Monthly Archives: February 2008

Integrative Psychotherapy VII: Functional Domain Interventions


McMinn and Campbell start out chapter six (a deeper review of the 1st domain of interventions, that of addressing symptoms) with this helpful insight: “Many of our graduate students select psychology as a profession after deciding against one of two alternative career paths.” Some are tempted to pastoral ministry and so see psychology as a way to care for human souls. Others are tempted to medical practice and so see psychology as a way to, “help people find relief from their troubles” (p. 177). This distinction is helpful in explaining why some of us hang out in one type of intervention over another.

But whatever one’s interests, everyone must address presenting problems and not bypass symptoms as these are what bring people in to therapy in the first place. So, the authors use this chapter to outline, in general, symptom-focused interventions, The next chapter will apply these interventions specifically to anxiety.

Right off the bat, the authors bring up emotions. They want to dispel the myth that cognitive therapist care little for feelings. They want to define negative emotions as either a sign of cognitive distortions and/or a warning sign that something is off in one’s life. [Hopefully, they do not fully believe that negative emotions means that something is wrong in one’s life. It may be something is wrong in the world…]. To achieve successful interventions in this domain, one must have good relational skills to listen well to both explicit and implicit feelings.

It comes as no surprise that domain 1 interventions include behavioral skills. The authors summarize classical and operant conditioning in a few short paragraphs and suggest that these techniques may help clients have dominion (through reinforcement strategies?) over their own behaviors and responses to life. Their lack of attention to behavioral mod. sends a message.

The bulk of the chapter then focuses on the basic of cognitive restructuring. They divide this task into two parts: sorting an experience into its component parts AND challenging distorted thinking. The authors describe the technique of the thought record and walk through several vignettes to show how it might be used. The record separates situations, thoughts, and feelings (and rates intensity of feelings/experiences on 1 to 10 scale). As the client gains insight, then the work is to counter the automatic thoughts with a rational response. The authors want to remind the counselor to avoid a disputing mindset when countering a client’s distorted thought patterns. Instead, they suggest a more collaborative approach or “Socratic method” using questions and reflections to lead the client to insight rather than drag them to it. 

Beyond the thought record, they describe other methods of changing one’s thinking: scaling (moving away from all/nothing thinking to put stressors in proper perspective), probability estimates (used when someone is worried about an unlikely event), decatastrophizing (helping to move away from “extremist thinking”), humorous counters (identifying silly thinking without making fun of), role-playing (reversing roles and having the client become the counselor), paradox (overstating the client’s fears to see the logical outcome), and cognitive rehearsal (repeated challenge to automatic thoughts).

Finally, they attempt to provide a Christian appraisal of these interventions. First, they tackle the problem of relativism that may underly CT by the biblical concept of testing and trying every “truth.” Instead of rejecting all client automatic thoughts by some sort of Stuart Smalley self-talk mantra, test their thoughts with Scripture, tradition, experience, and reason—aka Wesleyan quadrilateral. Then they give some examples of how a Christian collaborative response to a client with a difficult marriage might look different from a relativistic (be happy) response. The client and the counselor work together to explore what Scripture, tradition, experience and reason might bring to the table (these are not considered equally weighted of course) in discerning the truth about our selves and our thoughts about ourselves.

My thoughts? This chapter is solidly within the CT frame with the recognition that truth has a capital T. Our job as counselors isn’t to tell the clients the truth but to walk with them in a collaborative manner. It is good to see lots of humility in the chapter. We can abuse Scripture, overplay tradition or reason, become disputational, etc. What is missing from this chapter (maybe in comes later) is that while it is helpful to recognize logical errors, it is also true that logic does not always (often?) lead to better thinking. We have some pretty embedded views of ourselves that continue even in the face of our logic. How will they deal with this issue?

Leave a comment

Filed under book reviews, christian psychology, Cognitive biases, counseling skills

Do we really learn from instruction?


[Note: those looking for my blog summary of Integrative Psychotherapy, ch. 6 will need to come back tomorrow. Running behind :(]

How much do we really benefit from instruction? Yes, instruction increases our knowledge base. That is certainly true. But do we benefit–does our behavior really change from it? Do we learn and does it show? Allow me the freedom of hyperbole here…

This question about instruction was raised in my Sunday School class on Isaiah by our teacher John Timlin. Consider the following examples:

1. The first Fall (instruction was given and rejected) happens. God remakes creation through the flood. What happens next? Noah’s son mucks it up.

2.  Israel is warned against falling away from God by Moses as they enter the promised land. He not only tells them what to avoid but that they will likely do it anyway. What happens? Israel turns away from God to pride and idolatry.

3. The Prophets warn both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms that unless they turn from their idols, God will punish them via Assyria. First the Northern Kingdom falls. Does Judah learn from this? No. Read the passage of Ezekial 23 adn the two sisters for a graphic image of this not learning from instruction.

Fast forward to today. Does information about the risks of drug use, unprotected sex help? Some, I’m sure. But not as much as we’d like to think…

So, what does God do? he blinds the people (Isaiah 6:9ff; parables in the Gospels) so that we are left without any doubt that our salvation comes only from him. In Isaiah 6 at the end, there is only a stump left. We the vine are a mere stump. And out of that stump, the root of Jesse grows and we are grafted back in as branches.

Yes, we learn from instruction, but not enough to save ourselves. Thanks be to God for his rescue plan!

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, Cognitive biases, Cultural Anthropology, Doctrine/Theology, Uncategorized

Characteristics of an on-line predator and victim


The February edition of the American Psychologist (63:2) has an article surveying the literature regarding, “Online ‘Predators’ and Their Victims.” The authors start by making this assertion, “The publicity about online “predators” who prey on naive children using trickery and violence is largely inaccurate.” (p. 111). So, what is the truth as we know it now?

1. “…Internet-initiated sex crimes–those in which sex offenders meet juvenile victims on-line–is different, more complex, and serious but less archetypically frightening than the publicity about these crimes suggests.” (p. 111-2) The on-line predators are not usually pedophiles and are rarely violent (unless you would believe that convincing a minor to have sex is by very nature a violation and therefore violent.) And yet, child porn is often found with these offenders (maybe more teen version than pre-pubescent).

2. After surveying current literature, crime stats, and law enforcement agencies, they find that most crimes, “involve men who use the Internet to meet and seduce underage adolescents into sexual encounters.” (p. 112). Generally, these men do not deceive the minors about their age. Only 5% pretended to be teens. The deceptions that are present are promises of love and romance. So, the authors suggest these crimes usually fit statutory rape (non-forced sexual contact of an adult with a minor) rather than child abuse or pedophilia. (This assumes that the latter is not as bad as the former???)

3. At the present time, it appears that Internet-initiated statutory rape accounts for 7% of all statutory rape cases. Sex crimes against youth are not increasing (based on a decrease in substantiated child sexual abuse cases and reports of sexual assaults by teens). So, the evidence of marked increase is not yet found per these authors. Of course, this does not account for the marked increase in sex exposure that is very definitely happening. Nor does it account for the increase in children being spoken to in sexual terms by other folks on-line. I would want to assume this is an offense.

4. The victims are rarely young children. Instead, they are teens (and more likely the 15-17 year olds) taking risks with personal information. What actions make these teens vulnerable? Its not so much that they post identifying information about themselves (since a very large proportion do this). Rather, they send personal information to an unknown person, chat with an unknown person (only 5% do this), have unknown persons in their “buddy” lists, use the Internet to look for sexual material, spend time on file-sharing sites, have off-line sexual abuse histories, have same-sex attraction, and/or use the Internet to make threatening comments to others (this is interesting, those willing to attack others on-line are themselves more at risk for being sexualized).

The point the authors are making is that media accounts may focus too much on the younger child victim image and miss the typical offender in his late twenties that is immature and unable to relate well to peers so he pursues younger teens to make him feel more manly. If this is the case, then they argue that our prevention plans should be to increase education regarding the nature and consequences of statutory rape, to focus more on adolescents rather than their parents. This is probably a good idea. However, having parents actually know and track their kids on-line behavior is still the best bet. There is no reason a child needs to be in a chat room. period. And just because it isn’t so much about pedophiles, lets not let our guard down. Statutory rape isn’t any better just because the victim thinks they are consenting.

4 Comments

Filed under Abuse, pornography, Sex

Science Monday? Studies in Internet and Pornography addiction


I think I wrote about this last year….search APA journals for literature on Internet addiction and Pornography addiction and what do you find? Not much (1st set of terms) and nothing (2nd set of terms). Search all of PsychInfo to include all of psych journals and you find a few: several published in christian journals and several in marriage and family journals. But all in all, very little.

I guess they don’t have the stomach to address these ills. They don’t even try to debunk them as social or cultural anomalies.

7 Comments

Filed under addiction

God’s problem? Can we Christians sufficiently answer why we suffer?


I heard a great interview on “Fresh Air” with author Bart Erhman, professor of religion from UNC regarding his new book: God’s problem: How the Bible fails to answer our most important question–why we suffer. While I completely disagree with his conclusions, you have to admit this guy talks much about the bible in ways we evangelicals would. But he draws opposite conclusions. Listen here.

Dr. Ehrman is an interesting character: becomes born again at 16, is part of Youth for Christ, attends Moody Bible Institute, and gets his doctor of theology at Princeton Seminary. However, he now says he is agnostic. Why? He sees no satisfactory answer to the problem of suffering. In the interview he describes three common Christian answers, all based in the text. The classic answer says that we suffer because of human choices. There are variations of this view. Simply put, the righteous are blessed and the unrighteous will suffer. Dr. Ehrman points to the OT prophets for this view. He finds this unsatisfactory because it doesn’t answer the problem of what causes Tsunamis. [He doesn’t address in this interview how he handles the argument that while suffering may not come in a 1:1 correlation (sin:suffering), no one is righteous and no one gets to say, “not fair.”] He describes a second view as God is mysterious and doesn’t have to answer (e.g., Job). Finally, he describes Jesus’ view as an apocalyptic view suggesting that suffering is caused by principalities and powers which will be defeated at the end times.

Two questions I’d like to ask Dr. Ehrman:

1. Since agnosticism doesn’t claim a full answer to why there is suffering (or why we should do anything to stop it as Dr. Ehrman believes) why does faith in God have to answer it as well? Since one view allows for mystery, why can’t God not clarify every answer?
2. He sees God putting his thumb on Job and squishing him with his final question to Job. “Were you there when I created the universe.” I guess he sees God’s answer as, “then, shut up.” But is that really the message of Job? If it was, why does God not take Job to task in the 40 or so chapters where he rants and raves?

 Dr. Ehrman likes the book of Ecclesiastes. He likes it because he thinks the answer in it is, “live as best you can.” I think Dr. Ehrman needs to re-read the book because it says, “fear God, and live as best you can.” (Phil’s translation)

 I encourage you to listen to the interview. Then afterwards, try Tim Keller’s new book, The Reason for God: Belief in the age of Skepticism. In answer to my title? Can we answer sufficiently? Yes. Can we answer all that we wish we could know? No. But funny, learning what we wish we could know might not be so good (like learning the day you are going to die).

4 Comments

Filed under Christian Apologetics, suffering

Every city needs a Bill Krispin


On Tuesday night I attended a talk given by Bill Krispin entitled, “How the World has Changed in my Years of Ministry Service (1966-2008). Bill is recently retired as executive director of Citynet. Before that he was longtime leader of the Center for Urban Theological Studies (CUTS). Functionally, he is part pastor and part sociologist. He knows Philadelphia streets, neighborhoods, and churches like no other. He keeps us up to date with what is happening now instead of focusing on what happened five years ago.

He covered the shift in demographics (world, US, and Philly population shifts; how suburbs and urban areas changed; the loss of the intergenerational church), the emerging generation (18-34 year olds), changes in bible translations (and the effect of dividing the church), how charismatic movements changed the ministry from professionals to laity, changes in thinking about mission (e.g., how a small Dominican church here plants multiple churches in the DR at extremely low cost), rediscovery of a wholistic gospel (reuniting word and deed), and the decline of denominationalism. Oh, he also talked about the changes in theological education (that individuals come for training not for credentials) and that an apprenticeship model makes more sense now.

I recommend you check back with the link above to find the audio/video since they said it would be up on the site soon.

2 Comments

Filed under Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, church and culture

Integrative Psychotherapy VI: Assessment and Conceptualization


In chapter 6 of Integrative Psychotherapy: Toward a Comprehensive Christian Approach, McMinn and Campbell take up the matter of case conceptualization. Thus far they have been discussing the foundations and features of their therapy model. Just before going into deeper looks and clinical applications of their 3 domains, they stop to look at the concept of assessment and case planning. Why does case planning matter?

“Assessment is the task of systematically observing what signs and symptoms a client experiences. These signs and symptoms are then understood through a particular theoretical grid, resulting in a case conceptualization (a framework for understanding the symptoms). Case conceptualization is an effort to understand the cause of the symptoms, the role the symptoms play in the person’s experience and treatment strategies to help the person improve.” (p. 145)  The authors acknowledge that this task of assessment and conceptualization are neither linear nor without bias. As they say, the very questions one asks determines to some degree the data one gets and how one interprets that data.

They pose 3 questions for the Christian counselor. Is evaluation acceptable for Christians? Isn’t Christian assessment mostly a matter of identifying sin? How is Christian evaluation unique? I’ll dispense with the first two assuming we agree the answers are in order: yes. no, not only. How is Christian evaluation unique? It doesn’t settle for simplistic biological, behavioral, or volitional explanations of symptom manifestations. That probably isn’t unique. What is unique then? The starting point about human nature.

The rest of the chapter describes key assessment and conceptualization practices. Collect data from multiple sources. Make a diagnosis (they describe the benefits and drawbacks of making a DSM diagnosis and how it is the start of assessment, not the end). Consider etiology (predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors). Consider client factors (client perceptions, expectations, ability to work with a therapist, additional strengths and resources). The authors also want IP counselors to assess the specific areas of maladaptive thoughts, schemas, and interpersonal relationships. They provide sample lines of questions to explore each area. Finally, they suggest that the counselor consider whether the data they collect in each of the above assessment areas is likely to facilitate or inhibit therapy. This action may guide clinicians as to where to start (if at all) and what kinds of goals might remove a specific therapy interfering behavior

My thoughts? I like this chapter. It provides a concise reminder to the beginning counselor regarding the basic data they should collect. It does remind us that our interpretive grids impact the data we get and the interpretations we make. We are not so objective. In light of that, I do wonder whether the DSM diagnosis is a good place to start. By starting there does not the clinician tempt herself to think only in light of classic psychiatric models. I would rather see the diagnosis happen at the end. In this way, the clinician can report to the client whether it is helpful to consider the diagnosis. For example, a child may look ADHD, but by collecting the other data, it may be clear that the child has a primary trauma or anxiety type problem.

4 Comments

Filed under book reviews, christian counseling, christian psychology

Do you say more than you mean to?


We all are guilty of saying one thing while hiding (or trying to) our true feelings or intent. We do this for a variety of reasons. We fear conflict. We don’t want to hurt another. We don’t want to be seen as petty. We want to manipulate. Bottom line, we do image management.

But, I suspect that we leave more telltale signs as to our true feelings/beliefs than we realize. Consider these examples:

1. An interviewee badmouths a previous employer to a prospective employer and at the same time describing their own gifts. Here the individual thinks they are showing how they are better than their prior employer but really reveals arrogance and narcissism. I watched this happen recently (not at Biblical). The poor guy thought he was acing his new interview but kept on digging a deeper hole for himself.

2. A person says they are fine (after a possible conflict with a friend) and then looks down and away. Here the individual may be saying several things (I’m embarrassed, I’m not fine, I just want this to go away…) but they are rarely saying, “I’m fine.”

3. Or how about that line some of us said in our teen years, “Let’s be friends” (to a former boy/girlfriend). Here, we meant, “please let’s not make this harder than it has to be.”

What body language messages do you notice that convey to you a message that isn’t being stated? Where do you think you are fooling another? 

Just recently, I congratulated someone on a job that I thought they had worked hard on. The person immediately stated that it hadn’t gone well (correcting my assumption) and yet, they were fine with the outcome. I appreciated the spontaneous and honest response rather than the usual nicety-laden conversation that would have meant nothing to either of us. 

1 Comment

Filed under Communication

Suppressed Anger enhances pain perception?


Today in Psychopathology we will be discussing the problem of problem anger. In doing some additional research I found that there has been a fair amount of literature produced on the topic of angry emotions and a good amount in the last year or so.

We know that chronic anger has significant impact on the body and may influence certain disease states such as high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation, etc. But, Quartana & Burns (Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine & Science, Chicago) investigated the relationship between anger suppression and increased pain sensitivity. Here’s how they explore the possible connection:

1. They asked 209 healthy and pain-free college students to perform a mental arithmetic task (serial sevens). While doing the task, some were harassed (made angry) and some were told to express their feelings, to suppress their experience and/or expression of their feelings, etc.

2. After the task, they had to put their non-dominant hand into a bucket of ice until they reached the point where they could not tolerate pain any further.

What did they find? Well, first they found that 32% kept their hand in the water so long as to be not helpful in their research. But, they also found that, “Participants who attempted to suppress either experiential or expressive aspects of emotion during anger provocation reported greater pain in response to subsequent pain induction than did participants who suppressed during anxiety induction and those instructed not to suppress, irrespective of emotion-induction condition.” They also found, “Participants who suppressed anger not only reported the greatest pain severity, but also described the quality of the pain as more physically hurtful (e.g., throbbing) than their counterparts who suppressed anxiety or those who experienced angerbut did not engage in effortful suppression. More important, those who suppressed anger also described their pain as annoying and irritating to a greater extent than those who suppressed anxiety.”

This makes sense. When I’m angry, everything becomes an irritant.

Does this suggest that to be more healthy we should be more free with our anger by giving vent to it? Not necessarily so. It does mean that those who hold it in (become embittered?) may become quite sensitive to perceptions of pain–that is, notice all the other things wrong with the world. But anger expression isn’t necessarily the opposite of suppression. Rather, honest self-evaluation, bringing our anger to the Lord, remembering that He is our vindicator may be more important than outward expressions of our anger.

Biblio: Emotion, 7:2, pp 400-414 (2007).

Leave a comment

Filed under anger, counseling science

What defines you? Ashes or Stones of Remembrance?


The Israelites were told to pile up stones as a reminder to their children that the Lord had done an amazing work. These stone of remembrance provide a reminder during hard times that God is near and active. Sometimes we also have the reverse: ashes. Ashes that remind us of a painful time, a failure, a grief/loss, a violent moment. It is easier to see the ashes and allow those ashes to completely define us.

A friend of mine told me of a “Dr. Phil” episode where he was talking to a woman who has lost her daughter at 18 and had never recovered despite many years passing. He asked her whether she would only define her life by her daughter’s death-thereby implicitly denying the 18 years of her life. Pretty good for Dr. Phil.

Without taking more than 20 seconds to think of the answer, what “stone” or “ash” do you most easily use to define your life?

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection