted belief structures, negative beliefs about oneself, negative beliefs about the world. Sometimes people take on responsibility for the event that isn't necessarily accurate, but how they view it in terms of holding themselves responsible or accountable for what happened to them. And then we see lots of hypervigilance and hyperarousal type symptoms in PTSD. So, this is on-edge,
difficulty sleeping, feeling very easily startled, and very hyperalert about your environment. Those kinds of things. And so PTSD really refers to that specific symptom constellation of having symptoms in all of those categories that I just mentioned.

And following traumatic events, we see PTSD develop in what I would call a substantial minority. So, if we look across the spectrum of people who in their lifetime meet diagnosis for PTSD, it's around seven to ten percent, something like that. So, it's not most people who experience trauma exposure actually, but it's still enough and it's a substantial minority of people who will go on to suffer in this way from these specific types of symptoms.

And yes, some events are more likely to lead to PTSD than others. So we see events that are characterized by interpersonal violence in particular having higher rates of PTSD develop. So you can think about my definition of trauma exposure per the mental health field, and that encompasses the huge range of events, from natural disasters, to motor vehicle accidents, to the whole host of things life-threatening illnesses that come on very suddenly. And then it also includes things like violence that's perpetrated by someone you know or by a stranger, sexual violence, childhood abuse, so things that happen early in childhood that fall into the physical abuse or sexual abuse category. It's a huge range of traumatic events and some of those, particularly the ones that are characterized by being interpersonal in nature are more likely to lead to PTSD diagnosis than some other types of events.

Amelia Worley:  Do you often see substance use overlap with PTSD?

Michele Bedard-Gilligan:  Yeah, so we do. We see PTSD as something that is commonly comorbid with a variety of things. So we see very high overlap in PTSD and depression, for example. We see overlap in PTSD and other types of anxiety disorders, like experiencing panic attacks. But one place where we particularly see overlap is with substance use.

So this is true for both people who identify as male and people who identify as female. But it's actually a little more common in people who identify as female, where we see rates of maladaptive or unhelpful substance use be increased. So, people with trauma exposure and then people with trauma exposure and PTSD, specifically, will show higher rates of using substances in a way that is problematic, in a way that is getting in their way in some way shape or form. And often we think of that as sort of likely attempts to cope with some of the distress and the symptoms that develop. So substance use can be a way to either deal with negative emotions or to try to cope with those negative emotions. But unfortunately over time, what can happen is that it can then escalate in this way that it can cause problems to the individual. So we see elevated rates there for sure, yeah.

Amelia Worley:  So in your experience, what is the most effective treatment for PTSD?

Michele Bedard-Gilligan:  Yeah, that's a great question, and fortunately we do have really good treatments for PTSD. So I think for a very long time there was a myth that PTSD was something that couldn't be treated. After being exposed to traumatic events and developing distress related to those, that was a burden that would be there for an individual's lifetime. And fortunately, we actually know that, that's not true.

Just like any other mental health disorder, we don't have treatments that work for everybody all of the time in all circumstances, but we do have treatments that we would call pretty effective. So we have medication options. Which is not what I do, because I'm a Clinical Psychologist. But we do have medication options. So medications such as SSRIs are often used and they have effects sizes of about 0.5 and response rates of about 50%, it's about that ballpark. So a number of people who are prescribed to those medications will get a lot of relief from taking them for their PTSD symptoms.

There's also a lot of alternative therapeutics that are being investigated right now, which I won't go into too much because it's not my area really. But things like cannabis, which I do a little bit of work on. But then also things like MDMA-assisted therapy and ketamine-assisted therapies that are being looked at for helping with PTSD. Early stages, but there might be some initial promise there. But really when we think about treatment for PTSD, a lot of where it's at is in therapy approaches. So a lot of where we can be really effective has been therapy behavior change treatments for PTSD. And there's a number of them out there, so there's a number of different approaches and they have a lot of overlap with how we might approach anxiety disorders more generally.


So, for example, a lot of the treatments that we do have a sizable exposure component. So this is about helping the individual approach the reminders of the traumatic event that are causing a lot of fear, a lot of anxiety, those re-experiencing and hypervigilant symptoms that I talked about earlier. So really decreasing their avoided symptoms by using these exposure approaches. So it's involving going out into the real world and doing things that are reminiscent of the trauma but actually safe. So for an example, someone who's in a motor vehicle accident who has developed a fear of driving, and most of the time driving is actually a safe activity. And so helping the person gradually expose themselves to driving again is often a key component of treating trauma reactions.

In addition, in that same exposure realm, we think of PTSD as being a disorder that is also characterized by the memory itself and the memory taking on a very dangerous quality. So when individuals think about the traumatic event, it triggers a lot of anxiety and guilt and distress more generally. And so the exposure really involves helping individuals reprocess that memory. So go back to that memory and approach it in a way where they can sit with it, they can feel some of those emotions that that brings up. But also have that experience of gaining new perspectives and new meaning about the memory to really being able to shift their relationship with that memory, shift their relationship with the way it's impacted, the way they see themselves in the world, and also sit with those emotions so they can start to feel some decrease in them. So, it's really about processing through that memory in a way that helps them make sense and meaning out of something that, quite frankly, is quite senseless, as trauma is. And so really helping them figure out ways that they can see it and find ways to see it, so that they can gain some new perspectives and move forward. And also, correct any beliefs that might have developed that are really triggering a lot of emotion that may be not 100% accurate. So, we talked a little bit earlier about taking responsibility for traumatic events when in fact they were not your fault. And so doing exposure to the memory can help people see the places where, although they've been carrying this burden of guilt or carrying this burden of blaming themselves, and in reality that's not actually true. And so going back and going through that memory can help people shift there.

In addition, a lot of the trauma treatments that we do, so the empirically supported therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder also involve more general cognitive approaches. So, helping people identify the ways that the traumatic event has impacted their view of themselves in the world. Like how has it impacted how they think about things and learning concrete skills for being able to take those beliefs and when they're not accurate, be able to shift them to be more balanced. And so for an example there, we might have people who after a traumatic event have developed very strong beliefs that the world is just always dangerous. It's just a dangerous place. And there's a kernel of truth to that maybe. Bad things do happen and the world can be dangerous, and people who've survived traumatic events know that better than anybody. And the world is probably not 100% dangerous 100% of the time. And so helping people learn the skills to be able to see the places, “where am I safer” or “where are things more dangerous.” Being able to see that nuance again, because after traumatic events that can be really challenging and so helping them learn skills in that area.

And then finally, most of our ... all our treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder really involve a high degree of validation and support. So, following traumatic events, it's just hard. It's challenging to connect to people. It's hard to feel safe anywhere. And so really these events enable people a safe place and a safe space and hopefully a really strong, supportive environment in which to approach all this stuff. To
approach their beliefs and approach their memories and approach the things in the environment that scare them and to do it in a way that's supported and gradual and systematic, and we can really make strong gains with those approaches. Yeah.

Amelia Worley:  So, in the publication I mentioned earlier, PTSD in the Year Following Sexual Assault: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies. You talk about how it is common for PTSD to develop following a sexual assault. Additionally, the first three months post-assault may be a critical period for natural recovery. Can you explain that idea of a critical period for recovery a little more?

Michele Bedard-Gilligan:  Yeah, absolutely. So, as I mentioned earlier, when we think about PTSD and the development of PTSD, it is a substantial minority of people who develop and so it's not everybody. But immediately after a traumatic event, particularly a really severe traumatic event, we will see symptoms of PTSD, symptoms of distress in almost everybody. So, the normative reaction to something really traumatic and terrible and horrible happening is these symptoms of re-experiencing it and having nightmares about it and wanting to avoid and all of those things. But for many people, fortunately those things will go down on their own with time, and we often call that natural recovery, this idea, and what we mean by that it's just recovery that happens without intervention. It just innately or inherently occurs for the person.

And what we mean by this period, this critical period, is that what we've seen from the data and what we observe clinically is that when that natural recovery, that recovery without intervention, that organic recovery happens, it usually happens within those first three months. So those first three months, those first 12 weeks or so. I mean, obviously it's an estimate. But around that time, is really crucial for whatever learning and whatever meanings going to happen for the person innately and organically, it usually occurs in that time. And probably a lot of what that is, is people who in that aftermath of traumatic events are getting that support and that validation that I talked about or they're getting that encouragement to talk through what happened and to really confront the emotions that it's bringing up. And they're doing that on their own naturally. And so, we see this decrease in symptoms that will occur. And again, it occurs for quite a few people or quite a big chunk of people exposed to trauma. And then it seems that as the months go on, if that process hasn't happened in that natural way, then we often see people get stuck with the symptoms that they've developed and so we see those symptoms persist.

In the article you're talking about, the percentage of people who had PTSD symptoms following sexual assault one month after was quite high. It was a very large majority. And then when we followed them or we looked at the studies that have been done and we looked over time at them, we find by a year out it's less, it's slightly less than half who still have the symptoms. And that's actually high. So, for sexual assault to look and see that in a year out, almost half of the individual studied had symptoms that still met criteria for PTSD is pretty high. When we look at other types of traumatic events, we definitely see it being lower. It's lower than that. And so sexual assault and that interpersonal violence is definitely one where we see less of the natural recovery.

Amelia Worley:  So digging into that further, I know you talked a little bit about the positive way that the environment can help with the recovery during those first three months. What are some environmental factors that may be harmful to the individuals' recovery during those first three months?

Michele Bedard-Gilligan:  Yeah, yeah. It's a great question, what keeps those people at risk. So, we see some of the resilience surround where people are able to recover on their own comes from some of the things I talked about. And some of the risk probably comes from the inverse of those.

So people who for whatever reason aren't able to not avoid, they're not able to go back and engage in their world, either because it feels intolerable or because they're not given the opportunity. So they stay isolated or they stay, are really avoidant of things that trigger trauma thoughts or trauma memories. People who don't have natural avenues for support, either because they don't exist, social support is what I mean, either because they don't exist or because they're not able to take advantage of them or because they are experiencing so much avoidance, there's so much distress that they don't reach out or they don't share or they don't talk about it. Or because sometimes what people, sometimes even well-intentioned, reactions we might get in our natural social support environments just aren't helpful.

And again, this is in our culture pervasive. Something really bad happens, you reach out for support in your natural environment and some of what you might get back is, "Just don't think about it. Just try not to think about it." But that's actually the opposite of what we think is helpful. And it's well-intentioned and I see where people come from when they give that kind of feedback and it can also really backfire. If we think what we need is actually to process and to feel the emotions and to really engage with the experience and the memory in order to make sense of it and move forward, not talking about it is the opposite of that.

And then of course there are also extremes. So, we know from the research that's been done that, unfortunately, a sizable number of people when they disclose traumatic events will get what we would call negative reactions. So, they will get either somebody blaming them for what happened or telling them that it was their fault or telling them that they should have done something different or telling them that if they were stronger, they would've just moved on from it. Those kinds of things that we know are actually incredibly harmful. So, for people who get those reactions, they're at much greater risk for developing long-term symptoms.

And then finally, substance use and the overlap of substance use with PTSD is something I care passionately about and something that I do a lot of work on. And we also know that substance use in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event can keep people stuck as well. So, when people are using substances maybe to cope or for other reasons, it can prevent that processing and prevent that adaptive coping and can unfortunately cause more negative outcomes as well.


Amelia Worley:  That's really interesting. I noticed that you have many research projects working with young adults. What are some differences in the way adolescents and young adults process traumatic experiences compared to older adults?

Michele Bedard-Gilligan:  Yeah, it's an interesting thing to think about, about how age and developmental period impacts how we might make senses of the really difficult things in life and how we might cope or find resources following traumatic events. In general, age has not been found to be a very robust predictor of who's likely to develop PTSD. So it's not something where we think about as a background characteristic that's really going to impact whether or not someone goes on to develop distress. That being said, I do think there are some things that we know about what is important to pay attention to. So younger people in general are more likely to be exposed to traumatic events and so there's just a slightly higher risk there. So, in terms of being exposed to trauma, which then obviously puts you at risk for developing post-traumatic stress disorder.

In addition, I think depending on developmental period that younger individuals sometimes have less access to resources, less access to outlets for support. They may be living in environments that are perpetuating the traumatic events or trauma exposure, and not have a whole lot of control on how to get out of those environments. Just because, generally speaking at younger developmental ages, we often have less agency over our environments and in what's going on around us than we do as adults.

So that could be a difference. As well as depending on how young an individual is, what cognitive and emotional resources they have to make sense of things, that can be challenging as well. And so those are some of the main differences, whereas ... Yeah, I think I would just stop there. Those are some of the main differences, I think in terms of how we think about how different age categories might respond to traumatic events differently.

I think your observation that a lot of the work that I do is with younger adults really reflects that first point. That when we are doing studies or where we're intervening and promoting trauma recovery with various therapeutic approaches and we're looking to the community for people to come in and participate in our study and help us learn about these therapies we often see a bias towards individuals who are younger wanting to do those things and or having more of a need for it.

So when you do a research study, for example, where we're providing treatment free of cost. This is really helpful to individuals who may fall into a bracket where they don't have health insurance or the health insurance plans their parents and they don't really want their parents to know that they're doing this. So something along those lines. And so, I think some of it is also a resource thing as well as a need and a vulnerability thing. Yeah.


Amelia Worley:  Lastly, do you have any advice or anything you want to share with our listeners suffering from exposure to trauma or PTSD?

Michele Bedard-Gilligan:  Yeah. I think hopefully some of the things I've talked about in terms of what it looks like and the treatments that are out there for it is helpful to people in terms of if they're looking for options and they are feeling like they need help. I think the couple of things that I would really want to drive home I guess.

One, being that trauma exposure is actually incredibly common. So, when we do big national surveys, it's anywhere, it's over 75% of Americans who've experienced, or people living in the U.S., who have
experienced at least one traumatic event by our definition. So, this is an incredibly common thing and so experiencing trauma, it's not unusual and it doesn't make you an outlier in any way actually. And then that it does lead, we know that it leads to all kinds of increases in distress and makes people vulnerable for all outcomes. It's not a guarantee. Many people are very resilient, and like I said, many people can use the resources and the things they have around them in order to not develop things, distress that is impairing. But many people do and it's not abnormal and it's not something to feel ashamed of. It's not about strength, it's not about being weak, it's not about any of that. It's just about the real effects that these really kinds of horrific experiences have on us as human beings. And because we know this, because we know it can have these predictable effects, I think anything we can do within our communities, within ourselves, within the people close to us to decrease stigma around it. To decrease this idea that experiencing trauma is something that we should be ashamed of or something that leaves us to be marked for life or any of that, is something that I really hope we can start to move past and instead really think about it as something that shapes us as people.

And when it causes distress that's impairing, when it causes symptoms or problems that are getting in the way of us functioning or leading the lives we want to live, that there are things we can do about that. And there're treatments out there that are helpful, that we can start by just reaching out for support if we have people in our lives who can provide that. But when that's not enough, there's other more professional, higher level care options as well. Yeah, and so I think those are just some of the things that I would hope people would be able to hear and understand and that hopefully would be helpful.


Amelia Worley:  That's great. Well, thank you so much, Dr. Bedard-Gilligan. It was wonderful having you on our series today.

Michele Bedard-Gilligan:  Thank you. I appreciate it.

For more information, click here to access an interview with Psychologist Robyn Walser on trauma & addiction.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Psychologist Sarah Gaither on race & Social Identity

An Interview with Psychologist Sarah Gaither

Dr. Gaither is an assistant professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University. She is a social psychologist specializing in diversity and inclusion.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Thanks for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Nicole Izquierdo, research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists, and I'd like to welcome with us Social Psychologist and Diversity and Inclusion Scholar, Dr. Sarah Gaither. Dr. Gaither is an Assistant Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Duke University, and she earned her PhD in Social Psychology from Tufts University, and is currently the Director of Duke's Identity and Diversity lab. She's an expert in social identities and inter-group contact, and her research focuses broadly on how a person's social identities and experiences across the lifespan motivate their social perceptions and behaviors in diverse settings.

So before we get started, do you want to add anything else? Can you tell us a little bit more about yourself?

Sarah Gaither:  Sure. Well, thanks for having me. I'm excited to be here. I think, you know, for me, it's really important for everyone to kind of know my framework of where I come from for why I study what I do.

So I'm Biracial, so I'm Biracial Black/White, but I look like a strange White person, and so it's kind of my lived experience, right, of having this invisible versus visible identities, that's really pushed me in wanting to understand how our group memberships can shift our behavior and identities in different ways. So for me, it's always been this lifelong question of growing up in a mixed-race household, constantly being questioned about why I don't match my dad, why my brother looks different than I do. Those kinds of identity-questioning experiences really what's fueled why I study what I do today.

So I think that's just an important thing for everyone to keep in mind as we discuss things today.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. So I guess you kind of answered this a little, but besides social psychology, growing up, did you play around with any other career paths or like you always knew from day one social psych-

Sarah Gaither:  I definitely did not think I'd ever be a Psychology professor. I was not even a Psychology major in undergrad; I was a Social Welfare major. So I thought I'd be a Social Worker. Turns out I'm not a strong enough person for that. After working on a case, it destroyed me, and I knew I really wanted to study people and behavior and understand, you know, why we make the decisions we do, why we interact with people in positive versus negative ways. So I've always just been a people person. I think for me, growing up kind of confused about my own mixed-race identity, my toys were all super multicultural and multiracial so I knew I was lots of things at the same time, but I didn't really have the words to explain those things.

So during my gap years after undergrad, that's when I realized doing literature reviews, as boring as that can sound to some of you listening to this right now, I discovered within the Psychology field, at least, there was very little published research with Biracial samples. So my group, my existence really just didn't exist within our current findings, and so that's what motivated me to want to apply to grad school. Try and give a voice to these populations and experiences while also using Biracial, bicultural experiences to help us understand more broadly how our identities kind of function, even if you aren't a member of one of those groups.

Nicole Izquierdo:  So for the people listening who don't know what social psychology is or what diversity and inclusion research is, do you want to go into a little bit more detail about that and even the specific questions that you aim to answer?

Sarah Gaither:  Yeah, yeah. So being a social psychologist, I think everyone in the world is a social psychologist, even if you have no training in it, basically because we all judge each other all the time. So social psychology is our social judgements of each other, our social judgements of ourselves. It's the psychology behind the decisions we make, the role that the context plays in shifting how we perceive things in our social world. So social psychology really shapes everything we do. It's also the lens that we process things that have already happened to us at the same time.

So in my work as a social psychologist, I look not only at the present day and sort of, "What are your current attitudes and how you feel about your own identities or other people or other groups?", but I also look developmentally, when you were little, when you were growing up. "What are the types of experiences you had with people from different diverse backgrounds?" that might actually predict whether you're more inclusive versus an exclusive person later on as an adult. So that's sort of how I see social psychology and why I think all of us are technically social psychologists deep down inside.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Yeah. So I wanted to ask you about, I don't know if this is the right term, but like implicit bias, and basically you said that it affects people in the future when interacting with others. Are people doomed when it comes to their implicit bias? Is there a certain limit or, like what can be done? Like what are some interventions or early childhood teachings?

Sarah Gaither:  Yeah. So implicit bias, for those of you who might not know what that is, that's kind of these internal automatic associations, stereotypes that you might have about someone you don't know, right? So that gut reaction, that gut response that you have when you see someone new for the first time, those are usually our implicit responses to that individual or to that group. So, lots of people ask me all the time, "Is there a critical age point where we should intervene and make everyone magically inclusive?" There's not one age point, right, where we say, "This is when change happens." Early on, early childhood is one of those critical periods. We know exposure to people from different races, cultures, ethnicities, if you can travel to different regions of a country that you live in, those are really prime opportunities when you're a young child, because you're learning what words mean and what these associations mean to different groups.

So if you're only exposed to people who look like you the whole time growing up, the first time you see someone from another group who looks a little different, you're only going to have those stereotypes you've maybe learned from the media or other sources of influence. So, diversity contact is super, super important early on in childhood. Adolescence is another time that we know is ripe for interventions, mainly because that's when kids are switching school environments, and so changes in context are always ripe for opportunities in people trying to reassess themselves or reassess their biases. Same thing goes for entering college. This is a very important identity period in particular, because when you move off to a four-year institution, if that is the type college you may have gone to, that's usually the first time people are moving away from their home, their family, their friends, and they're forced to navigate these social worlds for the first time, without any help from anyone that they've known.

So college is one of those identity-ripe periods where people are often experiencing new things for the first time. Maybe they lived in a context where they could never acknowledge an identity or an aspect of themselves until they got away from that home environment or that home context. So those are kind of main age points that I focus on a lot in my work, mainly because I am very interested in those moments of change. So to answer your original question, no one's doomed. Everyone can change, but some people might take a little more effort to change than others. The same thing goes for negative contact you might have. So if you have lots of positive diversity contact, that's going to change your attitudes in a positive direction, but you could have negative contact, and that's going to work against those attitude changes. It can actually reinforce those negative attitudes you might already have. So, contact can work in both positive and negative ways.


Nicole Izquierdo:  When you talk about college, I wanted to talk a little bit more about the kind of work you've done on Duke's campus. I'm familiar with your random roommate study, but I was hoping you can elaborate a little bit more on that as well.

Sarah Gaither:  Yeah. So Duke, a couple years ago, changed their roommate policy for incoming freshmen. So, they used to allow a freshman to either be randomly assigned to a roommate or they could choose their own roommate, and Duke decided to change that policy a couple years ago where all incoming freshmen are now randomly assigned. They did this because they wanted to see if it actually changed how inclusive the freshmen class felt, and they asked me if I wanted to study it. I had some work from grad school I had published that showed if you were a White freshman living with anyone but another White freshman, so a Black, Latino, or an Asian individual, that experience living with someone from another racial background your freshman year, by the end of that freshman year when I brought you into the lab to meet a Black student you had never met before, that interaction went way better. Way more positive eye contact. You smiled more. The Black students also felt better in those interactions as well. So this wasn't just a gain for White students, but for students of color as well.

So Tufts and I did that project during grad school in Boston, and then Duke knew that I had done that, and so they asked me to follow this cohort here at Duke. Really, what we're seeing is similar types of effects and changing some of our White students' social behavior in these future settings who have been randomly assigned a roommate from another racial or cultural background, but we're seeing that I think is even more interesting in a way as we also recruited minority students in the sample at Duke, and regardless of what your racial or ethnic background may be, everyone's friend networks are becoming significantly more diverse by the end of that freshman year.

So by forcing you to live with someone who's different just for that first year of college, we're seeing this expansion of one's sense of self, as we call it. Your in-groups become bigger, your social networks become more inclusive, and it's actually making Duke not seem as exclusive. Still has some issues to work out for sure, but that's one of our main positive findings right now, which I'm really excited about.


Nicole Izquierdo:  So the positive effects are happening for both the White racial majority and the minority groups. Okay.

Sarah Gaither:  Yeah, for both groups. So that's, you know, and that's rarely studied with students of color on different college campuses. It's tricky at Duke since we're still a predominantly White campus to kind of control for how much White contact versus minority contact students are getting, but the fact that everyone's friend networks are actually becoming more racially diverse, gender diverse, sexual orientation diverse, religiously diverse. The only one we're not moving, it seems, is politically diverse, but Duke's campus is also politically liberal, pretty biased in that direction so I think there's not quite enough room to move those friend aspects around, but all the other categories seem to be expanding.

Nicole Izquierdo:  And we all know the pandemic kind of messed up all our life goals, research, et cetera. So how would you say it impacted your research both like practically, and also, did it change the kind of research questions that you want to ask moving forward?

Sarah Gaither:  Yeah. COVID, you know, shifted a lot of things, and of course, millions of people around the world have died from COVID, and so that's really the real thing we should all be focusing on, on how COVID has impacted things. From a research standpoint, for me in particular, it ended all in-person research. So what I really love studying is the actual social behavior between people when they're talking to each other face-to-face, but when COVID hit, we couldn't run in-person studies, everyone was wearing masks. So if I'm wearing a mask, you can't see my face. You can't see my emotions. It makes coding whether these interactions are going positively or not pretty much impossible. So we had to stop all behavioral in-lab data collection.

We also do work with young kids and families. Since kids under five still are not able to be vaccinated we're actually still running kids online even today, even though COVID is becoming less of a problem, just to keep all families and parents safe. So, that's the main way it's affected us really, is not being able to do any in-person data collection.

The other way is even online data collections since we can collect some of our work through online surveys. Those prices have also skyrocketed because everyone got moved to online platforms. So following classic economics, right, supply and demand, they can charge what they want when all of us were forced to collect our data online. So, grants became more necessary during COVID, and just thinking creatively about how to adapt some of the questions that I'm interested in into an online Zoom format, right? How can we still relate this to real world outcomes through these weird little black boxes we all exist on for the last two years?


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. So now I want to move into a little bit more, most of our listeners are either interested in like therapy, mental health. So have you done or read up on any work about Biracial individuals in therapy, or anything related to like racial trauma and like Biracial people's role in the Black Lives Matter movement?

Sarah Gaither:  Yeah. So lots of responses there. So the bulk of my work focuses on Biracial and bicultural experiences because of my own lived experiences. The most common stressor we have for both of these groups is something we call "identity denial" or "identity questioning." So if someone's ever asked you, "What are you?", "Are you sure your dad's your dad?", these kinds of very direct identity-threatening situations, over time, they serve as small little microaggressions that science has now shown really add up to being strong mental health stressors. It develops people in an inability to form a positive sense of self. It's negatively impacting their self-esteem. So a lot of the multiracial and multicultural literatures actually cite higher cases of different types of mental health outcomes, such as depression and anxiety for these groups, and the reason they cite this sometimes in clinical work is because they have twice amount of the exclusion in their lives, right? If you're part White and part Black, you now have White people and Black people both excluding you for different reasons, right? So it's twice the amount of social exclusion.

So Biracial people aren't experiencing more discrimination than other racial or ethnic minority groups importantly; we know monoracial minorities tend to experience more direct discrimination and prejudice, but from a social exclusion standpoint, which is what's directly linked to a lot of negative and mental health outcomes is higher for our Biracial and bicultural populations compared to other racial and ethnic groups.

So that's something our lab's been trying to measure, and we actually have the first paper where we measured cortisol responses for this specific identity denial experience that Biracial and bicultural individuals face. So you see your cortisol, which is a biomarker, inside of your body that elevates when you have a stressful experience. We find that this increases for both bicultural and Biracial people, and if you live your life at higher rates of cortisol all the time being elevated, it can lead to early death, weight problems, sleep problems, things of that sort as well.

So, what I think is tricky from a therapy counseling angle is most of the research that exists has excluded multiracial and multicultural people from their demographics. They're difficult to categorize and to fit into boxes. So we don't know if you need a certain type of multicultural therapist to feel included in your sessions. We don't know what cues, right, and what to train people on since there's so much variability within the multiracial and multicultural demographic. It's hard to come up with a one-size-fits-all kind of training model on what to do in these therapy sessions.

I think what this all stems down to is just this notion of belonging, right? When anyone has an issue with belonging, they feel like they don't belong or they don't fit in, this is what leads to those negative mental health downstream consequences. That's what led to me
writing my own piece on being involved in the Black Lives Matter movement, as someone who presents very White. Those are those particular contexts, right, where you question where you belong, what your space is, what your space is not, and to also question your privilege; if you're White-presenting, you clearly have privileges in our US society that other people do not, but knowing where you can still fight for those who are marginalized, fight for those who are having more difficulties in their life is still an internal stressor for many multicultural and multiracial people.

So I wrote that piece as a way to hopefully motivate others who maybe felt similarly as I did where we wanted to be involved, but weren't sure if that space was a space we were welcomed in or not, right. Making sure that we give the stage and the platforms to people whose voices have not been heard over time. So that's really what motivated that piece that I wrote earlier.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Do you see anything with children of, let's say, your Black father and your White mother, where they experience, I wouldn't say it's like secondhand, but like you witness the racial minority parent experiencing discrimination. So even though the child doesn't firsthand because they're White-presenting, they see someone they love experiencing that. Have you done or heard about any research that analyzes that?

Sarah Gaither:  Yeah. There's very little research in that direction—sorry. My dog is barking. There is clearly a delivery person outside. He's going to be very loud for a second, but he's a lovely dog, everyone. Yay for working at home. That's the other way COVID has impacted me.

To answer your question there, there isn't a ton of research looking at offspring of mixed-race parents and sort of, what are the instances of discrimination or prejudice they witness from their parents. That's a great thing that should be studied. I know from my own firsthand experiences, for me, that's what made me hyperaware of race relations growing up, right? Knowing that I was never targeted, but it was always my dad being targeted, right? He would be accosted when we were at the shopping mall. People saying, "Hey, are you kidnapping this little girl?" They would never come up to me; they would direct all of their accusations toward him. We had skinheads living down the street from us growing up and they would only throw rocks on his side of the car, but not my side of my car.

So there are these explicit exposures and that's how kids learn. Kids learn through these experiences, and I think that's what makes being multiracial a complicated thing to study developmentally. It depends on if you're in a two-parent versus a single-parent household, that also hasn't been studied a ton, which parent is doing the kind of racial or ethnic socialization. Also not studied a ton, but our lab is currently collecting some data on that, so stay tuned. So I think those inputs of how kids learn, particularly from multiracial and multicultural backgrounds when they're little, it's just not documented that well. Sociology has a couple papers on it, but there's hasn't been any large-scale psychology studies yet.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. That just came up when talking about this.

So you mentioned that inclusion, sense of belonging have been linked to mental health outcomes. Can you just elaborate a little bit more on that? Like how much sense of belonging is enough to prevent those things from developing or is just like one instance of ostracism detrimental?

Sarah Gaither:  Yeah, yeah. So needing to belong, it's this kind of core fundamental human desire to just want to fit in. You want to feel like you have a home. You want to feel like you have a family. You want to feel like people understand you and your experiences for who you are without any questions whatsoever, right? So this can be measured in lots of different ways in psychology research, but the way we know it affects mental health outcomes in particular is for people who really feel like they never belong anywhere, right, or if they're trying to get into certain groups, but then there's people that keep saying, "No, you're not enough of X to be in this group," or "No, you're not good enough to be in this group," it's those constant kind of combinations of wanting to be in a group but then having that identity denial experience of not being able to attain that group membership that ends up leading to these increased stress outcomes, increased anxiety outcomes, etc.

So, how much needing to belong people have, everyone varies on this. There's not a magical number. If you have too many friends and none of them are very close friends, you're going to have a lot harder time dealing with identity stressors and identity threat experiences. You really need a couple good core members within your social circle. These could be family members, these could be friends, these could be romantic partners, any of those things, but you really need more than one. I'd say somewhere between three and five good core people, and the question that I post to all of my classes, which Nicole here has actually heard me already say once is, you know, if your car broke down at 2 o’clock in the morning on a very dark highway in the middle of nowhere, do you have at least a couple people you could call who would come and pick you up, no questions asked? Right?

That's the level of belonging, that level of social bonds that people strive for, and if you don't have those social bonds to latch onto when you're feeling threatened by society, by a peer, by a colleague or an employee, that lack of a social bond connection is what causes us to have these drops within our self-esteem and leads to that increased depression and anxiety outcomes.

So that's really one of the number one reasons why we see people in therapy and counseling sessions because they feel like they just don't know where they fit in.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Something else we learned about in your class, which I guess is another avenue I say that negative mental health outcomes could result from is compartmentalization and conflicting identities. So you still belong, but you're not able to, let's say, express that other conflicting identity within that group. Can you like give an example or why compartmentalization is so detrimental versus being able to integrate all your identities?

Sarah Gaither:  Yeah, yeah. So, you know, a big area of research is called identity integration within this kind of identity circle, and so if you have lots of your identities, the more integrated they are, the more in harmony that they are, the more they get along together, usually the less negative mental health consequences you're going to face because you can navigate very flexibly between your different identities, but if you view your identities very separately or they're in conflict, or one's in secret, you can't claim that identity based on a given context you may be in, that ends up leading to more stress, right? And it's because you're constantly fighting this battle of who it is you really are with this kind of secret invisible identity perhaps versus who it is you think you should be, right?

So a way we frame this a lot in psychology is looking at these conflicts between your
actual self versus your ideal versus your ought self, right? This ideal self of who you would ideally be in an ideal space. The ought is who you think you should be, right, maybe based on social pressures, family pressures, but the conflict that you have between your actual self and either of these ideals or ought selves, that's where we see this increase in mental health negative downstream consequences for individuals.

So, I always try and tell people, you know, if they're feeling down, they really should work on why it is this one identity or this one experience seems to be so separate from the rest of them because our identities are multifaceted. They are intertwined with each other, but sometimes one can get very detached, but figuring out a way to get that more encompassed with your other identities is the best way to try and lift yourself back up in those moments.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. So now we're going to switch back the spotlight onto you. So, you recently became a mother to twins. So has becoming a mother impacted the way you view the world and impacted the way you are as a researcher?

Sarah Gaither:  I think for me, I had twins last summer, so they're almost a year old. I've almost made it a year now with twins, which is a whole thing on its own. I think, A: being pregnant is a new identity, right, that people don't really talk about within the identity structure, and it's a temporary identity, right? You're not pregnant forever, but being a pregnant person is definitely an identity experience that I don't think is quite understood. And then you're not pregnant anymore randomly and these beings have come out of you. It's a totally weird transition, right? You go one day from being this, you know, wobbly person who can barely walk, and now you have this person, or in my case, two people who are completely dependent on you in every way, shape, and form.

So I think for me over the past year, what I've become hyperaware of is, A: how incredibly gendered our world is. I have boy/girl twins. We're trying not to gender them as much as possible, but it is everywhere and it's how people interact with them. It's even the language that people use with them, the toys that they choose to give them if they have choices of toys across a room. I think that's been a big kind of eye-opening experience for me, but for my own identity experiences, I think I didn't know how multifaceted I really was until I became a mom. I think being a mom makes everything else kind of click together. Now I know my experiences of cooking and liking food can now make them the food that they need. I know that my experience and the love for travel and exposure to diversity, the things I strive for in my own research are all the opportunities I look for to take my kids to, right, to make sure that they're getting that exposure at different cultural events here in Durham or whatever the case may be.

So, I think I am much more thoughtful now than I was before and where I go and what I do with my time, and making sure that each thing my kids are exposed to is hopefully going to lead to this positive identity change that I measure in my own research. So, it's kind of made me a double researcher in a way where I don't want my kids to not practice what I preach, right, is sort of my approach with them.

I think the other thing that it's made me really think about is how much we don't know how people are going to change, right? Identity is malleable across everyone's lives, and you asked earlier, right, "Is bias malleable?" Well, your identities are malleable too, right? So the experiences my kids are having right now is definitely going to shape some of their attitudes, some of their preferences, but that can also change drastically later on, right? There could be things that I'm doing, limiting certain things that they don't have a chance to experience, right, and trying to make sure that I'm open enough with letting them identify how they want to identify, right? Because identity is definitely malleable over the lifespan too.

So I think those are the things that keep me awake at night because they're actually pretty good sleepers. So I think about those things a lot.


Nicole Izquierdo:  And what advice would you give to parents of Biracial children, being one yourself, and like researching Biracial children?


Sarah Gaither:  I think it's, you know, exactly what I just said: let your kids, and even if your kids aren't Biracial, let your kids identify how they want to identify. What we know from so much research and psychology, sociology, education, health research is that when people feel their identity is forced on them in any way, taking away their autonomy, taking away their freedom to really identify for who they are, that's what leads to these negative mental health consequences. So, as much as you want to put your culture, your race, your background, your upbringing, your favorite foods, whatever it may be on your kid, if they don't like that favorite food, try to be nice about it, right? Because when things feel forced, that's when we know this identity conflict starts sort of arising between a parent and a child, and it can affect their overall identity development.

So let them be kids. Let them explore, let them learn, and realize that you too are going to make mistakes, right, in how you talk about things with them and you can learn from each other. So that would be my advice, I think, for anyone out there.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Is there a limit to what can be considered an identity?

Sarah Gaither:  Yeah. That's a good question. I'd say no. I'd say people can frame an identity in lots of different ways. Some people, being a runner really is a core component of who they are, right? If they lost their ability to run, they would lose their sense of self. I hate running, right? So for me, that would never be an identity, but for some people that's a very strong identity and that might be stronger than their gender identity or their racial or ethnic identity. I think when we think about identities broadly, we tend to think of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation. We don't always think about these other aspects: being a foodie, being a mom, being pregnant, right? There are lots of identities out there. What I think is important is knowing which identities are more important to you and why, right?

So that's what makes things shift your behavior and shift your judgment, is certain identities are going to cause you to change what it is you buy at the store, who it is you want to date, or what kind of graduate school program you might be considering, and not all of your identities are going to play as strong of roles in shaping those decisions down the road. So I think identities can be anything, but some of them are going to have more power over you than others.


Nicole Izquierdo:  And finally, another personal question, but where do you see yourself in the next five years, and how would you like your career to grow while at Duke?

Sarah Gaither:  Yeah. Well, hopefully I'll be tenured within the next five years. You listening, Duke? I hope that happens. I'll be submitting for tenure this summer. So we'll see what happens in the next year. So hopefully I'll be tenured. So I think for me, my biggest outstanding questions are really trying to figure out, what happens if you have negatively stereotyped identities? How does that function within a lot of these kind of multiple identities, flexible thinking kind of outcome spaces? I'd really love to understand more about that. I'd also really love to understand more developmentally with little kids when they really claim something as an identity. It's very hard to measure, but when does that young kid realize, "Hey, this is actually who I am," right? What are the different age points where race versus gender versus being a runner or whatever the case may be, when does that become important to kids, and what are the contexts or the pathways that lead to that strong, positive identification?

Those are things I'd love to still be studying going forward. I think the other thing I'd love to do is to also take this out into the real world. I think we do all these nerdy psychology studies in these controlled lab settings. That's why this roommate study was really interesting for me to do because it's real-world behavior, right? It's students living in the dorms with their roommates. So trying to extend some of this work into more naturalistic settings, I think, is absolutely key for us to truly understand the power that our identities have over our choices.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Do you see your work translating into the relationship between a therapist and their patient?

Sarah Gaither:  Yeah. I think identity always matters, right? I think there's lots of work out there; people are trying to measure identity matching, right? If that's something that helps within therapy sessions or not, or identity signaling, identity cues.

Another project we've been doing here on Duke's campus is called DukeLine, which is a peer texting program. So undergrads are helping other undergrads. I'm just a faculty member helping to fund it and run it, but I play no role in the peer coaching that happens, but what we've been trying to do within this peer coaching texting framework is to not necessarily tell you which anonymous peer coach you have if you happen to text in for help. You don't necessarily know what their individual identities are, but we have bios of all of our coaches we're putting on our website that show all the different identities that are represented within our coaching team, and our coaching team works really close together. We have a searchable database of the 600-700 most common stressors for Duke students that are actually curated by people from all of these different identity backgrounds, right, to make sure that when a student has a question, if you don't belong to that group or you haven't had that experience, we have people who have had those experiences, right, that we can pull from.

So I do think, from an identity matching angle, that type of connection is absolutely key. It's impossible, I think, to always match people based on certain identity qualities for therapy sessions, but it's not impossible to give people cultural tools and cultural knowledge, right, to make sure that the advice they're giving them, the help that they're giving them is culturally sensitive, and that's where I think we need to be improving.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Yeah, I wrote a, I forgot what class it was for, but I wrote an assignment about this, and yeah, like the same thing: there are so many barriers for those minority identity groups to even enter the field and become therapists. So obviously matching by those identities is like impossible. So the first step should be to equip these White majority, or not even White: any other majority group, whether it's religious or sexual orientation, with like these cultural tools to implement them, so-

Sarah Gaither:  Yeah. Not all identities are visible when someone walks into a therapy session also, right? Like no one would know walking into a therapy session with me that I have a Black parent, right? So I think these assumptions that we sometimes make as clinicians also should be checked, right? We should have, you know, thorough kind of demographic explorations with patients to make sure that we know their multifaceted selves are all of themselves that they bring to each session, right? It might be one identity that's being targeted in that moment, but I argue all the different identities, again, whether they're in harmony or not, are all contributing to the stressors that someone's facing and how they're processing them in that moment. So if you're only targeting one identity, you're probably not going to be that successful in healing the whole self, because it's all intertwined.

Nicole Izquierdo:  Thank you. So yeah, we'll just be wrapping up now. I guess the last thing is, is there anything you'd like to share or any advice you'd like to give to our listeners to close us off?

Sarah Gaither:  I think just be bold and brave and experience new things, right? This is the number one thing that when people ask me, "Well, what can I do for my kid?", or "What can I do for myself?" Go out and explore the world. We live in such a segregated society. We talk to people who think like we do all the time. Go make a new friend in a new group, go to a new cultural event. Go to a part of the state or the region you live in you've never gone to before and just feel it out. We know that even just temporarily vacationing somewhere different, right, can force you to think about the world in a different way, and these perspective-taking experiences I think are so key, not only for how you learn about your whole world and society, but how you learn about yourself.

So just, you know, get out there and do some new things, and even just taking a walk around your neighborhood if you don't even do that is a good start.


Nicole Izquierdo:  Well, thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Gaither. We really appreciate you taking the time to speak with us.

Sarah Gaither:  Yeah. Thanks for having me. I had a great time.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.

Sociologist Peter J. Stein on Genocide & Discrimination

An Interview with Sociologist Peter J. Stein

Dr. Peter J. Stein is a Professor Emeritus of Sociology at William Paterson University and a Holocaust scholar.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Hey, thanks for joining us today. I'm Dr. Jennifer Ghahari, Research Director at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. I'd like to welcome with us Sociologist, Peter Stein. Dr. Stein has a Doctorate in Sociology from Princeton University, and has been a professor of sociology for 33 years, primarily at William Paterson University in New Jersey. Most recently he was a senior research scientist at UNC Chapel Hill. Since 2018 Dr. Stein has been volunteering, educating groups about the Holocaust at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Author of nine books, his most recent includes; “A Boy's Journey: From Nazi-Occupied Prague to Freedom in America.” Before we get started, can you please let our listeners know a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in studying the Holocaust?

Peter Stein:  Thank you for the introduction, Jennifer, and I'm glad to be here. I was born about two years before the Nazis and Hitler occupied, Czechoslovakia. I was born in Prague. First couple of years of my life were fine. But on June 15th, 1939, Germans came in, and the Holocaust started not much after that. My dad was Jewish, Viktor Stein, and he married a Catholic woman, my mother, Helen Zdenka Kvetonova. They had mutual interests. They liked music, they liked dancing. They fell in love, they married. And the fact that my Jewish father married a Christian woman, pretty much saved his life.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Wow.

Peter Stein:  Because unlike the other eight members of his family, his brothers and sisters and his mother, were all sent to concentration camps in 1942. My dad was not sent until two years later. He was doing slave labor. That is manual labor in and around Prague, which was difficult and demanding, but he survived. So, then he sent to Terezin in Czech or, quote, "Theresienstadt" in German, which was a ghetto-labor camp about an hour northwest of Prague. He was forced - he worked on wood manufacturing, is what he did before the war. That is, he had the Bentwood Manufacturing Factory. So, they made chairs. Anything with bentwood. Tennis rackets, skis, ping pong paddles, and so on...

So, he was able to apply some of those skills in Terezin. He came back in 1945. I remember him jumping off a Soviet truck. About 12 Russian soldiers brought back survivors of the Holocaust. He was still wearing a yellow star, which was required. So, then we went back to democracy, but the communist party came into power, and it took my parents almost two years to get an American visa. We came to the states the same night that Harry Truman upset Thomas Dewey for the presidency in 1948. Sailed by, The Statue of Liberty, her crown lit up, the torch lit up, and I saw downtown Manhattan. And I wanted to stay up all night. Why? Because I was looking for king Kong and Fay – climbing the edifice with Fay Wray. Finally, my mother said, no, go to bed. So, we came to the States. My father came two years later. It's a long story, but basically he was arrested by the communists for trying to get his factory back. My mom was a governess for a family with two children. And we lived with them in Larchmont, New York. I learned English. I went to City College. Then I went to Princeton for my PhD degree and I've taught in and around the New York area, primarily William Paterson. Jennifer's alma mater and where we also met and the rest is history.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Great. Well thank you for sharing that with us and I'm sorry for everything that you and your family have been through, again, even begin to imagine. And again, thank you for speaking with us today. In terms of antisemitism that I think it's used fairly often. Can you explain to our listeners, what does that term actually mean?

Peter Stein:  It's interesting. Historians and scholars still research and write about it. And most recently the current Biden administration appointed Deborah Lipstadt, who's a historian of the Holocaust, to a position overseeing Holocaust and genocide developments. So, it's come to that level of importance. And basically goes back to the Nazi ideology that Jews are inferior. They're inferior physically, they're inferior mentally and intellectually. And basically they have no right to survive. I mean, that's the essence of the Nazi ideology. That they're less than humans. And one film that the Nazi's produced shows Jews as vermin, as roaches to be destroyed...

And many people hope that the use of that term and attitude towards Jews would change with the end of World War II. However, all kinds of studies, one by ADL, the Anti-Defamation League shows an increase in antisemitism, both in the United States and in Europe. So, much so the latest study is a 2021 study. And I want to make sure that I report the figures correctly.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Thank you.

Peter Stein:  They do something where they count anti-Semitic incidents in the year 2021. They discovered 2,717 antisemitic incidents ranging from vandalism, putting a swastika or something of that sort, to violence in the synagogue and Pittsburgh, most notably the Tree of Life Synagogue and others. So, the antisemitism continues and I have to quote one noted authority. My mother. And when she was still alive, I asked her, well, why do you think there was so much antisemitism in Czechoslovakia?

She said envy. And I think there's something about envy. The Jews for millennia in Europe were segregated into ghettos, they were limited in what they can do. But in the 17th, 18th centuries in Europe, they were given more latitude, more opportunities. And they went into the professions, law, medicine, manufacturing, banking, and they were succeeding quite well. And I think the envy came in there because for generations, Jews were seen as inferior, less than human, to be avoided. And suddenly Jews had power and some had wealth. But I have to be very clear that yes, there were rich Jews and there were also very poor Jews. Many of them, the poorer ones in Eastern Europe, in agricultural areas. But that antisemitism had been spreading for generations before Hitler ever came on the scene.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Wow. And as you said, it's spiking again. And it seems that hate groups are on the rise again. And aside from antisemitic attacks, there's also been a large increase in anti-Asian sentiments and attacks in the US. And it seems to correspond, especially with Asian Americans, with the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. And in America, we're talking about Jewish Americans and we're talking about Asian Americans. They're not outsiders, but some people are treating them as such. So, sociologically speaking, how can we overcome as a society, this discrimination against our own subgroups.

Peter Stein:  I think you hit the nail on the head with the use of the word outsiders. I think one way to look at all of these issues is who's the insider, who's the outsider - who are the we, who are the they, who are the people with power and influence and who are those with limited? And I dare to say that in every society that we know of, there have been some people with more power and they can use the power to label other people as different that as outsiders. And among outsiders, if you look at it historically, were women, African Americans, Asians, Jews, people with disabilities, people with different sexual orientations. Any number of those people who then can be painted as dangerous, as different, as our kids shouldn't associate with them. And you quite right about Asians. It's been an ongoing struggle that we're now more aware of...

And
Asian community are saying, we want protection. We want equal opportunities. We want equal rights. Chinese of course were built sent to your neck of the woods, the West Coast, to build railroads, primarily male workers, very few women. And so they were doing that kind of labor. The Japanese were the “good” group. They were the ideal group to the World War II when they were suspected of being pro German and sent to internment camps, which is a different word for concentration camps. And they suffered. And if you look at just one quick figure I was looking at, if you look at the proportion of Asians in technical jobs, chemistry, other sciences, is quite high. If you look at the proportion of CEOs in American corporations with Asian backgrounds it’s about 2%. So, they're promoted up to a certain point and then I think the stereotypes come in.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Wow. Thank you. Sadly, and unfortunately, obviously it seems that you have firsthand experienced of the damage that extreme prejudice and discrimination can do. And are you comfortable to share some of your childhood experiences in Prague with our listeners?

Peter Stein:  For those people looking for holiday gifts? There's a wonderful book - my memoir.

Jennifer Ghahari:  It is a great book. I read it probably in two sittings.

Peter Stein:  Wonderful. You didn't have some Czech wine with it, I hope. I hope it was Czech beer. It was difficult. My dad, would disappear for periods of time and I always would ask, this is during the war, during the Nazi occupation, during the Holocaust, I would ask my mother where's dad. And also where's my uncle Richard, my favorite uncle, brother of his, who would always bring me stuffed animals and toys. He was wonderful. My mom's standard answer was, “Your dad's on a business trip. He'll be back as soon as he can.” I checked with my cousin Gerti. Gerti also has a Catholic mother, Jewish father and her mother had the exact same answer that her sister did. That is, “Your dad is on a business trip. He'll be home as soon as possible.” So, I had no idea. I of course, had no sense of what Holocaust, what concentration camps were...
 
None of that. I went to school. But we had German soldiers all around. And in my classroom, every classroom in the front, there was a picture of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi flag. The teachers were Czech, but they were instructed to be quite reverential of Hitler and the Nazis. So, I'll give you one quick example of what I experienced as cognitive dissonance. Monday through Friday, we were told in class, when it came up that the Germans were winning. They even took us to a couple of parades to honor German soldiers coming back from the east. But on Sundays, I and my mother would visit my Catholic grandparents. And my grandmother was a wonderful cook, wonderful baker, always had a good meal, despite food shortages. She could put a chicken on the table at six o'clock like clockwork. Every Sunday when we were there, my grandfather invited me and my cousin, Robert, who was nine months older than I into a study. He would put on his Blaupunkt short wave radio and listen to the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation, which started with the chimes of Big Ben then Beethoven’s 5th (sings a few notes).


Jennifer Ghahari:  That's very dramatic.

Peter Stein:  And we'd have a bulletin of the news. And my grandfather spread a map of Europe on his desk. He had a stack of black checkers, which indicated the German positions and red checkers indicating the Allied positions, including D-Day in Normandy. And it was just amazing. And whenever we finished with him at his home, he would say, “Don't worry, your dad will come back.” He told both of us. Sadly, my dad did come back, he survived - my cousin's father, Leo Perutz was killed in Auschwitz. But that dissonance, what was happening: so, for a seven or eight year old, who do you listen to? Well, I went with my grandfather, but he said never about this in school...
 
If the teachers get a wind of it, you could get into trouble. So, the whole thing, the war years were difficult, including a couple of bombings of Prague. I have a whole chapter about that, where an American squadron flew over Prague, the same day they were supposed to bomb Dresden in Germany. They mistook the topography. It's very similar rivers. And so we lived through that. That was one of the scariest moments, because my school is in downtown Prague and they hit some buildings, the church, so on. So, the whole thing, the war was there, but somehow we managed and my mother was terrific. She looked after me, made sure we ate and all of that. And at the end of the war, she and I both became vegetarians. Why? We couldn't get any meat. So, I had fresh bread, which I loved with several different mustards. No meat. No hotdogs. Not a problem in Seattle these days.


Jennifer Ghahari:  Exactly. You didn't stick with the vegetarianism. Did you?

Peter Stein:  It ended as soon as the war ended. Butchers opened businesses, stores.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Nice. Thank you for sharing that with us. It definitely helps to visualize what you and your family experienced. And now looking at what's going on in Ukraine, I think people might be able to see some connections. For those who aren't familiar on February 24th, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his army to invade Ukraine. And for those who have seen images on TV at home, the images and the stories are just gut wrenching and actually anxiety inducing. So, I can only imagine what you feel, seeing something like that. Cause it seems you some type of similar things that you went through back in Prague. From your own personal experience, can you speak of what you see going on in Ukraine? And are there any similarities?

Peter Stein:  How many days do we have for this?

Jennifer Ghahari:  Exactly.

Peter Stein:  It's quite tragic, I must say. A couple of historical examples come to mind. In 1938, before Hitler invaded the whole country, he went to liberate an area called the Sudetenland. Sudetenland: about three million Czech citizens who spoke German as their native language. And Hitler used that pretext to liberate them from the Czechs, who he accused of oppressing. Putin’s take on it certainly is influenced by that kind of structuring. Then in 1948, the communists came into power in February and again in one day dictated censorship. So, my dad came home from his office in February midday, and he showed me the newspaper. He said, democracy has died in Czechoslovakia. I said, what do you mean? He shows me the newspaper and there're several columns, completely white. Those are stories that were never printed. Critical of, in this case, the communist takeover, what was called a putch.

And so Czechs had to flee. 20 years later, 1968, the Soviet army, well, the Warsaw Pact Nations in invade Czechoslovakia. People are probably familiar with that. And rest of my family, the Czech Jewish family that survived the war, left Prague one person at a time, because the rumor was that if you try to take your whole family out, you're likely to be questioned, even arrested. So, I spent a week in Vienna with my dad and every afternoon at three o'clock, we'd go to the railroad station to see if any relatives, and it literally took two weeks for the father, the mother, the daughter, and the son to come out. And you see it, people weren't being bombed, but they were limited to one suitcase.

And since I was there, I did a little study. I interviewed people for a couple of days. Most of them were in their thirties or forties, single or young parents, doctors, lawyers, nurses, social workers, teachers. What we would call a brain drain. And I think we haven't looked at the full impact in Ukraine of the Russian attack. How many other people have fled, had skills that are necessary. And it's very close to a genocide. Certainly they’re war crimes, the bombing of hospitals, of children's centers, of theaters, killing women and children, tying them up “in the name of freedom.” And it's hard not to think about domestic situation. I'm not going to go there, but the use of the concept of freedom and helping people themselves, you have to ask, who's doing the talking and what are the actions like? What's the behavior. It's not propaganda. It's what they do. And it's troubling. And now, as you know yesterday, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs for Russia, Mr. Lavrov, is talking about, they “have nuclear weapons,” while we know that, but that's...

Jennifer Ghahari:  The similarities are highly disturbing, especially because it seems like you said that, it is ethnic cleansing, even though it's framed in the terms of liberation. But as you said, everything that they're doing is not liberation. It's the exact opposite.

Peter Stein:  Brave Ukrainians. I don't know how many people would do that to risk their lives.


Jennifer Ghahari:  Sure. And as you mentioned too, it's not only a brain drain. So, it's affecting Ukraine itself negatively because they're losing all of essential workers. And by essential, I also mean what you were saying, like doctors and people that keep society running. Like all of these people, it's millions have fled. But then also if you think of the flip side that now these people are refugees coming to different countries. I know out here in Seattle, we're supposed to get, I'm not sure how many refugees from Ukraine, but there's supposed to be several coming. And if they don't have a good handle on the English language, so you have someone like a doctor or professor or any profession, to get started over in a brand new country and to have lost so much. It's really heartbreaking. And I hope that when refugees go wherever they end up, whether it's here, whether it's the UK or anywhere, I hope people are cognizant of that. That these people are not here because they want to be. It's not that they left because they wanted to. Similar to you and your family. You left because you had to survive. And it wasn't an easy thing to do. Obviously you were a child when you came here and your English is perfect. But for older adults just getting a start, I can't imagine how difficult it is.

Peter Stein:  Even my little example. (phone ringing) Sorry.

Jennifer Ghahari:  No worries.

Peter Stein:  I don't know how to quiet this.

Jennifer Ghahari:  It wasn't me calling.

Peter Stein:  Okay. My first few days in an American school with my lousy English, couple of kids thought I was German. Stein. I said, Stein, I'm Czech. I'm Jewish, I'm not German. And so imagine if you come... As you have said to be an immigrant, it's a difficult status. And is there anybody there? Fortunately had a wonderful teacher, Mrs. Murray in the seventh grade who took me under her wing and she helped me with English and writing and she was wonderful. And you think about the importance of teaching for immigrants English as a second language. My dad took one of those classes. He spoke Czech, he spoke German, he spoke French, but he didn't speak English.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Wow.

Peter Stein:  So, he had to come up to snuff and pass the citizenship exam. And you're so right, because it takes you out of your home. Out of settings of familiarity, to a brand-new country where they may or may not welcome you. And yet immigrants have done so much to build up this country. I mean the number of immigrants from Southeast Asia, from Asia. Seattle is certainly one place.

Jennifer Ghahari:  And anxiety that comes from that type of move, especially when it's forced upon you. It's really detrimental. So, again, I hope that people are just a little bit more aware and a little bit more sensitive and will just kind of maybe take an extra step to try to help people however possible.

Peter Stein:  And government policy is so critical. We won't speak about the former president who wanted to stop the incoming of any Muslims, of anybody. I mean, just willy-nilly. Well, so then it's not surprising that when they come, some Americans are upset. “You shouldn't be here, go back to where you came from.” And that kind of antisemitism and anti-minorities just makes being an immigrant that much more difficult. And I got to put a plug in for education because I think that's critical. That schools ought to welcome different points of view, different languages, different cultural patterns. And not start burning, taking books away. And no, you can't learn about this one or that one. That kind of blinders that some folks have.

Jennifer Ghahari:  So, it sounds like multiculturalism and education are pretty much key to overcoming this anti-racism, antisemitism, basically all types of anti-discrimination. Correct?

Peter Stein:  I would certainly hope so, because you may get it at home, but you may not. And so that's critical. Speaking one other point about antisemitism that the ADL League found, they're now looking at social media and the spread of antisemitism there. And they found that in one year in the United States, there were 4.2 million antisemitic tweets. And they go into their methodology, which is quite sophisticated, but 4.2 million antisemitic tweets.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Wow.

Peter Stein:  So, somebody's writing it, somebody's reading it, somebody's sending it out. And that's new. I don't think anyone else looks at the use of the media in that way.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right.

Peter Stein:  Now one gentleman just bought a big media outfit and we'll see how goes.

Jennifer Ghahari:  That should be interesting. Well, thank you. And so, as someone who specializes in antisemitism and wartime atrocities, do you have any other advice or any parting words for our listeners? Anything else that you want to add?

Peter Stein:  Well, again to educate not only in schools, but educate yourself because the media, as, as lovely as it is, can be influenced. Who's saying it? Where does the message come from? Who's got what kind of vested interest in having you, accept this as a fact, as opposed to just an opinion. But also to communicate, to talk to other people, to talk against people who have racist jokes or sexist jokes, or rather than just ignore it and laugh, suggest how does this impact other people. Anti-gay or lesbian jokes, or what have you, and to support the right to vote. Another key issue that maybe needs more attention and the democracy supposedly is helping people, encouraging people to vote, to express their opinions. Well, if you make it more and more difficult, it's easier for people of one opinion to get in it and not others. So, I just would hope for more tolerance, more understanding of other people, as the salvation and the Golden Rule is to do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. And I think that's an important rule to keep in mind in our lives.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Great. Well, thank you so much. And again, thank you for sharing with us, what you and your family had gone through. And I'm very sorry that you have experienced all of that. And if we could have you back sometime, we definitely will. Again, thank you for talking with us today.

Peter Stein:  Thank you so much for inviting me. If anybody has any questions after they see the tape, feel free to communicate with me or through Jen. Glad to answer and thank you for what you are doing.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Perfect. And you had mentioned that there may maybe some photos that we could add along with the interview.

Peter Stein:  Sure.

Jennifer Ghahari: Perfect. So, for those listening we'll put that into the transcript section on our website and you'd be able to access that along with the link to Dr. Stein's book.

Peter Stein:  Thank you.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Thank you again.

Photo gallery images courtesy of Dr. Peter J. Stein:

Zdenka Kvetonova and Viktor Stein (Peter Stein’s parents), married in Prague’s Old Town Hall, May 1934.

Peter Stein and his Mother (left).

School children in Prague (2nd grade).

Photo taken during the May 5-8,1948 uprising by Czech partisans battling remaining German troops--eventually chasing them out of town.

1946 Prague: Peter Stein’s family along with Kurt Fuhr (Peter’s Father’s cousin) and his wife, Malvinka. Both Kurt and Malvinka were Jewish and Captains in the Czech Army, fighting with the Soviet Army against the German Army. They each received medals for bravery (he was wounded in battle and she was a nurse).

Arriving to the U.S. and seeing the Statue of Liberty for the first time.

Please note: The views expressed by the interviewee are for educational and informational purposes only, are not meant to diagnose or treat any condition, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Anxiety Specialists, PLLC.


Editor: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.