psychology

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.

Psychologist Sandra Parsons on Social Psychology & Depressive Realism

An Interview with Social Psychologist Sandra Parsons

Sandra Parsons, Ph.D. is an Associate Teaching Professor, the Director of Undergraduate Studies, and the Director of Pedagogy in the Department of Psychological Sciences at Rice University. She specializes in the various aspects and components of groups in society, such as decision-making, identity and competition.

Jack Eisinger:  Hello everyone. Thank you for tuning in. My name is Jack Eisinger, and I'm a research intern for the Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We are a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders. I'm here today with Dr. Sandra Parsons who graduated from Miami University with a PhD in social psychology, and is currently a psychology professor and RA at Rice University.

She has won three George R. Brown Awards for superior teaching, and has done research on human decision processes, executive coaching, and information sharing. Dr. Parsons, before we get started, can you tell us a little about yourself and what got you interested in social psychology?

Sandra Parsons:  Sure. So I've been at Rice for about 12 or 13 years. It's fuzzy on the exact dates, because I started as a sort of a patch hire and that turned into a full-time position. And I've been teaching both in Houston, and also before that in Baltimore, and before that in Columbus, Ohio for about 30 years, which is hard to believe since I'm only about 30 in my head.

I really got interested in social psychology because people are so weird. People are so strange and unpredictable, and I was always asking, I wonder why people do that and why are people like that?

And I was also interested in trying to figure out how we could diffuse some pretty common misunderstandings among people, some things that come up over and over again that are problems in groups of people. And so when I was talking to my research advisor, an undergraduate, I told him I wanted to go to graduate school in psychology and he said, "What kind?"

And I remember being shocked that there wasn't just the one kind. I'm not sure what I thought happened to all the professors in the world who taught all the different kinds of psychology, but I think I had some conception that everyone was a clinical psychologist and then they had expertise in different research areas.

Anyway, he said, "You could be a social psychologist and study this all of the time." And I said, "Okay, well that's what I want to do." So my interest in psychology has been since forever, but specifically social psychology since about middle way through my undergraduate years. So here I am.

Jack Eisinger:  That's really cool. And by the way, before coming to college, that's also what I thought, you just went to grad school in psychology.

Sandra Parsons:  That's right. I had no idea.

Jack Eisinger:  Somewhat common. All right. So let's get into the questions. Question one, of your published studies finds the impact of professional coaching on university students. I was hoping you could explain a little bit to our audience what leadership coaching is, and is it something that is practical and useful for the everyday college student?

Sandra Parsons:  Absolutely. So we're really lucky, because this study actually took place at Rice University in partnership with The Doerr Institute. And so we have incredible resources, incredible funding with professional coaches who teach undergraduates how to develop their leadership tools, the idea being that everyone can be a leader.

Though I have to say we are very specifically talking about Rice University undergraduates. So it's not literally everyone in the world can be a great leader, but really focusing on the kinds of students that we have in this kind of institutional space.

So the professional coaching really is about looking at the literature on successful leadership tools, and helping students develop their leadership goals. So with The Doerr Institute specifically, it's very much tailored towards what kind of leadership roles students are interested in, what kind of leadership skills they want to develop, what kind of personal goals they have taking into account their culture of origin, but also the culture that they want to practice more leadership roles in. Because the way that you successfully lead is of course bound by cultural expectations and cultural norms.

And I would say that absolutely, this is something that is practical and useful for everyday college students. I think that it is fairly rare for one to be in professional spaces where there's no leadership. There is almost always some opportunity. Even if it's just the leader of your very small team at whatever level of job that you're doing, there are different tasks that come along where someone has to sort of take charge. And so I think having all of our students have some ability to harness those skills and refine those tools to better lead is wonderful. It's a tremendous asset.

Jack Eisinger:  Yeah, I definitely agree, and I definitely have met some of the people that may have participated in those studies, and I definitely agree with that assessment. My next question, regarding teams and social psychology, what are some suggestions you have for those teams? Whether it's business teams or just as something as simple as college students working on a class project. What are some ways that people can foster a better experience and have more positive outcomes in these situations?

Sandra Parsons:  I love this question because it really gets to the heart of one of the things that I went into my graduate schooling thinking I wanted to know more about. I talked before about how people were weird, which is clearly a driving force. But the other thing that I was really focused on is why is it that we do so much group work and yet still haven't figured out how to do it well? And so I studied a lot about how could we make that experience better.

So I think that number one, you have to define what the roles are in the group, so who's going to be in charge of what. There are some ways that tacitly develops. So that develops not necessarily on explicit understandings, though in my opinion, it's better if you spend some time being explicit about that. Because if you leave it to unspoken estimations of what other people are going to do, it takes much more time to develop those efficiently.

But also, what is the product going to be and how will people be held accountable for that product? Because one of the things that we know that happens is that when groups of people get together, it's very easy to imagine that other people will take on the bulk of the task. And we call that social loafing, the idea that if there are many of us doing it, then all of us can kind of relax a bit.

And the usual way of doing business in a group like that is to have a group product that just pops out the other side and is assessed by some external force like your professor, or the customer buying the product, or whatever it is, with little attention to who in the group was responsible for which parts of it. And when it's set up like that, then that means that people can take advantage of the shared workload and not put in their all.

So I think having some rules of holding each other accountable, either within the group where everyone agrees that these are how we're going to hold each other accountable to these, or asking the outside entity like your professor to set up some sort of a rubric or expectations about how to define whose work was what.

I also think it's important to think about, is this even a group task? Why are you doing this in a group? And I think for the group to understand why they have come together to do this product or this project together is vital.

So for example, one of the things that we assume is that a group will do a better job on a task. That if we put lots of heads on it, we'll have an even better outcome. But that's assuming that there's some either really hard lift, something that one of us couldn't do by ourselves because it's just too much work to do alone, or because we need lots of different people thinking about it differently.

And so we've already talked about the first problem. If we're doing it all together because we know that it's just a really hard lift for any singular person to do, then we better make sure that this is something we can each contribute to and be held accountable for each of our individual outputs.

If it's the other thing where we're coming together because of a diversity of skillset, then we need to make sure everyone knows in that group who is really good at what. If we don't do that, we run the risk of having everybody focus on the shared information and not talk about the stuff that they're uniquely qualified to talk about.

And so we really waste that resource, and that can potentially slow down the process and also tamp down the creativity and uniqueness of the product that you're trying to get, which is really actively working against having a group of people do it.

So trying to figure out, who's going to be responsible for what? How to maximize individual output, making sure that it's a group task, and also agreeing on how you're going to communicate about. They're all absolutely vital. And I think that those pieces of advice suit all kinds of situations. Classroom, outside of classroom, business context, really anytime you get a group of people to do something.

Jack Eisinger:  Yeah. No, that's a really good answer. I've definitely been on both sides of social loafing, both in school and in jobs.

Sandra Parsons:  Absolutely.

Jack Eisinger:  So I completely agree with that. No one really wins usually in those situations.

Sandra Parsons:  That's right. And it's such a shame, because group processes should be a really good tool for getting something done. We have so many big tasks that we have to do, and having more people work on it absolutely means more buy-in. People feel like they're involved in the process.

And so we want to continue to use groups for sure. But if we're not utilizing them to the best ability based on what we know, then like you said, nobody wins. It's just an unpleasant process and you end up with less than fabulous product. It's certainly less fabulous than it could have been if everybody had been doing their best work. So it's something we need to think about whenever we're in groups.

Jack Eisinger:  To continue with groups, in teams or groups, can you talk a little bit about in group competition or in-group threats, and what would be the best way for people to handle these situations in the healthiest way possible?

Sandra Parsons:  Absolutely. So I often talk about in-group versus out-group threats, usually talking about how we develop our identities in part around the people who are in our groups and by what we are not. And so we develop this strong in-group bond, and it is sort of implied whenever we're in a group that there is some out-group that is different from us, and also by definition not quite as good as us. We prefer our in-group members over our out-group members generally speaking. And there's lots of research with that in-group bias.

So then when we start looking at, well, what happens when there's actual competition from inside the group, which we know happens of course, or some sort of threat to identity that comes from inside the group.

Because it is a somewhat unexpected source of conflict, it can be very devastating. So if you think about how you know that you and your people are cohesive and connected, and you know that you're in us and that those are thems, and one of the things that makes you a good us is that you were willing to fight for resources or compete for resources with the other us against the other thems, that's kind of a comfortable space to be in, because we're used to that conception of things.

So when someone threatens your membership or when someone competes for a place within the group, it can be kind of scary because it threatens your idea of this cohesiveness, and it threatens your idea of what makes the us different from the thems.

So it can be particular threatening, and particularly insidious and difficult to deal with. And I think the best way to deal with that is to have honest conversations and to understand why it is that it's so anxiety provoking to have that threat come from someone you thought of as an us or part of your in-group.

I think it's also useful to think about your definition of your in-group. Why is that your in-group, why is that important to you? Why is that part of your identity formation process? And then perhaps use that to reconceptualize what that in-group threat means.

I say this because I know it's not always going to be easy to just say, "Well, let's just talk about it and resolve it, and then we'll all be fine again." The resolution might be that we have to redefine how we think about ourselves. Maybe we decide that we aren't really part of that group in that context, and we have to redefine where the boundaries are. And anytime we're doing that, that is going to be anxiety provoking and difficult, and we just have to give ourselves the time and space to have those conversations and decide, can we both still be in the group? Is this some irreconcilable difference? Do I need to think about my identity differently? Do I need to maybe join another group with respect to this task?

The good thing about in-group and out-group memberships is that they are often very fluid, that they're based on some expectation or some either internal or external expectation, or situational factor that's malleable. So we can decide to change the membership or we can decide to reconceive how we think about things.

Jack Eisinger:  Yeah, it can be a difficult thing to balance. The larger the group, typically the more power that group has. But at the same time, the larger the group gets, the more divisions there are going to be over little idiosyncrasies or bigger things.

Sandra Parsons:  Absolutely. And the more potential there is to see factions within a group. We recognize when we're in a group how heterogeneous the group is, and we tend to think that the out-group is very homogenous. But that heterogeneity while wonderful within our in-group, we also have to appreciate that's going to be the source of conflict sometimes, because we aren't all the same. We aren't all going to think about things the same way.

Jack Eisinger:  Right. Just to transition to teaching a little bit, what is the biggest takeaway you want your students to have in your social psychology and positive psychology courses?

Sandra Parsons:  So we'll start with the social psychology. So usually, it ends up being that I meet students early in their four years for my social psychology class. So I'm usually talking to first years and second years, with a few older students sprinkled in who are trying to get distribution credit.

And so I have the opportunity to talk to them at the beginning of their four years of college, which is a really exciting time. There's a lot of change and a lot of potentially tumult going on, where they're trying to find their way and trying to figure out who they're going to be in their new, more adult lives.

So one of the things that I want to make sure my students know is that in many cases, they have the power to change the situation. So social psychology is all about how the situation affects the way we think, feel, and behave. And that means that when we get into these spaces where there's conflict, or misunderstanding, or frustration even leading for example to violence, that those are coming out of situations that we've socially constructed, that we have somehow agreed as a group on the certain ways of doing things. We have certain normative reactions. We have certain expectations about what others are going to do.

And because they're socially constructed, that means that they can be socially reconstructed. So if something isn't working, we can decide collectively to change those situational variables to create a new situation that better serves us.

So specifically, thinking about times when we see conflict between people. It's often because there's some misunderstanding. I see the situation one way, and you're seeing the situation a totally different way. And once I understand your perspective, I can understand your behavior. So if we can come to some shared understanding of you're reacting to your construal of the situation over here, and I think it's supposed to be like this. And when you don't do it right, I get mad.

But what if we came to it with, "Okay, here's what I thought the ground rules were. This is what I thought was the environment we were interacting in. And I want to hear more about what you thought, and then we can come to a compromise."

One of the things that I worry about is that this makes it sound like it's very Pollyanna. "All we have to do is just change our expectations and the world will change." And obviously, I don't think we're going to get rid of all of the world's strife just by changing the way we construct things. I also think there are some cultural barriers where we can't just say everybody has the agency or the power to change the situation. That's just not true either.

But I do think that opening up students' minds to the idea that they don't have to go with the flow the way that the flow has been constructed before, but they can create a new flow. We get to create new places for us to be in. And especially at this age with this exciting group of students, you all will have the power. You do have the power.

So looking for ways to change those understandings and clear up misunderstandings I think is a really, really powerful tool that students can have and that humans can have to make the world a more harmonious type of place.

I often like to use the example of queuing cultures versus massing cultures. So there's some cultures where we stand in line, and then there are others where we kind of crowd around for our turn for something. And if you're from a queuing up and you think that you're supposed to stand in line for something, and you go to a place where they're crowding around, can be very frustrating, because you're wondering why aren't they doing what they're supposed to do? Why are they taking mine before? It's not their turn, right?

Likewise, if you come from a crowding place and you go and you stand in line, you're wondering, "Why are these people standing in this long line? Why don't they just crowd around and grab what they need?"

And you can see there's a lot of conflict there, because both sides are like, "What are you doing? You're not doing it right." But if you just explain to the other group, "This is what I can see the situation to be," and the other group is like, "Oh, this is how I thought it was supposed to be," then you can at least understand each other and understand where the differences are coming from, and potentially really tamp down that anger response that causes so many problems between people.

So long story short, power to change the situation. I want students to understand that they're not just being pushed along through their daily activities without any agency.

Positive psychology is actually fairly similar in terms of a lesson, but what I want people to understand first and foremost is that the goal of positive psychology is improved wellbeing. That does not mean improved happiness in the sense that everyone should be skipping through the tulips, and singing and dancing. I think about Shiny Happy People from the R.E.M. song, which is a reference probably most people don't get anymore, but I'm like, "I'm going to keep talking about it until everyone knows who Michael Stipe is."

The goal is not shiny, happy people, and that shouldn't be the goal. And I think that we are sold, especially in western societies, that is the goal. And then if we're not feeling happy in the sense of skipping through the tulips, that we're not doing the right kinds of things and something has to change.

So with positive psychology, I want people to understand that happiness is a very broad multi-tiered or multi-pillared kind of conception that has multi-facets to it, multiple facets to it. And it involves connection with other people, certainly positive feeling, meaningful work, connection, all sorts of really rich and interesting things that come with effort.

So the takeaway message for positive psychology is to reconceive happy as a much more complex construct that it has lots of pieces to it, and that it's changeable. That we do have the power to change our wellbeing, but it's going to take effort.

So it is not that we are going to magically either be happy or not happy, and if we're not happy, we have to keep trying to find this magic pill that will make us happy again. It's that we need to conceive of happiness differently, and then very consciously choose activities that support more of the good stuff. And so actively working on that, just like you would exercise every day or eat good food every day. It's not something you do once and then you checked it off your list. It's something every day, you have to pay attention to and nurture.

Jack Eisinger:  Yeah. I think if I had to combine the two into one, social psychology and positive psychology, it's the need to break down the things that happen in your life. That it is not so simple that you just can follow the flow of the group, or that you're just going to do whatever you want or just feel like, and you're going to be happy. That there are things that you need to consciously think about and put effort into.

Sandra Parsons:  I think that's absolutely right, Jack.

Jack Eisinger:  All right. Okay, perfect. Question number five. Can you talk a little bit about stereotyping? Why do people do it? Is it an automatic process? And what are some ways that individuals... And I was particularly interested as well in governments. What can they do to try to combat this practice?

Sandra Parsons:  That is a very interesting and provocative question. So let me take it apart one at a time. So let me talk about stereotyping.

So stereotyping is when we decide that there are boxes that people or things can fit into. Clearly, what you're thinking about is people stereotyping. So let's talk about that. That we decide that we know what people are like, based on certain kinds of features, we can put them in these different categories.

And it is necessary. It is automatic. It is part of the way that our brain makes order out of a lot of what would be chaotic information if we didn't do otherwise.

So we are in some sense what's called cognitive misers. We want to figure out the easiest way to tackle the largest amount of information possible, and our brains are constantly trying to organize those things into chunks of information.

If we didn't do that, the world would be full of way too much information. We would have trouble functioning even in the most simple tasks, because everything would be new to us constantly, and disordered, and uncomfortable, and not very pleasant.

And so what we do is we make these categories of people. And then once we know what we think we know about people, these stereotypes, then those help us decide how to behave. So we create these stereotypes, we create these boxes, put people in those based on some very quick judgment that we have, and some very little information often we have about those people in those groups. And then we behave and act towards them to reinforce those stereotypes.

So having stereotypes is not actually the problem, and it's a good thing it's not a problem because it is an automatic process. We're not going to be able to get rid of stereotyping. It's something that we do naturally.

The problem comes of course, when we have these assumptions that lead to discrimination and to prejudice. So it's when we have negative stereotypes, and also that we believe that they're immutable, that it's unchangeable, and that there is a fundamental difference in a group of people that is insurmountable, and that we can't be convinced otherwise.

And this actually goes back to the discussion we were having before about in-groups and out-groups. We think we know something about the out-group, because we have a stereotype about them. And so whenever we see behavior from an out-group member, we imagine that that supports the stereotype. And it's very hard for us to remember times when it refutes the stereotype, and have that stick where we start to alter the stereotype. Usually we dismiss it or we say, "Oh, well that's a unique member of that group. That's weird, because they're not like all the rest of them."

So then we get to the juicier part of your question, which is what can individuals, and then what can governments do? So I'll start with the easier one.

What individuals can do is be aware of that. So having a stereotype is not, like I said, necessarily in and of itself a bad thing. But we have to be very consciously aware and checking ourselves, how are we using that stereotyped information to guide our behaviors?

And we also have to actively seek out alternative explanations and information. It's again, a very effortful process. It is going to mean that we can't always take the comfortable, quick, easy route of just making an assumption about something, and that we have to constantly seek out others, make sure that we are not just always trying to prefer the comfort of people we think who are like us, but we have to seek out people actively who might be different from us.

And so then when we start talking about, how do we have governments be a part of that? I think it starts getting a little trickier because we have to think about what we think, what is the role of government, and how much hand does government have in our day-to-day interactions? So it's a little bit of a political question I think.

I think that we know from data, from research that when people are zoned to certain areas, if there are certain areas that have certain resources, that the areas that have more resources are going to be places where people with more resources can live. And to the extent that privileges certain groups of people in society, that is encouraging this prejudicial and discriminatory behavior. We definitely can't have that.

So I guess one of the things you could argue is that governments would have to make sure that they weren't providing resources to some groups over others or in certain locations over others.

And again, I think that goes back to a political conversation is I'm not sure... We're going to have really different ideas about how big the government could be and how far its hand should reach. But in some utopia, you would have governments enforcing only regulations and resources in ways that did not systematically privilege certain groups over others.

Because when we do that, we know that that causes strife between people. You can't just put people to together and hope that they solve their differences. When people are put together without some sort of environmental, situational variables in place, they actually reinforce those stereotypes, and things become worse between groups of people.

So providing opportunities for people to interact with people who are different from them or interact with people with whom they don't normally, or actively putting people together who have negative stereotypes about each other. With some things in place, like figuring out a common enemy that they share. It's actually a really effective way of bringing groups together.

But also helping people, facilitating people figuring out how they're more alike than they are different. So some sort of governmental programs that encourage sharing resources across stereotypically adverse groups or opposed groups would be one way that they could do it.

Anything that's going to encourage people to get out of their little echo chambers where they think they know everything about a different group is something that will encourage the breaking down of these prejudicial and discriminatory practices. But we're never going to get rid of stereotypes.

And frankly, they're shortcuts. They're useful. And so it's going to help me know... For example, if I have a stereotype about college students, then when I meet a college student, I don't have to think for very long what we're going to talk about, because I know they're going to be stressed right around Thanksgiving, because that's right before exams. If I know they're a third year, I know they're going to be looking for jobs. I have a stereotype about what kinds of things are going to make them anxious, and I'm going to immediately be able to talk to them about those kinds of things.

And that's good, because that makes for easier conversation. It makes for less stressful interactions. And so again, I know I'm repeating myself, but in as much as they are positive in making life smoother, they're going to be continuing to be part of our process.

Jack Eisinger:  Yeah. It seems like if we don't make assumptions and we don't see the same person every single day, it could be pretty hard to talk to them. And then also for your government answer, politically, what should the government do? But what could the government do? Making people live together, and sharing resources, and making sure those are equal, like you said. Utopia, which I think was the right way to word that.

Sandra Parsons:  Yeah. Yeah. I think in theory, it would be a lovely place to live where there was no competition for resources, or the only competition was where you had a perfectly self-sustainable unit where everything was equally accessed. I think we're probably describing a type of government that has been tried and failed before, but in our perfect-

Jack Eisinger:  Not necessarily with fully economic resources.

Sandra Parsons:  Right, exactly.

Jack Eisinger:  Okay, so just to transition back to class, I remember in social psychology, one of the biggest takeaways I had... And it was something that we didn't talk about for a super long time, but it really stuck with me, was when we talked about depressive realism. And that when people who are depressed sometimes do not have the "elevated" versions of themselves that a lot of other people do.

And so I was hoping you can explain for our audience a little bit more about depressive realism, why it can develop, and what are some ways for a psychologist to determine that in a potential patient or other person.

Sandra Parsons:  I love this question. So the other side of that is rose colored glasses, which has to do with the self-serving biases that we have. So the idea is that most of us, if we're mentally healthy, are walking around with a little bit elevated version of ourselves in our heads. So I referred to these self-serving biases. We bias the information that we believe about ourselves and that we think other people have about us, that's a little more positive than reality.

So for example, we think people think that we're a little smarter than we actually are, or than they actually think... We think they think we are a little smarter. We think they think we're a little more attractive, a little more clever, a little better dressed, all of these things. In fact, when we look at pictures of ourselves, one that's just us and the other one's a little enhanced, we think the enhanced one is a better picture, it's more accurate.

So the rose colored glasses are actually useful. They protect us from the harsh realities in the world, and they allow us to go out in the world and be a part of things, and continue to explore, and take risks, and be vulnerable, because we're somewhat protected. We think we're already doing pretty well. And so I'm going to extend myself in these spaces, and it should probably go pretty well because hey, I'm a pretty good-looking, smart, clever kind of person, and everyone thinks that about me.

It's when you are depressed that those glasses come off. So it's less about depressive realism developing, and it's more that you are taking away that self-serving bias, and you're being more realistic about the way the world sees you.

So it's realizing that when you're not mentally healthy, when you're a little depressed, mildly to more than that depressed, that the world really isn't spending that much time thinking about you. And that when they do think about you, they are not assessing you as positively as you hope that they are.

So I'm glad that you didn't spend a ton of time thinking about this, because when you do, it becomes in and of itself kind of depressing. It is hard to go out into the world constantly and put your best self forward without that illusion. And so it is a protective mechanism and it's one of the things that keeps us healthy. And so we shouldn't spend a ton of time tearing it apart.

Now, I think the interesting point that I think is probably behind this question is that when we're thinking about this illusion, we do have to think about the healthy version of that versus the unhealthy version of that. So we don't want to be delusional, and we don't want to be unable to accept very true and accurate criticism of self. We have to be able to learn from our mistakes, and we have to have people who can give us that negative feedback and that we will take it in.

So one of the things I would say is that when we... And again, based on research, we know that people who have an inflated sense of self that's not based on any reality, that's actually problematic. So an inflated self-esteem not based on real attributes is problematic.

So I think one of the things... And this is outside my field, but one of the things that I think clinical psychologists would want to do is to figure out, where is the illusion and the self-protective rose colored glasses turning into something more detrimental, something that's delusional? So where the line is between self-serving bias versus delusional thoughts about self or grandiosity is going to be a clinical question, I think with some sort of assessments.

And then I think for the average person who we aren't concerned has delusions, knowing that they have somebody who has their best interest in mind, who can give them realistic feedback, that they will be able to take in without having that in-group threat that we talked about is going to be really important.

So it's the difference between somebody who believes they're so spectacular, that to believe anything else is going to be crushing to them. Versus somebody who in general, thinks they're pretty great and a little better than the average bear, who has a parent or a best friend or a partner who can say to them, "You are really great, but there's this one thing that we need to talk about. You're really a terrible cook, Sandy. You really can't actually cook." Or, "You think you're being gregarious and you're actually being annoying in these spaces. You need to stop talking so much," or whatever. It is the thing that you think is really charming about you, that other people may not think is super charming.

And being able to trust that information and say, "Okay, the threat's coming from inside the house, but it's okay because I trust you." And in order to continue to have that positive feedback loop, we do have to make changes when necessary. So that's okay. Yeah, but it's hard. That's tough.

Jack Eisinger:  Yeah, that's exactly what I wanted to get into, just the different spectrum from depressive realism to rose colored glasses, and the fact that not only are humans weird, like you mentioned. And I also think we can also be relatively unaware of ourselves all across that spectrum. And so like you mentioned, which is perfect, having that person that is able to tell you those things is just the crucial, most important thing to making sure that you don't stray too far.

Sandra Parsons:  100%.

Jack Eisinger:  One side or the other to the point that it would cause some detrimental effects.

Sandra Parsons:  Absolutely. I think you said that really well. I think you do have to have that person. And the other thing that's true about wellbeing is that one of the best predictors of wellbeing in a person is whether they have social support. And part of social support is someone who can say the good, the bad, and the ugly, who can say, "You really are all these things a little better than the average bear, but in this one area you're"-

Jack Eisinger:  Social support isn't all support. Yeah, it's a little bit of pushing you in inward direction.

Sandra Parsons:  Absolutely. A little bit of realism spiced in there is good.

Jack Eisinger:  All right. And now to go the opposite direction of realism, I want to ask you a few, I don't know, not theoretical, but just questions that aren't so grounded in the curriculum. I was curious, what is the most misunderstood thing about social psychology in your opinion?

Sandra Parsons:  I love that question. So I think that when people hear that we're going to study how other people affect the way we think, feel, and behave, they're like, "Oh, you mean you're going to study everyday knowledge, like stuff that we already know all the time?" And that's something that social psychology has a bit of a chip on its shoulder. I think psychology in general does, but specifically social psychology, because the thing that we're studying is in fact the thing that most of us are doing all day long. We're trying to figure out why are people the way that they are, how can I understand how they are, so I can control it, and I can react to it, and make things turn out the best way possible?

And there's various versions of that, but that's kind of the big thing, is how can I be in this world and understand what's going to happen so that I can predict it, so that I can react to it and get things my way? Basically in a nutshell.

And so I think what people misunderstand about social psychology is that it is not just the study of everyday behavior. That there's a scientific method to it, that the reason why you think something is true may be totally wrong. Not that it leads you to the wrong reaction to it, but the processes behind it are wrong.

And so social psychology can help us tease out those theoretical implications and theoretical predictions in ways that are surprising to somebody who doesn't study social psychology. I'm going to give you example, but I think some people might see that and say, "Well, who caress? If it leads me to the same conclusion, why do I care what the process is?" And that's somebody who just isn't interested in studying social psychology.

I think we're always going to have... My husband studies the brain and cancer cells, and I don't want anyone to have cancer. And as long as he can figure out how to prevent it, I don't really care how we got there.

So here's an example. People talk about personality all the time and they say, "I know how she I because I know her personality." And what a social psychologist would say is, "What you really know is how that person expresses their personality in the context of the situation you see them in."

And so I'm not saying that they're wrong. You probably do know, not as well as you think you do, but it doesn't matter. People think that they know how other people will behave in certain situations based on personality. And when I point out to them, "You really only see that person in a very narrow band of situations. It's the situation that's driving the behavior, not the personality." And they're like... So I think that's something that's exciting to think about, because for me, that changes the way I think about what personality is. I want people to understand that when you use that word, you mean something different than what you think you mean.

I think that's cool. Some people don't care, but then they don't have to be social psychologists if they don't want to be. Right? So that's I think-

Jack Eisinger:  No, that's cool. I remember taking your class and hearing that. But even still to this day, even though I have that mental note of that distinction, when I'm talking with people, I'll still sometimes refer to them both as personality, even though I know the difference. It's a harder thing to say.

Sandra Parsons:  Yeah. And even though we all know what we mean, in my head when people say that, I'm like, "Well, I don't know." That's personality or situation. And what makes it interesting to me is that means that it's more changeable than people think that it is. Because I think if I could get you in a different situation, I get you to have a different kind of response to that.

Jack Eisinger:  So then is that...

Sandra Parsons:  Right? And like you said, people are often really unaware what's driving their behaviors. And so to me, that's powerful, because to me I think, "Okay, well let's get you out of this situation that I think is driving you to do something that I don't think is good or healthy or equitable, or the way I want it to be selfish. Let's move you into a different location, in a different situational space. Let me change the factors, and then let's see how you behave and see if it turns out better for all of us."

Jack Eisinger:  I really like that answer. And then in a similar vein, if you had to create a class about an under focused area of social psychology, or positive psychology, or really any topic that you're interested in, what would you want to teach about?

Sandra Parsons:  To figure out how to best teach people how to utilize the skills and the tools that we have. I think people don't harness what we know about social psychology in ways that get the best outcomes done. And so very specifically, how do we present information to people in a way that will make them more likely to accept that information?

So this class would be something like a social movements class, or how to improve the public service announcement. Every time I see people talking about a problem that they see, and I think to myself, "I wish that they'd talked to a social psychologist about that because I could help you solve that problem." Not me personally, but social psychology. How do we persuade people to do things? How do we frame messages that can be the most useful?

So it'd be all about that. It's like how to deliver messages, how to harness expertise, how to use what we know about the way people think and feel to get them to do the more healthy thing, the fairer thing, the more just thing. That's what I would do. And I-

Jack Eisinger:  So kind of like the more communicative aspect, the more practical way of getting things done.

Sandra Parsons:  Yes. Even just thinking about Covid-19 rules and regulations, let's use what we know about persuasive messages, and what we know about different audiences for different types of behaviors, and tailor multiple different messages. And I feel like we just got one message. "This is what you're supposed to do." And then of course the other side is, "This is what you're not supposed to do."

We can talk to both of those groups with social psychology, we just have to tailor the message appropriately, and I don't feel like anyone did that. And so that kind of thing, like composting. How can we present composting to a diverse group of people, or cessation of smoking, or better alcohol use rules? It can apply to anything, but how do we harness that communication and what we know about message framing, and audience effects, and all of that, and make it more effective?

Jack Eisinger:  I don't know how classes are made, but I would definitely take that.

Sandra Parsons:  Would you take it?

Jack Eisinger: Yeah, that does sound very interesting. And then that's pretty much the end of my questions. I just wanted to ask, is there any advice or takeaways you want to share with the audience in a conclusion?

Sandra Parsons: Take a psychology class. I think everyone should have to take at least one psychology class. I think it makes us better human beings. Also try to remember that...

You know what? Here's my takeaway. Fundamental attribution error. I want the world to know that when you think someone does something, and you think that they are something, a jerk or not a nice person because you don't like what they did, try to imagine that there's some situational effect that's leading them to that behavior, and make a more gracious attribution about the person instead of immediately jumping to the assumption that they're not very nice or jerky.

Jack Eisinger:  Yeah. No, that's definitely my biggest takeaway from social psychology, fundamental attribution error. It's ingrained in my mind now.

Sandra Parsons:  Good. I'm so glad. We need to be nicer about our assumptions about other people, and give each other the benefit of the doubt in the same way that we give ourselves the benefit of the doubt when we do something that we wish we hadn't done.

Jack Eisinger:  Put on some slightly rosier colored glasses for other people as much as we do ourselves

Sandra Parsons:  There we go. That's right. I love that.

Jack Eisinger:  All right. Yeah, so that's pretty much the interview. Thank you so much for taking the time to participate. For you and any of the other viewers, feel free to check out the Seattle Anxiety Specialists website, and I hope you all have a great day.

Sandra Parsons:  Thank you so much. It was my pleasure. It's good to see you.

Jack Eisinger:  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.

Psychologist Stephen Oross on Bias & Cultural Humility in Health Care

An Interview with Psychologist Stephen Oross

Stephen Oross, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Kutztown University of Pennsylvania. He specializes in experimental psychology and cultural humility in healthcare.

Ryann Thomson:  Thank you for joining us for this installment of The Seattle Psychiatrist interview series. I'm Ryann Thomson, a research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. And I'd like to welcome with us Psychologist Stephen Oross. Dr. Oross is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Kutztown University of Pennsylvania. He is a scholar in the field of experimental psychology, and has published several articles within his career, including, “Studies of Brain Activity Correlates with Behavior in Individuals with and without Developmental Disabilities”. As well as “The Impact of Acuity on Performance of Four Clinical Measures with Contrast Sensitivity in Alzheimer's Disease”. As well, Dr. Oross has had extensive experience working with the World Health Network as well as previously having completed a visiting fellowship at Massachusetts General Hospital. Before we get started, can you please tell us a little bit more about yourself? What made you interested in experimental psychology and what led you to become a professor?

Stephen Oross:  Well, thank you, Ryann. Certainly. I actually became- It's a longer story, but I'll condense it. I actually became interested in psychology and decided to be a psychologist as a sophomore in high school. And largely it was due initially to an interest in clinical, child clinical to be specific. I had read some books on autism. I had an aunt who had been diagnosed with mental retardation. And so, when I went to college, my plan was to be a child clinical psychologist. And so, I did my undergraduate work, and while doing that, did a bunch of volunteer and then some paid work interacting with individuals with different developmental disabilities, including some time as a residential house manager at a group home for children with autism. So, I honestly thought that was the direction I was going to go. But as an undergraduate, I also began doing some research with a couple professors at the University of Dayton. And some problems with the clinical end that I saw and the excitement I had with research led me to pursue the experimental degree.

I went to Vanderbilt University for my experimental psychology PhD. I stayed there, did a couple of postdocs, one in sensory perception, one on mental retardation and developmental disabilities. And stayed there actually even longer than that as a research faculty member. While doing that, I had the opportunity to do some teaching. And I supervised a student as she worked on her PhD. I was the doctoral advisor. And those experiences led me to believe that while I wanted to do some research, my interests were more aligned with teaching. So, I did stay in a research position for a number of years before coming to Kutztown and then beginning the path I'm on now that led me here.

Ryann Thomson:  Really interesting. That's great. I'm glad you had such a different variety in your background before you came here. That's really nice to hear.

Stephen Oross:  Yeah, actually I think it's important to do that. I think it's been beneficial in thinking about how to teach.

Ryann Thomson:  So, to begin, I wonder if many people have heard the term cultural humility. And could you possibly define what that is and why it's so important when we're treating clients?

Stephen Oross:  Yeah, cultural humility, you're absolutely right. Not as many people are familiar with it as I would expect. But it was introduced in the late 1990s. I believe it was 1998, by Melanie Tervalon and Jen Murray-Garcia in a journal article. And what they were trying to do was to respond to some national mandates to improve multicultural education among physicians. And what they identified was a multidimensional approach with three primary components. The first was to emphasize the importance of self-reflection and lifelong learning. And I'll come back to this point. But second was a recognition that in healthcare settings including mental healthcare settings, there's an imbalance of power. The care provider dominates the services and the care that's needed. And often the patient or client gets ignored at some level. Certainly we're paying attention to the symptoms, but not always looking at their background, and the mindset and experiences that they bring to the healthcare setting.

And lastly, they identified the importance of institutions, not just individuals, but institutions to model these principles of reflection, and lifelong learning, and acknowledgement of power imbalances. So, it's a very dynamic process. And it emphasizes the fact that when people enter into healthcare settings, there's a lot of unknowns about them. And what we need to do is to acknowledge the differences, and the similarities, and the perspectives that people bring. Why it's important, it's clear. There's lots and lots of data to indicate that healthcare providers bring a number of biases into treatment. Some of these biases are explicit and some are implicit biases. But the biases that people possess can negatively affect the care that's provided and the adherence to the treatment plan on the part of the patient. And cultural humility is an approach to try to get past these biases and to incorporate the knowledge that patients have into their treatment.

Ryann Thomson:  So, in your experience, what are some barriers that the Western medical system and mental health field face when trying to implement this idea? And how should professionals go about trying to address the challenges effectively?

Stephen Oross:  Sure. There are potentially a lot of barriers to implementing what seems like a fairly simple concept in many ways. One barrier, for instance, is that academic training, whether it's in medical profession, or a psychologist, or psychiatrist, really does emphasize becoming an expert on a topic or a domain. In some sense we know we don't know everything, but we still act like we know everything and have been trained to think that way. It's potentially a problem to get providers to recognize the fact that we don't know everything, and we have to provide care and conditions where there's uncertainty. Both uncertainty on our end about perhaps the type of treatment that might be called for and uncertainty about the patient's responses and their actions that would affect how well treatment works. So, that's one.

A second that's very prominent is time. Much of the training that's occurring, it's happening for professors in academic settings, physicians in a more applied settings, mental health providers really looks at a very time limited training program. I know I have to go through a series of trainings, but they're once a year and they're kept maybe an hour long, roughly. And cultural humility is not an approach that can really be taught in a single, very time limited session. It's a ongoing process. This is the lifelong learning component that is emphasized. You are trying to develop a mindset that is awareness about yourself and awareness of the individual you're working with. But that knowledge, and the awareness, and how it impacts interactions is going to be continually changing. So, you can get an orientation to cultural humility, but you really have to be practicing it on a regular and continual basis. And I think a lot of the training is capped to be short because of the other time demands that are placed on individuals. And that can be a barrier.

One other from my perspective is that it is often the case, quite often, particularly mental health care, that we're talking about an individual providing the care rather than a team. And if you have individuals rather than a team that's working collectively, it is more likely that certain biases can creep in. So, cultural humility, training and awareness becomes especially important in that context. How you can effectively train or educate people to work on cultural humility varies. I mean, I did just a quick search and there are lots of institutions that talk about training cultural humility. And I noticed that many of them have a big emphasis on self-reflection for the provider, thinking about the provider's cultural background, and ideas, and expectations.

But there's not as much that I could find talking about power imbalances, and certainly even less on how do you make an institution become aware of the cultural background and biases that are inherent in that institution. So, I think the training efforts can be done, but it's got to be a bigger, more collective effort to highlight the three primary principles of cultural humility. And we have to as providers then start recognizing that we have to live with uncertainty. Rather than always thinking we're an expert, we have to recognize that while we know a lot and certainly can bring that to bear in treatment programs, we don't know unless we search for it like cultural humility wants. We don't know how well each of the clients will respond to a treatment plan. What are their other activities from their religious beliefs, their cultural beliefs, their fact of their people possessing different genders, different sexual orientations, how all that is going to affect treatment.

And we have to, when we accept that uncertainty, recognize that we're not going to be all knowing. We're going to have things we're not aware of. But if we recognize that, and work with individuals and allow for input from the people we're working with, we can help to mitigate these power imbalances. We can gain more information on the types of approaches that clients are willing to bring to treatment, what they might adhere to, what they might not want to adhere to in a way that isn't often captured when there's a a unidirectional, here's the treatment, here's what you do independent of the client. I think that's what we really have to consider.

Ryann Thomson:  Yeah, I really liked the team aspect, because I know you personally have a unique experience as you're a heart transplant recipient. So, I know you've talked about having a team approach to your personal healthcare. So, looking back on that experience as well as professional, do you see any more of these strategies being invented? And if not, what can they do for patients in the future to better that?

Stephen Oross:  Yeah, if I think about my own situation, including the heart transplant and then other aspects of personal and professional lives. I've actually been fortunate. I have to acknowledge that I come from really a position of privilege in healthcare settings. Coming in as a white male with some advanced educational training, and now with at least some money in health insurance, it really affords me an opportunity to select who I want to care for me. It allows me to have a little face validity when I talk to the healthcare professionals and question why certain things are being done. And I don't tend to have a huge power imbalance between myself and the healthcare providers.

And I found particularly in the transplant setting, interesting to think about because you have to go through a bunch of screening, obviously medical, but also psychological screening prior to being approved to get a transplant. And one example that I thought of as I was preparing thinking about this interview was that while talking to the psychiatrist, a question came up about how depressed I may be or how suicidal I might feel, and whether or not I've ever had those feelings. Because frankly, the healthcare system, if they're providing you with a transplant, something like a heart, they want it to succeed. They want to have it put in somebody who's not going to intentionally damage the gift that they've been provided.

But my beliefs on suicide are not typical for many people. So, when I was asked about that, I remember explicitly thinking, well, I could give the easy story and say, "No, I've never thought about it. I've never been depressed." Quick, easy answer, and we're out. But it would be a dishonest answer because the heart issues I had started many years prior. And when they first happened, they were sudden and surprising. And I did go through a depressed period, and that did lead me at times to think about suicide. And I went to a Catholic university, University of Dayton. I was raised as a Catholic. But I never accepted the idea that suicide was necessarily a bad thing. There are many cultures that accept suicide as a reasonable approach under some conditions. And I in fact had to debate suicide, the pro side when I was an undergraduate.

So, I remember thinking, "Going to tell them this, and this may disqualify me for the transplant," but I had to be honest. And what I appreciated was they didn't have this immediate reaction of saying, "Wait a minute, you've thought about suicide at one point?" They explored the conditions under which, why did I think that? Why did I come to this belief system? And to me, that is a reflection of the cultural humility perspective. So, I really appreciated it at that time. And it highlighted in a personal way, the importance of adopting an approach where they're willing to listen to me, they're willing to explore more deeply why I am holding certain perspectives.

So, that was a very helpful component of being prepared. The downside, I've noticed a couple occasions in a couple settings where I don't feel that providers (and I'll talk about employers a little bit as well) adopted a cultural humility perspective. So, after the original damage to my heart and I had to go to varying cardiologists, there was one in particular who my wife would accompany me because I had, at the time, was using a wheelchair and had to use a wheelchair to get around. And this one doctor in particular would always direct their questions and provide information to my wife who was sitting in the exam room and barely looked at me. Despite the fact that even though he wasn't looking at me, I was the one providing the answers.

My wife has been extremely helpful as I went through this process, but she is not as knowledgeable about the health condition I had. She wasn't as knowledgeable about the damage to the heart and what I might have to do. She wasn't as knowledgeable about the medications I may have to take or other treatment plans. And yet this physician kept insisting on talking to her as if, because I had this serious heart attack, that I was incapable of responding and taking care of myself. And that was an instance where there was certainly not a cultural humility perspective. There was no real attempt to understand what I possessed, what abilities, knowledge, background I had. It was, I'm going to dispense the information to the person who looks less impaired.

It was an instance when I was like, this person's clearly not trained in a way that I think would be conducive to better healthcare. And I left their care. It was unacceptable to me. I encounter it also, not intentionally sometimes, but with individuals who want to talk about the transplant and what the consequences have been for me. Because even though I might be asked what it's like to have a heart transplant, the conversations often turn quickly to their knowledge of transplants or their knowledge of somebody else, and not really looking at what I bring and what my perspectives are and how I'm handling this. So, it's a case where I see myself being minimized, if you will, in these discussions.

I see it institutionally. Most recently at my university at Kutztown University in several ways. I won't belabor the point. But one I thought was particularly relevant when you asked the question concerns the need for medical notes when you have sick days. As a heart transplant patient, I'm immunosuppressed. I'm going to get sick. Varying types of bugs are going to affect me. The team knows this. We've gone through what I'm supposed to do, how to treat the symptoms. At what point should I contact the team? At what point do I wait it out? But Kutztown University and probably others, has a policy that if I'm sick for three days or more, I have to provide a note where I've gone to see a doctor. Well, I don't necessarily see a doctor in three days. My team knows that, that I know I'm going to be sick. It happens, it drags out for a few days. I don't necessarily have to see a doctor.

But the institution has decided that three-day policy that I have to have a doctor note. Little attempt to understand anything about the individual in this case. They're not looking at it as, why do you not have a note? Why does your team allow this? No real dialogue about the conditions and the background that I bring that might affect how and what kinds of demands they want to place on me. So, when we talk about institutional accountability with the cultural humility perspective, I think these are some of the kinds of examples that I've encountered anyway.

Now, how do you get people to be more aware of cultural humility and what ways should people train for this in the future? I'm sure we'll talk more about this. You certainly have to get people to engage in the self-reflection and the lifelong learning component. You have to get healthcare providers to recognize that they need to learn more about themselves so they know what their backgrounds and biases might be. And then they have to be interested in learning and continually learning about the individuals they're working with. And there are some training programs to do that, but I think that's a huge step, the self-reflection and lifelong learning approach. The power imbalances, we know they're there. There's certainly training to make people less willing to have those imbalances.

I am not a 100% sure what kinds of training can be available at the institutional level. The medical institutions I've interacted with most, as far as I can tell, really haven't done any kind of institutional accounting for cultural biases and adopting a cultural humility perspective. I can say that I felt that my transplant team did do that, but in other healthcare settings, both with myself and other family members that I've went to, I don't see a lot of that at the institutional level. So, looking for specific training programs for each of these three components is going to be crucial. And it's hard to mandate how that's done because it has to be a very personal reaction on the part of the providers. And every institution has a slightly different background and mission. So, the awareness that cultural humility is a perspective that should be adopted, a willingness to go look at what other types of efforts have been made at other institutions would be a first step.

Ryann Thomson:  So, within this conversation, I know I personally have heard more about cultural competency. And I think you're touching on some of the ideas that differ cultural competency and cultural humility. So, how does knowing the difference and implementing both, I would say, enhance treatments of patients?

Stephen Oross:  Sure. And I think that's a good point to bring up here. The perspectives that have often been taught in institutions are ones that call themselves looking at cultural competence. And there's nothing wrong with this. It's just that cultural competence approaches are training efforts to make people more aware of cultural differences, but they really think of the training as an endpoint. And what I mean is there's a set of facts that are taught in the training about people who have differing types of backgrounds. It is, in some sense, a training to teach about the belief system that is assumed to be held by individuals from different backgrounds.

There's little in cultural competence training that emphasizes looking for, well, in some sense being taught generalizations rather than stereotypes. Being taught in cultural competence, that this is a starting point for understanding individuals. But you need to interact more carefully, understand the nuances that each individual brings. Not all individuals from varying backgrounds are identical to one another. We tend to think when we say cultural competence, something really along the lines of race or ethnicity. But we have to broaden that perspective, especially if we're talking mental health to consider diagnoses. And one of the problems with diagnosis and mental health is we all know two different individuals identified with the same diagnostic label aren't necessarily acting the same way, don't necessarily show the same symptomology. So, it really is a setup where we need to learn more about the individual patients.

Ryann Thomson:  So, you touched on bias earlier-

Stephen Oross:  Oh. Yeah, sorry.

Ryann Thomson:  Oh, sorry. If you want to keep going, go again.

Stephen Oross:  Well, just briefly. There have been a few surveys in other experimental analysis of cultural competence training. And it works. People get more knowledge about different backgrounds. But it has been shown that it tends to promote stereotypes. And that's something that cultural humility will try to break down by the fact that you're going to be looking for the individual perspectives, belief systems within a framework of their cultural background. I'm sorry to cut you off there.

Ryann Thomson:  No, it's okay. I didn't know if you were finishing that. So, earlier you touched on both of these points, but implicit bias within the mental health diagnosis. And education, obviously holding a really important point. But how do you ensure educational programs and training can at least mitigate or try to mitigate this bias, and make accurate diagnosis and assessments of patients? Or is that even possible?

Stephen Oross:  Well, this is a big question. Let's start with a couple simple points and then build up to this. When we're talking about biases that people bring to providing services, largely talking healthcare here, we have both explicit and implicit biases. So, explicit biases are, we already have certain beliefs about people who come from different backgrounds. And we know this, we hold them, we can state what those beliefs are. Before we've even met the individual. We have certain expectations. And that type of work, I mean that type of bias has certainly been shown to provide a means for having unequal healthcare treatment based on your cultural, and ethnic, and racial, gender, sexual orientation backgrounds.

So, that part can be often taught with some formal training to have people aware of their biases, provide information to show where the biases are misleading, present alternative approaches to thinking about individuals. The implicit biases are a little more tricky because they are ones that people are not aware that they're holding. And if they're not aware that they're biased, it's very difficult to make them aware of the need for training and for changing their perspectives. But in studies that have attempted to look at this, there's been a few studies I remember that were talking about roughly two thirds of individuals who were providing services holding biases. Not that they were aware of it, but they were implicit biases that were negatively affecting groups that are typically underrepresented or marginalized. And these biases can impact what types of treatment programs and plans are recommended for patients.

So, we've seen health treatment disparities, for instance, between White and Black as one example, men and women. Different types of recommendations, different treatment options. One, as I remember prominently because I'm also diabetic, is that individuals who are Black when they experience neuropathy, the condition that a nerve damage that follows diabetes often, individuals who are Black were much more likely than White patients to have to be amputated to have a foot or leg amputated. Whereas White patients were more likely to have more extensive treatments designed to try to restore blood flow to the affected leg or limb. And that's a bias perhaps impacted by an implicit bias of who will follow treatments, what will work, the money, and the time efforts, the diligence in treatment. So, we know that populations who are underrepresented or marginalized are going to be affected by implicit biases. In mental health, this may not be something that individuals at the varying psychiatric institutes want to hear. But they're particularly vulnerable to the implicit biases. And partly I would argue that's because of the DSM itself.

There is a belief that is commonly held that the DSM has a standardized diagnostic criteria. And it does have diagnostic criteria and it can be quite standardized in some instances, little less standardized in others. But there's a tendency to not recognize the fact that the benefit of at least some of the standardization that's present in the DSM matters if providers pay attention to the DSM, and don't use their own judgment that might be more likely to be affected by biases. There are a number of providers have reported in different sources that , yeah they're aware of the DSM-5, they were aware of the changes that came out in DSM-5 compared to previous editions. They have a copy of it. But they argue that they rarely refer to it, that after a certain period of time they know how to diagnose individuals from their own backgrounds.

And the DSM is there, I remember in particular reading one report, where this provider was saying the DSM there is there really just to head off arguments from clients about diagnoses. And that really bothered me when I started reading these types of reports, because that's a perfect scenario for implicit biases about mental health challenges to creep into diagnosis. The DSM, some people and a growing number I would argue, suggest that there are concerns about how reliable the diagnostic categories are used and defined in the DSM. And if we don't have a careful system of diagnosing and identifying treatment plans, the individual biases that we all possess have a greater potential to come into play. We might think certain groups are going to be less compliant and we'll recommend one type of treatment for one group compared to a different treatment for others.

These are the conditions that have to be overcome. And the educational settings, again, I think first and foremost, we have to have awareness of the three principles of cultural humility. Of those, while all are important, I think one that is commonly missed is the self-reflection and the lifelong learning approaches. And there are some training materials out there to facilitate that. But it has to be emphasized that one time training is not going to be sufficient to do this. So, I think the field is right for the varying efforts that have been made across different institutions to facilitate understanding of cultural humility. I think the time is right for an overview, what is everybody doing? And can we pull out best practices that have worked in different institutions and share them more widely. At this point, I still see this being largely run on a center-by-center or provider-by-provider basis, rather than as widespread training as it probably should be.

Ryann Thomson:  Yeah, I've definitely heard some of the changes DSM has tried to make for culture, and race, and things. It's obvious they're trying, but at the same time, how much changes can you make before... There's only a certain point, if that makes sense. Like you said, you have to recognize your bias and self-reflect on those. Definitely a major point, I think. That's important.

Stephen Oross:  Well, especially when the DSM changes over time. So, if I'm a clinician and I've been providing mental health services for a number of years, am I actually paying that careful of attention to the changes that are introduced in subsequent additions of the DSM? I mean, there are many who are diligent and are well paying attention for this. But we know from self-report and a few studies that there are individuals who really are not paying that much attention to the changes. And if they're not, the efforts to become more culturally aware in the DSM are going to be ignored. And it's going to, again, make it likely that biases come into play in treatment plans.

Ryann Thomson:  Well, I want to jump to this technological advancement we've had because of the COVID-19 pandemic. So, telehealth has obviously, especially mental health, telehealth has grown. And in a way has allowed us to enhance our cultural humility, and especially with treating individuals. So, can you speak to how telehealth plays an important role and how our biases can be expanded with increased uses of technology within mental health diagnosis? Or in a way, can it negatively affect?

Stephen Oross:  Yeah, it's an interesting question to address because the technology is so varied that can be applied to providing healthcare services. We can talk about a simple technological advance, the telehealth, as you mentioned. I conduct a number of my sessions with clinicians through telehealth now. Some I have to go in person, but many I can do. Essentially they're a Zoom meeting at some level. And it works. There are concerns, I think about the technology because it's an unusual situation for most people to be conducting health interviews or health sessions through a camera and through a monitor. And I think there's potential there for people to act differently when they're in telehealth settings than they might when they're in person, on both the clinician and the patient end. You're sitting pretty still stable looking at a camera. Whereas in a in-person facility, you're moving around, you might be able to observe things about body movement that you're not going to pick up necessarily with a telehealth interview.

On the other hand, the integration of artificial intelligence can provide some background information about an individual's cultural and background. And that could be useful for writing reports or preparing for visits from the clinicians. I’ve heard, you know, when you start talking about technology, we've already heard of lots of wild ideas. So, I've been hearing more and more about digital twins, this idea that there would be, in essence, a virtual representation of you. And the digital twin would somehow be coded with information about me. And clinicians could interact at times with the digital twin. They could try out different treatments and see how the body in this virtual person responded.

I have a hard time thinking about how that's really going to work because it's simply going to be based on the input that creates this digital twin. And if we're not adopting a cultural humility perspective very well, we're going to miss information that should be incorporated into the twin. Virtual reality therapy we use already in mental health treatment in some cases and it has been proven effective. But how far that can go is still a little unclear to me. I think there's another issue though with technology that we're not really addressing.

The benefits are often proposed to be ones that are going to help people who are underrepresented or marginalized. And the problem is we already know there's healthcare disparities for these populations. We already know lack of money, lack of easy access to facilities, lack of freedom to select different care providers because of healthcare insurance restrictions. We already know that exists. We also know that providing technology through the internet, for instance, not everybody has equal access to the technologies, the internet access, the cameras, the monitors that might be needed to use telehealth.

And so, we saw some of that with COVID-19, where there was an effort to push both educational and health services online. And understandably so. But there were large numbers of groups who were marginalized to begin with, who became further marginalized because of lack of access to the technology that's needed to do this. So, if we're going to push technology into the telehealth kind of world or the virtual reality type of world, and hope that it helps us better understand individuals, it has to start with making sure there's full and unencumbered access to the technology for individuals. And I don't think that exists right now.

We then still have to adopt the perspective that when you've got somebody on a camera, you still have to spend the time to think about how you're interacting with them and how they're interacting with you. How the different backgrounds are going to mesh. Whether we're willing as healthcare providers to, at some level, give up a certain degree of control and recognize that people from different backgrounds won't always accept the treatment plan that we propose. And we have to do a better job of recognizing the power imbalances, living with a little less control at some level. But understanding the client or the patient better so that we can tell them in more succinct manner, more appropriate manners why we're recommending different treatments.

The COVID situation is one example. I don't think we did a very good job with public health and convincing different populations of people of the benefits of vaccination programs. And we see that by the disparities in who's willing to get vaccinated and the percentages of people who are actively fighting or ignoring vaccine protocols. Vaccines I firmly believe are beneficial for most people. But we haven't been able to recognize that not everybody believes that upfront. And how do we either inform them better so they change their mindset? Or how do we adapt to the belief that vaccines in some people's minds are not beneficial? And we're still struggling with that.

Ryann Thomson:  I feel like this whole conversation, it involves every single part of our lives. So, you can take any example from any part and just like, well, here you see it in vaccinations, or in how we approach illnesses, or if we even go to the doctor. It's literally anything you can think of. I think you can see an example of it.

Stephen Oross:  I think you're absolutely right. And my understanding, my familiarity with cultural humility came a little later than when it was first introduced. But I had the belief system already in place from working with people who had developmental disabilities. And the awareness that whatever their clinical label may be, there are variations in the symptomology, and the beliefs, and the behaviors of those clients. I had that perspective. So, when I encountered cultural humility more formally, later, it was easy for me to accept it and to understand it.

And I think that afforded me an opportunity to, as you said, recognize it applies in multiple contexts, not just healthcare settings, not just mental healthcare settings, but in every aspect of our lives we're encountering different people. And we have to understand that we're going to have certain beliefs, we're going to have certain generalizations about people when we first meet them. But we have to get to know those individuals. We have to think, why did I hold my beliefs and are they valid beliefs? Should I change those beliefs? I believe as people become more aware of cultural humility and as we develop more effective training programs for this, it will affect all aspects of our life.

Ryann Thomson:  Yeah, I definitely agree. Now, I know you have a class to teach in 10 minutes. So, is there anything else as a health psychology professor, you want to say to our audience? Any advice or ways to move forward from this conversation?

Stephen Oross:  I think we've touched on quite a bit of this. I think really, from my perspective, one of the most important keys, I guess I would say in a multi-lock system, is that we have to give up when we're providers of services. We have to give up the idea that we are an all-knowing expert. Certainly expertise is important. Certainly academics and physicians are training to understand their domains better and better, and more sophisticated manners. Certainly there's a great deal of knowledge that's possessed by the individuals. But we have to give up the idea that we're all knowing and recognize that there is a dynamic with whomever we're working with. And they are not just a receiver of whatever treatment or information we want to provide, but there's some level, almost a negotiation with the individual that has to take place. And I think that's probably the biggest point that I think of. I'm sure others can have different perspectives. But for me that's the biggest point. Can we recognize this dynamic interaction between patient or the client and the provider?

Ryann Thomson:  I like that you never really stop learning. You always have to keep learning about other people and an open mind about things. That's really nice.

Well, that is all the time we have. And I want to thank you again for talking with this about me. I learned so much and actually a lot of interesting ideas I'm going to look up after this. And I hope we can see you in the future. And I hope you have a nice day.

Stephen Oross:  Thank you. It was my pleasure to do this interview. It was really interesting to think about this and how to present it in this kind of context. So, as I'm talking, we had the time limit, but I'm thinking, "Oh, I could say so much more here." I could say-

Ryann Thomson:  Yeah, I know.

Stephen Oross:  But I enjoyed it, so thank you for the opportunity.

Ryann Thomson:  Yeah, of course. Thank you again.

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 Ami Shah on Caregiver Burnout

An Interview with Psychologist Ami Shah

Ami Shah, Psy.D. is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in New York and New Jersey. She specializes in working with adults and geriatric patients and helps support caregivers suffering from burnout (in particular caregivers of those with dementia, cognitive decline, and medical illness).

Adithi Jayaraman:  Great. Thank you all for joining us today for The Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Adithi Jayaraman, 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 Dr. Ami Shah. Dr. Shah is a clinical psychologist in New York who specializes in working with adults and geriatric patients. She also specializes in the areas of bicultural, multicultural identity, relationships, marriage concerns, family, individual stress, and grief and loss. Dr. Shah received her master's and doctoral degrees in clinical psychology from the University of Indianapolis. Today, we'll be speaking to her about her work with caregivers and caregiver burnout. So, before we get started, Dr. Shah, can you please share a little more about yourself and what made you interested in working with caregivers?

Ami Shah:  Yes. Thank you for the lovely intro, Adithi. So, my journey to becoming interested in working with caregivers was a bit roundabout. I initially started off thinking I wanted to work with kids, and as I began to work with individuals clinically in training, I recognized there was a large gap at that time in terms of older adult care, and then when I did my fellowship... I'm sorry, I had done research prior to that at the VA in caregiver interventions for older adults that have dementia. That was the first time I was exposed to and recognizing there was a big gap in terms of, we were working on a research project at that time, it was a phone intervention, long before we had Zoom, and we were working on a phone intervention to provide emotional support for caregivers of veterans that had dementia at that time. And from that, during fellowship, we continued to do caregiver work in the same capacity, primarily as well caregiver interventions for veterans, again, that have dementia.

So, that was the capacity I started, and now most recently, I work at a skilled nursing facility and I'm seeing folks who are caregiving a number of older adults. So whether it's primarily, it's secondary to, say, a fall. Perhaps it's chronic falls, it's chronic pain. Sometimes it is cognitive decline. So, there's a number of caregiving capacities. That's sort of the capacity, so the capacity and context I'll be talking about is primarily in working with adults and older adults.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Perfect. Thank you. Yeah, and then on that note, can you provide us a working definition of what caregiver burnout is and how common it is in the States?

Ami Shah:  Yeah, I think that's a great question. Caregiver burnout I think is, it may go through waves, and sometimes it doesn't. So, it really depends on a number of factors. It's quite complicated, actually. When we think about caregiving someone at a certain point in time, say for example, I'll speak to individuals I see currently, if you're caregiving someone that perhaps fell once, it depends on the nature of the injury. The context is always critical in any of these situations. If it's a one-time fall, depending on their age, their premorbid functioning, the caregiving capacity could be more acute and short term, and so perhaps it really may not necessarily disrupt or impact someone's functioning as much.

What becomes a bit more complicated is, depending on the nature of the injury, but also understanding the caregiver's individual life and responsibilities, including their own health, caretaking other folks. So, burnout, really the word burnout, I think it's important to understand at a single point in time, what is the experience of the person they're caretaking and what is the experience of the person that is doing the caretaking? Of course, as we all know, burnout is essentially saying, at a certain point of time, someone is perhaps giving more than they're able to at a certain point in time, which can of course contribute to feeling distressed.

I know with, for example, caregivers of dementia, at large, again, this is generalized... I'm trying to think back. I think 60% at some point report experiencing some sort of, quote, unquote, "burnout", and sometimes as much as 40% may experience clinical depression. And so sometimes it can be a depressive episode, which can be normalized to, well, what is going on at that point in time? So yeah, I would say even more than the commonality, it's important to understand the context at a certain point in time.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Thank you, thank you. And then in terms of, you kind of alluded to this, but what are some of the main concerns or themes that you've seen in your work with caregivers and the general caregiver population?

Ami Shah:  I think one of the biggest factors is thinking about more of the structural. So, depending on, again, the context here of caregiving, in the sense that if someone is prepared mentally to care-give X, Y, Z person, there's time to plan. So, for example, I see a number of folks here, it's a skilled nursing facility, folks are here for physical rehab, oftentimes due to a fall, multiple falls. So, they've been here more than once. So, if the caregiver has time to think about, for example, if they're planning on being discharged home as opposed to a skilled nursing facility, perhaps that lessens the, quote, unquote, "burden" of responsibility, where they can call insurance, make sure the house is safe for return. So, in more the physical or structural capacity.

Oftentimes, what happens is folks are not always prepared. Sometimes insurance, I would say more than 80% of the time, determines how long someone is staying at a facility, which then can directly, indirectly affect caregiving if they are also, again, aging themselves, working, have other responsibilities, personal responsibilities. It creates this increased stress for everyone that's involved. I think another thing too in terms of caregiving, again, in the capacity of primarily older adults that I see, is finance. Things that we don't necessarily talk so much about. How are we going to finance certain things if insurance doesn't cover it? If there's multiple kids, family members, money is one of the biggest topics that come up. And time. Who's going to care-take so-and-so, and to what capacity, if it's not in a skilled nursing facility?

Another thing is, which comes up quite often in working with older adults, is what they call decision-making capacity. If there's sort of two major, and I'm speaking about it broadly, if so-and-so, Mr. Smith is unable to make decisions for himself, first of all, how are we determining that, and what decisions? So, say Mr. Smith, he recovers from rehab, he's like, "I'm ready to go home," and there's questions about his cognitive capacity. Who's making those decisions about where he goes next? How are those decisions being made? It's not always that clear cut, I'll tell you that. It looks pretty on paper and in textbooks, but in reality, things are moving fast.

So, considering also that individual, Mr. Smith's sense of autonomy in this process. If so-and-so has decision-making capacity, is able to, to some extent share an awareness of why they're in a facility, what they're being treated for, that then directly, indirectly affects caregiving capacity. Are we allowing Mr. Smith the opportunity to say, "Hey," and this comes up a lot, "I would rather just go home"? And they're saying, "I'm not sure we have the time or ability to care-take." Then what? If someone has the ability to speak for themselves and the caregiver is saying, "I'm so overwhelmed," what do you do?

These are family conversations that oftentimes I think bring about a lot of tension for the caregiver, anyone involved with caregiving Mr. Smith. So, I think that comes up quite a bit. And the autonomy part, is caregiving means helping someone to get through X in some capacity, and I think with that, sometimes Mr. Smith may lose his voice at times, assuming he has that capacity. And even if he has, say, mild cognitive decline, he still has feelings. So, it's thinking about how... Caregiving, it goes two ways. Caregiving also means recognizing, preserving someone's autonomy, and it's little sometimes, right? It's allowing someone to eat on their own or maybe they make a little bit of a mess, and it's not the end of the world. So, I think those are big themes.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Yeah, it shows caregivers go more beyond just caregiving physically, but also emotionally, spiritually, mentally, and that's definitely a large feat to hold.

Ami Shah:  Oh yeah.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Perfect. Thank you. And then in terms of caregiver burnout, can it be prevented, or what are some steps that a person can take to reduce it or to prevent it coming on?

Ami Shah:  That's a good question. I think it's quite complicated, again. To your first point, can it be prevented? I guess that's like saying anything else that could be prevented, is who knows? If we were to think about it, if it's something that's more abrupt and sudden, someone caretaking, say someone falls and then they're working and they're not expecting their mom, for example, to fall, and suddenly they're in this capacity, there's a shock factor, one. Emotionally coping with, "Mom fell, oh my gosh. Maybe I'm aging as well." Again, context on both ends.

In that moment, I think number one is seeing if you can have at least someone to talk to in that moment in time. If it's a friend, family, a therapist, it doesn't matter. In some capacity, having a place that isn't mom, because you're both going through this thing together and perhaps you both need an outside person or professional, that would be my opinion, others may say otherwise, to kind of walk through that. And number two, the structural, which is calling insurance and making sure, because a lot of the distress comes from, "Is this covered? Is this not? What do we need to pay for?" A lot of stress comes out of the finance, like I was saying before. So, the stress can be by educating yourself on the insurance policy. These are very real stressors that come up.

So, I would say prevented, who knows? It depends on what you're going through at that time. I have some caregivers who, before they even fell into the role of caregiving or perhaps chose to be a caregiver, they already had a therapist. They already had a solid group of friends and a spouse, partner, whatever, and they tend to perhaps at least emotionally feel a bit more sound. So, I think the prevention part, it's a tricky question, because I think at large, we need to do a better job with understanding what contributes altogether with folks' distress, even before they're in the caregiving capacity.

Oftentimes, a caregiver capacity can exacerbate existing stressors. If someone has a history of depression, for example, and then they come into this caregiving capacity, whether it's suddenly or even over time, depends on the severity of it, how stable mentally are they feeling before taking on this pretty large responsibility? It's almost like caretaking a child. I'm not sure if that answers the question, but...

Adithi Jayaraman:  Yeah. No, makes sense.

Ami Shah:  Yeah.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Yeah. No, thank you.

Ami Shah:  Yeah.

Adithi Jayaraman:  I think that's very interesting. I think that even the finances you brought up, that's something I think that not many people talk about, and I can only imagine how much, if you're abruptly placed in that role and you have to figure out the whole healthcare system in a few days.

Ami Shah:  Right. It's a nightmare.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Yeah.

Ami Shah:  It really is, because even if the caregiver is in the healthcare field, I mean, it took me at least two years with time to really understand health insurance and how it works. These are things that even if you're in school as a mental health provider, we're not taught how to. And insurance, it's all about billing, and that then directly, indirectly affects caregiving. If insurance isn't going to cover certain services, such as physical therapy, which comes up a lot, physical therapy, is Mr. Smith better going to a facility that offers that? Is that covered? That then affects the caregiving quality of life, and for Mr. Smith. So, that's a difficult job.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Yeah, definitely.

Ami Shah:  You know?

Adithi Jayaraman:  Yeah. There's a lot of infrastructural forces that are-

Ami Shah:  Oh, sure.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Yeah.

Ami Shah:  Yeah.

Adithi Jayaraman:  And then in terms of once a person is no longer a caregiver, do you tend to see that they normally just bounce back, or there's some rebounding or burnout continues? What have you seen post that caregiver position?

Ami Shah:  That's a good question. I'm not sure I'm equipped to even answer that, because I'm not necessarily seeing folks post-caregiving. I primarily see them when they're in the moment.

Adithi Jayaraman:  In the moment. Mm-hmm.

Ami Shah:  If I were to imagine some folks that have taken on caregiving as their sole responsibility, I imagine if Mr. Smith ends up and it's sort of this informed decision where they've discussed it and he has that capacity to make a decision and agreeable to it, I imagine things might be a lot lighter, in this sort of picture-perfect scenario. Which is great. Doesn't always work that way. So, maybe I said this a million times, but the context is important at that time. So, again, burnout is a certain point in time. It doesn't necessarily mean they feel that way at all hours of the day.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Yeah. No, that makes sense. And you mentioned how a lot of preexisting mental health concerns get exasperated by this caregiving position. So, when you treat caregivers, do you oftentimes, it goes beyond just talking about caregiving, goes into some of their root fears or concerns that are brought up by the responsibilities they have as a caregiver?

Ami Shah:  That's a good question too. I'm trying to think back to when I first started doing the phone interventions. Well, it was part of a research study, I should add. The research study is about focusing on caregiver distress, so we did talk about, it was primarily about caregiving as opposed to even, are you saying even going beyond the caregiving and talking about their own needs?

Adithi Jayaraman:  Yeah.

Ami Shah:  Yeah, that's a good question. In the capacity that I've seen folks for caregiver distress, not so much. More recently, I did speak to an individual who was caregiving her husband who had aphasia, but this individual already had a therapist, and so it wasn't my place to sort of-

Adithi Jayaraman:  Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Ami Shah:  So, we just focused on the spouse. But I think the times that, I'm trying to think too, there have been times where I've suggested they speak to someone. It depends on the capacity and the setting you're seeing someone in. So, for example, when I was at the VA, it was a research intervention. It was protocoled. It was a bit more like session one, session two. That's not reality all the time. At the nursing facility I work at now, obviously the patient many times is the primary focus, and if they're unable to, in this case, this gentleman with his aphasia was having trouble with speech, is when I sort of went to the caregiver and to kind of see the best way to support him. So, again, our focus was on him.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Yeah.

Ami Shah:  And she also had shared she had someone. But it's certainly, to your point, it's a great idea, I think to explore. And this is more short-term acute care.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Yeah, yeah.

Ami Shah:  I seem them one to five times. This isn't long-term therapy.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Exactly, yeah.

Ami Shah:  And a lot of times in these settings where you're meeting caregivers, it may be in a hospital setting. Not always. Perhaps I'm just speaking to my own experience. If you're in a setting where you're allowed to and you're able to, and again, see someone beyond just the patient, you can explore if it wouldn't be conflicting to see the caregiver as well, or perhaps even provide them resources if you're unable to for whatever reason. So, yeah.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Wow. Thank you. And just one last question. How has your work changed post-pandemic? Have you seen some significant changes in the caregiver field and just generally mental health-wise in regards to caregivers?

Ami Shah:  I think that question is a great question, and it's complicated, because I think post-pandemic, it's hard because there could be a number of factors. I'm not sure I can just pinpoint the pandemic as the only factor, but I think as human beings, which then of course translates to caregiving to some extent, and with increased use of technology and social media, think of climate change, I mean, there's obviously all the things happening in our world, there's sort of this increased, I should say decreased distress tolerance capacity as human beings.

And so for example, in the setting that I'm in, sometimes when someone wants something, whether it's the patient or the caregiver, they want it now. And yes, of course, there's certainly, if it's an emergency, it's a crisis, that's understood. That's a given. But it's sort of a top-down effect. It's that all of us are experiencing this sort of vortex of, "You need to get this done right now or else," in some ways, because of inflation. But things are more costly now for folks. So, if things are more costly, then I'm going to have less time to spend caretaking Mr. Smith, and then Mr. Smith gets less from me as his daughter, then that sort of creates that trickle effect. So, the economy, the environment, I think perhaps we're just sort of aiming for good enough. Perfection is sort of an illusion here. So, as long as we can say, "Hey, am I doing enough today? Am I able to at least accomplish what was necessary to get done today?" and just leave it there.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Yeah, definitely. And I think that mindset just applies to all of us and-

Ami Shah:  Yeah.

Adithi Jayaraman:  ... the capacities we're functioning in. Yeah.

Ami Shah:  Absolutely.

Adithi Jayaraman:  Definitely. Well, thank you again so much for your time. I really appreciate you being part of our interview series. Yeah, and I'll leave it there. Thank you again, and best of luck with your future endeavors.

Ami Shah:  All right. 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 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.

Psychologist George Bonanno on Trauma, PTSD & Resilience

* Note: Video is unavailable for this interview.

An Interview with Psychologist George Bonanno

George Bonanno, Ph.D. is a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University's Teacher College. His research specializes in human resilience in the face of loss and potential trauma.

Tori Steffen:  Hi, everybody. Thank you for joining us today for this installment of The Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Tori Steffan, 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 psychologist George Bonanno. Dr. Bonanno is a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University's Teacher College. Dr. Bonanno is recognized for his pioneering research on human resilience in the face of loss and potential trauma. In addition to the books, The End of Trauma and The Other Side of Sadness, he's published hundreds of peer reviewed scientific articles, many appearing in leading journals. 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 trauma and resilience?

George Bonanno:  Oh, that's a good question. I have a long and a short answer to that question. The shorter answer I guess is I had the opportunity when I finished my doctoral program. I was trained, I think, pretty well in experimental research and in this general research methodology part of my clinical psychology degree. And the first position I took was in San Francisco, the bereavement project when I was given basically free range to design this massive study with the resources there. And so we just basically used methods that hadn't been used before with this kind of phenomenon. A lot of the work is mostly clinical and with people who were suffering. So the assumption at the time was that most people were suffering greatly with disease of the brain. Same thing with the trauma one. And when we used a different approach, more of a I think... we would get a broader... Okay, I was going to say epidemiological.

We did a broad swatch of people, anyone who had gone through a loss and then eventually did that in the trauma too. Anyone who'd gone through a particular event, we were interested in, and we would interview them and do experimental work with them and questionnaires as soon as we could after the event, and then following them. Right away, we began to see that so many, many people were showing, they had a difficult time talking about it when they had to, but they were basically functioning really well in their lives. And we found that right away and so we began to document that. And then I thought, "Well, this is kind of remarkable." So I was interested in this and we just kept pursuing it. And before I even realized it, I've now been studying that for 30 years. I didn't really intend that, but that's what we've been doing.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah, it's funny how one study can kind of lead you down a road that way.

George Bonanno:  Exactly, yeah.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah. Well, I ended up reading your book, The End of Trauma, which was very interesting and investigates why some people might develop PTSD after traumatic events and then some might not. So could you kind of explain that for the audience a little bit?

George Bonanno:  Well, as I mentioned, we were finding these patterns for years. We called one the resilience pattern or the resilience trajectory, and those are people who they go through an event, everybody is distressed and disturbed by a major stressor or a major, I use the word 'potential trauma', but everybody has those reactions. And I'd say just about everybody and maybe 85% of the people exposed by a major life-threatening event or a major loss, or something like that. But for most people, it seems to abate within a few weeks, sometimes a little bit longer, sometimes a little bit less. And so we've replicated this now so many times and other people have now as well, dozens maybe. I think the last count it was something like 80 or 90 studies showing this. So of course over time, I was busy just simply verifying this and looking at it from this way and that way to make sure we were correct in this assumption, that these people were really resilient, they're not just telling us. So we had alternative methods. We usually talk to multiple people.

So then of course, naturally we began to ask, “What causes this? Why is it that these people are so resilient and other people not?” And that's a question I'm still trying to understand today. There's a longer answer to that one and also a shorter answer. The shorter answer if I can give you it quickly is that, so there are many factors that can be identified that correlate with resilience, and we've identified these factors and other people have too. And there's a widespread assumption that there's sort of several key factors that make people resilient and resilient people have these. And after really thinking about this and studying this for years, I think they've come to the realization that there aren't key factors. There's so many correlatives, so many predictors that they're just a multitude, well over 50 and counting.

And so how do we make sense of that? But it turns out all these things also are pretty small effects. In other words, they only really explain a little bit. There isn't any one factor that really makes you resilient or not. In fact, people aren't resilient. And that led that people have to become resilient. Resilience I think of as an outcome. So all those, I'm flying a lot of this past everybody. But the answer becomes what I call regulatory flexibility. Every time we're confronted with an event, we'd have to work it out. We'd have to embrace the event and find out for ourselves what works in this situation. And we do that through a process of trial and error. And that's very much the way humans cope, very much the way humans do the world. We are equipped for that. We try things, if it doesn't work, we try something else. So that's really the answer. We've studied flexibility now in detail, we have many different components of flexibility. We identified the pieces of us and we try to keep it simple, but life is not always simple.

Tori Steffen:  There's so many aspects and variables that kind of go into resilience. And I remember reading about the resilience paradox, and I think you listed, like you were saying, about 50 variables that could go into why somebody might be resilient after experiencing trauma. One variable that I remember being pretty significant is having a support group or people around you to support you after experiencing trauma. How significant would you say that particular variable is?

George Bonanno:  Well, I think there are some factors, social support, emotional support, instrumental support. If you break down social support or what we call interpersonal support, it's actually not one thing, it's many things. And people need different things at different times. So sometimes they need help with the daily aspects of living, instrumental support. Sometimes they need the emotional support. Sometimes they just simply need the group to belong to, it's about identity. So there are lots of different pieces of that. And we tend to assume that social support, anyone of this broader umbrella of support is really the "that's always good". But the research shows pretty clearly, it's not always good. It comes with a cost. Everything comes with a cost. Benefits and cost. And the cost of support have been studied research wise, and people have told me different costs that sometimes people just aren't able to engage in the kind of reciprocity that's required for support.

Sometimes the support is well intended, but not very helpful. Sometimes the support might undermine a person's sense of efficacy and sometimes it's just not what people need. Sometimes people need to be isolated, they need to be alone and work something out for themselves. Sometimes people don't want to be around other people because of whatever the event was that they experienced. And so in particular moments, it's not always the answer. And another piece of that is that when we cope with something major, it doesn't go away, as every good therapist... No, it doesn't go away and when you say, "Here's what I need you to do," bing - now it's gone. It takes time. And so what we do at any one time is different to what we do at another time. And so being around other people and just hanging out with other people, just enjoying their company and not thinking about the event is what we need maybe a little bit later down the road.

Maybe what we need immediately is just to be comforted by someone. Maybe we need help, as I mentioned, instrumental support and that comes somewhere in the middle. It all depends. And sometimes, as I said, we just want to be alone for some point of it. So it's really a matter of, we're not talking about, if your social supports always good, this is what we've been... What's good at this moment? And that's really what we see as being helpful.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah, I can see that it would definitely vary between participants that you've interviewed. One situation might work out a little bit better. So it definitely just varies across the population. And the flexibility sequence that you had mentioned earlier, I remember in your book it stated somebody asking themselves after a traumatic event, what am I able to do versus what do I need to do. How might that distinction help one be more flexible?

George Bonanno:  Well, that distinction that's when we break it down and move to different components. So part of being flexibly adapting, which you'd say, is reading the situation first. A lot of people... We assess what's happening and ask, "Well, what do I need to do here?" We've grown up doing that, but we do this normally without thinking. Part of what I think is important clinically is bringing that to people's awareness, that we do that and that that's how they get through an event. They have to think about it, kind of embrace it even for a short time and ask those questions. The question about what am I able to do comes next. And we sense that what I need to do here is I'm ruminating, I need to stop myself from ruminating, or I'm thinking about this all the time, or I'm afraid to go back to this place. I'm even afraid to go out. Or I can't sleep, what do I need to do?

I need to find a way to sleep tonight or sleep for the next few days. I need to consult people. I need to ask people, I need to figure out what do I have... But then we get to the question of what am I able to do? And that comes to our repertoire. What do we have at our disposal? What do we already know how to do? And I'm a big fan of having people think about this when they're not in a terrible bad shape. Because once we're really upset about something and we amidst of a crisis, it's really hard to think clearly. It's really hard to even think, what am I able to do? I'm not able to do anything right now. And that's a real fact of life.

When people are really upset, we don't think very clearly. So it's a good idea to think about these things in advance. And so we ask ourselves, what do I need to do here? What can I do? What are the tools I have? And then we try something. And we get to the last step, which is, did this work? Do I feel better? Did the situation change? If not, then we try something else. And I find this last step is where a lot of people stumble also. They stumble and they can stumble at any one of these steps, but the last step is when we ask ourselves, is this working? Because people often find out, "Well, no, I still feel terrible. It didn't work."

And they give up because their assumption is, "Well, I'm not good at this. I can't cope. I'm not a resilient person." But nobody can do everything every time exactly the right way. It's how we learn, it's how we become healthy people. Even the healthiest people don't always have an answer. They try things. It doesn't work, you try something else, especially if it's a major event, especially if you're in bad shape, you try something else. And that's just really how we do get through things. So I think that's also another important thing, clinical teaching moment for people to realize that.

Tori Steffen:  Right.

George Bonanno:  It's how it works.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, absolutely. I remember a case in your book about a girl named Maren who suffered a spinal cord injury from a horse incident.

George Bonanno:  Yes, yes.

Tori Steffen:  And I remember the key part of her recovery was her own optimism and motivation.

George Bonanno:  Yes.

Tori Steffen:  Do you think that those two things, motivation and optimism led her towards recovering so well?

George Bonanno:  Sure. I think Maren's optimism, if I can speak colloquially, was off the charts. It was really extreme. And they told her she was paralyzed for the rest of her life and not only did she say I'm going to walk again, she believed she would walk again. But optimism, few other pieces like that, maybe confidence, our ability to cope, a sense of I'll get through things, I'll get through this, I'll work it out. And even if the goal is just to accept what's happened, I will work this out somehow. I'll find a way to live with this and be happy again.

And that motivation is really important for all the things that I've just said up until now. Because it's not easy when you're hurting, last thing you want to do is think about it and embrace it. What we really want to do is just push it away, cover our face in a pillow, feel lousy and just hate the world. Those are much easier, but we have to actually face what's happened and think about it enough to work out what do I need to do then and what's going to get me through this? And you need to be motivated to do that. So Maren was super motivated, but a lot of people are. I think none of these are that extreme. Maren is a great person, but she's not a superhero. She just had the will to do this.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah, I think that's a large part of it, your own personal mindset and believing that you can recover. But I mean, in a situation like that, it's just really interesting that that would have such a significant impact on her healing journey. So that's a great case to study. Well, Dr. Bonanno, I really appreciate your time. Are there any final words of advice that you'd like to share with the listeners today?

George Bonanno:  Yeah, I would. Another thing that I mentioned in the book is what I call coping arguments, that we sometimes need to do something that doesn't quite seem like it's healthy. It's something we maybe never thought about doing. It's something that we're told is not a healthy thing to do. But in this moment, it may be, and I'm not going to mention too many examples, but I think things like, sometimes people, I hope the listeners don't mind me saying this, sometimes people get drunk and just for the evening. And we wouldn't think of it as a healthy coping behavior. But for one night, and it doesn't... The next day you feel lousy. It's not gone. But people feel like, okay, but I decided to do that and I'm in control. Now what do I need to do here? And they get through the morning to make themselves feel a little bit better.

Then they still have the question. I did something last night, it didn't work, but I did something. What do I need to do now? And it does seem to sometimes give people just a little break. So the other thing, I won't name any other examples, but I'm sure people can think of them, they just get us through that moment and then we take the next step. So John Lennon has a song called Whatever Gets You Thru The Night. And I think I mentioned that in the book, but it's like the song because it's really kind of what it's about. When we're coping with really difficult things, we just want to get through it. It doesn't need to be pretty, it doesn't need to make us super healthy people. We just need to get through it. So I think that's an important thing also to keep in mind.

Tori Steffen:  Awesome. Yeah, that's great advice. And yeah, there's plenty of great information in the book too. I definitely recommend everybody checks out The End of Trauma by Dr. Bonanno. So yeah, thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with us today. And thank you everybody for tuning in and we'll see everybody next time. Thank you.

George Bonanno:  Okay, thank you. Thank you, Tori, nice to meet you.

Tori Steffen:  Thank you, you as well.

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.

Post-Doctoral Fellow Kristy Cuthbert on Panic Disorder & Agoraphobia

An Interview with Post-Doctoral Fellow Kristy Cuthbert

Kristy Cuthbert, Ph.D. is an Administrative and Clinical Fellow at the Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders in Boston. She specializes in CBT and DBT for anxiety and related disorders, such as phobias.

Tori Steffen:  Hi everybody. Thank you for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview Series. I'm Tori Steffen, 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 post-doctoral fellow Kristy Cuthbert. Dr. Cuthbert is an Administrative and Clinical Fellow at the Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders in Boston. Dr. Cuthbert specializes in CBT and DBT for anxiety and related disorders. She's also worked with individuals with post-traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder. Her research focuses on alternative spectrum models of psychopathology and on treatment implementation in clinical settings. She has specialized training in working with veterans and has focused much of her clinical work on women's mental health and providing access to care for low-income populations. So before we get started today, Dr. Cuthbert, could you let us know a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in studying, treating panic disorder and agoraphobia?

Kristy Cuthbert:  Sure. So thanks for the introduction. So I think my interest came about simply because I did my graduate training at Boston University, that's the home of the Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders. And they offer cognitive behavioral therapies for anxiety and related disorders of a fairly wide range as well as mood disorders. However, I found it to be both challenging and rewarding to work with individuals who have diagnoses of panic disorder and, or a agoraphobia. Because entering into that first exposure I think, and I can talk more about what that is and what that entails in a moment, but entering into that first exposure, I think people have a lot of fear. And then once they face that fear, it just kind of unlocks this ability to do more and more. And it's really great to see people succeed and to feel empowered at the end of the process.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah. And that must be really fulfilling work to do, to be able to help people and see the success rate.

Kristy Cuthbert:  Yeah.

Tori Steffen:  That's awesome. Well, getting down to the basics around our topic, can you explain for the audience what panic disorder and or agoraphobia are and how common they tend to be?

Kristy Cuthbert:  Sure. So I think this can be kind of complicated if you're not super familiar with all of this terminology, because there are panic attacks and then there's panic disorder and then there's a agoraphobia. And so the answer can be complicated. I'll say that panic disorder is specifically related to two or more panic attacks that meet a certain set of symptoms that we ask people about and that these attacks occur out of the blue. And that's a critical distinction. So some people will report having a panic attack in the middle of the night, and it just feels really surprising and sudden.

And then for agoraphobia, people taking this a step further feel fearful about going out in public because of those panic symptoms or fear that those panic symptoms will come up. Or this can also be related to other fears about embarrassing symptoms like having an upset stomach or having to urgently go to the restroom or having trouble escaping for whatever reason from very busy and crowded places. So in addition to the two disorders, panic disorder and agoraphobia, you can also have panic attacks, which can be related to any number of other anxiety disorders. So if you have a specific phobia and you're afraid of bees, you can have a panic attack if you see a bee. And so that would be specified as a part of the phobia. The key there being, that panic attack is triggered by the bee. Whereas in panic disorder, those attacks come on very suddenly and are not related to, "Oh, well I saw a bee." Right?

Tori Steffen:  Okay. That makes great sense. Thanks for making that distinction for us.

Kristy Cuthbert:  Yeah. And in terms of how common they tend to be, I'll say that the 12 month prevalence rate in the DSM-5-TR for that is 2 to 3%. And for agoraphobia, it's 1 to 1.7% as the 12 month prevalence. So panic disorder is not entirely uncommon, neither is agoraphobia. So it's not uncommon to see those. And that doesn't even include panic attacks, the ones that can occur with other anxiety disorders.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Have you seen any, or in the literature, are there any known causes for agoraphobia or panic disorder?

Kristy Cuthbert:  So I think in terms of causes, this can be wide-ranging. For both disorders, they tend to co-occur at very high rates. So one theory is, so for example, to think about panic disorder, panic disorder and agoraphobia can be preceded by anxiety disorders. So perhaps you start with social anxiety. And when you have social anxiety, you might have a panic attack or panic symptoms. And then you start to really focus on those symptoms and develop fear and anxiety about having those symptoms. So then you're more likely to have those symptoms come on unexpectedly or to have more fears about going out in public or in crowded spaces where you then might have those symptoms.

So sometimes it's just a matter of experiencing some of those discomforts and really keying into those physical cues. Because it's kind of like when you get an itch on your head. This always happens when I'm getting a haircut. So I want to scratch it, but I'm getting a haircut. And so because I can't, I focus on it and it feels more and more intense. So for whatever reason, a person might start to notice those physical sensations and then that feeling like, "How do I control this?" And not being able to fully control it can kind of start that cycle of panic and then lead to agoraphobia as well.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Yeah, that makes good sense as in how it could potentially lead to agoraphobia. So thank you for breaking that down.

Kristy Cuthbert:  Sure.

Tori Steffen:  And as far as treating agoraphobia and panic disorder, what are some of the common treatments for the two?

Kristy Cuthbert:  Yeah, so I'll say the gold standard treatments for panic disorder and agoraphobia are exposure based therapies. And cognitive behavioral therapy more generally. So you can talk about what it means to have a racing heart, and from a cognitive perspective, you might think of other situations where you had a racing heart like when you were working out, and then it was okay. You might think about what it means to feel panic. It means, “I'm out of control.” And you might look for evidence that doesn't support that you're out of control.

For the most part though, we do focus on exposures. And for panic disorder, one of the key types of exposures that we do is called an interoceptive exposure. So these are exposures where we kind of mimic the symptoms of a panic attack. So if one of your main symptoms is hyperventilating, we have you breathe through a coffee stirrer to actually simulate that and to sit with that. I've had patients wear heavy coats and heaters to simulate warmth and sweating, and maybe we will run in place for a couple of minutes to get the heart racing to really try to bring on the simulated symptoms of a panic attack and then to sit with that discomfort until it passes.

Because another thing we know about panic disorder and agoraphobia is that people often have safeties or safety behaviors. So they might carry medications around in their pocket. They might do certain things like bringing friends along with them when they travel so that they don't feel discomfort. So we also ask that, say we're sitting with those panic symptoms, we ask people not to engage in those behaviors. So we're not going to keep an empty bottle of benzodiazepines. We're not going to... We're going to leave that at home, we're not going to take off the coat and crank up the fan to try to combat the symptoms. We're just going to say, what if we leave them alone? And we try not to react to them. And to learn that by not reacting to them, it kind dismantles that false alarm telling you that there's danger.

So for agoraphobia, taking that a step further, we also do what we call situational exposures. So if you're afraid of public transportation, because it gets really crowded here in Boston and because you want to make sure you can escape, whether because you have panic symptoms or for some other reason, we get on the train. We get on the train when it's busy, we ride the train, we resist that urge to escape, we watch for other safety behaviors. Like again, carrying a medication. We may start by doing an exposure together. And then the person I'm working with might start to ride the train or take the bus on their own.

And of course, in more severe cases, this is trying to get them out of the house. So we might start by having them go to a grocery store that's a mile away. And then when they get into the grocery store, making sure they're not using any safeties to try to distract from the discomfort. The idea is that if we face the discomfort, then we'll see that it passes on its own without us having to react and that breaks up that cycle of behavior, and eventually that fear starts to become extinct.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. So the goal is to reduce the fear that one would get?

Kristy Cuthbert:  Right. And another goal is to learn safety. To be able to say, "I'm in a grocery store and I noticed that I'm having these panic sensations. I noticed the urge to want to escape, and I know that this is a safe place. As far as the world is safe, this is a safe place. And I know that what I'm experiencing is not necessarily a medical emergency. I've had these symptoms before. I recognize them as panic. I'm going to trust what I have learned about these symptoms, which is that I am safe if I just let them pass." So that learning safety is also an important part of it.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Okay. Well, great. And I know we spoke a little bit about how panic disorder and agoraphobia can co-occur pretty frequently. Is it likely for agoraphobia to be comorbid with any other mental health issues as well?

Kristy Cuthbert:  Sure. So I talked a little bit about potential precursors. We also see a lot of comorbidity and different disorders that might occur in addition to, or once someone has started to have panic symptoms or agoraphobia. Depending on the severity of agoraphobia, it can be incredibly isolating if people don't go out often, if they have a lot of restrictions about where they can go that they feel safe. So a lot of people with agoraphobia will often have a diagnosis of major depressive disorder and substance use disorders. Because benzodiazepines are often prescribed. And depending on the severity of panic, benzodiazepines can be misused and can be addicted. People also drink or use other substances to try to take the edge off of that anxiety, either when they're feeling panic or if they have to leave the house or go into an uncomfortable situation if they have agoraphobia. So those are two of the particularly important comorbidities that we know of.

Tori Steffen:  Okay, that's good to know. And have you worked with any other phobias out there, any that you can name for us?

Kristy Cuthbert:  Yes. So we also treat specific phobias at the clinic. So I've worked with phobias of vomiting and specific phobias of animals like dogs, blood, injury, and injection phobias, insect phobias, snake phobias. I don't particularly work with snake phobias, but we do treat those at the clinic. And spider phobias. So yeah, a pretty wide range of specific phobias.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, there's definitely a lot out there.

Kristy Cuthbert:  Yeah.

Tori Steffen:  So yeah, that's very interesting. And how might somebody with a specific phobia typically present? Kind of what's their common experience, I guess?

Kristy Cuthbert:  So I would say that from the cognitive behavioral model, we look at everything from this model of our thoughts and our feelings influence our behaviors. So most of the time what we see is a pattern of, and I'll use a dog phobia as an example. Sometimes it comes from having had a negative experience when they were younger. Sometimes it doesn't. It might be that their parents didn't have dogs, didn't like dogs. It might just be that they never had them around so they're just an unknown entity. They can develop for a wide range of reasons.

What tends to happen to maintain it though is... Say I'm going to work, it's important for me to get to work on time, and at around eight o'clock when I'm supposed to be walking through the door every morning, there is a medium-sized dog across the street from me right there next to the door of my office. That thought, feeling and behavior pattern might go something like this. I feel physical sensations, I feel a little bit sweaty, my hands are shaking a little bit. I feel maybe some flip-flops in my stomach, like I'm nervous. And I know that's because I see this dog. So then I think, "That dog might bite me, I'm in danger. I need to get away." And then that leads to the behavior. I don't cross the street. If the dog crosses the street towards me, I walk the other way. I avoid or try to escape the situation.

So what that does though is that says, "Yes, it really is a dangerous situation because you had to get out of it." So it reinforces the fear. So that pattern is something that we see that sort of seeing the object, feeling uncomfortable, labeling it as dangerous and trying to avoid or escape, that's a pretty common pattern.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. And that fits so well with the cognitive behavioral therapy outlook. So that's really cool.

Kristy Cuthbert:  Exactly. Yep.

Tori Steffen:  And have you seen that any phobias are more common than others, in general?

Kristy Cuthbert:  You know, it's really tough to say. I know that we do treat a lot of blood, injury, and injection phobias. Having blood drawn, getting medical procedures. I don't know at our particular clinic if those are any more common. And I don't know the prevalence literature off the top of my head. I would say that we do see that a lot, probably because if I am scared of a snake, for example, that's really not impairing my day-to-day life because I don't have to regularly interact with them. Now, if I were a keeper at the zoo and it was my job to take care of the reptiles, then I might come in and say, "I have a snake phobia." Or if I was an avid hiker and I stopped going hiking and kind of lost this thing that I loved, that might warrant treatment for a phobia. Blood, injury, and injection phobias or phobias around medical procedures, these are things that most people need to have done at some point. So we will see those people come in to have those treated.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Yeah, that's an interesting one. For the blood phobia, is it mainly seeing blood and having a fearful reaction to an open wound, is the common experience?

Kristy Cuthbert:  So this can be wide-ranging. For some people it is. For others, there's very specifically a fear of having blood drawn, that fear of passing out if they have blood drawn. Some people do have that experience. So that I would say is a little bit of a unique treatment because we often will teach them a technique of tensing and relaxing muscles to make sure the blood is flowing. It increases the blood pressure and can prevent passing out while having blood drawn. So that's something that people can learn and do.

And the rest of it is very, very similar to exposure for panic or agoraphobia. And that we say, "What is it that you're afraid of?" "Well, I'm afraid of having my blood drawn."` So we start wherever a person is ready to start. So it might be, "Watch this video of someone having their blood drawn. Let's go into our medical lab and I'll have you put on the tourniquet and we'll prepare and you can sit with that anxiety." Which is often anticipatory. We also have specific phobias of driving. So for those, we'll start with one stretch of road. And then we talk about trying to see how is that similar to other stretches of road that I might be afraid of? "If I can do this, can I do this highway as well?"

So it's sort of a buildup to eventually having your blood drawn, eventually taking the highway you're most afraid of.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Okay. Yeah, that definitely makes sense with gauging where they might be ready to start and starting there. So can all phobias be treated with exposure therapy?

Kristy Cuthbert:  So I would say for the most part, there's always something we can do in terms of an exposure. You can be pretty creative, like I said. You can find anything in this day and age on YouTube. There are YouTube videos of just dash cams of people driving on highways. That's an exposure for driving phobia, right? If it's a scenario that you don't often find yourself in, like interviewing for a job with a person in authority. We have what we call confederates come in. It might be our clinic director, it might be one of our professors who's cleared to work in the clinic. But we have them come in, they're doing the interview so that someone starts to get that experience.

And if the situation is one that you can't really recreate, like, "I'm scared of getting the flu and being sick," then we'll do an imaginable exposure. So that's where people write out a script of what is that scenario that you're afraid of? Write it out in as much detail as you can, engage all five senses about what you notice about the situation, and then sit with the discomfort and challenge any sorts of judgments that might be in your write up. So I think it is very versatile. Exposure therapy, I think, is the standard treatment for most phobias. Yes.

Tori Steffen:  Right. And how effective would you say that exposure therapy is in treating a wide range of phobias?

Kristy Cuthbert:  Yeah, so you can really generalize this concept. And there are trans diagnostic approaches like the unified protocol that treat a wide range of anxiety and mood disorders based on these same concepts. So much like we avoid driving or avoid dogs, we can sometimes avoid uncomfortable emotions. So sometimes exposure is exposure to an uncomfortable emotion and being able to tolerate that emotion. Sometimes if we're feeling depressed and we don't want to be up and active, the exposure is being active. Depression tends to make us feel like we don't get a lot of pleasure out of activities. The problem then is that we stop doing the activities that might make us happy.

So taking that same approach, it's entering into those situations and saying, "I might not cure my depression today by going for a walk, but if I do this every day it's going to be really hard to hang on to that inertia and that heaviness that can come with depression." Likewise, interoceptive exposures, the ones where you simulate the physical symptoms of panic, you can do that with depression. The heaviness of depression, for example. There are ankle weights and arm weights that you can put on to kind of simulate heaviness. So it really does touch on a wide range of anxiety and mood disorders.

Tori Steffen:  Wow, that's really interesting. Yeah, I'd never heard the examples for depression as well, so that's great to know that it can also help with that. Well, awesome. Well, while treatment options are best and ideally done under the guidance of the licensed mental health professional, are there any things that individuals can do on their own to potentially reduce the symptoms of panic or agoraphobia?

Kristy Cuthbert:  So I would say a starting point is to be willing to say, "What is my panic look like?" I think one of the scary things about panic is your body is physically reacting. And so it's really hard to know is this a medical emergency? Because it feels so uncomfortable. Obviously you're having a physical reaction. It's hard to know. I would say that over time, panic attacks though, you can get to know them. And you can say, “I know what this is,” and to approach it with a familiarity, which I think can prevent the urge to, for example, Google your symptoms or to say, "Should I go to the ER to get this checked out?" If you start to understand what your panic is, that's a first step. Of course. I always give the caveat, make sure you're aware of what your physical conditions really are so you do know what to look out for. And also really balance that with saying, "I also know what my panic feels like and it feels like this."

And I would say the other thing is to think about the story you tell yourself. So I say this a lot with patients, and this really gets at the cognitive piece. So two things about the story you tell yourself. First of all, if you're telling yourself that, "Yes, I'm scared of having my blood drawn and I did it today, but I was scared the whole time." Well that kind of discounts this big achievement, you did something that was important to do. And it also can create a bunch of fear around it. It's almost like the expectation is that I should be able to have my blood drawn with no fear or you know what, I should be able to drive over a really high bridge with no anxiety. That is a really high expectation. And I would say that sometimes I drive over bridges and I'm like, "Wow, this is a really high bridge."Or I have a pretty healthy level of anxiety in busy traffic, because you're watching a lot and you're vigilant.

So don't see anxiety as a thing you want to eradicate. Just kind of learn to get more comfortable with it and learn when it's kind of out of proportion to what you think you're experiencing and give yourself credit for victories that you do achieve. If you get across a bridge because you have somewhere to go, pat yourself on the back for that if you're afraid of driving across a bridge. And the other thing is to picture going into it. What do you tell yourself about that bridge? “I'm going to drive over this bridge, I'm going to lose control and drive the car off the bridge.” And then ask yourself, “What is making me think this? What evidence do I have for it?” Sometimes the one thing that gets in the way is the story that we tell ourselves. Even before an exposure, if you're telling yourself that story, it's going to amp up the fear. And part of the fear is going to come anyway. And the story we tell ourselves can make that fear feel stronger.

Tori Steffen:  Right. That makes a lot of sense, and that's great advice for just kind of starting off and getting introspective about what's really going on. Well, Dr. Cuthbert, do you have any final words of advice or anything else that you'd like to share with the listeners today?

Kristy Cuthbert:  Not that I can think of. I think other than to say above and beyond the things that people can do on their own, it's okay to ask for help, to see someone who specializes in different types of therapy. If you feel like you're afraid of something and you're not quite ready to do exposures, there are other types of therapy where you kind of explore the root causes or where you focus on approaches that have you live your life in spite of your fears. And eventually it might mean facing your fears. And it's all about looking at your values and living according to those values. If you feel like anything, any specific fear, panic symptoms or fear of certain situations, if you feel like that's getting in the way of living a life according to your values, it's okay to seek help from someone to help get you through it. Some of these treatments can be completed in as few as 12 to 16 sessions. So it is worth the investment and the time that it takes.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, I would have to agree. That's great advice. So thanks so much for sharing that, and thanks for chatting today. It was really great speaking with you about this. And I hope you have a great rest of your day.

Kristy Cuthbert:  Thanks, you too.

Tori Steffen:  Thank you. And thank you everybody for joining.

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 Andres De Los Reyes on Adolescent Social Anxiety & ADHD

An Interview with Psychologist Andres De Los Reyes

Andres De Los Reyes, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Maryland. He's an expert in the field of adolescent psychology, social anxiety and ADHD.

Tori Steffen:  Hi, everybody. Thanks for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist interview series. I'm Tori Steffen, research intern at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We are a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders.

I liked to welcome with us today, Psychologist Andres De Los Reyes. Dr. De Los Reyes is a professor of psychology at the University of Maryland in College Park, as well as the Director of the Comprehensive Assessment and Intervention Program. Dr. De Los Reyes is an expert in the field of clinical psychology. He's published over 100 articles, including “When Adolescents Experience Co-occurring Social Anxiety and ADHD Symptoms,” “Links with Social Skills when Interacting with Unfamiliar Peer Confederates,” and “Multi Informant Reports of Depressive Symptoms and Suicidal Ideation Among Adolescent Inpatients.”

Before we get started today, Dr. De Los Reyes, could you please let us know a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in studying social anxiety, ADHD, and other mental health issues among adolescents?

Andres De Los Reyes:  As you mentioned, I've been at the University of Maryland for some time now, about 15 years. In that work, I spent a lot of time thinking about the most accurate ways of assessing various kinds of mental health concerns with a particular emphasis on those concerns, where when we try to get a sense of symptoms and associated impairments... Obviously, because we're often assessing children and adolescents, we're seeking input from not only the clients themselves but also significant others in their lives, like parents and teachers and sometimes peers. We focus our attention a great deal on those domains, where when we ask these questions, we oftentimes get very different responses depending on who we ask. That's a common byproduct of assessments of social anxiety, of ADHD.

The work our group has conducted, and the work of many other labs all over the world, really have led us to believe that although there may be some circumstances where these assessments are telling us different things because perhaps one or more of the informants aren't nearly as useful reporters as they might be, under the grand majority of circumstances, when we administer assessments to understand things like ADHD and social anxiety, we're often using well-established instruments, and we're also often asking people, informants, who mental health professionals have relied on for decades to assess behaviors. So under a variety of circumstances, there may very well be reason to believe that rather than these differences in results reflecting something artifactual about the measures we administer and the scores we obtain from these informants, it might be actually something really important. In particular, the specific contexts where adolescents, children might be experiencing concerns like social anxiety and ADHD.

It turns out that in both of these circumstances, in both of these domains, social anxiety and ADHD, the symptoms and associated impairments can move around considerably across various social environments that impact the lives of those we assess, the peers with whom they interact, the teachers who are serving as instructors in their classes, the parents who look after them and in fact are often initiating their services. So, I tend to choose domains like ADHD, like social anxiety because I think not only are they places where these discrepancies and results happen often, but if we learn more about these discrepant results, then we also learn more about the actual domains themselves.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Wow. That's really profound. I can definitely agree with you there how it's important to understand the differences, especially when assessing for the two of those domains. So, thank you for explaining that for us.

Well, getting down into basics about our topic, what age range describes an adolescent?

Andres De Los Reyes:  A very wide one. Even just a definition of what counts as an adolescent is a topic of considerable debate among mental health professionals, among developmental scientists. Adolescence can begin within some definitions as early as 12 or 11, and can stretch out as far as, within some definitions, the early adulthood years. There may be various factors that one might consider when thinking about where adolescence as a developmental period begins and ends.

But germane to the work that we do, we tend to focus on what some scholars might consider the mid- to late-adolescence period, so that period between the ages of about 14, 15, 16, 17, where developmental research and theory would posit that the people we're trying to assess are undergoing significant amount of changes in their biology, in their social environments. They see a lot of new environments, novel environments they oftentimes are not necessarily accustomed to encountering earlier on in development, like the development of romantic attachments, the development of time spent outside the home, outside of the immediate observation of caregivers who, as I mentioned previously, are often initiating care.

So we think of, like I mentioned before, social anxiety and ADHD as a great place where the assessment issues we care about happen. On top of that, the developmental peer that we focus these assessments on will oftentimes create additional complexities that require further elaboration and interpretation. That's where a lot of our work essentially seeps from, is trying to figure out within the traditional approaches we use to measure domains like social anxiety and ADHD, what additional things must we think about and be developmentally sensitive to when we're trying to apply our traditional assessment tools to assessing these specific domains in this particularly complex period of development?

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah. Definitely a lot to consider when defining an adolescent. So, that all is very important. Could you explain for our audience what social anxiety is?

Andres De Los Reyes:  The typical definitions of social anxiety revolve around several different kinds of core features of the condition. One of the big core features is an intense fear or apprehension. Under some circumstances, when the fears are really high in avoidance of social situations of various kinds, interacting one-on-one with somebody, even just going up to somebody and asking them for information or directions, like if you're going somewhere you don't really know where to go, giving presentations in a structured setting like a classroom or an adulthood in a workplace... But one of the common, core denominators that cut across all those situations is that among individuals who experience social anxiety, there tends to be a particular fear, apprehension, avoidance, of unfamiliar scenarios, scenarios that appear novel that haven't been encountered all that frequently, and where people might not have a lot of practice in navigating those situations effectively.

That's one of the big things that we think about when it comes to assessing and understanding social anxiety within adolescence, because like I mentioned before, you have these situations, these scenarios that as you enter the adolescence period you don't have a lot of practice in. One of the big ones that we focus on is in those scenarios where adolescents feel like it's one of their tasks to engage with people they don't know very well, particularly their own age, and try to develop bonds of some kind: friendships, romantic attachments, and then in both those places that unfamiliarity is something new to them, especially when you consider the fact that a lot of these unfamiliar interactions with people your own age are happening where your caregiver, somebody older than you isn't looking over your shoulder to see how things are going. You're doing a lot of this by yourself.

Tori Steffen:  Mm-hmm. Right. Okay. That definitely makes sense, that a lot of uncertainty and fear might be present.

Could you explain for us how adolescents typically experience social anxiety, and would you say that there's any big differences in symptoms among adolescents compared to adults with social anxiety?

Andres De Los Reyes:  This is something we've struggled with a great deal, and it bears some relation or implication to how we diagnose the condition among adolescents, children, and adults. I can focus specifically on the sort of diagnostic considerations you have within one of our predominant systems, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, now in its fifth edition.

In the current edition, there's a distinction between the kind of social anxiety that manifests consistently across situations across contexts. So, for many clients there's this sense that the symptoms and their impairments: fears, the avoidance, the apprehensions, are there when you are ordering food at a restaurant and interacting with coworkers and trying to meet new people. You see it everywhere. That can be contracted with at least one other form of social anxiety that we tend to see in clients, and that is those scenarios, those instances in which clients appear to be experiencing symptoms and impairments that manifest in a specific kind of context.

In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DM, that context is typically characterized as a performance-based context, some kind of place where there's a lot of structure and you have a sense of what it's like to give a presentation in front of a group, you know what the rules of engagement are: You have to make eye contact; you have to enunciate; you have to be able to answer questions effectively. What we've been learning in our work is that although adolescents can experience that kind of context specificity that has a look and feel of what you see in adults, we also see at least one other kind of specific form of impairment and where symptoms arise. And that's when adolescents are engaging in the social scenario where the rules of engagement are kind of stripped away. There's no manual to figure out how to navigate parties effectively. There's no how-to guide on the right thing to say when you sit down next to someone on the first day of school. You probably think that you should be friendly, maybe say hi, but what else do you do after that?

So, that lack of structure in our work leads us to believe that although adolescents can experience those kinds of patterns that we tend to see in adults, the symptoms and impairments can manifest in lots of places or in one specific place, we have reason to believe that maybe it's worth considering the notion that because of the novelty inherent in the social experiences that adolescents often have, that even just being placed in a situation where you don't know the rules of engagement can produce the same kinds of symptoms and impairments that we see in that context-specific subcategory that you said that we already have in our diagnostic manuals.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Okay. That's good information to know, the importance of novelty, especially for adolescents. So, that's really interesting.

How are the issues of social anxiety and ADHD and adolescence connected? If the two issues, let's say, that they're co-occurring in an adolescent, does that have more of a negative impact?

Andres De Los Reyes:  In our work, we tend to see that it does. It's a phenomenon that fascinates us. The reason why is because there are a lot of different kinds of features of all of our disorders, all of our diagnostic categories. They all have their own lists of symptoms. What they also have are what we call associated features, or there could even be risk factors depending on whether or not their presence brings about the condition. But many times, when we're thinking about treatment, we're thinking about those aspects of functioning that might not be symptoms, but they could be implicated in how conditions are maintained. It's kind of like whatever started the engine, an associated feature might might keep it going.

One of those features that cuts across many conditions, but in particular social anxiety and ADHD, is a concept or domain that we call social skills: those behaviors, those elements of how you engage in social situations and make a difference in whether or not you're able to make friends and influence people, and not only make friends, but also maintain those friendships over time. We know that in both ADHD and in social anxiety, one of the key areas of impairment is in friendships, in how many friendships you've initiated or developed, and the maintenance of those relationships over time.

The key distinction that many of us encounter when it comes to social anxiety and ADHD is that although there's those associated features of social skills and friendships in both of the conditions, there's reason to believe that those features might arise in these conditions for very different reasons. So, for adolescents who experience social anxiety, they might experience social skills issues in part because of the avoidance. They experience apprehension, fears about engaging situations. They might not engage in situations where they could get opportunities to make friends nearly as much as other kids who don't experience social anxiety. The consequence of that might be kind of the same thing as you missing out on going to the gym for a few months, a muscle here or there atrophies, and then you get back to the gym and you say to yourself, "I can't lift nearly as much as I used to."

That avoidance might have the effect of perhaps overall reducing fears, so if you don't enter into a situation that you find stressful, you're going to experience less stress maybe, but at the cost of not being able to have opportunities to do positive things that might actually even help the anxiety down the line. So, that avoidance makes a big deal when it comes to social skills and associated impairments in developing and maintaining friendships.

With ADHD, there's reason to believe that within that condition, the social skills issues associated impairments of friendships have less to do with avoidance and perhaps a bit more to do with the fact that among many children and adolescents who experience ADHD, the hyperactivity they might experience might be seen by peers as aversive and perhaps make it less likely that they might want to engage with them in the future.

Now, if it's the case that someone's experiencing both social anxiety and ADHD, are perhaps experiencing social skills issues and associated impairments with building and maintaining friendships for different reasons, and those two different reasons are encapsulated in the same individual, so not just the avoidance, but on occasion, the hyperactivity kicks in; you create some kind of aversive interaction with somebody, maybe they don't want to associate with you as a friend. That might be one of the reasons why we're seeing what we're seeing, at least in our own data, that when adolescents experience heightened levels of both of these conditions at the same time, they tend to be experiencing more of these social skills issues in direct observations of how they interact with same-age adolescents.

That's the neat feature of the work that we do. We collect the symptom data the old-fashioned way by asking a bunch of people about what's going on with the adolescent or how they are thinking, feeling, and behaving, and whether or not those symptoms tell us that somebody's elevated in social anxiety and ADHD. But we're looking at those combinations in relation to how the adolescent actually behaves in our laboratory when we create scenarios that have the look and feel of everyday social interactions between themselves and somebody that we lead them to believe is a same-age peer.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Yeah. That definitely makes sense. It sounds like really interesting work that you guys are doing to figure that out.

Well, one of your articles mentions that the presence of social anxiety and ADHD can have a negative impact on adolescent social skills. I know that you kind of explained how they might show up symptom-wise. Could you explain for us the impact on social skills in an adolescent?

Andres De Los Reyes:  Going back to this notion that adolescents experience social anxiety might have fewer opportunities to engage socially with people, typically their own age or other people. If they avoid those scenarios, then by construction, they're going to get less practice building the kinds of competencies that we know are instrumental in being able to have healthy relationships with other people. When's it appropriate to make eye contact? When is it appropriate to avert your eye contact? When is it appropriate to initiate a conversation? Is it okay to say hello to somebody when you're having a very deep conversation with somebody else? When is it appropriate to end the conversation and maybe go somewhere else, interact with somebody else? All these kinds of skills, we develop them whether we know it or not, oftentimes through trial and error. Most of us don't read a guide about how to be socially skilled before we go to a party. That's just not what we typically do.

Over time, we figure out what's worked and hasn't, and in that respect, among many of us who can be considered as socially skilled, those kinds of skills are kind of like a really good app on your phone. They fit into the background after they all make sense. So oftentimes, in our interventions for both social anxiety and ADHD, although the approaches we might take to improving social skills might differ, the outcomes have the similar kind of look and feel. We're trying to build up your competencies to be able to make friends and influence people, but the routes you might get there might be quite different.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Yeah. That definitely makes sense, how it could have an impact there.

Have any significant differences been found in your lab work for prevalence of social anxiety and/or ADHD among girls versus boys?

Andres De Los Reyes:  We don't tend to see too many big differences in our work as a function of gender, but it is just one sample. One thing I can say is that some of the gender and the gender-related issues and how we diagnose these two conditions, depending on the condition, reflect either variations in rates as a function of gender or in features. So as an example, when you assess ADHD in the general population, so outside of a clinic, you tend to see a bit higher rate, 2-to-1 in children, maybe 1.5-to-1 in adults in the direction of males tend to be diagnosed more often than females. But in ADHD, you also tend to see that females are more likely than males to experience symptoms that have more to do with inattention, so difficulty in maintaining attention relative to males. Again, big average differences that we tend to see in research.

In social anxiety, historically what we've tended to see is a gender difference that might manifest in the general population, but once you get into the clinical circumstance, it doesn't tend to be much of a difference, much of a gender difference at all. But what you do see is a kind of variation in the other diagnosis, somebody might meet criteria with as a function of gender. Among females who are diagnosed with social anxiety, they tend to experience a greater number of depressive, bipolar, and anxiety sort diagnoses, whereas males who are diagnosed with social anxiety tend to experience diagnosable conditions that are more externalizing sort of in nature, so oppositional-defiant disorder, conflict disorder, alcohol dependence and abuse or dependence and abuse of illicit drugs.

That latter group, people have been interested in that group for a long time, that combination of social anxiety and substance use disorders. One of the hypotheses people have is what they call a self-medicating hypothesis, this notion that perhaps one of the reasons why people might use substances in the context of something like social anxiety is as a coping mechanism, like a means to reduce your arousal or apprehension to then enter situations and manage them more effectively.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Yeah. That's definitely interesting to know, and sounds like maybe there's a few gender differences, but overall as far as diagnoses go, not super significant in the differences.

Well, another area of your study classified participants in groups of low social anxiety or ADHD and then high social anxiety. What might the main differences in the severity of symptoms be between the two groups?

Andres De Los Reyes:  The interesting thing about the groups that we observed in our own data is that the group that could be characterized as high social anxiety symptoms, high ADHD symptoms, differed from that other group that could be characterized as low social anxiety, high ADHD, and specifically in those social anxiety symptoms. But where they didn't differ much at all is in the level of ADHD symptoms.

The same is true for that other group that was high social anxiety, high ADHD, and high social anxiety, low ADHD. That group as well might have differed on the level of ADHD symptoms, but not in the level or severity of social anxiety symptoms, which made us pretty excited in that one of the problems or one of the limitations you have to overcome when you do this kind of work is sort of ask yourself, when I think about grouping individuals this way, is the group that's showing concerns on two different domains simply just a more severe form of clinical presentation, or are they just a more severe client when it comes to the symptoms? Is that all I'm looking at that? That it's a 10 to 5 difference on one versus the other? If so, what's the point?

But what made us really excited was that, at least from a symptom severity standpoint, we didn't see differences in those groups that are elevated on one versus another versus elevated on both. What it looked like to us was that these groups are different from each other, from something other than raw symptom count. There's something else going on here, and it might have implications for understanding the phenomenology of the actual clinical presentation.

Tori Steffen:  Wow. Yeah. That's a great finding to come by. Yeah. Thanks for explaining that for us. That's definitely an interesting finding.

Well, actually another finding in your study linked social anxiety in ADHD through impairments or behaviors in adolescents. Can you explain that finding for us a bit?

Andres De Los Reyes:  Yeah. We thought it was important to do. In a lot of our studies, we make an observation, we might find it interesting, but we want to scrutinize it a little bit more and probe it. One of the things we wanted to probe with regards to the findings of this particular study was this notion that maybe the social skills issues that we're seeing, the differences among these groups, are isolated to just this kind of interaction. Do we have any data that sort of speaks to the possibility that these differences might have implications for impairment issues we might see outside of the peer context?

It turns out that we had a survey, the work and social adjustment scale for youth, that provides us with a broad sort of index of psychosocial impairments germane to mental health functioning or at least behaviors that might be indicative of mental health concerns. We were able to essentially replicate the finding we observed with the behavioral data, that when you look at overall indices of psychosocial impairments, that same group, that high ADHD, a high social anxiety group, tends experience overall more psychosocial impairments than the other groups in our sample.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Definitely good to know as far as what to expect in the experience.

Well, clinically speaking, what psychotherapeutic treatment methods might work best for an adolescent with, let's say, co-occurring social anxiety and ADHD?

Andres De Los Reyes:  The good news with regards to both social anxiety and ADHD is that there are well-established interventions for addressing social skills issues in both of these for these conditions. So, social effectiveness therapy, a form of social anxiety behavioral treatment developed by Deborah Beidell and Sam Turner and colleagues, seeks to focus on improving social competence within children and adolescents experiencing social anxiety and for that matter, adults as well. There's a version of social effectiveness therapy that is developmentally modified or tailored for adults experiencing social skills concerns stemming from social anxiety.

There's a variant of that kind of intervention that's broadly thought of or referred to as social skills training that has been tested for many years among children and adolescents experiencing ADHD. My sense, and this is not something that that's been tested formally in a controlled trial or treatment study, is that addressing these co-occurring issues might involve trying to first assess the associated impairments within a client experiencing both of these concerns at once, prioritizing figuring out which one might be more impairing, and then on the basis of understanding where the priorities lie, which of these might be getting in the way of building social skills competencies in most, starting with one of these two intervention protocols, and then moving on to the next protocol if it looks like further addressing these needs is warranted.

The interesting thing, and this is another thing that hasn't been tested yet, what we tend to see in the treatment literature goes like this: If you try to address anxiety or you try to address ADHD and you're successful in doing it, you'll see reductions in the thing you're targeting, reductions in anxiety, reductions in ADHD, but you'll also tend to see reductions in mental health conditions that are related but conceptualized as distinct from those conditions. So, we tend to see that if we see a reduction in anxiety and we targeted anxiety, we also tend to see a reduction in depression; try to address ADHD and successful reducing ADHD, you're also likely to see reductions in oppositional-defiant disorder or conduct problems or what have you.

The interesting thing here that I don't think has been tested is this idea of if you treat social skills in one of these domains, both lying, by the way, in very different spectra ADHD being a more externalizing-related condition versus than a more internalizing condition like anxiety, might in those circumstances, you see the rare occurrence of seeing a reduction in social anxiety and a concomitant reduction in ADHD, specifically because the core feature that cuts across both of them is social skills.

Well, might this be one of those rare circumstances where you would see a reduction in two distinctly conceptualized diagnostic conditions? That's a question that I'd be intrigued to see somebody probe, and maybe they have the data to probe it in one a large-scale data set of sorts. But suffice to say, that the good news is there are these two classes of interventions available to address both of these conditions, and what might be required in a clinical scenario is figuring out which one to target first and then monitor symptom response to intervention across sessions and then figure out at what point might it make sense to transition over to addressing social skills in their domain versus continuing on with that same one.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Okay. Yeah. That's really good to know, good information, especially to know that treating one issue might actually help the symptoms of another, which is really good information for a researcher.

Well, while all these treatment options are best and ideally done under the guidance of a licensed mental health professional, what are some things that adolescents can do on their own to potentially reduce or lessen some of those symptoms of social anxiety or ADHD?

Andres De Los Reyes:  It's important when you're experiencing these kinds of issues to become a good detective of how you're thinking, feeling, behaving. If you start noticing that it's kind of hard to build the kinds of relationships that you really want to have because it is true, and this is the interesting thing about social anxiety and ADHD for that matter, is that when you avoid these situations or you have difficulty maintaining friends, that doesn't mean that you don't want to be in those situations; you don't want to make friends. Quite the contrary. I mean, the research on social anxiety suggests that avoidance doesn't equal, "I don't care." There's that weird push and pull where you don't want to go into that situation, but you actually do really want to have friends. You actually do really want to maintain a healthy relationship, which is a universal feature. It's the rare person that doesn't want to build these kinds of relationships, because they're healthy and they feel good, and being able to have fun conversations and lean on people when times get tough, those are all things that the majority of us value.

So, if I was experiencing these kinds of concerns, I would sort of start asking myself, “What might be getting in the way? What are the things that I notice about myself when I know I want to go meet that person? I know I want to go. I know I really would love to be friends with that person, but I just can't get there.” What seems to happen before I get there? That isn't to say that you need to become your own therapist, far from it. But I think the interesting thing is to think about what information can I start gathering about myself, that once I get there, once I think I have the information I need, I can reach out to somebody who can help me: my parents, a counselor at school, someone who can guide you towards the people who have the experience, the expertise to help you make a meaningful change in your life.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Awesome. Yeah. That's really good advice. So, thank you so much for sharing that.

Do you have any final words of advice for us or maybe anything else that you'd like to share with the listeners today?

Andres De Los Reyes:  Do you have any questions about our work or are interested in learning more? I can be reached on Twitter with the handle @JCCAP_Editor, and feel free to reach out to me at my email address adlr@umd.edu. Thanks so much for finding this work interesting enough to listen all the way to the end.

Tori Steffen:  Perfect. Yeah. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge. Definitely a lot of good advice and just good things to know about social anxiety and ADHD in adolescents, so we really appreciate you taking the time to enlighten us.

Andres De Los Reyes:  Happy to do it. It was a lot of fun.

Tori Steffen:  Yes, definitely. Well, thank you so much again, and thanks everybody for tuning in, and we will see you guys next 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.

Ecologist Lance Risley on Mitigating the Phobia of Bats

An Interview with Ecologist Lance Risley

Lance Risley, Ph.D. is Professor Emeritus of Biology at William Paterson University in Wayne, New Jersey. He is an expert on bats and has conducted field research on bat populations for 20 years for the Federal and State Governments to study their health and ecological significance.

(Click here to access the photos at the bottom of this transcript)

Jennifer Smith: Hey, thanks for joining us today for this installment of the Seattle Psychiatrist Interview series. I'm Jennifer Ghahari Smith, Research Director at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. We are a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders. Today I'd like to welcome with us ecologist Lance Risley. Dr. Risley is Professor Emeritus of Biology at William Paterson University in Wayne, New Jersey, and is an expert in bats. Before we get started today, could you tell our audience a little bit about yourself and let us know what got you interested in becoming an ecologist -- and I have to ask, why bats?

Lance Risley: Well, thanks for allowing me to talk about bats. I appreciate that. I was born in California, so I'm from the West Coast, traveled across the country, lived in different states growing up, and always loved the outdoors, wherever the family was and liked identifying things. And that led me to major in biology to graduate school, and then to get into the world of ecology, which is what I spent my professional career working in - in the world of ecology, mostly ecosystem ecology, studying forests. And then I got into insects somewhere along the line and worked in the treetops and did some canopy related work. And doing that work, that was now in New Jersey, I spoke to a fellow who was a state biologist, and he asked me if I'd seen bats when I was up climbing around in the treetops. And I had no idea why he would even ask such a question because I didn't know much about bats except I thought they were underground, only came out at night and that was the end of it.

And he said, "Well, there's more to it than that, and that they might actually be eating and somehow regulating the insects that I was studying." That got my interest. Now then I thought, "Well, what do we know about bats? "Asked questions. He knew a few answers because there weren't very many answers, and that got my interest. So I attended a workshop on bats from Bat Conservation International and got over my fear of being out in the middle of the night in the woods because I hadn't done that before and wound up studying bats for about 20 years, and definitely got past the business of being out at night because it turns out it's a great place to be at night. Much different than I thought it would be, but that's what got me into bats.

Jennifer Smith: Wow, that's great. And can you discuss some of the research that you've conducted on bats?

Lance Risley: Yeah. The research that I did in New Jersey was very fundamental because we didn't have a lot of information on bats. We had, at that time, an endangered species, later, another endangered species. And so in trying to find out about bats, it was very simple in a way. It was going to different locations in the state, catching bats with nets, identifying them, so figuring out where bats were in the state, what areas did they like, maybe more than others, what species were there. And that focus later developed into one looking at mostly female bats. They're very picky on where they go in the summertime. So this was summer work, and then using radio transmitters to follow these bats around, find out where the females actually spent their time raising young and that was valuable information for the people that I usually worked with, which was everything from state wildlife there in New Jersey to the US Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Interior.

Oh, well, the Department of Interior, but well, what was National Park Service and the actually Federal Aviation Administration for some of the work that I did, but fundamental stuff. And then later in the research, as you know, recording devices got to be pretty sophisticated and pretty good at allowing us to record bats when we weren't there. Just put a recorder in the woods and listen in to those recordings, identify the bats, and then deal with that kind of information. So it has become more sophisticated now with technology, which I guess is a good thing. We know more about bats now.

Jennifer Smith: Great. And for our audience, a little bit of fun here. I actually worked with Dr. Risley back in the day. He was my professor, so we know each other pretty well, and I helped assist with some batting projects. Sorry, mom. Yes, it's true. So I can provide a picture for people too in the transcript, which is pretty fun, I think.

So, it seems like bats have gotten a pretty bad rap over time, and I don't know if it has to do with Hollywood or folklore, and it causes some people to have pretty bad anxiety about them. Only about 0.5% of bats actually carry rabies, but people tend to associate them with being disease carriers and dangerous. So do you know what has caused the association with people fearing the mammal?

Lance Risley: There's no one thing you could point to. Maybe it's because bats come out at night and that's mysterious by itself. They're the only flying mammals - that makes them maybe more mysterious. Somewhere along the line, they got connected with Dracula and then linked to Halloween. And of course, people have seen Batman movies and bats are portrayed in maybe not the best light. So in this country, they've been the subject of some maybe negative stories would be putting it mildly, some superstition. There's much superstition in the world about bats. In some places, the folks in different countries really have placed bats on a pedestal in a way with high value. And in other countries, they're the subject of superstition. We don't know for sure. And by the way, in October, I think it's the last week of October, it's officially Bat Week in this country to celebrate bats.

And the disease business has become interesting because we've all experienced COVID, some literally. And COVID has changed all of us. And where COVID began has been of great interest. So there's been a great deal of scrutiny put on bats, and were bats somehow responsible? So I can say that there is no direct link to bats or between bats and COVID-19, that particular virus. Bats do carry viruses, but about the same amount as any other mammal. There is no direct evidence that bats have contributed to Ebola virus being caught by humans. That's another story. So in the end, bats are much less disease issues than what we've given them way too much credit for. Bats have never caused epidemics of disease in humans. They do not have epidemics within their own populations. We know that if you carry rabies, and we can address that in more detail, it's a very small percentage. So they're much less of an issue than we've given them credit for.

Jennifer Smith: Oh, wow. Okay. And I think it's probably akin to "Jaws," right? There's a story goes out there, a book, a movie, and then like you said, just one thing platforms onto another, unfortunately.

Lance Risley: And there are a lot of myths and misconceptions. And maybe later we'll have a chance just to talk about a few of those that may surprise some people if they don't know a lot about bats, that some of these that have been brought down through generations are just absolutely false.

Jennifer Smith: Great.

Lance Risley: If we have time.

Jennifer Smith: Sure. So how likely, you had mentioned rabies, how likely is it that someone can catch rabies from a bat? If they're outside at night and you see them flying around, should a person run inside and seek cover? Do bats tend to attack people?

Lance Risley: So bats don't attack people, and we do know that there is a small proportion of rabies within bat populations. It never causes epidemics in bats. We think rabies probably evolved in bats. So within this country, if there are any cases of rabies caused by bats in humans, then it's typically because a human handled a sick bat. They didn't know it had rabies. You can't tell it has rabies. It looks like any other sickness. So maybe they picked up a sick bat off the ground, handled it, they were bitten or scratched, they were not vaccinated.

The researchers in this country that handle thousands of bats a year, I know of no cases of rabies and any of them, and I'm one of them. All of us get vaccinated before we do the work, much like a vet technician would, and that helps protect us. So bats and then rabies, it's real. But bats giving rabies to humans, it's just so, so unlikely. Meanwhile, if you're outside and you see a bat flying around, it's a healthy bat, doesn't present a problem for you, enjoy it. They're incredible to watch. They're aerial acrobatics are just second to none. So it should be a pleasure and certainly not a fear.

Jennifer Smith: Great. Regarding mental health, if someone has a phobia or extreme fear of bats and gets anxiety thinking about them, one way that they can help lessen that anxiety is to participate in what's called Exposure and Response Therapy, or ERP. Exposure therapy helps by slowly exposing someone to the thing that they have a phobia of in helping them overcome their fear responses. So in addition to (if they have this phobia or anxiety of bats) in addition to working with a licensed mental health provider to do ERP, what are some ways that you could recommend that a person could potentially be exposed to bats in a safe manner?

Lance Risley: One way, and there are all kinds of different ways to do this, some more direct. Some are the real kinds of things where you might enjoy watching bats fly around in the evening, and there are a lot of places to do that, whether it's a city area like Seattle or out in the countryside, whether it's a grassy area, forested area, the bats are there. And they're, again, they're a pleasure to watch. It's not a danger. There are other ways though, to get exposed. One is the zoo. I mean, zoos have bats from different countries, and they're pretty incredible. The bats in other countries are sometimes quite large. They have all kinds of really interesting eating habits different than the bats in this country, which for the most part, eat insects except for a few along our southern border with Mexico that feed on flower pollen and nectar.

So for the most part, enjoying bats outside is a great way to get exposed to bats. Seeing them in the zoo, which is a very protected space, and maybe even attending bat talks. Bats Northwest is an organization, a nonprofit in the Seattle area that probably has programs that are offered, I would imagine, educational programs for school groups and for adults alike. If there are local nature centers, I used to give talks at local nature centers in New Jersey about bats, and it's a pleasure for me to do that. And I think people really appreciate when they hear more about bats. And if that talk at a nature center is followed, maybe it's in the summertime, followed by a little walk into the area around the nature center to actually see a bat. It gives you just a much greater feeling of, I guess, appreciation for those animals. And those might be ways. I'm not in the world of mental health working, so I can offer up those kinds of ways to be exposed to bats in one way or another.

Jennifer Smith: Yeah. No, that's great. Thank you. And I think also just people listening to talks like this, as you said, it's just more education. It's just a way to learn a little bit more about them and be exposed in various ways. So it's definitely helpful.

Lance Risley: Yeah.

Jennifer Smith: So ecologically speaking, what roles do bats have?

Lance Risley: In this country, bats are primarily insect eaters. And in that, they eat insects, including mosquitoes, which plague us all. And they eat a lot of other insects that are negative influences on crops and crop production. So the feeling is, even in this country that bats may represent several billion dollars worth of value in protecting crops from getting eaten by some kinds of insects. So if a caterpillar is feeding on, let's say cabbage in a field somewhere in maybe California, Oregon, Washington, then that caterpillar will develop later into a moth. And that could be the favorite food of bats that fly around those fields at night. So in that respect for this country.

The pollinating bats along our southern border with Mexico are incredibly important to Saguaro Cactus. Those really tall columnar cacti that grow in the desert southwest are pollinated mostly by bats. So they're presence is mostly because of bats. Agave, the cactus that is later used to make tequila a valuable beverage. And whether you care for it or not, it is valuable economically. Bats are the sole pollinator of that particular species of plants. So in the world, bats pollinate over 750 species of plants. They're incredibly important in pollination. Some plants owe their existence to the bats. A big literally example is a baobab tree that grows the national tree of Madagascar, owes its existence to bats. It's a habitat for a lot of other animals.

So in other places, bats eat fruit and disperse seeds much like birds do and can be really important as dispersers of seeds, especially in rainforests. So just offering those up as bats being really, really important ecologically.

Jennifer Smith: Wow. And it's kind of ironic, because you had mentioned that bats eat insects like mosquitoes. Mosquitoes are notorious for spreading disease.

Lance Risley: Yes.

Jennifer Smith: So it kind of proves the point that bats are even more helpful. They're not really the disease carriers, but they're helping prevent the spread of disease, ironically.

Lance Risley: In that sense. Yes.

Jennifer Smith: Great. Okay. So you had mentioned that if bats were to go extinct, it sounds like agave, for example, that would not be able to reproduce, right, because bats are the-

Lance Risley: Correct. And it's not unusual in the world for plants to have very, very specific pollinators that they depend on for reproduction.

Jennifer Smith: Okay.

Lance Risley: Some plants can reproduce in other ways just through roots and other structures, but if their sole means is through flowering, bats can be incredibly important to those.

Jennifer Smith: Sure. And I would imagine too, that just ecological balance would be thrown off too, in terms of the insects that the bats eat, for example, if the bats were to go extinct.

Lance Risley: Well, good point, good point, because if bats are eating and focusing on one particular thing, then if the bat isn't there, those organisms are going to maybe have other predators in the case of insects, but maybe not very many. So those particular species of prey in that case might do quite well, and that might be an issue for us.

Jennifer Smith: Wow. Okay. Bats in the US have been suffering from a disease called white nose syndrome, which was initially detected in New York in 2006. According to whitenosesyndrome.org, it's been unfortunately detected as far west as Washington since 2016. And can you explain for our listeners what this sickness is and how it affects bats? And also can it affect humans in any way?

Lance Risley: Well, first, it does not impact humans at all. Humans do not get the fungus, other animals don't either. So it seems to be very, very specific to bats and bats, not just in this country, but also Europe and Asia. This country's the worst. So it's a fungus that causes this thing called white nose syndrome. It's a fungal infection of exterior tissues, kind of like skin. And the problem is that it infects hibernating bats. So I'll give you that in a moment. The name "white nose" is from the fuzzy fungal growth that occurs on the noses of bats infected. And at that point is bad news for the bat, because at that point, if the bat has an obvious white nose, it's probably the death of that bat. So when bats hibernate, they do so because of fat reserves that they've built up in the summertime and in the fall, late fall, usually they go into hibernation, which is a very, very profound kind of sleep.

And they spend several months hibernating, waking up here and there during the winter. So white nose syndrome as an organism that infects them, causes their metabolic rate to pick up. And because that increases that causes more fat to be burned. So the bats infected with this fungus wake up instead of April when they should and go out and start feeding on insects, they wake up too soon because they're now starving to death. Their fat reserves are depleted, and they either die in place and there are piles of thousands of dead bats in areas where white nose has hit. It's really horrible. Or they fly outside, it's winter, and they die of starvation pretty quickly and freeze to death, also. It's a gruesome death for the bats, and it's caused the mortality of over well over 90% of some species in the Eastern United States where I live. And it's marching across the country.

It's hit Washington state in 2016 and continues to spread. It's almost in every state now. It's not every state of the lower 48, but about 37 states. And it continues to increase. There is no cure. There's treatment for it after a sort. Bats are stable now in some places in the Eastern United States, however, bats have such a low reproduction rate that it's going to take a long time, if ever, for bats to return to numbers that once existed. So this is the fear for the Western United States, for Washington, Oregon, California, to suffer these same decreases in numbers. So it's a fungal disease. It's only in bats. It's gone through the populations of bats in this country like wildfire. It's killed millions of bats. We don't know exactly how many. It's the biggest mammal or well, mammal die off in recent history on the planet. So this is huge. And the good news is it's not as bad in Europe and Asia, but it continues.

So we're fighting it as best we can as biologists. There's some bacteria that have been used to fight it, and there may be vaccine for the bats in the future. It's difficult to vaccinate bats. It's difficult to reach them and numbers enough to be helpful doing that. So I guess that answers most of what I wanted to say about white nose. It's just been incredibly important to bats. It doesn't hit all bat species equally. So some species are surviving as if there was no white nose syndrome because they don't get it. And that includes some here in the East.

So there'll be some species out in Washington. Washington has about 15 species of bats that reside in the state. Some of those do not go underground to hibernate, so they will not be impacted by the fungus, and they'll do just fine and that's good news. So bats won't disappear completely, but the ones that have disappeared a lot, you have one in Washington called the Little Brown Bat, which has been proposed as an endangered species by US Fish and Wildlife Service because of white nose because the numbers have fallen so much. We don't know if it will be. There are, I think this year in 2023, the Fish and Wildlife should let us know if it's going to be endangered.

Jennifer Smith: So what are some ways that people can help protect the species? Is there any way that a random person can help make a positive impact in any way?

Lance Risley: Well, I think being positive about bats in conversations and being better informed. It's that negativity that seems to be easy with bats because it's already there among us. And I've seen this in programs that I've done on bats at nature centers, that folks in general seem to be sitting on a fence about bats. They're not quite sure which side they want to lean toward, whether bats are bad and they should be afraid of them, or if bats are good and they should enjoy them flying around just the presence of bats. And it's interesting. So I think even in conversation being more positive about bats, seeing bats and talking about how great that was to watch bats fly around. I mean, I can say that more here in the East with maybe more emphasis because we have fewer bats now. And I've talked to folks who've said they used to enjoy watching bats, and now they rarely see one.

And that's sad. But just being, I think, better informed. I mean, bats have been killed off by the hundreds of thousands. I know of some specific cases because of misinformation and prejudice against the bats, because thinking that they're bad somehow and being afraid of them. So what better way to deal with bats than to kill them? So that's sad. And it's typically from misinformation. So just that alone is useful to think more positively and talk about them in a more positive way. There are other indirect ways. There are certain kinds of plants that you could actually grow in a garden that might be good for the bats, and that might be indirect because of plants that you put in there to attract certain insects that the bats eat.

Even a pool of water in the backyard might be useful if bats are roosting nearby. Female bats in the summertime get really thirsty during the day, and when they come out at dusk, the first thing they want to drink is water. So they may take a dip, literally kind of skim along the surface of water and get a drink at a local little pond or pool.

Building bat houses. People have done that. It's a more direct way of being a bat proponent. And those have been really good scout projects, by the way, for bat houses to be built and mounted. There are all kinds of ways to do it properly. So you do maybe even attract bats. Bats need to be in the area for a bat house to work, but there are many plans available online. Those are ways.

And bats cannot be kept as pets in this country unless you have a special permit. And usually those are only with pet dealers, people that own and run pet stores. And those kinds of bats are maybe fruit bats. So if you ever go to a pet store and you see a bat that's a fruit bat that's in the store, unless you had a really super duper kind of wildlife keeping permit, which are difficult to come by, you couldn't keep one as a pet.

So as a result, if you ever found a bat that was wild in Washington or wherever, here in the United States, it's illegal to keep them. You can't keep them as pets. I would not recommend it. They're wild animals. But we have had interesting cases where bats roost on or near houses, and these are typically females that roost in groups in the summertime, and people have put cameras on. So if you want to have a bat cam on a local group of bats, it turns out to be really entertaining.

New Jersey did this. Their state and wildlife folks did this to a group of bats that were roosting on screen in a window. The window wasn't open to the interior of the house. And the bats would... They'd groom, they'd groom each other, they'd stretch their legs out and do all kinds of things that mammals do. And they even had pups, which were the young that females give birth to, and it turned out to be a really, really popular website. So there are all kinds of interesting ways then to support bats if you want to. You could be part of the big tourist groups that go see groups of bats.

The Congress Avenue Bridge in Austin, Texas is famous for its colony of bats, thousands of them that roost under the bridge in the summer. And then at dusk, they all come out by the thousands, and it's a huge tourist attraction. And there's even, I think, a bat parade that celebrates those bats. So I guess there are all kinds of ways that you can participate and be a part of the bat advocacy crowd. You can visit these places, or you can simply go out and watch bats on your own and enjoy that and talk about.

Jennifer Smith: Wow. I have to say, one of the most amazing things I ever saw was in Lake Tahoe about two years ago, just walking around, and it was around dusk and just happened to look up, and the sky was swarming with bats, and it was beautiful.

Lance Risley: Really?

Jennifer Smith: Yeah, it was amazing. And just as you said, they're very acrobatic in the way that they were just moving all around. And I was cheering them on because that means less mosquitoes for me to have to deal with. But it was just really wonderful to see them in action like that and in such healthy numbers as well.

Lance Risley: It is. And whenever you mention bats in numbers, that's the thing that we see in the movies that's supposed to make us afraid. But it turns out those are really places people like to go, and they want to witness that for themselves. Keep in mind that if you ever hear about those places, you never hear about bats coming out of the sky attacking people. You never hear about those people that are there getting rabies. So it becomes a popular and safe thing to do. So I guess there's some proof in that that bats are safe to be around, even if there are thousands and thousands of them not very far from you.

Jennifer Smith: Right. You had mentioned about how bats can roost by people's houses. So if someone was to come home, or they go in their attic and they see there's a few bats there, or if a bat somehow flies into your house and they make a wrong turn, what should someone do if they do find a bat or encounter bats in their home?

Lance Risley: So I've talked to people that have bats in their house. Love it. I don't recommend that they love that, but they do in some cases. And in one case, they would sit out in lawn chairs in the evenings and watch the bats emerge from the attic of their house and get a real kick out of doing that while they were all around their barbecue. Meanwhile, if you don't want bats inside your attic and you have them, you can call animal control experts. Animal control companies usually do have training on how to handle bats, how to evict them. They can't kill them. They can't use chemicals against them. So it's all mechanical based, and there are only certain times of year's to do that. So if you have bats in your attic, it's probably a bunch of females.

In the summer, they probably are giving birth to pups. So if you evict the bats at the wrong time, it strands all the pups, they'll die. So there are ways to do it correctly to protect the bats, protect yourselves, and that's typically done through an animal control company of some kind. Meanwhile, if you have bats that are on the outside of the house and you're okay with that, fine. The guano that they produce, guano, that's the bat poop, so to speak, guano is harmless. You can actually buy it as fertilizer. It's expensive to buy. So it's safe for people, and it is good fertilizer for the garden. It's about 10% nitrogen, I think. And so it doesn't present a threat. But if people don't want bats on their house using their house as a roost, and bats are loyal, they'll come back to the house year after year after year. And that could be for 20 or 30 years.

So evicting them is a good way to do this. If you don't know how, call the animal patrol people. Some people put up bat houses near their house, and upon evicting the bats from their house, the bats will then be looking for a place nearby, find the bat house and use it. So that could be good for the bats. Good for you, if you're okay with having that bat house.

Meanwhile, it's a whole different ballgame if the bat is in the house, in the living quarters of the house. So I went to a church once in New Jersey, and it happened to have bats in it and had probably for 100 years. The church was old. And every once in a while, the bats would get down in the sanctuary and fly around. And people didn't like that very much, especially during a church service. So I came in and gave some advice on how to cure that particular issue. So bats do sometimes get into living spaces or even working spaces. The Centers for Disease Control have very specific guidelines on how to handle that.

And there are different means of handling that bat or bats. Typically, it's one. Typically it's in the middle of the summer. It's a juvenile bat that's exploring and gets itself in trouble by flying into a house. So one way to get a bat out of your house is to try to close that space off except for a door or a window to the outside. If it's a window, make sure the screen isn't on it. Open that and wait for dusk. The bat will most likely fly out, and they're very good at navigating inside closed spaces. I've seen one fly inside a car, fly around in the car, eating insects attracted by the dome light of the car and fly right back out again without hitting anything in the car. Bats are very good at what they do, and they can do it in pitch darkness.

So them flying out of a house will be easy for them. If you don't want to do that and you're uncomfortable, again, you can call animal control. They'll come in. They'll probably catch the bat using a bucket, heavy gloves, something like that. They'll catch the bat alive, take it outside and release it. If it's a healthy bat, it'll fly away and be just fine. If you find a bat right outside your house, a cat brought it in, a dog brought it home, maybe the bat's injured, you don't know if it's injured because of the animal. You don't know if it's injured because of the sickness it has, not rabies, maybe something else. And you don't know if it's dying of dehydration, which they do sometimes on really hot days in the summertime.

So treat it as if it could cause you harm and either don't handle it at all or handle it with gloves. Put it in a bag or a container of some kind. Call a local health official. And that could be, it depends. It could be a state agency, it could be a county agency, it could be a city agency. It depends on where you live in the United States, how they handle things like this. You can submit the bat for having test... You can have it tested for rabies if you're concerned at all about the bat. You can simply hand it over to someone who knows how to deal with that bat. And in many cases, bats fly into a house. People have experienced it before. If these are places where there are a lot of bats and they either calmly go catch it with gloves and a pillowcase or something similar. Take it outside, let it go, and hope it doesn't fly back in again.

So in other words, there are all kinds of ways of doing this, but there are official guidelines that the CDC has provided for homeowners in case the bat's flying in a room with a child like an infant or with someone that's mentally disabled and would otherwise not know what to do if there was a bat nearby. So does that person need to be immunized against rabies? Maybe. And that depends on the situation, but there are ways by you if you have that bat to call either the city, the county. They have a health person that you could talk to and get some advice.

Jennifer Smith: Fantastic. Thank you. Is there anything else that you'd like to share with our listeners today? Earlier you had mentioned some myths about bats, I believe. If you want to-

Lance Risley: Yes. If we have time, that'd be a pleasure.

Jennifer Smith: Absolutely. Yeah.

Lance Risley: Bats are so amazing. And one thing I mentioned earlier, they live long lives. So the longest recorded lifespan we have is about 41 years for a bat. And bats, they're small, say about this large in this country, have been in zoos documented at over 30 years old. They're not ecologically speaking, little animals, mammals, never live that long except bats. So they're incredibly long lived, which is kind of neat. The bats in this country, for the most part are pretty small in terms of their body. Their wings may be about like this. Depends on the species. And the sad part with this white nose syndrome is they usually produce maybe one pup a year, rarely two of young. So thus, it takes a long, long time for bat populations to come back in numbers if those numbers have been depleted by disease.

So that's an issue just to bring up they're long lived, but they reproduce in very, very small numbers. I guess for the females out there that might be listening to this, when the typical US bat gives birth, that one pup might weigh a third, the body weight of the mother at birth, they're huge. And it requires a tremendous amount of food for that mother to get, the mother bat, to produce enough milk to feed that young pup. So female bats that are taking care of young eat huge amounts. They almost eat nearly their body weight per night, which is a lot of insects if you're counting the insects they're eating. So those are cool things.

The next part gets to expressions like "blind as a bat," which all of us have heard, and who knows where that came from. Bats have eyes, and they may be small in some bats, but bats can see incredibly well.

They see so much better than we do at night. And they see in shades of gray, for the most part, just like most night active animals do, but they see quite well, so they're not blind. So that's completely incorrect. Other kinds of things like "bats are rodents." There's an expression in Europe called "flittermouse" or a word. "Flying mouse," that's a term they use for bats. Meanwhile, bats are more closely related to us as humans than they are to rodents like mice or rats. And a real simple way to tell is if you've ever seen a picture of a bat, bats don't have buck teeth like rodents do. Rodents like rats and mice are built more for chewing very hard things like seeds. And bats meanwhile have teeth that are very much like cats and dogs. So bats are predators. They look way, way different in terms of teeth.

So that's a quick way to tell that bats are not rodents. "Bats get caught in your hair." You used to hear that a lot. The fear that if you had hair, I guess, and a lot of it, and you had that distinct risk of going out at night and a bat would fly in and get caught in your hair-- it doesn't happen. I've never heard of it happening. So you don't have to be afraid of that. I've heard of "bats flying right at me," especially for those people that have had a bat in the house. "It came right at me. It was going to attack me." And a bit of a story there. Bats, when they take flight, they're usually up relatively high because they don't jump into flight as many birds do. Birds can kind of jump up and then take wing. Bats don't have calf muscles that are developed.

They can't jump. So instead of jumping, they don't. They're hanging upside down, which is a longer story to explain. They hang upside down, which is called roosting. And they literally let go when they want to fly, they drop a few feet until they get air under their wings, then they can fly and maneuver. So if you approach a bat in a house and it's roosting, the first thing it needs to do to get away from you is fly. And that means it has to drop down, probably glide toward you for just an instant until it has enough air under its wings to then flap its wings and maneuver.

So that's a different kind of perspective, I suppose, on bats and let's see. Are there any other things? Let's see. On my little list here, I suppose I should mention echolocation, just because bats make sounds at night. Unfortunately we don't hear most of those sounds. It's out of our range of hearing. And they use those sounds to listen for echoes, to catch insects or to just avoid objects in their path. But sometimes you can hear bats. There are some bats that emit little clicking sounds. So if bats fly over and you hear something, it's okay. They're making clicking sounds and that helps them navigate or hunt something to eat. Just that most of the time you don't hear those sounds.

 And I've heard this one too. I just thought of this that people used to kind of in a guilty way, tell me, "Well, as a kid, they used to throw rocks at bats because the bats would dive at the rocks or move out of the way to avoid the rocks." And I can tell you, I've never heard of any bat ever being hit by a thrown rock because they can detect the rock coming and will first explore it. So probably fly around it and then realize it's nothing of interest, and then just let it go. So if you wind up throwing a rock up in the air thinking you're going to hit a bat, don't worry, you won't. And meanwhile though, the bat may come down and explore the rock, because it may think it's something to eat at first until it realizes it's just a rock. So don't be worried about that.

Other than that, I mean, there are lots of stories about bats. There are a lot of interesting superstitions people have about them. But I think blind as a bat is probably one of the big ones. We've already talked about the disease issues and basically the non-issues about bats and not to be worried about that. Just don't handle a bat with bare hands. That would be something you'd never want to do.

Jennifer Smith: Right.

Lance Risley: Enjoy them. Yeah.

Jennifer Smith: That's wonderful. Thank you so much Dr. Risley. And for our listeners out there, if you are anxious about bats or have any type of phobia about them, hopefully this will help and lessen your anxiety. And we'll have some links attached in the transcript. You can learn more. And thank you again, Dr. Risley, for joining us today and wish you all the best.

Lance Risley: All right. Thank you.

*For more information about bat conservation, check out www.merlintuttle.org.

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.

Jennifer Smith examining a Big Brown bat while assisting on a research team, under the direction of Dr. Lance Risley. Note: red lights are typically used as they cause less distress to the bats’ sensitive eyes (and are less harsh for humans, as well).

Photo Credit: Lance Risley, Ph.D. - Hibernating bats

(2) Indiana bats (grayish) - This species is located on the Eastern coast of the US. Heavily impacted by white nose syndrome and listed as Endangered.

(4) Little Brown bats (deeper brown) - This species ranges from East to West coast of the US, including Washington. Heavily impacted by white nose syndrome and likely to be listed as Endangered soon.

Photo Credit: Lance Risley, Ph.D. - Silver-haired bat

These species of bat ranges from East to West coast, including Washington. Since it roosts on the sides of trees, it has faced little impact from white nose syndrome.


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

Psychologist Pam Jarvis on Attachment & Trauma Awareness in Schools

An Interview with Psychologist Pam Jarvis

Pam Jarvis, Ph.D. recently retired as an Honorary Visiting Research Fellow at Leeds Trinity University in Leeds, England. Dr. Jarvis specializes in psychological wellbeing in childhood, adolescence, families and education.

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 chartered psychologist Pam Jarvis. Dr. Jarvis is a professor at Leeds Trinity University in Leeds, England. Dr. Jarvis specializes in a multi-disciplinary research perspective, including psychological, biological, social, and historical perspectives. She's written several publications including the book Perspectives on Play, which looks at play-based learning in four to six year olds, and the article Attachment theory, cortisol and care for the under-threes in the twenty-first century: constructing evidence-informed policy. Before we get started today, could you let us know a little bit more about yourself, Dr. Jarvis, and what made you interested in studying attachment and trauma awareness in education?

Pam Jarvis:  Okay, so I should correct that. First of all, I'm retired from Leeds Trinity University now.

Tori Steffen:  Okay.

Pam Jarvis:  And I was a Reader, which is a particularly British term for academics in various, so just to put that on record.

Tori Steffen:  Okay.

Pam Jarvis:  And you asked how I got started, well that's an awful long time ago because I studied as a young mature student when my own children were very small and they're all in their late thirties now. And I had an idea that I wanted to sign on for a degree because I hadn't done that at the so-called right time. And I was interested in psychology and I ended up working as sort of playgroup volunteer and doing my psychology degree at the same time, so it was just a perfect kind of environment to get interested into that kind of arena. And I followed that through really throughout my career with all the other things I've done.

I've also got quite a strong interest in history, but my major thesis in that was written on a pioneer, a nursery pioneer here in Great Britain, although she was actually born in New York State, I think in America, but she grew up and practiced in London. Margaret McMillan actually grew up in Scotland and practiced in London, so it's been a thread, if you like, all the way through my career that, that is the part of psychology that I was always interested in. I would do other things because I'd be encouraged to do that, but then I'd always come back to it. My PhD was on children in early years education, but it was more focused towards their learning on play-based learning. But emotion played a big part in that too, so really it's been a sort of thread that's gone all the way through whatever I've done.

Tori Steffen:  Right. That's great. Yeah, it's nice to have so many different perspectives in your practice. And then I'm sure studying child development with kids of your own might have helped a little bit or given you some knowledge.

Pam Jarvis:  Well, yes. Because you had the theoretical and the practical going on at the same time, so yeah.

Tori Steffen:  Right.

Pam Jarvis:  In action.

Tori Steffen:  All righty. Well, getting down to basics, could you explain for the audience what currently exists in the educational environment for student wellbeing?

Pam Jarvis:  Oh, that's a big question. I think it depends on the nation. The Scandinavian nations are much better at this then we are in Britain, and unfortunately you are in the United States. A lot of it revolves around the importance really that the society accords to that period of life and the interest that lawmakers have in early years development. And in my own country it's not much and hardly any, so I think I worked with a lady for quite some time who was a professor of early years child development education at Salem State University in Massachusetts. And the way she described your childcare provision was a patchwork quilt in terms of what was available in various states. Massachusetts did quite well, I think California does reasonably well, but not quite so well.

I'm not an expert on that, but I think where you can make the judgment on Britain in terms of, well, in England, what we do in England, Scotland is slightly better and the politicians are more interested in early years education and in what I'm going to talk about later, adverse childhood experiences, particularly. The politicians at Westminster in England are not interested at all. They have a very much a kind of attitude to, well, how cheaply can you do it?

Tori Steffen:  Yeah.

Pam Jarvis:  And I think some American states have that kind of attitude when you get a, I don't want to be political here, but when you get a Democratic president, I think you get a bit more interest and when you get a Republican president, you get a bit less interest. And the same thing goes for us that when you get a Labor government, you get more interest. When you get Conservative government, you get less interest. And at the moment, we're under one of the worst Conservative governments we've ever had.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah.

Pam Jarvis:  It's a difficult situation really, but we have hoped that it might get better. Things have turned around before, so I think that we are very dependent in England on the Westminster government, where in America it's the education and it's evolved status now. And it's much more about what state you are living in, but where money's coming from the top, there is a hit on that. Sorry, the trouble with this subject is it so quickly gets into politics.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah.

Pam Jarvis:  We know what good practice is, but it's whether we can provide the lawmakers to actually do it.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah. I think what's important is kind of bringing awareness to just how significant it is to provide the resources for students, so that's what we're going to get into today.

Pam Jarvis:  The Scottish government have done particularly well over the last, I suppose five years. And they've moved in a really big way to a very informed practice. But I wrote a chapter for a document that went forward to Scottish Parliament and it was very receptive.

Tori Steffen:  Wow.

Pam Jarvis:  But not in England, unfortunately.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah. Well, hopefully America and England can learn from others that have a good system in place.

Pam Jarvis:  The Scandinavians. And I think Scotland did draw a lot of its ideas from Scandinavia, although they have their faults as well, nobody's perfect.

Tori Steffen:  Right. All right. Well getting to the topic of attachment theory, could you explain the relevance of attachment theory in education for our listeners?

Pam Jarvis:  I mean the relevance for attachment theory for human beings in every walk of life is enormous. Attachment theory has gone through several stages. And the original one with John Bowlby, who was the creator of the term, had lots of faults, but there's a central core in it, which is the internal working model. And what that means is that when the child is born, it will learn from the adults who look after it how human beings act in their relationships. And where a child gets an upbringing or an environment where they feel that their cared for, that they can call for help when they want, when they feel that their needs will be addressed, they become secure and that then will develop an adult who will feel secure in society. I mean, none of us feel secure all the time. I know I've taught this for years and years to many students and a lot of them actually were parents at the time, and they would sort of come up with this idea, “Oh I'm a bad parent because I'm not perfect. I don't make my child secure all the time.”

I might have actually told them off when I shouldn't have done this type of thing. And I think the first thing to say is, none of us are perfect but we can be good enough, effectively. And it's how the child perceives really whether they're loved and whether they will get support. And then as they grow older, they will apply that model to the rest of society. They will apply it to teachers, to peers, they will apply it to romantic relationships. There are things along the way that can happen that will make things better or worse. It's not just all with, this was one of the thoughts of the original Bowlbyian theory because it was everything with the parents and after the three years, well then that's it. And that's not true, but it is important. What can happen if a child gets the message that other people are not kind and I am not lovable. This is the model of both society and themselves that they will go out with that the self is not worthy of love.

And the society is not going to help you if you ask for help, they're not going to be kind to you. And then all else transpires from that. Most of us go out with it's not an either/or. Most of us go out with something that's somewhere on a scale. This is another thing with Bowlby because it was a 1950s theory. It was very either/or, it's not really like that. But if we're just too far away from the not good enough, what we are doing with those children, you are not only creating that model but also creating an internal stress, it's much easier to stress someone who is not secure because they haven't got any help coming, so we are going to get very stressed very quickly. This is the model of the world in your mind, nobody's going to help me and this is all going wrong. Whereas somebody who is more secure is much happier to go to a colleague and say, “I'm running into trouble here, can you help?” And think that, “Yes, they're going to help me.”

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah, that definitely makes sense. How it would have an impact on a child's perspective on if they can reach out for help. And you brought up the stress piece.

Pam Jarvis:  Yes.

Tori Steffen:  So definitely important and very interesting topic to study, and moving kind of over to trauma. How is the topic of trauma connected to wellbeing in education?

Pam Jarvis:  Basically we'll start off with this model of the child of, basically what happened in the 21st century was that there was a lot of work done actually on stress, how stress works within the body. And then this was taken to early years in terms of some children tend to get more stressed more quickly. And what then, because the setting up of the cortisol system is done in the very early years, if that makes sense, so therefore I always cite it to my students like a central heating system that if you've got the thermostat turned up too high, you're going to make the boiler work too hard, so effectively what's going to happen if you continually work the boiler too hard is either it's just going to go poof and die or it's going to blow up. And this is the type of emotion that you've got in these children.

And in education, this does obviously impact on behavior because those children are going to be on a much sort of tighter spring in terms of behavior, they'll do things that seem unreasonable and expect things from adults that seem unreasonable. But the other issue in education is that if you've got these stress patterns running in your head all the time, you are not going to learn as well or as quickly. Because again, the way I describe this to my students is rather like you've got a computer with a finite ability to pay attention to something. And if you are always looking on the horizon for the next bad thing that's going to happen to you, then you don't have that attention or concentration to apply to learning.

Tori Steffen:  Wow.

Pam Jarvis:  So for children who are at the really far end of this scale, it's a really difficult situation. Now here in the UK, one of the issues that is a problem is poverty because this stresses a family, which stresses the child, which creates arguments, which creates insecure attachment, which creates sort of too high reactivity stress reactions. And then this is how disadvantaged children are then disadvantaged as they go along and along and along because when they start education, they're not really set up to learn. And because of the stress that they're carrying, the adverse childhood experiences, which originates in America around about the two thousands also adds some information to this.

I don't know if you're familiar with that, you could probably do a whole piece on adverse childhood experiences, ACEs. Felitti et al, that actually I think was principally studied in California and it's rather simplistic, but it sets up a series of life events that are likely to give a child high adverse childhood experiences, which creates this excess stress. And yeah, it's all related. That's what my article is about. The one that read from early years international is how we put all this together. The work that Bowlby did in the 1950s, the work that's been done in this century on the cortisol reactions and the adverse childhood experiences idea that has come from Felitti. Which is somewhat problematic because again, it rather oversimplifies, you can't just give someone an ACEs score and kind of walk away and say, “Oh, well, that's it.”

This is always the problem with this. And in school in particular, there was a school or an area I think in Scotland that started actually assessing children for ACEs and putting that on a permanent record, but where it can be used to help children and provide help for the family, it can also be used to stereotype, so teachers could go back to it and say, well, this child hasn't achieved because look at their ACEs score, so basically they stopped doing it because it was causing argument. It's something very, very difficult in education because I think in education often there is this problem, which is if we're going to diagnose something, we need to know how to treat it. And if we're going to diagnose it and not treat it, we maybe are going to cause more harm than good because child will be stereotyped, so this is where we are at the moment.

Tori Steffen:  That's a great point. Yeah, there's so many different areas that kind of go into the attachment, and education, and trauma, and the biological perspective that you mentioned, so that's great that you know, were able to take it a step further and kind of fill in some of those gaps by putting all of this information and knowledge together, so it's definitely important to know.

Pam Jarvis:  That was the purpose of the article. Yeah, it was effectively a literature review that said, there's this area of theory, there's this area of theory, there's this area of theory, but they all go together to make this picture.

Tori Steffen:  Right.

Pam Jarvis:  And then of course you are setting the scene for a lot more research.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, and it just gives us so much more information that's really crucial to providing for those students that have insecure attachments, or trauma, or low stress management, which we're going to get into here soon as well.

Pam Jarvis:  I mean, this is something that, what I worked when I was a teacher, principally with children in the secondary phase, junior high and high school, and I ended up basically going to work to train early years professionals here. And the reason I decided to do that, well, there were so many teenagers that I would deal with who I in the end would think, well, most of the problem with you is something that probably happened before you arrive, but now I'm looking at you at 15 and our options are limited, there are options, but they're limited. Whereas if I go and work with people who work with children in early years, that will be training people to understand this so we can do better at the period where we should be doing better and have more impact, if that makes sense.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Oh, absolutely. Yeah, it's important to kind of reach these children early because a lot of the development is happening at those very young ages, so that's a great point as well.

Pam Jarvis:  There's not nothing we can do at 15, but it's so much better if we did it at three or four.

Tori Steffen:  Right.

Pam Jarvis:  Or even before birth if we work with the parents.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, exactly, exactly. Well, why do you think is it beneficial for schools to be more aware around the topics of trauma and attachment?

Pam Jarvis:  Well, here in Britain or in England I should say, and in America there's been a sort of fad over the last 10 years for this zero tolerance idea with teenagers that if they do something very small wrong, then you come down on them really hard and sort of make them mind if you like put them in isolation. But the trouble is, if you've got children who are basically on edge all the time, if you apply a zero tolerance regime to that child, you're going to make them much, much worse because the model of themselves they're carrying in their head is, I'm not worthy. And the model of other people they're carrying in their head is they are not going to help me.

All you're doing is justifying both of those beliefs if you're going to apply a zero tolerance technique to them, so where we have trauma-informed practice instead of immediately saying, well, a punishment is going to work here. I think the lady who works in California, sorry, whose name I've forgotten, I always do this in interviews, I should have looked this up, but I've got on her says, do not say what is wrong with you to a child, say what happened to you. They may not know in fact, but that's the question the adult should ask first. If you've got a child who's always creating problems, it's not what's wrong with them, it's what happened to them to make them do that. Obviously all teenagers misbehave at some points and sometimes the reasons aren't very deep, it's just trying their luck because that's the way they are.

But if you are a reasonable teacher or if you are a reasonable school counselor or whatever, you ought to be able to tell the difference. And this is to me where the importance of training comes in. I don't think we need to train teachers to be social workers, but we do need to train them to spot the problems. And I'm honestly not sure about teacher training in the US. I think, again, it is different in different states, but in England, I can tell you for a fact, we don't train teachers like this and it's just not appropriate. They need to be trained in this, in child development effectively.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah, that is a really good point. As you mentioned, maybe teachers aren't exactly social workers, but they do have a large impact on children, on their wellbeing, and it is important for them to have those tools to address issues that come up, so that's a really good one.

Pam Jarvis:  Well, they're a first line practitioner, aren't they?

Tori Steffen:  Correct.

Pam Jarvis:  They're the ones who will flag this up. No one's saying that they have to deal with really difficult cases on their own, but they know enough to flag this up. I mean, all the time I was teaching teenagers because I was a psychologist, obviously I did, but I would go to higher up to various people who would clearly have no idea, and it was so frustrating.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, yeah, that's definitely important to have. I think that just that alone could make a really big difference.

Pam Jarvis:  It really could.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah. Well, something in your article noted that children who experience ongoing stress from an insecure relationship with adults, they can develop issues with stress management.

Pam Jarvis:  Yeah.

Tori Steffen:  How might that say a low stress management, how might that show up in an education environment?

Pam Jarvis:  It's children who are not focused on learning, sometimes they can act out, but often it's just a kind of just not focused that a teacher can tell this, that the mind is somewhere else. And also a child who's very on the edge, if they get some kind of mild admonishment from a teacher, will just flip out and create a huge amount of difficulty. And then obviously in some regimes, the punishment for that is very harsh. One of the things English schools do is often exclude children for either for a short time or if they really badly offended them permanently. But that doesn't answer our question, it just passes it on. And there's a term here in the UK, I'm not sure if it's familiar to you, which is the exclusion prison pipeline.

Tori Steffen:  I haven't heard of that.

Pam Jarvis:  Yeah, so the child is effectively back out of education and then they'll turn up in prison sometimes later.

Tori Steffen:  Right.

Pam Jarvis:  And still carrying whatever it was that happened when they were three, and nobody's tried to address it or two or whatever.

Tori Steffen:  Right, which could create issues down the road that could have been avoided from the start.

Pam Jarvis:  Well, the biggest sort of irritation to me is that is so expensive.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah.

Pam Jarvis:  It costs more to keep a child here in secure accommodation, child offenders, than it does to send a child to Eaton where Prince William and Prince Harry went, so what is the sensible thing to do? It's not just about being a woke liberal, it's about common sense.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah, that's a really good point. Well, what can schools do to help students with higher stress and insecure attachment styles?

Pam Jarvis:  Well, we need trauma informed environments, so this is staff training so that all teachers are aware when to spot the signs of a child who is highly stressed. And we also need, there's endless arguments in England about exclusions that if a child is dangerous to other children, you can't keep them in the classroom. I mean obviously that's true, but the question is, is where are you then sending them? Are you sending them to an isolation booth and punishing them or are you sending them to an adult who is trained to work with them. And actually get to the bottom of what it is that's bothering them? Often, as I say, they can't say, but it's taking, if you like, I think what the adult has to keep in their mind is this child most likely has a model of themselves that is they're not lovable and they have a model of me that I'm not willing to help them, so it's starting to work on that.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah.

Pam Jarvis:  Wherever it is you are sending them. Teachers can do this too for children exhibiting sort of lower levels of stress, but that needs to run all the way through the school process. And we're really not very good at that in this country.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah.

Pam Jarvis:  With the fact Scotland has made a start on this.

Tori Steffen:  Okay, well it's good to hear that somebody out there is confronting the situation and hopefully we can learn from what works, what doesn't, so that we can kind of reap those benefits as well.

Pam Jarvis:  What we hear, the problem, I'm sorry, this is becoming a very policy oriented discussion, isn't it? But the thing is, you can't, what we hear is actually putting this kind of policy in place is very expensive, but the argument is that more children are going to come out the other end who are not going to go into prison, who are going to create family lives that are less fraught themselves for their own children. And it's that invisible saving. There was a project actually in the US called Headstart, I don't know if you've heard of this? Where children from projects and their parents were given a lot of help and care, they'd be about my age now in their sixties. And there was disappointment because it hadn't made them sort of hugely academically more able when they got to school than children that hadn't had been in the project.

But as they grew older, they were more likely to form secure partnerships, adult partnerships. Their own children were more likely to be secure, they were more likely to be employed, they were more likely to graduate high school. So all of that, even though it hadn't made them super clever or raised their IQ by a huge amount, that security in their lives had made them, if you like, better citizens, be because they had a good, we keep going back to the internal working model, don't we? Because they had a self-confidence in their own abilities, and they also had the belief that the society was a good place.

Tori Steffen:  Right.

Pam Jarvis:  Why would I contribute to a society where I think nobody much likes me, or is going to help me.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, that's definitely important to understand how, it just sounds like it's very significant, the attachment style and the way that the child perceives themselves and others, which makes sense that, that alone can have such a big impact on educational success. And then later in life relationships, so many other areas in life.

Pam Jarvis:  And educational success doesn't just mean high grades and going to an Ivy League university.

Tori Steffen:  Right.

Pam Jarvis:  It means getting to the end of education, graduating, and maybe doing a very ordinary job, but that security to do that, to stick at it. And attachment is really, if you like, the melting pot for all this.

Tori Steffen:  Right.

Pam Jarvis:  That early part of life where we learn who we are and how other people will react to us, our expectation of ourselves and others.

Tori Steffen:  Absolutely. Well, if students are experiencing anxiety or other mental health issues, are schools able to provide any type of therapy or even just recommend that the caregivers seek out therapy?

Pam Jarvis:  Well, again, in England, and in America, I presume it again, depends on the states. In England, no, we are in terrible trouble with this. We've got huge amounts of teenage mental breakdown, which isn't only to do with the home, it's to do with social media, and to do with the experiences they went through in lockdown and COVID. Our mental health service is massively, massively overloaded. But really we could, as I say, train other professionals in the children's workforce to be able to do some of the work, but we don't.

Tori Steffen:  Right.

Pam Jarvis:  Every so often the prime minister, whoever it is this week, says, “Oh, well we are going to put more money into the mental health service.” But my kind of reaction to that is, well, that's like pushing somebody off a cliff because we've got so many families living in poverty here and sending an ambulance in the bottom. Why don't we help families at the beginning, so we don't have so many kids with mental health problems in the end?

Tori Steffen:  Right.

Pam Jarvis:  We can't really do much about social media or there are things we could do, and I have written about that. And again, we could do a lot more about family poverty, a lot more.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, yeah.

Pam Jarvis:  We can't make all families secure.

Tori Steffen:  Right.

Pam Jarvis:  But we can raise the chances, and we just don't bother.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah, why not start from the beginning versus trying to fix issues later down the road when it's going to be, you have limited options as how to help these individuals.

Pam Jarvis:  And their bigger issues.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, and they already have that ingrained insecure attachment. Yeah, I think it would be more beneficial from the beginning, see what you can do to intervene there versus later on.

Pam Jarvis:  I mean, I haven't actually specifically written about this, but I mean logically, if you are insecurely attached, the type of trolling and bullying you get on social media is going to have a much bigger effect on you and so on.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, yeah, because you just have less tools maybe to deal with that kind of stress.

Pam Jarvis:  Yeah.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah.

Pam Jarvis:  Well that's the thing with stress, isn't it? The actual term stress was taken from engineering, I believe originally and if you've got a bridge that's built with stress metal, you put a train on it that's too heavy and it goes pow, same thing for human beings.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, I like the analogy.

Pam Jarvis:  If this is already cracked and you put a heavy load on it will give way.

Tori Steffen:  Yep. Yeah, that's a perfect analogy for kind of what you can expect from students. Well, what can families do on their own to help children develop a secure attachment? And if they are able to develop that secure attachment, do you think that, that would lead to a higher wellbeing in a school environment?

Pam Jarvis:  We have to recognize how hard it is for families to start with, I think, because I would hate to input family blaming because there are so many stresses on families now. But all things being equal, what the child needs in the first three years is a group of bonded adults. Bowlby said it just had to be the mother, this is not true. That's been shown again and again and again.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah.

Pam Jarvis:  What children need is a circle of adults, it could be three, five, but who take care of them and are bonded to them and what they will, who are emotionally available to them who have a focus on them. And what tends to happen is they create a main attachment and then these subsidiary attachments, so therefore it doesn't really matter. Your daily round could be to be with mom on one day, with dad on another day, with granny one on one day, granny two on the other day. That's fine, as long as that's familiar and you are bonded to those people. And out of that a main attachment will come, but the other people are acceptable substitutes. The big problem that you have with children is if they're sent particularly to daycare where the staff keep changing and then they don't have an adult in that environment who they have that bond with.

And there are ways, personally, and this is just my personal preference, I would prefer that families were at least given the option for parental and kin care within the first three years. But if there's a lady down the road who's a really experienced child minder and you're paying her to take care of the child and she's wonderful with the child, what's the problem with that? She just becomes another one of that bonded circle. Barbara Tizard who worked with Bowlby, I think she's still alive, but she'd be quite old by now. She said, well look, the way that children were cared for in the early industrial period in Britain, because women did have to go out to work when they worked in the field, obviously the children could often tail along behind them, but there was a tradition in England of paying one woman in an extended family to care for all the children, so it could be a sister, a cousin, it could even be a grandmother.

But this created, although they might have been poor or sometimes the kids didn't get enough attention, there would be a group, a kin group of children, and a bonded adult, so really, in many ways that's better than sending a child to faceless daycare. It's a really low, here across the UK and in America childcare is, the parents pay for it. If you're lucky, I think in America you are going to get a creche attached to your job, that doesn't happen in the UK, so parents pay for the daycare that they can afford, so if you've got parents in poverty, often they're paying the lowest price for daycare and that daycare is paying the practitioners the lowest possible money. And those practitioners are, they're moving in and out of those roles all the time because they're so badly paid and they'll get a better job. It really is setting up a child that, if you like, disadvantage leads to disadvantage, leads to disadvantage.

Our prime minister for 60, 30, I can't remember, about 45 days, wasn't it Liz Truss, she was children's minister of 10 years previously, and she was asked, would you send your child to this type of daycare? And she said, “Well, children do get care, obviously I'm not looking after them all the time.” And it came down to the fact she had a nanny. Well fine, they can bond with the nanny. With attachment, what I think this is something that's often missed, the disadvantage often breeds disadvantage all the way along the line because it's about how you fund your family.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah.

Pam Jarvis:  And that is often in direct sort of opposition to good attachment in that first three years.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah, you can see how it could be a domino effect of sorts and it's going to have an impact on the development of the child, and especially around trauma and attachment, so yeah those are important things to think about when you're choosing care for your children. And a really great point about the bonding with a number of adults, I envision just the parents, but it really makes sense to have a larger group of adults that children can bond with.

Pam Jarvis:  Well, granny's are often very helpful in this respect, but as you know, society's getting poorer, then often the grandparents are having to go to work.

Tori Steffen:  Right.

Pam Jarvis:  It's quite worrying, I think what is happening in the current situation where we have rising fuel prices, rising inflation, and it's making families poorer and poorer. And at the bottom of all this, children are suffering.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I can definitely see how that would have an impact. And let's say everything goes right and a child does develop that secure attachment. Do you think that a secure attachment leads to wellbeing in school for that child? They can accomplish it a little easier.

Pam Jarvis:  I think they have the best chance of being the best that they can be. If you send them to a really bad school, well then nobody is emotionally indestructible. You can't bank on it, but you've given them the best chance, I think.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah. Yeah, I would agree. I think you're setting them up for success in a way. Yeah, just providing a good development, so I definitely agree with that.

Pam Jarvis:  It's kind of how we see success and success in a life, well it doesn't necessarily mean you went to the best university or you had the highest paying job.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, very true.

Pam Jarvis:  It's being comfortable to be yourself and you've got your best chance of that if you feel that people like you and that they will help you.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah, just having a healthy perspective on the world, on yourself will have a big impact on what you choose to do in your life, no matter what it may be. All right. Well, Dr. Jarvis, do you have any final words of advice for our listeners or anything else you'd like to share with us today?

Pam Jarvis:  Yeah, I think we have to see children as much more important in neoliberal societies like the UK and the US than we do. They are almost pushed under the wheels of the economy and profit. And we exist in order to make money and to make profit. And in that culture, the children are the ones who suffer the most. I think particularly, we... Actually, today we've had a news article about a private company that we're responsible actually for looking after children in residential care who gave them the most appalling service because their motive was profit. Rather than the quality of the care for children. And I think we are in danger of pushing children under these wheels and just not worrying about the emotional setup we are building for their future, but the only future that any of us have is our children. And I think this is something that we just don't think about enough.

Tori Steffen:  Yep. Very good points there. Yeah, like you mentioned, it's important to just start early so that you're not spending, you have to create all these policies and put things in place for later down the line as far as social workers and wellbeing. It just makes more sense to put the emphasis on child wellbeing during development. It's going to do your children a favor and just kind of well roundly help everything else along the way.

Pam Jarvis:  The economy is for people, people are not for the economy. And I think that's especially relevant to childhood because of the development that they need and the human things that we have to give them to allow them to develop healthily. We pay a lot of attention to physical health, because we can see it. But we don't pay enough attention to emotional health.

Tori Steffen:  Yes.

Pam Jarvis:  And then very quickly, it's coming up to too late. You're going to have to do an awful lot of work to reclaim that child where if you've done it properly first off, then it wouldn't have been so difficult.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah. Well, hopefully parents and teachers out there can kind of develop those tools and skills to help these young kids develop in a healthy way, so thank you so much for sharing all your knowledge today with us, Dr. Jarvis. I've definitely learned a lot and I'm guessing our listeners did as well, so thank you so much.

Pam Jarvis:  Thank you.

Tori Steffen:  Thank you so much, and thanks everybody for tuning in and we'll see you next 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.

Psychologist Sven Hroar Klempe on Music & Cognition

An Interview with Psychologist Sven Hroar Klempe

Sven Hroar Klempe, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology at Norwegian University of Science and Technology, in Trondheim, Norway. He's an expert in the field of psychology and musicology.

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 are a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders.

I'd like to welcome with us today psychologist Sven Hroar Klempe. Dr. Klempe is a Professor of Psychology at Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, in Trondheim, Norway. He's an expert in the field of psychology and musicology, and has written several publications on the topic, which includes the book Tracing the Emergence of Psychology, 1520-1750, as well as the book Sound and Reason, which focuses on the conceptualization of sound in a specific context or field.

So, before we get started, could you let us know a little bit more about yourself, Dr. Klempe, and what made you interested in studying both psychology and musicology?

Sven Hroar Klempe:  Yeah, that's a good question. The background is, I'm a very interdisciplinary person. When I was young, I was very into mathematics and physics, but also in music during my whole growing up. I think that the main question that I posed myself was, “How come that rational people are doing music? Why do we do music? Why do we sing, when we can talk?” That's the core question.

And therefore, I have since 1970s tried to figure out, to what extent do music communicate? And with this background, I went to Paris in the late '70s, just to investigate semiology and the French philosophy of structuralism, which very much focused on a kind of abstraction of language, by means of defining language in terms of science instead.

Tori Steffen:  Great. Yeah, that seems like it would be really interesting to study the French perspective on music.

Sven Hroar Klempe:  Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And of course, you have an American tradition as well when it comes to Charles Sanders Peirce and his pragmatics, which is also concentrated on semiotics, where he understand logic in terms of semiotics. So, there are two different traditions, in a way, but they merged very much, I would say, in the '80s, '90s.

Tori Steffen:  Very interesting. Well, getting down to basics, could you explain for us how music is related to psychology?

Sven Hroar Klempe:  Yeah. This is a very intriguing question, especially because we have almost forgotten how interwoven they actually were in the late 19th century. But the best example would be Gestalt psychology.

When Gestalt psychology was established, especially Gestalt qualities from Christian von Ehrenfels, who published in 1890 his answer to that core question in the late 19th century Germany, especially, what is a melody?

And so, they had a lot of discussions about this. They focused very much on the musical aspects, and the answer that Christian von Ehrenfels came up with is very important. He says that if you transpose a melody from one key to another, as from C Major to D Major, then you replace every single pitch with a new one. That means that it cannot be the elements, the tones, that make the melody, because the sounds are the same melody, although you have replaced all the elements. So, what is the answer?

The answer is, quite simply, it is the relation between each tone that form the melody. And in musicology, we have names for this. We call this intervals. But on the other hand, an interval, what is it? It's a kind of empty space between the two tones. So, we fill the space with a relation, also the relation with one with the other. And this is the Gestalt thing. Not only the whole melody, but especially the relationship between each element.

And this is hard to grasp, because we are thinking about the elements all the time, and we think that everything is built up by elements, and we get a whole out of it. But, as a matter of fact, and this is also an important part of the perception and understanding that we are focusing on how they are placed in relation to each other. And this is the important thing, and that is also why the relationship is the most crucial aspect of the experience of things.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah, it's definitely learning about the intervals with music. Music is almost its own language.

Sven Hroar Klempe:  Definitely. Its own language. Another system, and quite different from language as well. But then, there is more when it comes to the relationship between music and psychology. So, if you take the whole German experimental psychology and look at that, they are focusing on music as main stimuli in their experiments.

Wundt for instance, Wilhelm Wundt, the one that is primarily related to experimental psychology, he had two laboratories, one acoustical and one visual. But in his papers, he primarily refers to the acoustical. And in this acoustical laboratory, he had about 300, 400 tune forks, like you tune the instruments with. And the reason is exactly that he wanted to investigate exactly the relationship between the different tones.

But this tradition goes further back. It was Fechner that started up and introduced the term music as the direct factor. With this, he means that also what experimental psychology wanted to focus on was exactly the relationship between what is out there, what do we perceive, and our ideas about what we perceive. Because those two things are quite different, very often.

And for instance, if I take this pencil, and I do it like this, I don't know if you see that it's both, but it's hard. So, the experience of the pencil was that it is soft, but it is, from a physical perspective, it is hard.

So, there is a difference between how the nature is out there, the physics, also the physical nature, is out there, and how we perceive it. So, in experimental psychology, the aim was justify the relationship between this.

And when it comes to this pencil, I have a term for it. And also, if I look at pictures and other things, I have terms for this. But what I want to focus on was, how they experience things without putting things into terms. And that is why music is the direct factor, the most important and most interesting, esteemly, because you cannot put music into words.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah. And what you said definitely seems to be related to one's cognition. Have you found any connections in your studies between music and cognition?

Sven Hroar Klempe:  Yes, absolutely. And we are back to this problem that psychology is maybe focusing too much on language. And especially after the Second World War. Almost all cognitive investigations have focused on language as the bottom line, so to speak, of rationality.

But by focusing on music, we will go beyond language. And what we find immediately, when it comes to music, is that polyphony is a very basic aspect of music. Polyphony means that different tones are sounding at the same time. And this is a quite crucial thing, because in language, there is a kind of mutual exclusion between the words. If I choose one word, I cannot at the same time articulate another word. But if I take the guitar, for instance, I can very easily play two tones at the same time. And the music is based on this. The chords presuppose, so to speak, that I articulate different tones at the same time.

So, we have the capacity of putting things together at the same time. And there are some psychologists that have focused on this. And one is especially Vygotsky, the Russian, Lev Vygotsky. In his thesis on speech and thinking, he demonstrates, very convincingly, how separated thinking and language actually are. In the sense that, well, that the egocentric speech of the child is a kind of preparation for thinking.

It is the same kind of speech that goes into the thinking process. But the thinking process goes in further, in the sense that it focuses on thinking without words, so to speak. So, in our heads, when I'm talking now, I'm trying to take one word at a time and have one point at a time, the one after the other. Whereas in music, we have the capacity of putting things much more together.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah. It sounds almost like a subjective point of view. And I was reading your book, Sound and Reason, and you noted that music can have sort of a subjective impact on the listener. Could you explain a little bit about that for our audience?

Sven Hroar Klempe:  Yeah, sure. Yeah. And what you are focusing on now is the privacy of music and aesthetic experiences in general.

And it's the same when it comes to music as it is with sexuality, for instance. It is very intimate, private, but also directed towards something different from yourself, also pointing towards the other. And especially when it comes to sound, it goes so deep. So, when you have heard some certain melodies in crucial parts of your life, for instance, when you are a small child, or in the teens, when you are a teenager, you remember these melodies very intensely.

And I remember when David Bowie died six years ago, I think it was, about, and the newspapers in Norway were full of people that wrote about how they mourned so much. But I'm a bit older, so for me, David Bowie was not a big issue for me. So, in my perspective, it was a bit funny to see how a whole generation of journalists and also mourned about this, about David Bowie who passed away.

So, this is for all of us. I have other things in my background that comes up with very intense feelings, back to the early teenager, and also when I was a small child.

And some sound goes so deeply into our memories that this is the core aspect, so to speak, when it comes to memories. But it's not only sound. Also, smell and taste and colors, all the statical impressions that we get, they go so deep into us that we have to deal with this later on during life.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, it makes sense, definitely, that it would have a lasting impact on your memory/cognition, especially from a young age, listening to music.

Sven Hroar Klempe:  And this is also an important aspect of... When you look at psychoanalysis, for instance, as Freud started up focusing very much on concepts, the bird representation should reflect a kind of content that was related to your experiences in childhood.

But this is something that Jacques Lacan, for instance, brings a step further, as he makes a very clear distinction between the sound of the word and the content of the word. And this is part of this French structuralistic way of thinking based on Ferdinand De Saussure's, thesis of the arbitrary sign, in the sense that content is completely separated from the sound, so to speak. So, when it comes to how to deal with a neurosis, or also Lacan is more focusing on psychosis, and things like that, the sound of the terms are more important than the content.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah. So, we've covered how it could impact one's cognition. Do you think that there's a connection there with music and mental health, and if it might have a role, music in therapy?

Sven Hroar Klempe:  Yeah. Absolutely. And I think this is a very important thing to pursue, in a sense, especially from this perspective. When focusing on the sum of the word is not just related to mental disorders, but also a part of our everyday use of language. Whenever we talk, we do not complete the sentences always. And the reason is, quite simply, that we want to express different things at the same time.

And, of course, sometimes this makes meaning. Especially when you read poetry, for instance. Also, poetry is characterized especially by exactly this echovocality, that you have the ambiguous aspect of the terms. So, the good poetry, they tell, very often, at least two stories, even three different stories at the same time, by the use of the terms. So, this is a part of our normal life, so to speak, and we enjoy it as well, like we enjoy music and the polyphony in music.

When it comes to different types of disorders, especially the psychosis, it is very much the same, specifically that they are expressing different things at the same time, but they are not able to see exactly the distinction between the different things. So, in that sense, I think it's very important to see how gradually the line between a disorder and an order actually is.

So, in that sense, I think it's very important to, and we have very good experiences, when it comes to how to use music, when it comes for aphasic person, for instance, in the upper CI, if they have a letter on the left hemisphere, for instance, where lose the language, then it's very easy to get in touch by music.

And of course, as the newer scientists say, that the brain is very flexible. You can build up something, but you had to start with something. And then it can build up also the functions in the left hemisphere by activating the right hemisphere by means of music.

So, in that sense, music, not only when it comes to aphasics and psychotics, but everywhere, we use music to get in touch with each other, and that's the point.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, definitely. What you were saying about poetry and music, it's a way to bring different perspectives on topics, and that's very interesting that it might differ between cultures. Do you think music can impact cognition? How might it impact cognition on an intercultural level, would you say?

Sven Hroar Klempe:  Yeah, that's an intriguing question. And I think there are two answers that I can come up with. One is that it is very important. First time I was in China, I had a meeting with the Chinese, and we ended up singing folk tunes to each other, my Norwegian and their Chinese folk tunes.

But that was a situation where they knew Chinese folk tunes that followed more or less the same type of tonal systems as I'm familiar with from Norway. But when it comes to music around the world, we'll find very many different systems as well. And one example is for the Lappish people in Norway. So, the traditional music they are singing, when we go 100 years back... How it is today I don't know exactly, but transcriptions 100 years ago, they demonstrated very well how difficult it was to make phrases in this music.

And that is the difference between the western music, which is very exact when it comes to phrasing, that you have a phrase that stops, and it continues with a new one, and so forth. But in the Lappish music, all these phrases, they are going into each other, so to speak. So, they overlap. And that is a kind of implicit polyphony, that you have different phrases that are articulated at the same time.

Like we do in language, in abbreviations, for instance, when we shorten everything, but also blendings: edutainment. Education-entertainment. Edutainment, for instance. And that is exactly what also happens in music. And in music, it's much more natural to do this, that you have these overlaps. It's a part of the system, so to speak, especially because music is polyphonic.

And among the Inuits, for instance, they have a tendency to sing in one beat, let's say 60 beats per minute, or 100 beats per minute, and then they can drum in 91 beats per minute. Also a kind of polyphony that is impossible for me to perform.

So, we have a lot of old cultures that have very intricate musical systems. And this is also an important aspect of the African music, as well, which is very polyphonic.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah. That reminds me of the idea of Structure of Sound. Your book actually pointed out an interesting perspective on that, so I'm going to quote you really quick. "An identifiable structure is a prerequisite for us to be able to experience sound as meaningful." So, how might that idea relate to our topic of cognition or psychology?

Sven Hroar Klempe:  This is at a core, in the sense that we have different systems, and that's the point. And we can operate with different systems as well, when it comes to both the way we use language, the way we use music, and whatever. But we have to be familiar with the systems.

So, I had a very interesting situation with my granddaughter, she is three years old, and her elder brother plays chess, and she wanted to play chess. But she wanted to define the system. She didn't know the rules, of course. So, she just put the pieces in a certain order that she found meaningful.

Tori Steffen:  Interesting.

Sven Hroar Klempe:  And it was very meaningful in that situation. So, we played chess on her premises in this way. I had to adapt.

So, the point is that we have to be very open to very many different types of systems. And this is a challenge for especially the western culture, because they think that our language system, musical system, and whatever, are at the top. The end of the development of human beings, so to speak. But it's not. It's not at all.

And when we look at this complicated ethnomusic, they are even more complex and subtle, I think. So, the point is, yes, as long as we understand the system, then there is a meaning.

Tori Steffen:  Right. Yeah. That's such an interesting story about your granddaughter, and creating her own meaning. That's very interesting.

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

Sven Hroar Klempe:  Yeah. Maybe this main message of trying to take a step back, to see how we focus on language as the core of rationality, because it's not there. Because if we say that language is the center of rationality, then we underestimate pre-verbal children and their personality. And I have to tell a story at the end, if I may.

Tori Steffen:  Absolutely. Yeah.

Sven Hroar Klempe:  Yeah. It's a book I heard about where the father let the small child write about their conflict in the family, so to speak. And one interesting thing was that the child blame her father to take the wrong toothpaste every day. The toothpaste. Because the little child... They obviously had different toothpaste for each one, and all the toothpaste, they have different colors, different pattern, and so forth.

The point is that this child was very rational when it comes to how to differentiate between the different toothpaste tubes, whereas the father didn't think too much about this. And this is the distinction between how the child categorize the world in terms of colors, sound, smell, taste, and so forth, before they have a language. And they know exactly where is what, and what belongs to who, and so on. So they categorize. They are very rational without language.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah. It's kind of like creating your own meaning, going back to the story about your granddaughter, and then this story seems to also kind of paint that picture of building your own structures and language, especially with the senses. So, yeah, that's very, very interesting stuff, Dr. Klempe. So, thank you so much for contributing to our interview series. It's been great speaking with you today.

Sven Hroar Klempe:  Thank you for inviting me.

Tori Steffen:  Absolutely. Well, I hope you have a great rest of your day, and thank you again.

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 Chris Hackley on the Psychology of Advertising

An Interview with Professor Chris Hackley

Chris Hackley, Ph.D. is a Professor of Marketing in the School of Business and Management at Royal Holloway University of London. He's an expert in the field of marketing and business.

Tori Steffen:  Hi everybody, and 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 are a Seattle based psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders.

I like to welcome with us today Professor Chris Hackley. Dr. Hackley is a Professor of Marketing in the School of Business and Management at Royal Holloway University of London. He's an expert in the field of marketing and business and he has written several publications on the topic, including the article, Brand, Text, and Meaning, as well as the book, Rethinking Advertising as Paratexual Communication, which takes a literary theory perspective on advertising as text.

So before we get started today, could you please let us know just a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in studying both marketing and psychology?

Chris Hackley:  Sure. Welcome to the talk, everybody, and thanks for asking me, Tori. Yeah, many, many years ago when I was teaching in two year colleges, I decided I was a little bored with marketing and I thought I'd change career track. So I studied for a second Bachelor's Degree in Psychology with the Open University, that's a part-time school in the UK. My plan was to change track to ed psych because I thought that was pretty interesting at the time.

So I completed the degree and completed the diploma so that I could get membership of the British Psychological Society. But just then I managed to develop my career into research universities where I was able to write my own courses and I found that I could integrate my fondness for psychology into my own teaching and research. So there wasn't any need really to change career track anymore.

And of course I had a young family at the time, so it would've been economically unrealistic to do that. So I was able to combine my interests, really, since I had more freedom to write courses I wanted to do and write books about the things I wanted to study.

So that's where that came from and how my career developed. And of course marketing is very much about psychology in many ways. And so the two interests combined quite neatly, I think.

Tori Steffen:  Right. I was thinking the exact same thing that both fields would kind of help with the other. So that must have been great to study both. Well, getting down to basics, could you explain for us how marketing is related to psychology?

Chris Hackley:  Yeah, some people would suggest that it's all psychology, really, the psychology of persuasion. And there are many people with cognitive psychology backgrounds who become marketing academics. And there are many sort of research streams based on cognitive psychology in the marketing literature.

I think it's also broader because marketing touches on many other subjects of course, and I approach some of it from a sociological perspective, well perhaps from the borders of sociology and psychology. So that's why I think it's broader than just psychology. And of course management is a very much a multidisciplinary subject to study as well.

So I think one can look at marketing very much through a psychology lens, but I think if one only does that, one does miss some important things. And I'm influenced by the psychology degree that I studied, which was a little bit unusual. It was at the time the course was led by a lady called Professor Margaret Weatherall, who is a very, very well known psychologist, but she specializes in qualitative psychology.

And the course was really leaning toward what some of the tutors called sociological social psychology. So in other words, they took a lot of perspectives that perhaps in a lot of psychology departments would be regarded as more of the sociologists remit rather than the psychologists. And that was what attracted me very much about that particular degree because they looked at the borders of sociology and psychology.

And I think that's where marketing does get very interesting because marketing phenomena are not just in people's heads, they're also in the culture, and the context around people. So I think it's really the borders of psychology and sociology that marketing does get really interesting.

Tori Steffen:  I would definitely agree with you there. How might you say psychological theories, maybe Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, how might that be connected to marketing?

Chris Hackley:  Well, my simple answer would be that it isn't.

Tori Steffen:  Okay.

Chris Hackley:  It's enormously overused and it's marketing academics and consultants are very, very good at appropriating little bits of theory that sound kind of good and that they can use. And Maslow's, unfortunately, is one of those, I'm sure Maslow himself would be absolutely horrified at the uses to which his hierarchy is put by marketing people because of course he was a humanistic psychologist and he did not advocate that people could become self-fulfilled through consumption. And I'm sure the very idea would be anathema to his entire philosophy.

So the use of Maslow's, Hierarchy, is a piece of bare faced thievery by marketing academics and consultants. It can be... Quite a few theories in marketing, they're not really theories. They're more back of the envelope frameworks, which are useful discussion points. And they're use useful for bringing out particular topics. So their use really is as teaching devices, but I don't think there's necessarily a lot of integrity in that, intellectual integrity.

They're kind of useful in the classroom and marketers are very pragmatic in their use of theory from other disciplines. Pragmatic is probably a better word to use than thievery.

Tori Steffen:  That definitely makes sense. Well, thank you for explaining that for us. And how might ethics play a role between that relationship of psychology and marketing?

Chris Hackley:  Well, it's extremely important and it's extremely important, I think, for marketing academics to expose unethical practice that the problem comes in the very nature of marketing, which is essentially about persuasion. And a lot of the ethical issues arise in how precisely that is done.

And of course, Vance Packard back in 1957 when he wrote his book, Hidden Persuaders, was horrified when he found out how advertising agencies use psychology to persuade people as he saw it, in a rather sinister way, to persuade people in ways of which they were not aware.

And marketing, as a discipline, it's about the same age as psychology, about a 100, 120 years in its modern form. And it's persistently had this rather dual nature where it tries to present itself as being the discipline that makes life better by improving the allocation of resources in ways in which economists can't do because of the assumptions of their discipline.

So marketing brings to bear behavioral and psychological and other disciplines to try to understand human desire and human choice and decision making more accurately so that markets can be cleared more efficiently. But as Maslow, sorry, as Packard pointed out, this can get a little bit manipulative. And I suppose the modern day equivalent of that would be what they call neuromarketing, where a lot of big global brands do this.

They hire a bunch of out of work neuropsychologists, buy them an MRI scanner and put them to work, putting consumers through it and looking to see what their brains look like when they are looking at certain adverts or eating a certain brand of ice cream or something. And a lot of hope and money is invested in neuropsychology, neuropsychology for marketing or neuromarketing, as they sometimes call it. The results have been, I think, very limited so far.

But of course the aim is total controllable organizations over consumer behavior, which is not a nice, not a good thing, I don't think. And the dual nature of marketing I referred to earlier was referred to its public face as the science and the discipline of resource allocation that makes life better and makes people happier by giving them more stuff that they want, and as well as generating jobs and wealth and income and so forth.

But on the other hand, it's also has a reputation as being a rather dubious site of hucksterism, sinister manipulation, and downright dodgy dealing, which of course, which it fully deserves, as well. Some of the greatest marketers in history have been people like P.T. Barnham and Edward Benes, of course, and a lot of other very dodgy characters whose ethical standards were a little bit flexible, should we say?

So marketing is particularly interesting, to me, because it has this dual nature and it has this, perhaps you could call it a tension within it between these sort of the marketing appeals to people's rationality and its attempts to give people a greater range of choices from which they can make useful decisions to improve their welfare and their quality of life.

And on the other hand, just trying to manipulate people and obviously a part of marketing is stimulating desires that we didn't know we had for stuff that we don't need.

So it is a very complex field and it does both of these things. And ethics of course has many, many dimensions of application in marketing, and it's more important, I think, than ever.

Tori Steffen:  Absolutely. Yeah. You mentioned neuromarketing, which is really interesting topic to bring up in relation to ethics. How would you say the field of neuromarketing, particularly, is related to maybe mental health or one's personal psychology?

Chris Hackley:  Well, I'm not in any sense an expert on neuromarketing, and I know that a lot of proponents of it feel that it has great potential. I'm a little bit of a skeptic, mainly because I don't think psychology resides entirely in one's central nervous system. I think the borders of... I think a lot of psychology is relational, and it's to do with the context and the cultural situation of people, but I think its results have been very limited so far from what I've seen.

Obviously the idea of a golden bullet, as it were, for organizations to stimulate desires in us and action without just really being aware of that is extremely sinister and not something one would really wish for in a pluralistic liberal democracy. So I think the aims of it are a little bit dubious, but I was told not so long ago by somebody in the media industry that a lot of big brands won't allow the latest advertising campaign out of the door until the neuromarketers have shown it, put people through the scanners, and shown them the ads.

Tori Steffen:  Wow.

Chris Hackley:  So I guess for the marketing industry is very, very risk averse a lot of the time. And anything they think they can do to reduce a little risk a little bit, they do cling onto. And so ideas of marketing science are very, very attractive for that reason.

And so if they can reduce risk just a little bit by using neuro marketing, then they'll try to do that. And I guess it does have its uses, but I couldn't comment any further on it really, because I'm not up enough on neuromarketing, I'm afraid.

Tori Steffen:  Got you. Yeah, it's definitely one of those newer fields. So still a lot to learn. Well, in your article, Marketing Psychology and the Hidden Persuaders, you mentioned that psychology can enable a more critical engagement with marketing. Could you explain how that works for our audience?

Chris Hackley:  When I initially studied management and business, I found it intellectually kind of unsatisfying because there wasn't enough critical thinking in it. We've already mentioned a lot of marketing theories that don't really stand up to a proper critical analysis because they're really more consulting or teaching frameworks than theories as such. So, forgive me, I've lost my train of thought on your question?

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, so just how more critical engagement with marketing, or more the psychology, is related to that extra critical engagement?

Chris Hackley:  So later on when I started to study psychology, I found it extremely useful, firstly, in understanding methodologies more thoroughly because my business and management education was a little bit superficial on that, but also simply because the psychological approach is to appraise theories by their evidence and by their capability of predicting and explaining and so forth. So it's a much more systematic social science training in a psychology education, I think.

And I think that brings a great deal to the study of marketing and management, which is not necessarily present in marketing and management degrees because since the 1950s and 60s, the idea of management has become very much dominated by a toolkit for action for managers and the need to step back and really critically analyze the ideas and the theories and management has been relegated, a little bit, to some final year courses and to postgraduate research and so forth.

So yeah, I would say that I think in my institution we do this pretty well, but a lot of undergraduate management degrees, they don't really teach critical thinking rigorously enough, in my opinion. So I think psychology really does help a great deal with that because people are trained in critically evaluating competing claims and especially competing claims that are sort of justified by particular theories.

So, for example, so many management and marketing students are taught Maslow and goodness knows what they think of Abraham Maslow. The vast majority of them would not go to read about Abraham Maslow and his work. They would just say, "Oh, this guy understood the buying process very well." Or, "He understood how consumption works to make..." Goodness knows what they think because they're usually not given the context around that.

So that's where I think a psychology education can be extremely helpful.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Yeah, that definitely makes sense that it could give you those extra tools to have a little bit more critical thinking when looking at advertising and media, so that's great.

How might you say that consumers engage with marketing on a more conscious or critical approach to avoid those hidden persuaders? Any advice on that front for us?

Chris Hackley:  I can give you one example, which is a generational divide. I've been involved in quite a bit of research on product placement in movies, which of course has been going on since the silent movies, but these days it's much more talked about and well known. And indeed movies now they put out press releases of their latest product placement brand agreement as part of the advanced publicity.

So there's a generational divide in the sense that older people tend to think that product placement and similar forms of sponsorship within entertainment vehicles is inherently deceptive because it's an advertisement that looks like an entertainment. And for an older generation people, who are really more used to a divide between editorial and advertising that used to be more rigorously imposed in media, that's a deceptive practice.

For younger people, it's not. That they assume that media is going to be completely suffused with brands, because that's what they've always seen and they're not used to a media where there is a rigorously imposed line between editorial and advertising. So for younger people, when they watch movies, they enjoy spotting the placements. They don't regard it as underhand or sinister. I think they kind of feel flattered that somebody would go to so much trouble in expense to try to manipulate them. And they quite enjoy playing the game and spotting the subtleties of these placements.

Especially when they're integrated into the plot or the scripts and so forth. So there's, for younger people, there's a much greater acceptance of that. Sorry, my doorbell just, I don't know if you can hear it, my doorbell just went and the dog is going crazy, But hopefully you can't hear that.

So I think consumers are aware of the potential for marketing to manipulate, but that they come at in different ways and younger consumers, in particular, they tend to talk about subliminal advertising. And for them that sort of manipulation is dark, but also kind of interesting, because the idea that we're being manipulated is quite an interesting theme.

So that theme does come up sometimes, although it doesn't really exist, subliminal advertising, it's a bit of a myth, but that's the level at which I think some people do feel that marketing can manipulate. So I think in general there is a lack of critical engagement by consumers with marketing. Where it is engaged, it's sometimes a little bit misdirected. So I think marketers are always a little bit of a step ahead.

Tori Steffen:  Makes sense. Yeah, that's very interesting about how it might differ among ages. I hadn't thought about that before. So thank you for sharing. And I know we mentioned Packard earlier.

Could you explain for the audience, Packard's vision of marketing manipulation, and in your opinion, do you think it's still relevant today?

Chris Hackley:  It's a long time since I read Packard's book. The particular incident I recall is his observation that advertising agencies were using, what they described as depth psychology, to understand people's deepest emotions and motivations. And in particular, he was shocked that they were using these techniques on children. He was shocked that he felt this was very, obviously, intrusive and potentially quite a sinister form of manipulation.

And nothing has changed. Advertising agencies still do. And in Britain, for example, where we're not very good at protecting children from marketing, our regulation in that area is quite weak. And it's not unusual for agencies to specialize in the marketing to children. Agencies will go into kindergartens and show logos to the kids and they'll put their hands up and say, "Oh yeah, I know that one. That's Marlboro."

Well, because the kids see these things all the time and advertisers are pretty cynical. They know very well that advertising on kids channels, cable channels, is a way of getting adult products talked about in the house.

So what Packard wanted to alert people to is still very much a reality today. Probably he'd be more horrified now when he learned about the way that digital platforms manipulate children, for example, through advert gaming and drawing children into all sorts of consumption.

So what he warned about has truly come to pass, I think. And the world of digital media is an absolute minefield for children today. It's pretty scary.

Tori Steffen:  It definitely can be scary. So yeah, it definitely sounds like his vision is still pretty relevant, and like you said, he might be quite surprised.

Well, your article also goes into the topic of TV product placement and how it can relate to a young consumer's sense of identity. Could you explain how that works for us?

Chris Hackley:  Yeah, I'll try. Well, marketing is very much about emotions and identity. So the idea now is quite commonplace, really, that we consume in order to fulfill our sense of our own identity and our sense of group membership. So in a sense, anthropologists would say all marketing and consumption is about displaying the right sort of tattoos or shells or whatever to signify one's status in the group and one's membership of particular groups, and marketing elaborates on this with brands.

And now today, we're very accustomed to seeing people walking around with brands prominently displayed on their clothes and so forth. And that's what marketing tries to do. It tries to create offers that chime with people's sense of their selves, and it also tries to create aspirational offers so that we can buy things because of a group, because we can appear to be a member of a group to which we'd like to be a member, even if we're not necessarily a genuine member of it.

So I think our identity is extremely important to marketing, and it is a way of really articulating our sense of ourselves and our sense of meaning in the world, but in a symbolic way rather than an actual way.

So to that extent, it's also potentially damaging, psychologically, if people, for example, are shut out of the market because they are disadvantaged in some way, because the market doesn't regard them as a useful target, if they are economically disadvantaged, so they can't take part, then there is the risk of a feeling of lack or unwillingness or something. And that's the unfortunate thing about the consumer society, that if you're not included, then you are excluded. And that can be very damaging to people's sense of identity.

Tori Steffen:  I would agree. I think that psychology is definitely relevant when it comes to the sense of identity in marketing.

Chris Hackley:  Absolutely.

Tori Steffen:  Thank you for sharing that. So there is some research out there regarding the ethical nature of subliminal promotion. Could you explain your thoughts on the topic of subliminal promotion for us, and if you think it may be related to anxiety in consumers at all?

Chris Hackley:  That's an interesting question. Well, I touched on subliminal advertising a little while ago. I think it does connect to anxiety in the sense people do feel that marketers are very powerful and probably manipulating us. But that sense is quite vague, I think.

Most people, most ordinary consumers wouldn't have heard of neuromarketing, for example, they wouldn't have heard of depth psychology and as regards subliminal advertising, that became a very popular sort of idea. But the original experiment on which that was based turned out to have been incorrect. I forget the precise year or the theater, but it was a movie theater where they were said to have projected images of ice cream at less than 1/16th of a second, which meant that one doesn't register it consciously, but unconsciously it's there. And then people were apparently got up, in unusual numbers, at the break to buy ice cream.

So from this, the word came about that subliminal advertising, literally meaning advertising that's flashed up on the screen more quickly than we can consciously register it, was a powerful thing. It turned out that was actually a fraud, that experiment. And there is no evidence, the subliminal advertising is banned and certainly in the UK by the regulators, but there's no evidence that it does work. No good evidence that it does work.

But what I found that young consumers tend to do now is the literal meaning of subliminal, as in an image that's flashed more quickly than the eye can process consciously, has been lost. And they tend to use the word subliminal as a general term to mean something that is sinister, underhand, and manipulative. So it tends to have morphed into a broader usage.

And this ties in a little bit with product placement. People do understand that that's an attempt to manipulate, but as I mentioned earlier, young people tend to be pretty blasé about that, and they quite enjoy the game of spotting these attempts to manipulate them.

So I think that the idea of subliminal advertising, which really reflects the idea that Packard spoke to all those years ago, reflects a general sense of anxiety that we are being manipulated by these technologies and by these images that marketers create. And people are never quite sure, people always say, "Oh, advertising doesn't influence me," but people are never really quite sure. And of course the market shares of the various brands tell us a completely different story that advertising does indeed influence us.

So I think there is a generalized anxiety about that, but we're probably not anxious enough about it because I think there is a lot of, I guess, complacency about marketing activities and not enough close examination of them probably.

Tori Steffen:  Yeah, absolutely. It would make sense that one might be more anxious if they're more aware of those hidden persuaders. So definitely takes a little bit of awareness to get there, but it can help.

Well, I came across another interesting project of yours. It's called Branded Consumption and Identification: Young People and Alcohol, that looked really interesting. Could you describe for us what was being studied in the project?

Chris Hackley:  Sure. This was a few years ago when what they called binge drinking was a big thing in the UK. So there was a lot in the media about young people, particularly students, drinking way too much and way too early. And we decided myself, the project was led by Professor Christine Griffin from Bath University, and so Christine's a psychologist. She got myself and another professor of marketing involved, and then there was a couple of other psychologists.

So we decided to interview young people to try to understand exactly what it was they got out of getting very drunk. And so this is probably quite culturally specific to the UK, I think. Not entirely. There were strong parallels with some aspects of American research and Australian research, but the idea was to get really smashed as quickly as possible. And one of the main reasons was because it cemented bonding in the group.

When we were interviewing these groups of young people, they became really animated when they would tell the terrible stories of what happened to them when they were really drunk. Sometimes with really bad stories, people ending up in hospital with broken limbs, or people getting beaten up or something.

But this all tied in with the idea that the nighttime economy was a sort of liminal zone in which anything could happen. And all you'd got was the togetherness with your friends and they had to look out for you. And people would get very, very drunk and if their friends didn't look out for them, something might happen, but that would still give them a drinking story.

So as the interviews went on and the focus groups went on, we realized this was all about group bonding. It was all about friendship and deepening the bonds of friendship. We did interview some people who didn't drink, but they were kind of out of it a little. They were kind of excluded. And some people would say that, "In my first year in university, I found it difficult to really get in the social scene because I don't drink.” And it was all about the drinking, you see?

So at the time, the British government put out some adverts ostensibly to persuade young people not to drink so much. And they showed young people getting terribly drunk with torn clothes and ending up upside down in a hedge or something. And the strap line would be something like, "Do you want to end up like this?" And this was the theme of the ads, and we realized that there is no embarrassment. This was the whole point. The whole point was to do something outrageous or to experience some risky event and then to be able to laugh about it for years afterwards with the group. It was a drinking story that cemented the bonds of friendship in the group. And you were kind of a hero if something awful happened to you when you were drunk because you could tell the stories forever with your friends.

And so we realized these government ads really did the opposite of what they were ostensibly intended to do because they glamorized drinking. They were depicting exactly what the young people got out of extreme drinking, you see.

So we put out a press release saying, "Actually this government campaign is going to make it worse. It's a catastrophically conceived campaign." And we were informed by... We wrote a string of articles about this. I wrote some based on literary theory such as Mikhail Bakhtin's, Theory of the Carnivalesque, the idea that on special occasions one can upturn the social order and reverse the normal order of things, and drink was intrinsically a part of this. And this sort of rebellion against the social order was a very powerful thing, and it kind of refreshed people and enabled them to have a rebirth the next day. And this was what the heavy drinking was partly about.

So that got covered in the press and stuff, and we had to do interviews and things. So that all became kind of fun and we carried it on. But that was the basic idea of it, that we wanted to understand exactly what people got out of getting very drunk. I have three sons who were teenage boys at the time, so I got a little mini experiment in front of me so I could understand how their drinking practices differed from mine a generation before.

So it was particularly fascinating to me. So, that was basically what we did and essentially what we found

Tori Steffen:  Great. Those are great findings to come by. A really interesting project there. I didn't think about how it could actually have a reverse effect than what the advertising was originally trying to accomplish. But it definitely makes sense, and it seems like you guys went about it in a very good way of coming by that information.

Chris Hackley:  Yeah, things have moved on now. Binge drinking so much in the news, but the idea of drinking to get drunk is still, of course, very, very prevalent. And the public health cost of excessive drinking is going up all the time in the UK, as it is in many other countries. So that the issue is still very much a live issue. And it's also bound up with the regulatory framework because in the 1980s, the government liberalized the sale of alcohol in the UK and now you can buy it from anywhere 24 hour hours a day as you can in a lot of states in the USA.

And that, of course, is all part of the whole frame that the entire regulatory context as well. So it remains a problem. But some research has shown that more younger people now are drinking less. One of the reasons being they can't afford it now because the cost is relatively much higher now.

Tori Steffen:  That's interesting. Well, I guess that's good that hopefully it's be going down, not as much binge drinking. Great. Well, Dr. Hackley, do you have any final words of advice for our audience or anything else that you'd like to share with us today?

Chris Hackley:  I guess, I don't know about advice. I'm don't think I'm very good at giving anybody any advice, but I think psychology and marketing are very, very mutually enriching subjects to study. And I think that there's really... I think on the one hand, social science does look down on management and business studies with some reason, I'd say. On the other hand, management and business studies exist in a little bit of a self-referential bubble and it needs more engagement with social sciences and social psychology.

So I would like to see much more mutual engagement between the various disciplines, the social science disciplines and management, especially in the construction of degrees and the construction of teaching. There is quite a lot of mutual engagement at the higher of levels of research. But I think younger students deserve a stronger social science background in their management and business. And that would give them a stronger critical appreciation of the techniques that marketers use in order to navigate their own way through those techniques.

So I would like to see a much stronger connections between social science, especially psychology, and marketing education.

Tori Steffen:  Great. Yeah, I could definitely see how that would just give the students a broader sense of the ethical nature of marketing and how it relates to personal wellbeing as well. So great. Thank you so much for sharing that, and it's been very nice chatting with you today and I really appreciate you joining us for our interview series and contributing. So thank you so much.

Chris Hackley:  My pleasure, Tori. Thank you for asking me. I hope people find it interesting.

Tori Steffen:  Absolutely, I think they will. Well, hope you have a great rest of your day, Dr. Hackley, and thank you again.

Chris Hackley:  You too. Thank you, Tori. Bye. Bye.

Tori Steffen:  Bye.

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 Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman on Leadership Influence & Employee Wellness

An Interview with Professor Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman, Ph.D., MBA is a professor of business psychology and organizational leadership at Southern New Hampshire University and the Chicago School of Professional Psychology. She specializes in business psychology and organizational leadership.

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 are a Seattle-based psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy practice specializing in anxiety disorders.

I'd like to welcome with us today industrial organizational psychologist Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman. Dr. Z., as some students call her, is a professor of business psychology and organizational leadership at Southern New Hampshire University and the Chicago School of Professional Psychology. She's an expert in the field of business psychology and organizational leadership, and has written several publications on the topic, including the dissertation thesis, "Leaders' Influence on Employees' Participation and Wellness Programs and Organizational Productivity, Correlational Quantitative Case Study," as well as the book "Overcoming Mediocrity Resilient Women," which provides life lessons to overcome obstacles in a professional setting. So before we get started, can you let us know a little bit more about yourself, Dr. Z, and what made you interested in studying leadership influence in an organizational setting?

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Of course. Thank you, Tori. First of all, just want to thank you for the invitation to participate and contribute to the discussion on leadership influence and employee wellness in organizational settings. A little bit about me, I immigrated to the United States from Russia 30 years ago in 1992. I received my PhD in business administration specializing in industrial organizational psychology from North Central University and an MBA from Northern Illinois University. I'm also a writer, a public speaker, and a member of the American Association of University Women, AAUW. And as you mentioned, I'm also professor of business psychology and organizational leadership at Southern New Hampshire University and the Chicago School of Professional Psychology.

Because of my work ethic, willingness to learn and continuous pursuit of education, I progressed very quickly in my leadership career. I worked in a corporate environment for over 20 years. In one of my last roles, I was a senior executive for a large retail organization. I managed a department with over 100 business professionals and $4 billion in expenditures for purchasing retail-related services, at my workplace, which was a huge corporate facility, I saw many stressed, anxious, and burned-out people, and the overall environment in that organization would be considered toxic by many employees. So, when I decided to switch careers and become a college professor, I selected a dissertation topic related to the improvement of wellbeing of employees at their workplaces. I was also curious to find out through research how leaders impact employees' sense of wellbeing and why some people do not participate in the wellness programs offered at their places of employment. I hope this information answers what interests me in guiding leadership influence in organizational settings.

Tori Steffen:  Absolutely. Yeah, that sounds like really impressive background and experience to have in relation to those topics, so that's wonderful. Well, getting down to basics, could you explain for us how leadership influence presents itself in an organizational setting?

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Sure. When researching leadership influence in organizational settings, I used a theoretical framework consisting of the employee wellbeing theory and the authentic leadership theory. The stakeholders for that research were corporate employees and their employers. After finishing the study and publishing the findings, I met with individual leadership teams and shared my discoveries illustrating that their influence in organizational settings is significant. Would you like me to share some of that information, some of the findings?

Tori Steffen:  Yes, please.

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  The results of my research showed that the perception by employees of their leaders' care about their wellbeing, including physical and mental health, influenced their work engagement and job satisfaction. In one company, leaders' care about workers' health will assess at 93% versus the national average of only 9.3%, which is low, so it was 10 times higher. That particular organization was voted as one of the best workplaces for 11 consecutive years. That was the main connection that I found, is that the more employees think or believe that their management cares about them, the more likely they will stay with the company and enjoy working there.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Definitely some interesting findings there. That's great to know. What are some connections that you've found between leadership influence and employee mental health?

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Well, first of all, I want to talk about productivity and engagement. Because both productivity and engagement can be improved by positive leadership support. It can also reduce levels of absenteeism and presentism. As you know, absenteeism is the temporary absence of an employee from work due to personal reasons. But presentism is when an employee presents, attends the work, but performs sub optimally because of illness, emotional exhaustion, depression or burnout. And productivity-related discussions could be a sensitive topic among researchers and practitioners because productivity is affected by so many factors, and it could be hard to measure. Job-related stressors may include job role ambiguity, alienation, worklism, and workload. So, these issues influence productivity due to workers' illness and poor mental health. According to Statista, and I just pulled the statistics from today, in 2022, the following professions were found the most stressful jobs in the United States. First one is the enlisted military personnel, second: firefighter, third: airline pilot, fourth: police officer, and fifth: broadcaster. Fifth one surprised me, but it is what it is. So many organizations seek new solutions to mitigate work-related stressors, to improve productivity, and also now to survive in today's economy and remain profitable.

The situation got even more stressful for workers during the Covid-19 pandemic, and same thing related to engagement. Doing my research on engagement, the results of employees self-assessed levels of wellness were directly related to organizational engagement. For example, according to Gallup's research, about 26% to 30% of employees were actively engaged at work in the United States in 2018. In the United States alone, disengaged workers cost anywhere between $450 to $550 billion per year in lost productivity. Again, according to Gallup. However, in my research, those companies that invested in their employee's wellness through wellness programs and other health initiatives, they saw up to 90% engagement scores, which were three times higher than the national ratings. So again, employees' wellness level directly related to productivity and engagement.

Tori Steffen:  That's amazing. Thank you for sharing those statistics. It definitely helps paint a picture around how important the wellness programs can be for employee mental health, productivity, engagement. So thank you. Could you describe for us how employee wellness levels relate to organizational productivity and engagement from a research perspective?

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Yes. I just kind of covered those two topics related to productivity and engagement. I can also expand a little bit more on how wellness programs themselves also impact their mental health, engagement, and productivity. Is that okay?

Tori Steffen:  Absolutely.

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Okay. So, if implemented correctly, wellness programs can have a positive impact on employees' overall mental health and reduction of stress. It can also reduce their anxiety, depression, and mental burnout. However, the research unfortunately also shows that wellbeing initiatives will fail if they lack top level support, for instance. In some cases, employees may not be aware of workplace wellness program, or their leaders do not communicate available health benefits or promote awareness. Also, leaders' inability to handle their own stress at work can negatively affect the effectiveness of wellness programs implementation. I have seen that wellness programs adoption increases when employees see their leadership support of those initiatives. For example, when managers enroll and participate in company-sponsored programs, they lead by example and the employees follow. Therefore, wellness programs can produce a positive impact not only on employees' overall mental health, but also on the mental health of their leaders.

Tori Steffen:  Okay, perfect. Thank you so much for giving us that background.

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Sure.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. And how effective would you say are those wellness programs in producing a positive impact on an employee's overall mental health?

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Again, I kind of covered that information in my previous response. And I would also say that people in leadership positions can do above a lot more than just wellness programs. They can create a positive atmosphere and welcoming environment for their employees. So, as they participate in wellness programs, they also notice how their leaders behave and follow those examples. For instance, if they see that their managers participate in wellness programs, they can also more likely to enroll and participate in those initiatives, versus if they observe that their managers are reluctant to participate in programs and see it as a waste of time, they may also choose not to participate in those programs.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Sounds great. Have you seen anything in the literature in regards to maybe anxiety or depression in relation to wellness programs?

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  I have seen a lot of information related to authentic leadership styles that followers and mental health. Would you like me to cover the leadership style that is authentic leadership style for your listeners?

Tori Steffen:  Yes, please. If you could explain authentic leadership as a style for our listeners, that would be great.

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Okay. Well, authentic leadership is a specific style that leaders display based on their moral values, their beliefs, and their behaviors. Those leaders, authentic leaders, play a critical role in creating positive organizational cultures and ethical work environments. Authentic leaders are generally in tune with their emotions. They're passionate about their mission and adaptive to changes. Authentic leaders also convey self-confidence, self-discipline, self-knowledge. They clearly express their thoughts and they're able to choose and listen. So two years ago, I was invited to present information on authentic leadership style to the Society of Human Resources Management, SHRM, and many HR managers admitted that although this style sounds wonderful and is attractive, it is challenging to be authentic at some places of work due to their organizational culture.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Yeah, that's interesting, bringing in the aspect of the company culture as far as leadership influence. Great. One thing that your research discusses is the ways that authentic leadership can impact individual sense of wellness and productivity. Could you describe for us how this might work in an organizational setting?

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Of course. So, leaders with authentic qualities can definitely promote positive relations and effective commitment. They can empower their employees. And in an organization that attempts to create a climate that promotes employees' involvement and engagement, authentic leaders serve as role models. They convey appropriate behavior based on their moral values, and overall individuals in leadership role greatly influence how they can demonstrate and share similar goals with their followers through leading by example. And in multiple studies, even outside of my research, the authenticity of a leader was found to be effective in preventing employees' burnout. Plus, since the authentic person can listen patiently with understanding and without judgment, employees feel much more compelled to approach them without feeling being judged or feeling retaliation. When followers identify themselves with authentic leaders, they are also more likely to develop self-advocacy, self-esteem, confidence, optimism, passion, hope, and resilience to job-related stressors. They can also become more engaged.

Tori Steffen:  Great. It sounds like authentic leaders would have a lot of great qualities and be able to lead by example in an organization. What are some of the different types of leadership styles and how might they impact employee wellbeing and productivity? Have you seen any negative ones out there that you might be able to speak about?

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Oh, thank you for asking this question, Tori. So, scientists and theorists are still arguing and trying to identify the best leadership style and practices that would eliminate the negative trends related to employees' health at work. Overall, since the beginning of research on leadership, the paradigm shifted and reflected significant changes in leadership progression from total dominance by leaders to group decisions, and from the power of leaders to values of groups, and from leaders' goals to group visions. So, if you look at leadership as a continuum, you would see autocratic style in one side and authentic servant leadership style on the other side. The leader's roles change from active to passive. And out of all leadership styles. I would say that the autocratic leadership styles could potentially negatively affect employees' morale, productivity, and wellbeing depending on the work environment. Autocratic leaders tend to make decisions quickly without input from others, and usually when they're pressed for time. This can lead to subordinates experiencing work stress, anxiety, lower wellbeing, and most of the research on autocratic leadership has shown that subordinates dislike managers use this leadership style they call the micromanagers. And they experience more job stress when being managed by such individuals. They also have lower levels of job satisfaction.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. Yeah, that's definitely important to know how the different styles might have an influence on those factors, so thank you.

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  You're welcome.

Tori Steffen:  Your research was also investigating a correlation between leader involvement and employee enrollment in wellness programs. Could you explain for us your findings about that relationship?

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Sure. During my research, I collected data about employees' participation in the wellness program and compared it to their management enrollment statistics, and I found significant positive correlation between leaders and employees' enrollment in wellness programs. I think there are three factors that could explain that correlation. First one was transparency of a self-tracking and reporting system that companies use to monitor everyone's participation. In some cases, employees could see if their managers enrolled in the program or not, including their CEOs. The second one was positive correlations could also indicate that individuals had higher personal commitment toward their health and wellbeing if they saw that their leaders are also committed to their health. And finally, surprising finding was that employees and their managers were motivated by financial incentives to participate in wellness programs. For example, when one company introduced financial incentive of up to $560 per year for all employees, including top leaders, the wellness program's enrollment and participation rates went up from 17% to 57%.

Tori Steffen:  Wow.

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  I hope these information examples answer your question, Tori.

Tori Steffen:  Okay. That's great to know. Definitely a big jump there in the enrollment, so that's great. What else might leaders be able to do to promote employee wellness and productivity levels, maybe besides the high involvement in those wellness program enrollment?

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Yeah, I touched a little bit on this before, but to promote employees' wellness and productivity leaders can also create a welcoming, inclusive, safe, and pleasant work environment. Several research studies that I reviewed during my dissertation confirmed that authentic leadership style influences the positive emotions of their followers and directly impacts employees' engagement and turnover rates. In those work settings where employees can voice their concerns without fearing retribution, they feel more secure and less likely to leave. Also, in my research on wellbeing, I found that flexible work arrangements can improve employees' morale, increase their engagement and lower turnover. For instance, more and more organizations are now considering creating flexible working arrangements for their employees, such as hybrid work, telecommuting, remote work, condensed work week, flex time, part-time, shift work, or even job sharing. So here are some additional ideas.

Tori Steffen:  Awesome. Those are great to know. We personally do remote work and flex time, and I definitely find that that helps with work-life balance, so that's great. Do you work on any other research projects or maybe activities that relate to the topics of our discussion today?

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Yes. I am currently researching data and findings related to mindfulness practice. Mindfulness refers to a mental state or focus on the present moment while noticing and accepting all feelings, thoughts, and bodily sensations. So, in the past two years, I've been participating in educational seminars and workshops on mindfulness. This topic is getting more and more interest because it can be applied to any field, any area, from businesses to schools, and from arts to sports. I was very grateful to lead one training session at Southern New Hampshire University and deliver a presentation to our faculty about how mindfulness can be integrated into the online learning environment for our students. I also did an educational zoom session on mindfulness related to financial health for one of the investment firms and their clients. And now, I'm working on an article for Silent Sports Magazine on how athletes could integrate mindfulness techniques into their training and improve endurance and performance. Finally, I'm teaching yoga and meditation classes. I'm a certified yoga instructor at the local park district, and I see more and more people becoming interested in these activities, mindfulness, meditation, yoga, and relaxation techniques because they find those helpful in enhancing their emotional wellbeing and building individual resilience to stress.

Tori Steffen:  Great. Those are all really nice topics to touch on as far as mindfulness, and I can see how it would be very helpful for students, athletes and teachers too.

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Yes.

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

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Yes, I would like to share some final thoughts. When employees are unhappy with their jobs or workplaces, they start searching for different opportunities. And with the COVID-19 pandemic, many people began reevaluating their life commitments and where and how they spend their time and talent. Now, many organizations struggle to attract and retain their most productive workers. However, they can stop employees from leaving by creating and promoting a healthy culture. It all starts at the top, at the senior management levels. And I know I'm repeating myself by saying this, but the leadership influence on employees mental and physical health is significant.

Tori Steffen:  Absolutely. Well, great. That is amazing, helpful information. So thank you so much for joining us today, Dr. Z., and contributing to our interview series. It was really great speaking-

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Thank you very much for participating, for inviting me to participate in the session. I appreciate.

Tori Steffen:  Absolutely. It was really great speaking with you today, Dr. Z.

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Thank you, Tori.

Tori Steffen:  And I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Thank you, you too.

Tori Steffen:  Thank you.

Irina Zlatogorova-Shulman:  Bye-bye.

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.

Physiologist Jagmeet Kanwal on Music in the ICU

An Interview with Professor Jagmeet Kanwal

Jagmeet Kanwal, Ph.D. is an associate professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University. His research focuses on the auditory processes involved in the coding and decoding, neural integration and perception of communication sounds, specifically the effects of music on patients in the hospital ICU.

Preeti Kota:  Okay, thank you for joining us today. Hi, I'm Preeti Kota and I'm a research intern here at Seattle Anxiety Specialists. I'd like to welcome with us, Dr. Jagmeet Kanwal. Dr. Kanwal is an Associate Professor in the Department of Neurology at Georgetown University. His research focuses on the auditory processes involved in the coding and decoding, neural integration and perception of communication sounds. A deeper understanding of these processes can provide new insights on speech and music perception in humans.

Today, we are going to discuss his ongoing study on how music may help overcome pain perception and produce physiologic and metabolic changes that facilitate recovery in ICU patients. Before we begin, can you please tell us a little bit about yourself, some of the work you've done, as well as what got you interested in studying for a doctorate in physiology and zoology?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Hi, Preeti. Good to be participating in this and have the opportunity to talk to you about some of our work. I'm originally from New Delhi, India, and I came to the United States to pursue graduate work in neuroscience. I was fascinated one day to visit a research laboratory when I was a kid. Where cats were walking around with some contraption implanted on their heads, that was the work of a well-known physiologist, Dr. Sheena at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in India, who was studying the feeding and satiety centers in the hypothalamus. He later also did research on yoga and meditation and how some of the yogis would lower and even stop their heartbeat, simply by meditating.

So I was fascinated by all of this type of work and decided to pursue my own career in neuroscience. As a kid, growing up in the late 1960s and '70s, I was very interested in all things nature and particularly in animals and animal behavior. And so when I got the opportunity to do graduate work in the United States, neuroscience was not yet well-established. I wanted to understand how the brain controls behavior, and had the good fortune of working on my doctoral work in the Department of Zoology and Physiology at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

This was a perfect environment because it not only kept me in touch and learning more about animals, but also getting a deep understanding of physiology and particularly of neurophysiology as a basis of guiding behavior. Some of my earlier work related to understanding how sensory systems work. I initially started studying chemosensory systems in fish, and then became interested in the auditory system, which was an excellent system to study in bats, because bats use this to echolocate, which means they can literally see their environment with their ears by producing sounds.

Fast forward to my appointment as an Assistant Professor at the Georgetown University Medical Center, where I became interested in how humans use sound. One of the most intriguing ways in which humans use sound is by producing music. So I began to wonder why do humans produce music, how the brain processes it and how does it affect our physiology? At that time functional MRI was a relatively new technique that allowed us to peer into the brain and in humans for the first time and see the processes involved in sensory processing, perception, learning and memory, and many other behavioral functions. We used both functional MRI and electroencephalographic or EEG studies to learn more about auditory processing of musical sounds. The current study on ICU patients is then a continuation of some of that early work on the perception and imagery of music in normal individuals.

Preeti Kota:  Wow. I love how that all connected and you're basically just doing what got you started or interested in your career, but it's very fascinating, all the projects you mentioned.

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Yeah. It's a gradual continuation and transformation of, as you go along and learn new things, as I'm sure you will also discover as you pursue your career.

Preeti Kota:  Yeah. So my first question is, can you describe your current study about how music may help to facilitate recovery in ICU patients and what you expect to find?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Yeah, so the current study was partly inspired by the work of Julia Langley, who is the Director of the Lombardi Arts and Humanities Program in Georgetown University. And so we met actually a few years ago when she was leading a tour at the art museum, at the Smithsonian Gallery. And so we started talking and then one day we met and this project was born.

So for many years, actually, she and her predecessors at the Lombardi Arts and Humanities Program had been using music to enhance and improve the hospital environment for those recovering from anesthesia and other life-threatening diseases at the Georgetown University Medical Center. So together with her interest in the arts, in the medical setting, and my background on the auditory system that I just explained, we decided to examine how music might affect the physiologic and metabolic processes during periods of high stress in one's life.

We were also inspired by the work of Andrew Schulman, a professional guitarist and musician in New York City, who had a close brush with death at the age of 57. He survived the incident against all odds with the help of music. The physicians hailed this as a medical miracle. Once he had recovered, Andrew resolved to use his musical gift to help critically ill patients in the same ICU where music had helped save his own life. Later, he wrote a book titled Waking the Spirit. That's the one over here. And in this, he related his experiences and efforts to help people recover from their trauma in the ICU setting with the aid of music. In his book, Schulman posited that the relationship between the pain we feel and the songs and compositions we love has its roots in a tender transcended form of symbiosis.

So in our study, funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, we wanted to understand the physiological and neural pieces of this symbiosis and how music can trigger healing and save someone's life. We postulated that if music can indeed trigger this or play this role, it could improve the lives of many and save millions of dollars in drugs and the costs associated with patients having to stay in the ICU or hospital environment for a long period of time. From a purely scientific perspective, it was intriguing also to think of how music, something that is apparently a human creation, primarily for our entertainment, can indeed play such a vital role in our health and recovery.

By our study, we therefore expect to discover some of the brain and bodily mechanisms that play a role in our wellbeing and the processes by which music can intervene and facilitate recovery.

Preeti Kota:  Oh, wow. That's exciting. I didn't even know he wrote a book actually.

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Yeah, he did. He has created now the music for our study. He specially created that and recorded it and we now have a CD. So we are going to play his music that he created using his eight-string guitar, I believe. And so he has some kind of an idea of how the music should be, in this particular situation to help the patients, because he actually goes around and plays music to, he said he's done this to thousands of patients. And in fact he now has this organization called Medical Musicians who actually are now trained in this particular setting to use music to help patients and physicians who have experienced and seen his work and seen the effects, they obviously believe in it. So that's going on, at least in New York City, and probably even more outside other cities now with his establishing this particular group of people.

Preeti Kota:  Yeah. That's really inspiring. Would you mind just going into a little more detail about his journey and inspiration for starting this kind of...

Jagmeet Kanwal:  I don't know too much about him, but we have talked and met and he has played the music to me. And from what he explained to me, he was in a coma for many days and was not coming out of it. And so then the physicians were getting worried and his wife was getting worried. And then one day, she went to the physician and she said, "I know he loves music. And there is this piece that he used to play frequently and likes it a lot. So can I actually play this in his ear?" And so they said, "Okay." And so apparently after she did that, that started triggering his recovery. So everybody was pretty intrigued by this happening. And since he was a musician himself, he really understood how music affects him. And he felt that if music can be so beneficial to me, then why not help other people? So that's what he's been doing.

Preeti Kota:  Wow. Okay. That leads me into my next question that, are certain types of music more beneficial than others? Or is it dependent on the individual person and their personal likes?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  So we don't yet fully understand the biological mechanisms by which music plays a beneficial role, but clearly, certain types of music are more effective or different in different situations. For example, there are some common elements in religious music around the world that help to soothe and calm our nerves and reduce anxiety. Music is of course very rich and its acoustic content can be used both for our wellbeing and also to excite and energize us to act. Not only to celebrate at weddings and other situations, but also sometimes to kill others, as is the case with war music that is prevalent in all cultures.

So sounds and music are really fascinating and that's really why I continue to study that, because it has such a powerful effect on us. And it's something that we can create. We have the ability with our own body, with our own vocal organs. We cannot create light, but we can create sound. And so it creates some kind of a feedback loop that perhaps gives us the ability to modify our own feeling. So we may dance at a wedding of a close friend or relative, but also engage, as I mentioned, in war dances to attack our enemies. It's all in the sound. How the sound is used, what type of sound is used. And that's what, therefore, is very interesting to see how the brain is wired up to use these different types of sounds.

Preeti Kota:  Do you think that music, in terms of your experiment and study, is it more helping patients through relaxing their nerves or exciting their nerves?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Actually, that's a very interesting question. In talking to Andrew, he said the way he is creating music is actually to do a little bit of both. So when a patient is in a coma, you want to do a little bit of excitation to wake up his brain and certain parts of the brain that might be involved in the healing process. The way I believe that he has created his music is to, a little bit stimulate the person, get him excited a little bit, but then also calm down. So it's a process of push and pull, perhaps. And then he also has in fact different music pieces that he created for playing in the morning versus in the evening, when you want the person to have a good rest and then be able to recover from the day's stress and going through all of the treatment that they're probably going through. That's the way it's supposed to work.

Preeti Kota:  Does the excitation part occur simultaneously or before the relaxation part?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  I think it's alternating between those two, so you want to excite the person a little bit, but you don't want to excite them too much. We know, for example, rock music, when you play that, literally your heart starts to beat faster. So one of the ideas is that the beat of the music directly affects your rate of heartbeat. That is why a lot of the dancing type of music has a faster beat, as compared to more relaxing classical music or religious music has a slower and a different beat. So beat has a lot to do with it, in addition, of course, to the harmony of the sounds.

So he does a little bit, because you want to, for example, you may want to stimulate the heart a little, but you don't want to do too much so that you don't want to increase the blood pressure too much. So it's an alternation between those two types of music, as far as I understand.

Preeti Kota:  Okay. So what are the brain regions involved in music perception and pain perception, and how are these related?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  That's a good question. So of course we are learning a lot about music over the last decade or two, there's a lot of work going on. Compared to when I first started studying music perception, it was very little. Even now there's almost nothing in the textbooks, but even thinking of music as something that should be scientifically studied was questionable.

Now we know a lot more about some of the brain regions that are involved, but still the interaction between for example, pain perception and music is still not well-established. So we do know that many brain regions are involved. And so we start with musical sounds entering through our ears, and reaching a nucleus called the cochlear nucleus within the brain stem. This nucleus receives input from a spirally, coiled structure inside our inner ear that vibrates to the slightest of sounds. Then it amplifies the mechanical energy in those vibrations and transduces that into electrical signals. That electrical energy then can be used by the brain for doing different kinds of things.

So from there, the sound signals then travel as electrical impulses throughout the auditory system that parses and integrates them into a perceptual hole that can be used by other brain centers, such as our limbic system, where emotions are thought to reside.

So now, one of the well-studied limbic brain structures is the amygdala, and where pain signals are also reached from various parts of our body. Thus, one of the structures, at least, would be the amygdala and within the amygdala, both music and pain then come together. So both of those inputs are coming in, into the same brain structure. And so we believe that perhaps here, the music can override and suppress the perception of pain signals.

So it's like a gateway. From there, if the pain signals go to our conscious memory, because the amygdala is connected to our frontal cortex, which is more involved in our perception, then perhaps the music gates can cut it off, the pain signal, from reaching more conscious parts of the brain. So you can’t do much from the signal that's coming through the body, but that's not the only place where you can do something about it. It goes eventually into the brain, and that's really where we perceive the pain. And so if there, the pain signal can be suppressed, then that would be a way to deal with pain. And so perhaps music does that.

So in fact, we put an electrode into the amygdala and we recorded and we wanted to test if sounds do really reach there. And of course, these studies you cannot do in humans. So we did that in animals and in bats that we were studying at that time. And indeed, we were among the first to show that these signals so forth, these sound signals do reach the amygdala. So the neurons in the amygdala, they respond to the sound. And about the same time people were studying also the amygdala in humans using fMRI, and they discovered that the amygdala responds to laughing and crying type of sounds.

So that's when it was established that the sounds in fact, do go into the amygdala. And so that would be a basis of the musical sounds also going into the amygdala, because we were looking at actually animal communication sounds, which also have an emotional component, and so just like music had an emotional component. So then at least we have the beginnings of a possibility of how music and where in the brain it can actually play a role in the perception of sounds.

Now intriguingly, we also not only put our electrode into the amygdala and recorded the response to sounds, but at the same location, we delivered a small electrical signal, a little electrical pulse. And when we did that, we discovered that lo and behold, the heart rate of the animal changed. So the heart rate went up, the breathing rate went up. So that was amazing because that means that the same area that is receiving the sounds, in fact has a control on our bodily functions, particularly the heart rate, in this case, and breathing rate.

And so that provides a very direct connection. In fact, that was like the first evidence that the control of our heart rate is not just from the brain stem, as it is in the textbooks, but there is another higher center in our emotional areas of the brain, in here, particularly the amygdala, that can also affect our heart rate. And of course we know from our everyday experience that if we get scared or we have some different feelings, our heart rate is affected accordingly. That's probably happening in the amygdala. That's what we are hoping to find out more about.

Preeti Kota:  And then depending on the type of music, is there a more lasting impact on the amygdala for certain types or..?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Right. That's something that we don't know yet, and there would be new studies that would have to be done in humans where you would record their activity in the amygdala and present different types of music. Something I really always wanted to do, because we know we have so many different types of music and they have different effects on us. It'd be interesting to see which kind of music influences the amygdala more than others. But a lot of the studies on fMRI are typically focused more on the cortex, because it's a large area. And so you can easily see the activation and so on. The amygdala is a deeper structure in the brain, relatively smaller structure.

So it's a little bit more difficult to do the studies on that. And also the MRI, it creates a lot of sound by itself because every time you send a magnetic pulse, very high magnetic pulse, there's a vibration associated with that. That makes it a little bit more difficult also to do sound studies using fMRI, but there are some ways to get around that. So I think in the future, hopefully, we will know more about that.

Preeti Kota:  Do you think it'll interfere with that? The MRI pulsing?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Yeah. It does, but we put earphones on the person's ears, and what people do is that they... So because the MRI signal takes a little time to build up, so what they do is that when they present a sound, they collect the signal to that sound a little bit later, so that it's phase-locked to the time of the presentation of the sound and not so much, there is less of a component that is affected by the sound of the magnet itself. So the timing of those two are a little different. And so that way, they can extract the signal that is more to the presentation of the sound that they want to test.

So there are ways of getting around that. But it's a pretty loud sound so there can also be some interference that's hard to take out.

Preeti Kota:  And then just touching back on what you mentioned earlier about how the music sample that you are using, it was personal to, I forget, I'm sorry. I'm forgetting his name.

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Andrew Schulman.

Preeti Kota:  Yes. Do you think that will lead to varying effects on playing it for people who it's not personal to?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  That's a very good question. And we struggled with that, because a lot of the other music studies, they actually present the music that a person likes, because everybody doesn't like the same music and obviously you don't want to present some kind of music to somebody they don't like.

So typically, in this kind of a situation, when people want to study the effect of music in a medical setting, they give the patient a choice of many different types of music and then the person chooses, "Yeah. I'd like to hear this when I'm recovering from my anesthesia," and so on. In our case, we decided to go with the music that he created because apparently he has been using this music on different patients. And so there's some, apparently, universality to the type of music that he has created.

In some ways there's a little bit of an issue, but in other ways it makes it more uniform. And so we can then see how the music is affecting and we know the different parts and therefore we can parse out the different musical pieces and perhaps see their effect on the heart rate and so on. So it'll also provide some more consistent data. So it's a trade off, but that's what we decided to do for this study.

Preeti Kota:  And I guess there's a lot more variables if you use subjective music based on the person's taste, based on the rhythm and types of-

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Exactly. And already, there's a lot of variation in humans. So it just adds to that.

Preeti Kota:  Are there certain health conditions in which music may be more helpful than others, like a stroke or coma, for example?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Yeah. So music has been known to play an important role in many health conditions, such as in Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, catatonic conditions resulting from trauma and various other anxiety disorders. In addition, music can help pregnant women to relieve the pain during the process of childbirth, labor, and delivery, and many other conditions that humans may suffer from. So there have been a lot of studies actually on the fact that the pain threshold really changes when one is listening to music, but from a scientific point, a lot of those are observations. And so to have a scientific understanding of how it happens, that is still missing in the literature. And so we think that music may be particularly helpful in facilitating recovery based upon the data that, for example, Andrew Schulman's work has provided. And so that's what we would like to find out more about during our study.

Preeti Kota:  Okay. So just recovery in general or..?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Yeah. For us, it'll be more like recovering from anesthesia after a surgery. So we are targeting currently people who have liver transplants, because those are well-defined, we know that they're going to have the surgery in advance and so we can prepare for that. It's a risky surgery and there is deep anesthesia involved. So that's the population we are targeting in the beginning. Later on, we may do other studies. We didn't want to work with patients who have had a stroke because then part of their brain maybe damaged. And we don't really know which part. And because we feel that the brain is playing a role in this recovery and that's what we want to study more, so that's why this is the patient population that we chose to start, at least, our study.

Preeti Kota:  Okay. And then how is this applicable to other situations and how do you think it might benefit people on a daily basis?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Surprisingly, we may not realize this, but the music industry is clearly much bigger than the drug industry because all humans engage in listening to music, from the tinkling sounds placed in our crib soon after birth, and many songs we hear about twinkling stars to the more exciting type of music we hear as teenagers. And then the more calm and mellow music that people prefer in their older age. So we know that music plays an important role in our mental and physical health, even in normal individuals, we just don't think of it that way, that it may be continuously playing a role in our wellbeing. And so we hope that our study then will shed some light on this phenomenon so we can better understand and utilize this listening to music in the most appropriate way.

Preeti Kota:  Also, I just thought of a question about how you were talking about the amygdala before, but is there personalized music sensitivity that varies from person to person?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Good point. Clearly, some people may not pay particular attention to music. Most people do, but then there are the musicians who are really tuned to the music. In fact, there are people who have perfect pitch, which means that if they hear a particular tone, they can immediately say what is the pitch or the frequency of that tone. So people have done the study studies and they found that their auditory cortex is very well-organized. Over there, it's not like a diffuse activation, a particular frequency only activates a particular band in their auditory cortex.

So basically, musicians are much more sensitive to music, probably it plays a more important role in their lives. And I've heard musicians say that they literally could not live without music. So it does vary with people, as do many other things, but in general, it seems to have a big effect and role in most of us.

Preeti Kota:  So to precisely assess the effect of music, what do you plan to measure in the body?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  To precisely assess the effect, we hope to measure many of the brain and body parameters that may be associated with the healing effect of music. These include tracking the heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate, as well as brain activity. So we would also like to measure the level of cortisol changes in our body by taking saliva samples and also determine if the levels of oxytocin, the hormone that is known to play an important role in bonding, may facilitate our health and wellbeing, because it's been shown that even when we hear some sounds, even two people talking, leads to increased level of oxytocin. And oxytocin appears to have many benefits in our body and brain. And so we want to also look at that.

Many of these physiological parameters are already being measured in patients within the ICU. They're already measuring the heart rate, the blood pressure and so on, and tracking that. Therefore, we think that this is a unique opportunity to take advantage of these data that are already there and being recorded. And so now what if we play some music and then be able to see the effect on those data? In the ICU setting, we don't even have to do a lot of things on our own, those are already being recorded. And so we said, "Oh if we look at the effect in this situation, then we will easily get a lot of data." That's the goal, using all of the... And then a few additional things that we do. And then hopefully we'll be able to put that together and see what effect it had and whether when we started playing the music, that triggered or facilitated an acceleration in the recovery of the patient.

So perhaps patients who listened to ICU music on the whole will recover faster. Maybe they get out of the ICU a day before than the other patients who didn't. That would be a big saving right there, in terms of being in the ICU and additional stress, nobody likes to be in the ICU and plus all of the cost of the patient being in the ICU.

Preeti Kota:  Just out of curiosity, how do you measure levels of oxytocin?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  That's a little tricky, but one of the ways that people have seen, also you can measure that in the saliva. So the same saliva sample that we take to measure cortisol, which is much more standard is thought to be also one of the best ways to measure the level of oxytocin.

Preeti Kota:  Okay. Very interesting. Lastly, is there anything else you would like to share with our listeners in general or about your research?

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Yeah. I would like to say that much of my past research has been aimed at achieving a basic understanding of how sounds are encoded within neural activity in the brain. So I've always been very interested in animals, as I mentioned earlier, and their behavior and have been studying social communication behavior in bats.

So about 30 years ago, I helped to restart the field of neural processing, of communication sounds that had come to a halt because of the difficulty of the complex and relatively difficult-to-study brain mechanisms associated with the processing of complex sounds. So speech and music can be thought of as complex sounds basically. And so at that time, and to a great extent, even now, to obtain funding for auditory research, it was necessary to relate one's research to speech processing because speech is considered to be unique in humans and everybody accepts the importance of speech. And so that was one of the ways that people would justify their getting funds to do their research, especially on animals.

So it's one of our unique abilities. Everybody understands that. So when I started studying how bats use sound to not only echolocate, but also to communicate with each other, then I gradually discovered that some of the brain structures involved in their processing are primarily designed to process emotions. So that's like, I was talking about the amygdala, when I mentioned that we were among the first to report the activity of sounds in the amygdala.

That suggested to me that music does not exist only in humans because there are other sounds that can affect our or the animals' emotions too. So these emotion-processing brain structures are more primitive, because they are there, we know in animals, compared to other brain structures in humans, such as the frontal cortex and so on.

And yet we consider that music is something that humans invented. So we say, "Oh, we play this music and invent, obviously no other animal does that." And so music is very new. It makes us human, this is our thing. But when you look at the brain structures, where it's being processed, they're very primitive and other animals have those too, the emotional brain structures. The limbic brain, I mean the reptilian brain, even they have that.

So how come music is going in those structures? That was very intriguing to me. So this suggested that music does not exist only in humans, but the social communication sounds that I was studying in other animals are probably more closely is connected to our music than to our speech, because both have this emotional component. And yet people were using their studies to justify speech processing, getting a better understanding of speech processing and so on.

So in fact, looking around, we see that music is everywhere in nature. From the many songs we hear birds sing in the morning to the sonic and ultrasonic songs of crickets and bats. Yeah, bats sing as well in the evening. And the thumping of their chest by gorillas in a forest are all reminiscent of music that is not only ours, but exists universally in nature.

So understanding and studying the brain and body mechanism by which these sound are perceived and can improve our wellbeing is a privilege, I feel that I have the good fortune to experience and be engaged in. So I hope that this type of basic research with many potential applications will be supported not only by the scientific community, but also by society at large, until their human benefits become more clear.

That's something that I wanted to share with you and hopefully others, that just trying to understand some basic phenomena can eventually lead us to many results and information that can benefit in the future, even though we may not think it's relevant when we are doing those studies.

Preeti Kota:  That's fascinating how it ties into even evolution.

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Exactly. Right, because these brain structures are evolutionarily primitive, but we never really considered there. And yet they're really important because they are the ones that control the vital functions of the body. So what we label as feelings is really, actually, they're very important. We say, oh we should not base our decision on feelings and so on, yet we really rely on our feelings for a lot of decisions and they have a direct connection with our physiology.

So when we think of feelings in a scientific way, we call it feelings, but they actually are vital physiological mechanisms that are important for our survival. So if we feel that we are afraid of something, that means we should get out of that situation, that will be good for our wellbeing. So, it's that system that I think we are activating by music and that system is clearly important.

Preeti Kota:  Your research is very exciting.

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Good to know that. Thank you.

Preeti Kota:  Definitely. But on that note, I just wanted to thank you so much for sharing your career and your research and all your work. It's very thrilling to hear about. And I just wanted to thank you for your time and hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

Jagmeet Kanwal:  Wonderful to know that. And I want to thank you for your interest and your questions and for your eagerness and interest to participate in our study. So we look forward to working together and finding, hopefully, new things.

Preeti Kota:  Yes, 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.


Advocate Lauren Johnson on Environmental Justice

An Interview with Advocate Lauren Johnson

Lauren Johnson, MPH has a graduate degree in environmental science and policy, and is a Climate Corps fellow for the Environmental Defense Fund. Lauren founded the Environmental Justice Action Network at the George Washington University and specializes on advancing environmental justice.

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. Today, I'd like to welcome with us Lauren Johnson, who has a master of public health in environmental science and policy, and is a Climate Corps fellow for the Environmental Defense Fund. During her time as a graduate student, Lauren founded the Environmental Justice Action Network at the George Washington University, which is a student-led organization working to address environmental justice issues in the metropolitan D.C. area. In her current fellowship with the Environmental Defense Fund, she focuses on advancing environmental justice through strategic planning, scientific research, data-driven project management and community engagement. Before we get started, can you tell us a little more about yourself and what made you interested in environmental justice?

Lauren Johnson:  Yeah. So, hi. My name is Lauren Johnson. I'm from Northern Virginia, the D.C. area. And I just graduated with my master of public health in environmental science and policy from George Washington University's public health school. And ever since before public health school, even, I fell in love or became passionate about environmental justice issues when I was teaching high school chemistry in Miami, Florida for Teach for America. And there, I was confronted with various systems of oppression, such as lack of literacy, deteriorated infrastructure, school to prison pipeline, and was very disheartened by seeing how our nation's most vulnerable groups of people are treated, and left with little resources and so much instability, to reach their full potential. And that's what motivated me to focus on these issues at a systemic level. And I saw that public health was an avenue of doing so. And brought my passion of environmental justice into public health school, which led to the founding of the Environmental Justice Action Network at GW.

And that was founded by me and about seven other people that were also passionate about environmental justice, but did not see an avenue of expressing it at the school. And even though there's been a lot of mentioning of it, there really wasn't organized effort for students to get involved and give back to their surrounding community, because that's also a central tenant of environmental justice, of having real impacts in communities, and especially communities that are most vulnerable. So we found ourselves in Southeast D.C. doing park cleanups, urban gardens. We also held a lot of webinars, bringing more disadvantaged speakers, such as Indigenous environmental activists or food justice activists, so that we can start elevating these intersectional issues to the forefront, and also challenge traditional environmentalism that does not have these issues in the forefront, but is so needed to us actually reaching our climate goals. So that perspective informs my career work at the Environmental Defense Fund, which I am going to be a permanent member in a couple weeks.

Theresa Nair:  That's wonderful. Congratulations.

Lauren Johnson:  Thank you.

Theresa Nair:  And so going back a little bit to when you started the Environmental Justice Action Network, what types of environmental justice issues did you see in D.C., and how did you decide what was important to prioritize?

Lauren Johnson:  Yeah, so we were starting EJAN, the shorthand for it, during COVID-19. So we were quite limited in terms of direct engagement with people, just for social distancing guidelines and guidelines that the school laid out for that, as well, that we had to abide by. But we saw there was a pressing need with pollution in Southeast D.C., Ward 7 and 8, and how a lot of people did not have proper trash pickup. So we would drive into these areas and just see trash littered everywhere. And you kind of have to keep it in perspective, well, if you don't have proper trash pickup, where are you going to put the trash? So that's when you can't blame the individual, but the system that allows these conditions to persist, and how they are inequitably perpetuated, because we saw some parks that are managed by the National Park Service that was full of trash. When you go to Rock Creek Park, you don't see that. What's the difference between the two areas?

Theresa Nair:  Right.

Lauren Johnson:  I think you can answer that in terms of income and race. So, we saw those issues most aptly and saw that that was a way to socially distance and engage in these types of work. And we also partnered with an urban garden called the Franciscan Monastery Garden Guild, that produces a lot of food to food insecure individuals by donating a lot to food kitchens and pantries. So, we saw those were the main ways we could engage in EJ within COVID-19. But other than that, our activities were virtual; in terms of meeting, holding webinars, and just trying to educate ourselves as future EJ practitioners.

Theresa Nair:  Okay. And just before we continue, I want to make sure, if any listeners are not familiar with the term environmental justice, could you explain a little bit more about what exactly it is and what it means and how it impacts different communities?

Lauren Johnson:  Yeah. So environmental justice came out of the late 1970s where... I believe it was PCB. There was this new industry being proposed to be put in a predominantly Black community, Warren County, North Carolina. And the residents organized extremely well and were able to stop those efforts by literally putting themselves on the line. You look at pictures of that protest and you saw kids laying on the ground trying to stop trucks going into their neighborhood. That's how pressing the issue is for these communities, because literally their lives are on the line, so they have to put their lives on the line to stop it.

And that's what spurred the movement. And since then, in the '80s, there was a report called Toxic Waste and Race that found that the strongest predictor of whether a pollution source is in a community is race, regardless of income is race. So again, I'm talking about systems. That is evidence of systemic racism and how these trends perpetuate all over the country. And then from then, environmental justice became this movement that kept becoming academic. What is environmental racism? Well, just dependent on the environment, you are subject to lack of clean water, polluted air, mold, pest infestations, things that, even if you control for income, affects our predominantly Black and brown populations.

And then that notion just kept perpetuating until in 2021, Biden released an executive order that was pretty much codifying environmental justice at the forefront of their priorities, because prior to that in the 1990s, there was an executive order assigned by Clinton that also recognized environmental justice and how federal agencies need to confront it. But this executive order put it to the forefront with an initiative called Justice40 that says that any Federal... I think energy and infrastructure investments, 40% has to go to disadvantaged communities. So that's really huge, right?

Theresa Nair:  Yeah.

Lauren Johnson:  Because when you want change, you need to have the capital follow with it. So basically, environmental justice captures a lot of things. It captures how people are adversely affected by the environment, disproportionally predicted by race, most strongly; very place-based in terms of the surrounding industries and factors that lead to pollution; cumulatively burden certain communities. And achieving environmental justice means upholding the principle that everyone has equal protection to environmental, housing, criminal, other such laws that affects every aspect of your life. That's the environmental part, expanding the definition of environment for everything that externally affects you. And EJ is about rectifying that.

Theresa Nair:  When we were talking a few minutes before the interview started, you mentioned how systematic engineering can help to solve some of these problems. Would you mind discussing that a little bit, and how systematic engineering could be applied in these situations?

Lauren Johnson:  Yeah, yeah. So this is a new discipline that just kind of happened. When I started working in the Environmental Defense Fund, I saw that someone was doing a similar study that I was, from a systems engineering perspective. And essentially, there are some tools available from more technical disciplines to assess the inputs and outputs of a system, and everything that takes place in the system that mediates or negotiates the resulting outputs. That can be applied to a social context where, for example, I'm doing a study on net zero and equity and justice. And I'm trying to create recommendations for my organization to uphold their equity and justice goals.

So the equity and justice goals are the output. Now, what can the input be? Well, to achieve that, you need to really have resources, meaning time and people and capital to be put in the types of projects that prioritize people-centered solutions that do not perpetuate existing injustices. But if you don't view that from a systems lens, then you could easily result to just blaming individuals, like, "We have some bad actors here. If we get rid of those, we'll be good."

Well, we know that doesn't work when, let's say, a similar issue is police brutality. You know firing a few bad cops is not going to change the system of people being systemically murdered, predicted by race. So in turn, you need to think about things in that lens, and the mental models, the different structures. Everything interacts with each other to produce a certain output. And to reach the output that you want, you need to change everything within the system and outside the system and how it's structured, to reach it.

Theresa Nair:  That's a great point, because I think a lot of times people do just want to blame one person or a handful of people, but it's so much of a bigger problem than that, that it really needs a much bigger solution. If I could do one more spinoff, just because we were talking about such interesting things before I started recording, could you talk a little bit also about the relationship between the environmental movement and environmental justice, and how those two can sometimes conflict a little bit?

Lauren Johnson:  Oh man, I was just having a conversation about this. So it helps to talk about the history. Environmental movement was spurred by... I believe his name was John Muir, who was pushing the national parks movement. And I may be getting this wrong. I also know Teddy Roosevelt was involved in the national park system, but hey. "We're concerned about the environment. It's pretty. Nature. Wildlife. Let's preserve it." Well, who was on this land before? Indigenous peoples. They lived for thousands of years, existing sustainably on the land. So prior to colonization, people are like, "Oh wow, this nature, it's so well kept." That's because people were keeping it. And we're finding now that there's some practices that are ingrained in Indigenous knowledge that we need to start doing, such as controlling fires in forests or cutting some of them down so it's not densely populated. Indigenous peoples figured that out thousands of years ago, and now we're coming around and realizing we need to do stuff like that, because we have so many wildfires now.

So there's always been this tension of people, typically white liberal, "We need to protective the environment. We need to protect our wildlife." That's true. We also need to protect the people that is in that environment. And that's the intersection that is left out, and many others. Gender, race, income, all those things factor into how much you can take care of the environment and how much the environment impacts you. And coming from an environmental justice side to that, there's a lot of tensions because like... we were talking about systems. EJ really pushes for you to confront those issues. And that makes you very uncomfortable with it.

So a lot of people, when they become uncomfortable, they'll shut down and say, "Well, that's not my focus. That has nothing to do in the environment." The environment is everything around you that affects you. So yeah, you should have a stake in all this. And if you're doing environmental work, you also need to talk about healthcare. You also need to talk about housing, the criminal justice system, because these are things that impacts everyone's environment. And we all need to be an equal stakeholder in solving it, because otherwise we can't have a systemic change that is needed to solve the climate crisis.

Theresa Nair:  Yeah, I think that's an important point. You can't really separate all of it. It's kind of the one-health approach, that everything is connected together and it all relates to each other. When you've been working with communities and residents on some of these environmental justice issues, what types of mental health impacts have you seen on the communities who are experiencing some of these disparities or discrimination?

Lauren Johnson:  Yeah, I would say I was confronted with that quite aptly when I was teaching. I decided to Teach for America in Miami, Florida, a very hot and humid place that... I read one site that says that the number one most economic risk to climate impacts. So for the students I taught, one time, I got a grant to do a hurricane disaster preparedness workshop for those students. And somehow during that workshop, we started talking about air pollution. And I ended up asking those students, "How many of you have asthma?" And over half the class raised their hand. That's not-

Theresa Nair:  That’s significant.

Lauren Johnson:  ...random. That's the system at play where you're in these conditions, like I said, hot and humid, you have a lot of mold, you have a lot of pests, you have on top of that industries near you that are affecting your health through air pollution and water pollution. And then now you're compounding that with climate change and sea level rise, extreme weather. All those things are going to heighten those existing conditions there.

And so that's kind of what climate justice is all about. And the ways that we are addressing our climate-related causes, you need to make sure that the people that are most adversely affected are uplifted in that transition because, well, one, usually they're the ones that are least responsible for causing it; just looking upon income, the more income you have, the more greenhouse gas footprint you have. And oh man, I can't even get into a large conversation about how corporations are part of that too, but-

Theresa Nair:  You can feel free, if you like. Yeah.

Lauren Johnson:  But these factors, they compound. And it causes a lot of anxiety. I even had to make a suicide attempt call to report that.

Theresa Nair:  Wow.

Lauren Johnson:  And I mean, these are environmental things, but this also controls people's behavior. If you're in this bad environment and you're also not concerned about education, even though it's a school, that's another thing, you're going to have all these things mentally impact the students that you have. And oftentimes I just had to put on my therapist hat and just be there talking to students, had some people cry on my shoulder, just know that I care about them. And if anything, sometimes that's one of the few times they even heard that, which is also really sad.

Theresa Nair:  Wow, that is.

Lauren Johnson:  Yeah, mental health is very tied into it. But one thing you need to make sure is that climate anxiety has become something very real. It's a very real thing, but that is because this might be the first time you have this existential threat to your livelihood.

Theresa Nair:  Right.

Lauren Johnson:  To keep that in perspective, that has already been a thing for many groups of people in this country, whether it be slavery, Jim Crow, migrant workers, elderly, just people with disabilities. They've already had these existential threats affecting their livelihood. So, you have to recognize your identity and your privilege when you're addressing these issues because you might be like, "Oh my gosh, you need to do something about it at all costs. Everyone just needs to get in line." Well, that's not good enough for a lot of people that's already suffering from occurring conditions. So, you just have to keep things in perspective, even when it affects you mentally.

Theresa Nair:  That's a good point that a lot of groups have been dealing with these threats for a long time. And for some people, this is the first time they're experiencing something like this, but other groups have been dealing with this on an ongoing basis.

So, when people start to feel overwhelmed and feel like these are just huge issues, where do you even start addressing it? What advice would you give for people who are just feeling overwhelmed when they think about these topics? Because we're talking about these major systematic problems, right, that I think the average person feels like there's not really anything they can do much about. So what advice do you give? Like, you seem to be able to stay inspired and feel like you can make a difference. And I think that's amazing. It's one of the reasons I wanted to interview you. This is incredible, how you stay inspired in the face of all this. But I think a lot of people look at some of these topics and they just feel frustrated. So what advice would you give for people who just look at this and they just think, "I can't change any of this"?

Lauren Johnson:  Well, first, I'll say check your privilege, because there's a lot of people overwhelmed for hundreds of years in this country. But also, I'll take a quote from one of my environmental professors at public health school: "You need to find the bubble of people and work that you can influence, and just focus on that."

So, for me, I know that I grew up in a pretty privileged upbringing. And even though I'm a Black woman, I still had a lot of opportunities and came from a two-parent household that also was very stable. So that means I've been able to gain a really robust education. Part of my skillset is talking to White people, so I'll just call that out too. And then also, just thinking about the big picture. So that's why I found that I can make a lot of impact in a big environmental organization because all those skills I had growing up, but I can also keep things in perspective and saying, "Well, I know that I'm quite privileged, but there's a lot of other people that look like me that aren't. And how about I can do what I can to level the playing field, per se, and actually make an impact in doing that at an organization that has international influence?"

Very challenging and difficult work, but I found myself on a team that is designed to do just that. And they're extremely motivated. And what keeps me going is thinking about the students I had in Miami. They are suffering in many different ways. It seems like I might have some skills that can do something about that. And that might be me getting ahead of myself and saying, "I'm going to fix everything." No, no, no. But what I can do is expand the platform I have and try to get as many people on the same page as possible so that authentic and meaningful change does happen as we're addressing the climate crisis.

Theresa Nair:  That's great. And I think you hit on one of the key points, that you work with other people who are also inspired. Finding maybe a group or an organization to work with where people are working towards a positive difference, right, I think that that can help. And then you have also the inspiration of who you want to help, thinking about your former students.

Let's talk a little bit about your work in Texas. I know last year you worked with the North Central Texas Council of Governments to develop a greenhouse gas emission reduction plan that will mitigate risk for underserved communities. Could you tell us about your work there and how underserved communities in that area are being impacted by climate change?

Lauren Johnson:  Yeah, for sure. For sure. So that project you just mentioned took place last summer. And just as a context, Texas is actually divided into all these regional council of governments, and they assist the local governments in making decisions and providing funding. Well, a collection of those local governments approached the North Central Texas Council of Governments, which is the Dallas-Fort Worth area, saying, "Hey, we know climate change is a thing. Why don't you give us this repository of strategies and tools to address it in our own communities?"

So that was the basis for the project, which is looking at all these different plans that were cultivated in Texas or the rest of the country, even some international organizations, of these strategies. Well, I'll say a lot of them are untested though, because a lot of things that we're proposing to solve climate change, they're still in a development phase. But if a government wants to do something in particular, well, then they can... Well, I hope it's being turned into an online repository. I just did the strategies. They can look at some strategies that can reduce some emissions. But like I was saying, you can't leave out the other side of the picture, that there are some people that are burdened by emissions, but more specifically air pollutants. And those are the things that are most concerned.

So I tried to position the recommendations and the strategies around those different pollutions, and know that you can both reduce emissions from these industries, but also clean them up so that surrounding communities are not disproportionally affected. And that was the level of engagement I could have with vulnerable communities with that project. But I also was able to use some GIS mapping to look at the trends of different pollution sources, so whether that be natural gas or oil, power plants or Superfund sites, and look at some data that approximated the distribution of health impacts, whether that be asthma, cancer, diabetes, and then see how the location of those pollution sources interacted with those health disparities.

It was almost very upsetting how much those health disparities aligned with where those pollution sources were. And I used something called the CDC Social Vulnerability Index  that takes into account a lot of social factors like age and race and language proficiency to measure the vulnerability of certain communities. And I found the most vulnerable were right near these pollution sources. And that could just be a highway right next to you. But some of the most burdened communities... There was one in Fort Worth. It had the lowest life expectancy, I believe in the whole state of Texas. And they were actually right across from a hospital, but because it's this really major roadway was separating them and the hospital, they were completely cut out from any healthcare access. And likely the effects of the roadway near them and a number of other pollution issues, that causes them to have ridiculous rates of different diseases, and then caused such a lower life expectancy.

So, when I talk about environmental justice, this really is a life and death matter, and should thus be treated with that urgency, because as we're trying to change our society to affect climate change, you need to make sure that there's communities already suffering, and this is an opportunity to do something about it.

Theresa Nair:  Yeah, sometimes people don't realize what a difference even just living right next to an interstate makes on your overall health, just breathing in that pollution every day. And of course it's usually wealthier people tend to live further from the interstate and aren't impacted as much, right? Something like that can have such an impact on your health.

We've been talking about these environmental justice issues that are in Texas and D.C., and we talked about Miami a little bit. Many of our listeners are in the Pacific Northwest, and they may not know what environmental issues are in their city or even how to find out about that topic. How could the average person who may not be very familiar with the environmental justice problems in their area find out more about some of the problems in their local communities and the disparities that exist?

Lauren Johnson:  Yeah, yeah. So, it's good that I've learned a lot of cities or local governments are really thinking about these issues, especially with the Biden administration setting high priorities for environmental justice and like Justice40 providing funding to vulnerable communities. So, I would say the first resource you can go to locally is check your local government website. See if they have something listing what they're doing about environmental and social issues that are affecting the area. I think that's the best way to get more local base. But if you could quickly search what local organizations are also confronting those issues, like type in "Environmental justice" and your community. You can see if there's any other organizations there that might have some local knowledge.

But there is also a lot of just national organizations and movements that are trying to put these issues into light. And that could just be some of the renowned environmental justice organizations like we have for environmental justice, the Deep South Center for ... Deep South Center for Justice ... Oh, man. I messed this up.

Theresa Nair:  That's okay.

Lauren Johnson:  But this is an organization led by Dr. Beverly Wright in the Cancer Alley area. It does a lot of work there. And even the major environmental organizations too, like I work at Environmental Defense Fund, we're also thinking about these things. There should be a decent amount of resources there to think about it. And also nationally, the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, DOE, the Department of Energy, they're also putting out resources to think about these issues, but also mapping and screening tools to actually you can go in, type in your address, and you can see the different pollution sources or demographic issues that are coming into play your area.

So for example, the EPA, they have something called EJScreen, that you can do this. The CDC has Environmental Public Health Tracking Program, that you can do this. And if you live in California, the California EPA is really on top of these issues. And you can look to see how they're affecting you through a tool called CalEnviroScreen. So, there's a lot of resources and things sprinkled throughout here, but what we need is a more robust movement of joining forces and understanding we're on the same side of trying to figure things out, and working together to do so.

Theresa Nair:  Yeah, I think that's the important point, because a lot of times people might want to help if they know about it, but they may not even know that some of these problems exist in their neighborhoods, or where the tools are to find out about it. And I will link to some of the tools that you mentioned below this interview as well, so that people at least listening to this interview can find them.

If a person is experiencing anxiety due to living in an urban area, and maybe they're worried about things like the pollution from the interstate, if they live nearby, or heat islands, or they've noticed that they have higher rates of asthma in their neighborhood, some of these topics that we've discussed, what type of advice would you give to them?

Lauren Johnson:  Yeah. Yeah. I would say just really try to figure out what those different things are; like you said, the urban heat island, it could be a lot of allergens that you're affected by, the interstates. Just really understand how all these issues are. And then find people trying to do something about it, because there's a lot of really great local nonprofits that provide free assistance to ... let's say you're in an urban heat island and don't have good AC. Well, there's a lot of nonprofits that have programs funded for you to get that for free. And then that can intersect with healthcare as well. There's a lot of great organizations that may be local to you that can do that as well.

But really the issue isn't individually how we respond to this, the issue is our representatives, the people we elect, pushing policies that can actually do something about this. For example, why isn't it mandated in affordable housing to have AC? Isn't that a necessity nowadays, especially with heat waves and climate change?

Theresa Nair:  Right.

Lauren Johnson:  We need to petition our representatives and senators to do something about it. And if you not just send an email, but if you are able to get on the call online with someone, then I've been told by number of local legislators they will listen to that and try to do something about it, because maybe they have a ballot initiative coming up and are debating it, if you could be someone in the public forum or speaking setting to talk to these people directly. And I would advise, start at the local level too, because those are the people that really are making decisions that impact you locally. You can bring your perspectives up, and they may pivot entirely. You never know. So there are ways to stay empowered throughout this. And really just realize knowledge is power, and you do have something to do about it.

Theresa Nair:  Have you seen that happen? Have you seen someone completely drastically change their mind after being contacted on one of these issues?

Lauren Johnson:  Not directly, but I have heard offline, these are ways to really make an impression, because for example, part of the reason why I fell into EJ is I started working with a nonprofit called Catalyst Miami in Miami, Florida. And they did a lot of free training and resources to empower local residents to talk to their representatives or a city board meeting, and how to do that. A lot of it is just telling your personal stories and how things have personally affected you, and then saying a solution too. They'll be empathetic, but if you don't put anything on the table what to do about it, they probably won't get there either. So you could go there. And like I said, there was a local nonprofit that was training us to do that. And I saw people throughout that program really find their voice, encouraged to talk about these issues, how they affect them, and what is something we can do about it.

Theresa Nair:  That's an important point, because it's true, a lot of times people who make these decisions aren't in the community, and they might make decisions that wouldn't even work for the community. But if community members who are affected themselves are the ones suggesting solutions, then they know that that's the solution that would work best, from their perspective. And then they can at least consider it, whereas they may not even think about it if somebody doesn't contact them.

Lauren Johnson:  Right, exactly. It's very powerful, the storytelling really is. So, I hope people don't lose sight of that because there's been such a push to quantifying things, big data, technical. Well, I'm finding with EJ, the social dimensions of all that is being left out. So that's why I'm training myself to be a social science practitioner, where my current study, I'm talking to a lot of people through ... well, I'm actually doing my own interviews. I'm having a focus group tonight to start talking candidly about these types of issues, and what are some ways we can do them ... well, for me, as a big environmental organization, do something about it, and not leave people behind?

So, there are things. Again, we were talking about, what are things you can influence? Well, that's my sphere. I think about people in communities and try to bring them in the conversation. Well, you can figure that out for you too, whether that be from a more technical side or social side. We need everyone, all hands on deck to meaningfully and authentically address these issues.

Theresa Nair:  Yeah, you're right. That's true. Well, as a professional who's building your career around advocacy and addressing environmental justice issues, do you have any parting words or final things you'd like to share with our listeners?

Lauren Johnson:  Well, I'll say the fight is long, the fight is hard, but it's still worth doing it. And it sounds cliche, my favorite MLK quote, but this one's good, and he's also said a lot of things that are good. They're just kind of whitewashed over time. But this one is, "The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice." So if you are fighting for something you truly believe in and truly believe in helping people and pushing us forward as a society that's more fair and equitable and just, we're going to be going to that position naturally as people.

Whether we'll get there fast enough with climate change happening is another question, but things are already moving that direction. So, if you feel like you're the only person caring about these things, if anything, people will come around to it. But the urgency is that we kind of are on a ticking clock now with how worse issues can be if we don't reach our greenhouse gas emission targets. So be urgent, know that these issues matter in our life and death, but try to remember that this fight is worth having at the end of the day, because you can truly improve lives to the better doing so.

Theresa Nair:  Right. That's a great note to end on, that it's worth fighting and that it's worth going through and worth continuing to work towards these solutions. Well, thank you so much for speaking with us today and participating in our interview series. I really appreciate you making time in your busy schedule to meet with us.

Lauren Johnson:  For sure. Thank you for having me. If anyone wants to follow up, I'm happy to put my email address there. I can send that to you.

Theresa Nair:  Okay, great. We'll put your contact information there. And so yeah, if anyone feels like they would like to contact you, we'll provide the information on how they can do so. Okay. 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.

Therapist Sari Cooper on Couple's Sex Therapy

An Interview with Therapist Sari Cooper

Licensed psychotherapist, Sari Cooper, LCSW, CST is both supervisor and director of the Center for Love and Sex in New York City. An AASECT certified sex therapist, Sari has been in practice for over 25 years and is an expert on relationships, sexuality, and sex education and has been featured regularly across various national media channels as well as in print.

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 licensed psychotherapist, Sari Cooper. She is an AASECT certified sex therapist and both supervisor and director of the Center for Love and Sex in New York City. Sari has been in practice for over 25 years and is a highly sought after expert on relationships, sexuality, and sex education in the media. She's also the founder of Sex Esteem, LLC, a company providing coaching, talks to adults, parents, and organizations to empower folks to get more embodied and informed.

Before we get started, can you please let our listeners know a little bit more about yourself and what made you interested in specializing in relationship issues?

Sari Cooper: Well, I came out from the performing arts world. I was a modern dancer. That's what brought me to New York City. I danced professionally after graduating from the Julliard school. So I was very much an embodied person in my first career. And then I started reading family therapy books and watching some family systems videos by some of pioneers. And I just thought as a second career, this was something I could bring a lot of my own talents to, both from an embodied sense and also reading nonverbal communication. So I fell in love with couples and family therapy, and in order to attend the Ackerman Institute, which is one of the oldest family therapy institutes in the country, I had to go and get a master's degree in social work.

And then that was sort of the beginning of this long sort of journey. And then once I started doing a lot of couples therapy, I realized that I didn't have what I really needed in terms of education around sexuality and sex therapy, because there are some biological, medical, predetermined kind of conditions that affect sexuality, not just the psychological ones and social ones.

Jennifer Ghahari: Great. You've written an article this year, titled “Seven Critical Talks to Have Before Your Wedding Day”. And the pandemic has clearly put a hold on many people's plans over the past few years. In your article, you mentioned that 2022 is supposed to have a 15% increase in weddings this year compared to 2021. Since we're in the height of wedding season right now, can you explain the “Seven Critical Talks” that couples should have?

Sari Cooper: I will. I actually printed that so had it in front of me. After years of working with couples, I see all those sort of holes in their agreements or nonverbal agreements or implicit versus explicit agreements. And I really felt like, to help people before they get going on their marital and marriage journeys, they should have these really important talks. So the first one is about creating boundaries with your family of origin. And a lot of people find this tension and anxiety early on when they're planning their weddings, because that's when these two families actually get to meet each other in person, but also the loyalties and rituals and sort of things that you would take for granted actually become challenges for this new couple. And I always say to couples, you are creating a new family. Even if you don't have children yet or ever, you are a family and you have to each be an Emissary to your families of origin in order to figure out for yourselves what your new family entity is going to do in terms of your values, in terms of your priorities.

And so a lot of times, couples/partners feel tons of pressure from their families of origin. It shows up like full force around wedding plans. So this is a great time to start discussing with each other, how do we feel about this? And then going back and saying to our families of origin, "Here's what we decided to do. It may be different from what your expectations are, but this is kind of, we've agreed that this is the way we would like to do it.”

The other one that is I've always found somewhat surprising is the discussion around having children. A lot of partners go forward into marriage with an unclear vision in terms of the priority and value of whether or not they're going to have children. And that's really critical because if you have one partner who definitely has always wanted to have children, there's been research done about people who are early-deciders about having children and late-deciders and the other partners saying, "Well, I'm not sure I have to decide later." I mean, this is a really important sort of distinguishing line and boundary. And so I always encourage people to talk about what that would look like, whether it's biological children, whether it's adopting… all of these issues, I think, are really important and yes, people do change their minds later. Maybe you have two partners who agree they don't want to bring children in the world for a variety of reasons. A lot of young people are saying climate change is a reason and they may change their mind later on. But I think that it's important to talk about it right now, before you go down the aisle.

One of the other things is it takes a village. And I've seen so many couples through the pandemic who have been so isolated from family and are going it alone and raising children and working. And I really think that whether or not you have ties with your sort of blood family, you need to create a chosen family around you to help in terms of supporting your marriage, in terms of supporting your family once you have, if you have children. I just think it's hard to expect everything from one person.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right. And so are you referring to maybe bringing in friends or maybe spiritual leaders? Is that what you're referring to?

Sari Cooper:  Yeah, I think that we all have different parts of us and our partners can be there and compliment a lot of different angles of who we are, but not all. And so whether it's a spiritual or religious leader, whether it's just friends, whether it's people you decide to do monthly brunches with that really speak to some parts of you that maybe your partner doesn't get, I think it's important. Otherwise, one can feel like the marriage itself gets too weighed down with the expectations.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Okay, great.

Sari Cooper:  Yeah. Another one is infidelity and fidelity, which so I see a lot of couples after some sort of infidelity has been discovered. And I think that a lot of times, there's while someone might say, "Well, that's clearly infidelity if someone had penetrative sex." There are so many other sexual behaviors that one partner may consider being cheating or unfaithful that the other partner doesn't. They never discuss it.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Can you give some examples what those may be?

Sari Cooper:  Yeah. So people have come in saying, "Well, my partner said that he used pornography before we got married, but that he would stop using once we got married and that partner didn't stop using pornography or watching it" or sexually explicit media, as we call it. Or someone might go to a strip club. And they don't consider that being unfaithful because they're not actually physically encountering anybody. They're not having kisses or even touching anybody, but their partner may consider that cheating or against their values. So those are things, there are so many more nuanced things, whether it's flirting, whether it's an emotional relationship that you have with someone, either in person or online, that you're kind of sharing very intimate details, not only about yourself, but maybe about your marriage and your partner. And it's sort of... The partner feels like it's taking away from the intimacy you're sharing with them. And so that's where this terminology of emotional cheating came into being.

Jennifer Ghahari:  And I would imagine too, with the prevalence of social media and just the ways that you can interact with people, maybe this type of perceived infidelity is rising too. Correct?

Sari Cooper:  Right. So there are so many ways you can have a whole sexting relationship with someone, never even meet them in person. And yet, it's quite sexual and erotic in nature, and you're doing it with someone outside your supposedly monogamous agreement with your partner. So, yeah. Definitely.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Great. Okay.

Sari Cooper:  Another one was telling your partner, you appreciate them. I think one of the most longstanding complaints that people have with one another after sort of the first two years of being in love and having that kind of what we call limerence period, is that we take people for granted and we don't say thank you for even doing small things or paying them compliments. Just did a lot of research around couples and over many, many decades now came up with this ratio of a five to one ratio, meaning five compliments or five positive statements to each sort of request for change.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Oh. Seems pretty fair.

Sari Cooper:  Most people don't have a hard time doing that five.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right. Yeah.

Sari Cooper:  And then the other one is to discuss religious and spiritual beliefs. I think a lot of studies have shown that those people who say they practice some sort of religion has been decreasing and people attending places of worship, research and census and surveys have shown us that people are going less and less often to institutions, but they may define themselves as spiritual.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Right.

Sari Cooper:  And so I think going forward, it's important to sort of distinguish for yourself, what you're feeling in terms of religion or spirituality. And it may require some sort of compromise on how you're going to honor that spirituality, honor your community. If you come from a more religiously attuned community or family, ahead of time and not sort of say, oh, we'll figure it out as we go along. Because a lot of people can get into a lot of battles around that.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Oh wow. And I think we covered all seven, correct?

Sari Cooper:  I think I did.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Okay, awesome. In terms of when people should talk about these things, I would imagine it shouldn't be the week before they actually get married. Right? Is there an approximate time that is really ideal to kind of hash all of these things out?

Sari Cooper:  I think depending on how serious it is, I would say for some things like children, where you're going to live, religious practice, things like that… I would say, 10 months ahead.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Wow. Okay.

Sari Cooper:  Or a year. I mean, I've had people come to me three to four months before their wedding vows, with really serious discordant issues that they're trying to solve right before they get married, including trauma, where one partner has had background of trauma and may not have even revealed it to their partner.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Oh, wow. Okay. Yeah. So it definitely sounds like maybe even aiming for a year or longer, to have all these important discussions because when you're getting married, it's stressful enough. You don't need to have all of these other issues on top of it. And just start out the gate running strong.

Sari Cooper:  Yeah, exactly. Well, you think about it. A lot of people get engaged and leave a year at least to plan their nuptials. Well, why not give a year to really iron out some of these differences. So you know you're going in fully cognizant and fully confident that you're on the same page. Even if you've compromised, it's still you're on the same page.

Jennifer Ghahari:  That's great. Thank you. And it seems one positive thing that's maybe come from the pandemic is that are people are reevaluating their lives and what matters to them. In your article, you mentioned that couples feel less pressure to participate in religious or conventional wedding traditions, that really aren't meaningful to them. Can you discuss that a bit? What types of shifts are you seeing?

Sari Cooper:  I've seen people who elope, who say, "I feel strongly about this person. I don't need a huge party. I don't have to wait for COVID to sort of recede. I just want to move on with my life and take the next step." So that's one thing I've seen. Another I've seen is not having a religious leader or clergy person conduct the ceremony itself, who gets sort of certified by online as a life minister. I don't know what they're called. Because they find it actually more personal, someone who's known them, someone who maybe had even introduced them. Yeah. Other sort of rituals where you think that a parent will escort their kid down the aisle, their adult child, I should say. They walk by themselves because they feel they've come a long way. They're an independent adult. They're not being “given away”. I mean, there's that sort of feminist slant to it. They're not being “given”, they're walking into a relationship they've chosen. It's sort of like of their own agency. So things like that are... You don't see as often in the movies. These are new ways of coupling.

Jennifer Ghahari:  That's great. It's really nice to hear that people are making it what they want to be and truly encompassing themselves in the relationship as part of this ceremony. It's great.

Sari Cooper:  Yeah.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Getting back to, unfortunately, infidelity, we had touched upon before, you've written an article about that as well this year. And you mentioned that 25% of committed monogamous couples experience some degree of infidelity at some point in their relationship. What are the typical causes of infidelity? And is there any way that people can lessen the likelihood of it happening to them in their relationship?

Sari Cooper:  I think that going back to what I was saying, I think talking about potential things that are going to tempt you, what embodied experiences might make you feel abandoned, anxious, resentful, that might lead you or tempt you and so you should discuss on just how you are going to protect your monogamous agreement. And one of the other things I didn't mention before, which is really important in terms of critical talks is erotic interests.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Oh, okay.

Sari Cooper:  So frequently, partners go into marriage without necessarily sharing all of the things that they're sexually into. And they end up in our offices because they feel very ashamed about them. They feel scared of losing their partner if they came forward and said, "I'm really into X behavior. I'm really a kinky person and I know you're much more vanilla. How are we going to negotiate that?" And it's due to shame, right? Most people, when we do our sexual histories with them, their parents didn't talk to them about sex. They didn't talk about, give them really good books or resources to learn the real facts. And so many young people now are being brought up, seeing these sexually explicit entertainment videos and thinking that's real sex. That's entertainment for some people, not for everybody, but it's not what really goes on between two partners who are more open and loving and interested in pleasuring one another.

So I think that forging those, consistently, not just at the beginning, but having ongoing conversations where you check in with each other quarterly and say, "How are we doing? Have you been happy with the kind of sexual engagement we've had? Is there something that you've been interested in exploring that we haven't? What would that entail?" But very neutrally because what happens sometimes is sometimes one partner will float some sort of idea. Maybe they saw it in a movie and then they see their partner's reaction and tone of disgust, shuts down that conversation right away. And so one of the things, we tell our partners is if we're going to open up this conversation, here are the rules of the road. You can't be critical of what you're hearing. You can't make someone feel more ashamed than they might already feel about something that a lot of... It's a huge diversity of interest out there in terms of erotic and sexual interest.

Jennifer Ghahari:  It sounds like communication is really key across all of these different venues that you're talking about, in order to have a good relationship.

Sari Cooper:  Yeah. And I would add noncritical communication.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Good point. Yeah. Great. And if people can just communicate upfront and be noncritical ahead of time, then it would save them the headache and the heartache and having to go to therapy to discuss things.

Sari Cooper:  Exactly. Yeah. And I also think the other thing that goes on sometimes in infidelity, I've seen is there's this real life shifting event. So sometimes people have said to me, "My best friend died from cancer." And in that moment I thought, I have to go get what I need, because I've been suffering and throwing myself into withholding and hiding for so long. I'm going to go out now and get what I want because I've been so repressed and so resentful.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Oh, okay.

Sari Cooper:  And life is short. Look it, my friend just died. Or a parent passing on or parents splitting up. They're life-changing events that... And COVID-19, by the way, where people were actually faced with potential sickness and sometimes death. So they started questioning, it's an existential crisis. It wasn't just a pandemic, about “What do I really want in life and what have I sort of been missing out on and not giving myself permission to ask for?”

Jennifer Ghahari:  Great. So if infidelity does occur and as you said, there could be so many different perceptions of what's infidelity. When should a person generally try to make it work? When should they stay or when should they...

Sari Cooper:  It's an excellent question. And actually one of my associate therapists runs a women's coaching group for women whose partners had broken their sexual boundaries and it's called “Reclaiming Oneself After Partner Infidelity”. And we did a whole interview with each other, a discussion about a lot of myths. And one of these myths is, well, if your partner has cheated, it's over. And if you stay with that person, you're a loser. I'm being kind of hyperbolic here, but there is this sort of cultural belief that if you stay with someone who has crossed those boundaries, then you yourself should be embarrassed for yourself. So a lot of people feel really like they can't... And they can't tell people because they're afraid that if they decide to stay, they'll be judged forever more. They might lose their friendships. So I think first of all, start with: a lot of couples stay together after a sexual boundary has been breached. Why? Because there's enough there that they want to preserve. Maybe there are children involved and also, they want to feel intimate again.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Wow. Okay.

Sari Cooper:  For many of them, they breached the boundary because they weren't getting something from someone else.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Oh wow. Okay.

Sari Cooper:  Or they were working out something internally that may have been more related to their history than with their partner that they had never actually addressed before, including trauma and sexual trauma. So I think that we always ask people, "Are you ready to create a new marriage with new discussion points you didn't have before? How are you going to repair the trust?" And I would say that if you have one partner who is in kind of denial or isn't feeling much remorse about their behavior, I think that might be a telltale flag that the work that is needed, because there's a lot of work involved, to repair the marriage. It might not happen because you need two very committed partners. You can be committed and ambivalent, but committed to do the work and not continually making excuses for themselves. And the other part of it that we see is sometimes, the infidelity has to do with one person's hypersexual or out of control sexual behavior.

So their repeated casual sexual hookups that have been going on for years and the person feels out of control from their experience. And they may even have other addictive patterns that may be a lot of times, sometimes maybe people stop drinking alcohol and binging and then they increase these sexual behaviors. So that's actually the other group that I run virtually is a coaching group for men who have out of control sexual behavior who want to create new sexual health plans for themselves and need that support to sort of fortify their sexual health plans, based on their values and their priorities. Yeah. So I think that there are so many different avenues that people go down. I always say, having some group to support you as you're going through this very tumultuous and heart-wrenching experience is just helpful scaffolding to figure out kind of where you're going down the road and what you eventually want for yourself.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Yeah. Wow. So regarding people who have out of control sexual behavior, how does that impact their partners, if they're in a relationship? Like you said, they may choose to cheat or to seek things elsewhere. Are there any other impacts that could happen on the relationship?

Sari Cooper:  Right. Well, first of all, the broken trust. It's sort of the ground we walk on and what most people come in feeling is like a bomb went off and the ground upon which they're standing is totally shocked. So, that's a huge impact, but sexual health includes STIs. And many times I find people aren't asking the question of, "Well, did you use a condom?"

Jennifer Ghahari:  Oh wow.

Sari Cooper:  What precautions did you take? What risks did you take? Did you get yourself tested in between these behaviors? And so part of being a certified sex therapist is also kind of being a sex educator with a hat on at times to explore and inform people of the precautions they need to take for themselves. So, go get tested. And sometimes partners feel like so devastated by an STI they got because of their partner's infidelity that they just withdraw sexually for a very long time because their whole, not only emotionally and psychologically they've been impacted and the trauma of that, but their body has also been impact impacted. There have been also situations in which the partner who has the compulsive behavior has impregnated somebody else.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Yeah. So it's a full gamut of things that could happen.

Sari Cooper:  Yeah.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Wow. Your practice, you mentioned that you see both heterosexual and LGBTQ relationships. Are there any differences between these two types of relationships? Love is love. Do people in both cohorts endure the same types of struggles or are there actually differences that you find?

Sari Cooper:  I would say they all have the same sort of struggles, but I would add this, that many gay male couples have already negotiated and had the conversations around what infidelity is. And some of them are more open in terms of bringing a third party in. Now, not to say that with consensually non-monogamous or ethically non-monogamous couples, there isn't room for cheating or infidelity. There is. But I find that because their culture kind of supports that possibility and has for longer, than in the heterosexual community, I think those conversations and those rules around that behavior, for instance, we will only play together with a third partner. We're not going to do that individually or you do your thing, I'll do mine, but we won't have anyone in our home that we share with one another. So all those things I think are a little bit different, I would say.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Again, it sounds like communication is key with everything.

Sari Cooper:  Yeah, definitely.

Jennifer Ghahari:  So here's the million dollar question. Based on your research and experience working with couples, what's the best resource pieces of advice that you can give people to help them have the most fulfilling, lasting, happy relationship with their partner?

Sari Cooper:  I would say two main things.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Great.

Sari Cooper:  The first is know yourself. Really give your sign yourself the time to understand all the parts of you, even the dark parts of you that you may not like and do it in an embodied way because a lot of times, some of the parts of ourselves that we're not as in touch with are in our bodies.

So get to know yourself and then communicate with partner because then they're knowing all sides of you, the light sides and the ones that you might find a little bit darker and they know and you know what each of you is sort of set up for going forward. You're always going to have some arguments. I always say that couples have themes of their arguments that keep kind of having variations. It's sort of like choreography, there's the theme and the variation and it keeps coming back. Know it going forward. Then you can start to work on strategies on when we get into that rough place, how are we going to get out?

Jennifer Ghahari:  Was there another one or that was the combination, correct?

Sari Cooper:  It's the combination. It's knowing yourself and then knowing how to communicate and that's kind of, not kind of, that's why I created this term “sex esteem” because if you know yourself and you feel like you can be compassionate and give yourself grace around your interests and then be able to talk to your partner about it, you're in a much better situation going forward.

Jennifer Ghahari:  That's fantastic.

Sari Cooper:  Yeah.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Thank you. As someone specializing in relationship issues, do you have any other advice or parting words that you'd like to share with our listeners?

Sari Cooper:  I would just say, do your research. Really give yourself, I mean I created Sex Esteem, my sex esteem program as an adult sex ed and relationship ed for adults. Because I think we, as adults, did not as children did not get as much education and so go out there. Some great resources out there about what real sex should look like or be like, or feel like, learn how to ask questions instead of making commands. Be curious about your partner and yourself because we're growing. We need to keep growing. We're just growing people, organisms.

Jennifer Ghahari:  Wow. That's fantastic. Thank you so much for joining us today. We really appreciate it. For our listeners, we're going to link up in our transcription with a lot of Sari's websites/on different parts of her website. So feel free to check that out and thank you again, Sari, and we wish you all the best.

Sari Cooper:  Thank you so much, Jennifer. This is great.

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.