Category Archives: counseling science

March 30, 2010 · 11:22 am

Book Note: Linkages between stress, inflammation, and mental illness


I am in the process of clearing my desk of semester debris. Well, truth be told, I am in the process of clearing a portion of my desk from said debris. The rest will have to wait. In the process, I came across a book I’ve been meaning to read since the dept. purchased it for me: The Psychoneuroimmunology of Chronic Disease: Exploring the Links Between Inflammation, Stress, and Illness (APA, 2010).

Before you all stop reading, it really is an important work! You should care if you are someone experiencing high levels of stress or if you counsel those who do. AND, there IS an answer (you won’t like it!) that can help given at the end of this post.

Yes, it is very technical. You can’t skim this book easily unless you read only the chapter summaries (not a bad idea!). However, I find it very interesting to read about how well-connected (too well!) our minds are with our bodies. Here are a couple of book highlights

1. Chapter one: Stress activates primary and secondary responses that may actually increase our vulnerability to disease. Secondary? Examples given include alcohol abuse, poor diet, non-compliance with treatments. Primary? Your body does a couple of things in reaction to stress. First, your sympathetic system starts looking for inflammation. Immune cells look for an injury. You have more glucose available to burn and cortisol increases which also works to activate anti-inflammatory responses. Inflammation is the problem (a “rapid and nonspecific response to danger”). Too much inflammation? damaged tissue. Too much anti-inflammatory response? Damaged tissue. Those with depression may have become less sensitive to cortisol and so end up with lots of non-specific inflammation. Maybe this is why depression hurts so much!

2. Chapter 3: Poor sleep has serious health consequences, especially concerning chronic diseases. One study indicates that disordered sleep has a direct link to type 2 diabetes, independent of age and body size. Individuals with sleep apneas have a greater production of inflammatory bio-markers. Women may be at greater risk for cardiovascular diseases due to sleep problems than men. One problem (sleep problems) begets the other (inflammation) which creates a vicious cycle.

3. Chapter 4: “Western diets typically contain an abundance of proinflammatory omega-6 fatty acids and are low in anti-inflammatory omega-3s.” (p. 96). In other words, dietary fish oil helps promote healing and may lower symptoms due to inflammatory diseases. More fish oil, less vegetable oil.

4. Chapter 5: Links between stress, depression, PTSD, hostility and inflammation. Each of these things increases inflammation, increases sleep disorders which in turn…(you get the picture).

Okay, does anything help l0wer stress and increase healthy immune system functioning? This is the answer I promised at the top of this post. Are you ready? It is so simple you will hate it!* (that will be something to explore at a later date–why do we resist the things we CAN do to help our situation?)

1. Diet. Having a better (lower) ratio of Omega-6s to Omega-3s (more cold water fatty fish) seem to lower rates of depression. Higher Omega-3 consumption predicts lower suicidality, lower depression, and bipolar disease. It appears these amino acids help stop the overactive inflammatory response caused by repeated stress.

2. Exercise. It will initially raise inflammation markers (hence why many with RA feel that any exercise creates more pain), but later lower it if continued on a regular basis.

3. Counseling. Cognitive-Behavioral social support interventions have shown to reduce the inflammation effect by lowering stress. be effective in doing just that.

So, encourage your stressed clients or friends (even better, do it with them) to eat well, exercise (just walk!) and seek social support. In doing so, they will find relief from inflammation and the effects on the mind and body. I guess it is time for me to get up from this desk, skip the doughnut, and walk up to the library for a bit of exercise. On the way, I should stop by a colleague’s desk and get him to come with.

—–

*Simple? Yes. Quick fix? No. Sure bet to solve all our problems? Absolutely no.

3 Comments

Filed under counseling, counseling science, counseling skills, Depression, Psychology

Tagged as , , , , ,

March 29, 2010 · 2:23 pm

Another shot at understanding integration of psychology and christianity


Over the 40 plus years of our profession’s existence, Christian counselors have tried in numerous ways to model the relationship between Christianity/theology/bible and the study of psychology. Unfortunately, many model building efforts created more barriers than dialogue among brothers and sisters. Counselors staked out territory with titles such as biblical counseling, integration, levels of explanation.

However, in recent years, more authors have tried hard to articulate a distinctly Christian view of persons and a humble articulation of the change process that builds on the good insights of others (e.g., McMinn & Campbell’s Integrative psychotherapy, Johnson’s Foundations of Soul Care, Malony & Augsburger’s Christian Counseling, etc.). These authors have taken the time to examine their control beliefs, theological assumptions, and more in order to make their psychology truly Christian and not merely a rehash of secular ideas.

If you like thinking about epistemology and yet still interested in application to real life, you ought to check out John Coe and Todd Hall’s Psychology in the Spirit: Contours of a Transformational Psychology (IVP, 2010). I’m just getting into it and so do not have much to say just yet. However, this is a great time to be a Christian psychologist. After a decade or more of avoiding these kinds of treatises for being practical (to a fault) and superficially Christian in our psychology, we have something substantive to sink our teeth into. This is no superficial treatment of Christian theology and human efforts (and their failings) to understand the nature of persons-in-relationship. For example,

1. They start out with the Fall. They acknowledge its full impact on human knowing and observing, that psychology from human eyes will always contain some distortion.

2. They acknowledge that redemption and not merely creation is what shapes our identity. “By creation, human love, and natural goods, we discover a “self.” By redemption and transformation, we are enabled to slowly die to our autonomous self and open to our new identity as self-in-God.” (p. 35)

3. “Ultimately, we are not merely arguing for a new model or a way to relate psychology to Christianity; rather, we are arguing for a new transformational model for doing psychology and science, which inherently and intrinsically is already Christian and open to the Spirit.” (ibid)

4.   They are interested in a spiritually formative and relational psychology that cares about the person, the process, and the product (p. 37)

I’m looking forward to the ride. Not sure I’m going to be happy. I’ve read a bit further and am not sure why they spend more time knocking down models that most of us would consider their first cousins (e.g., Christian psychology). That seems to be something from our profession’s past that isn’t as helpful. However, I really appreciate that an early chapter tells both of their stories; their maturation through a period where their faith wasn’t as central to their work as Christian professors of psychology. Often, these kinds of books do NOT include admissions of growth and change. Too often, authors act is if they have always thought this or that way.

I’ll keep you posted with book notes as I go.

6 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity, counseling, counseling science, counseling skills, Doctrine/Theology, Psychology, teaching counseling

Tagged as , ,

March 10, 2010 · 10:28 am

Here’s a cache of info on abuse trauma


If you are interested in reading some of the most recent research literature on complex trauma and treatment, take a look at the Trauma Center at JRI in Brookline, MA. Click their “publications” tab for a host of full-text articles on the topic. Bessel van der Kolk, MD is one of the foremost researchers exploring trauma’s impact on the brain.

2 Comments

Filed under Abuse, counseling, counseling science, Psychology

Tagged as , ,

February 8, 2010 · 8:29 am

Do no harm?


[This is the second guest post I am making over on the www.christianpsych.org. You’ll have to click the link to read the whole post…]

Every counseling ethics code in existence includes this principle: Do no harm. This maxim is drilled into the heads of counseling students (and any other medical professional as well). Our work should help, not hurt. Who could disagree?

But pause for a minute and consider how you might evaluate whether an intervention helps or harms. What criteria will you use? From what vantage point will you evaluate the criteria you choose? If a medical treatment extends life for an ill patient that would seem good—unless it keeps them alive and in a vegetative state with no possibility of recovery. Some would then wonder if the treatment was indeed best. Or, is it harmful if marriage counseling encourages truthfulness between spouses leading to the revelation of a terrible betrayal leading on to divorce and financial ruin? If honesty is your criteria for helpfulness, then the intervention is sad but helpful. If stability is your criteria, then such counseling is harmful. We could go on and on. Do we use client interpretation of whether treatment is helpful or counselor observation? Do we consider the difference between short and long term evaluation? And importantly for Christians, do we consider only statistical analyses or do we also consider biblical categories (e.g., intervention “A” leads to increased positive affect but encourages clients to pray to another deity).

Despite the muddy water I just churned up, I want to argue that Christian psychology is well poised to help Christian counselors provide treatment that does not harm. This society includes some of the best philosophers, theologians, sociologists, clinicians, and researchers of our day. These members are interested in looking at how people grow and change, how the bible connects with everyday life, common human struggles and effective interventions, etc.

How then do we go about refining our practices and avoiding harm? Let me suggest some steps we might take:

[rest of post on www.christianpsych.org.]

2 Comments

Filed under biblical counseling, christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling, counseling science, counseling skills, Psychology

Tagged as , , ,

January 20, 2010 · 3:09 pm

Harmful counseling?


This month’s edition of American Psychologist has several interesting articles about the negative effects of therapy. The article by David Barlow, “Negative effects from psychological treatments”, provides a good overview of the effectiveness research controversies. But instead of focusing on how best to collect data about the benefits of a treatment, he gives some attention to looking more clearly at who benefits from a treatment and who is made worse (using dismantling type studies).

The next article (by authors Dimidjian and Hollon) gets at the definition of harm. Defining harm is rather complex. That a client may not get better from a treatment or may get worse during a treatment is not necessarily evidence that the treatment caused harm. And true to form, we have to accept that some treatments may both harm and help (they give the illustration of a nursing mother on medications: it may help her and yet harm her baby). Or, a treatment may make someone worse at first but then help them later on. Or, the treatment may be just fine but the practitioner may use it in a way that is good or bad. Finally, a treatment may be thought of as harming a patient when in fact what is seen is the normal trajectory of the disease.

So, how do you get at understanding whether a counseling treatment harms? They offer a number of methods for research which I won’t get into here.

Finally, the last article covers training implications (Castonguay et al). They cite therapists’ frequent underestimation of treatment failure and client deterioration. Looks like about 5-10% of clients get worse in treatment. If one wants to train counselors to avoid more failure how might one do that? Castonguay et al suggest that one do so by beefing up (a) proper therapy skills, and (b) skills to identify potentially harmful treatments. On p. 45 the authors include a table of training recommendations, which include

  • expose trainees to list of potentially harmful treatments
  • help trainees monitor change and deterioration
  • enhance relationship skills
  • learn and practice interventions that are empirically supported
  • prevent and repair a variety of relational pitfalls
  • adjust treatment choice, expectations, etc. based on client characteristics
  • Address trainee’s issues (anxiety, hostility, defensiveness, naiveté, etc.) that may hinder counseling

Every counselor fears harming another; fears not helping enough. And it is often unclear whether our work is having its intended impact in the moment. However, there are things we can do to keep the communication lines open and thus listen to our clients about what is helping or not helping. This is what keeps us on our toes. What works for one person harms another. We must not get wedded to one way of helping.

15 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, counseling, counseling science, Psychology

Tagged as , ,

January 18, 2010 · 10:54 am

Counseling skills help pastors cope?


A couple of people sent me links to a recent news item out of Britain concerning the value of teaching counseling skills to pastors. Researchers there found that pastors who do a lot of emotion laden work with parishioners bear a heavy load (pretty obvious so it is nice to see that research doesn’t say otherwise). Those pastors with counseling skills training seem to cope better with the distress. I’ve not seen any in-depth description of the study so I can’t comment on why this might be the case. It could be that pastors with counseling training are more self-aware. It could be they are more positive on the benefits of talk therapy and so utilize it for themselves. It could be they feel more effective in their counseling work and therefore feel less helpless.

Whatever the case, I’m happy that it supports my coursework teaching counseling skills to pastors.

Read about the research:  CT’s news blurb, Medical News blurb

2 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, counseling, counseling science, pastoral renewal, pastors and pastoring

Tagged as , ,

January 13, 2010 · 5:28 am

Follow-up on expressing vulnerable feelings to a loved one


Yesterday I commented on a series of studies indicating that expressing insecurities to a romantic partner might lead to perpetuating them (because of our impressions of our vulnerabilities, what we think they think of us, and our suspicions that they don’t really care). Today, I want to list the major findings of the 5 studies. See what you think of these interpretations of the data:

  • “Study 1 demonstrated that people believe expressions of regard toward interpersonally insecure and vulnerable others are relatively inauthentic.” (p. 436).
  • “Studies 2A, 2B, and 4 suggest that, when people believe they have expressed vulnerabilities to a romantic partner or friend, they believe they are viewed especially vulnerable, which in turn predicts their suspicion regarding the authenticity of the other’s expressions of positive regard and acceptance.” (ibid)
  • “Study 4 suggests that this process can operate independently of the partner’s appraisals of vulnerability and reported authenticity.” (ibid)
  • Study 5 seems to show that when subjects appraise themselves as vulnerable they doubt a new acquaintance’s expressions of pleasure (even though the new person didn’t see the subject as vulnerable.
  • Studies 3 and 4 seem to indicate that when you have doubts about your partner’s authentic expression of love, you then perceive acts of caring in a more pessimistic manner. “In particular, authenticity doubts may result in a downward estimation of the partner’s true regard and acceptance, as expressions of positive are presumed to be exaggerated and clandestine rejection can be inferred from the partner’s presumed cautious orientation.” (ibid)

SO, do you think those who express vulnerabilities then are only placated and thus receive inauthentic expressions of kindness? Have you experienced yourself devaluing objective kind acts by re-interpreting them through a lens of pessimism? “He’s only doing that because he wants me to let him have his way.” Now, that could be true, but if you find yourself regularly dismissing acts of caring then you might want to explore where your assumptions are coming from.

What should we do? We should express our insecurities and then seek to listen to our loved one with the best possible interpretation and seek to be specific and concrete in pointing out how their actions/attitudes impact us. If we are the one listening to a loved one tell us that they are not feeling secure, then we ought to express warmth, concern, etc. Put off the defensiveness and put yourself in their shoes. If you were worried, you would want another to comfort and care for you–not call you an idiot for thinking that way.

8 Comments

Filed under counseling science, Psychology, Relationships

Tagged as , ,

January 12, 2010 · 5:06 am

Perpetuating vulnerable feelings?


Feel unsure of your mate’s love for you? Should you tell them that you are not feeling safe or secure in the relationship? When you tell them (accuse them of not caring?) and they profess their love for you, what will tell you that you can believe their promises? What will tell you to doubt their words?

Two Yale University psychologists (E. Lemay, Jr and M. Clark) explore this problem in 2008 in their “Walking on Eggshells: How Expressing Relationship Insecurities Perpetuates Them” (Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, v95, 420-441).

Their study is fairly long (5 studies in fact). But here are some key points.

When people feel insecure about a partner’s regard and acceptance, they often judge their own prior behavior as having communicated insecurity and emotional vulnerability to the partner. Consequently, they come to believe that they are viewed as especially insecure and vulnerable. Then, due to shared beliefs that people walk on eggshells around insecure, vulnerable others, such reflected appraisals of vulnerability elicit doubts about the authenticity of the partner’s expressions of regard and acceptance. Once authenticity is doubted, positive expressions are discounted, negative expressions are augmented, and hidden negative regard is inferred even when partners are accepting and actually hold positive regard. (p. 436)

What they are saying is that our own anxiety fuels are belief that they know we are vulnerable and are tiptoeing around us and that we doubt they love us and then we read their actions through a lens that denies the evidence of love and declares their love to be inauthentic. Which of course, we then share with them. Repeat this action and sooner or later they don’t want to be declared a liar anymore and distance from us thereby proving our deepest fears of abandonment.

In short, anticipated rejection leads to presumption that it has happened and that any activity countering that presumption is rejected and re-read through the lens of rejection. Because that is what we believe happens to weak people–they are abandoned.

So, should we keep our fears to ourself? No say the researchers. Then what should be done? The researchers say only a little on this (since it is not the focus of their research here). But, challenging cognitive distortions are at the top their list? What distortions in particular? Believing that others see you as weak as you feel; challenging the interpretations of another’s motivation. Also in their suggestions is practicing reading the commitment of the mate to the relationship by re-appraising and collecting the evidence of authentic responses from that mate.

The next time you feel the need to express your fears that your mate doesn’t really love you check to see whether your insecurity isn’t already telling you the answer you fear and rejecting evidence to the contrary. Dig a little and you may be able to find evidence that shows they love you. Then, be specific and tell them one concrete thing you would like to see changed, something that bothers you. Do it in love so as to not trigger their fears that you do not love them. Be wary of listening too much to your fears!

5 Comments

Filed under Anxiety, counseling science, Psychology

Tagged as , , , , ,

January 11, 2010 · 2:02 pm

Psychiatric labeling: The problem isn’t the label


Christians tend to have some strong feelings about counseling, psychology, psychiatry and similar terms. Come to think of it, most people, regardless of faith, have strong feelings about these topics. Experiences dictate much of these reactions. Experiences, such as:

  • experiencing or hearing of a mental health representative (mhp) belittling Christianity
  • experiencing or hearing of an arrogant, controlling, or completely incompetent mhp
  • experiencing or hearing of a positive experience where someone found relief or change or insight
  • feeling either helped or stigmatized by a received diagnosis or a use of medication

In psychopathology class tonight, we will explore the background behind psychiatric classifications. How did we get the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual? What are its underpinnings? There are a couple of common concerns about the DSM

  • It purports to be atheoretical and descriptive only
  • Diagnoses suggest objective and distinct “things”
  • It medicalizes problems in living
  • Under one diagnosis (e.g., depression) you can have such wide variety of symptoms
  • Therapists have sizeable disagreements on diagnoses so are they all that helpful?
  • It is leveraged by insurance in ways that make it a liability
  • It doesn’t address matters of the heart or spirit
  • It has political overtones
  • It treats most problems in an individualistic fashion without account for family systems

Every one of these concerns has merit. However, the biggest problem I have is not with the DSM itself but with many of its users. The complaints that are raised about the DSM usually come from someone mis-using the DSM.

Remember the simple explanation of a problem almost always distorts it. Thus, the simplistic use of diagnostic labels almost always does damage.

3 Comments

Filed under counseling, counseling science, History of Psychology, Psychology

Tagged as , ,

December 22, 2009 · 2:57 pm

Interesting article in the American Psychologist


Just got my December issue of the American Psychologist (64:9). In it is an article but Brenda Major (and others) entitled, “Abortion and Mental Health.” These authors wrote a report in 2008 for the APA task force on Mental Health and Abortion (available at here). What I find interesting in the article is the discussion of the research on the association of mental health problems with abortion. Set aside, just for a moment, your strong feelings about the topic and consider this question: how would you go about studying the effects of abortion on women using robust measures?

You cannot do a randomized, double-blind study (you subjects get an abortion while you other subjects have your baby). Thus, you cannot fully control pre-existing or co-occurring risk factors. So, what do most researchers do? Try to indicate risk markers–correlations–that may point to possible but not proven causes. The writers of this article point out that the downside of correlation or associations is that folk tend to mistake them as causes. They give one specific example: If age is the “most important known risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease (AD)” one might assume that age causes AD. But it does not. Similarly, one can do a study that shows 100% of convicted sex offenders have their own sexual victimization and wrongly assume that sexual abuse leads to sex offending. Not so.

These authors emphasize the benefits of asking two other questions (on p. 865):

1. What is the relative risk of mental health problems associated with abortion compared to the same risks associated with having an unwanted baby (whether keeping or adopting out)?

2. What predicts individual variation in women’s psychological experiences following abortion?

The authors go on to say that the hypothesis of the researcher really impacts the kinds of research questions asked (and thus conclusions). Some research focuses on traumatic experiences, others on stress and coping, still others on the sociocultural context.

By the way, it is a long article but concludes this way (p. 886):

Mental health among women who experience an unwanted pregnancy reflects a number of factors. It reflects preexisting and co-occurring conditions in a woman’s life that place her at greater or lesser risk for poor mental health in general regardless of how she resolves her pregnancy. It reflects her appraisals of the meaning of a pregnancy and abortion and her appraisals of her ability to cope with either option.

There’s more to their final thoughts but you get the point. How you look at pregnancy, abortion, adoption is likely to have a big impact on your immediate mental health. Sadly, I suspect the research also reflects the biases of the researcher (how could it not?).

I found this article interesting because it does a great job illustrating the benefits AND drawbacks of research. Researching mental health of women with unwanted pregnancies is a good idea but will fail to address the moral and ethical questions that, in my mind, take precedence in the public debate.

Leave a comment

Filed under counseling, counseling science, Psychology

Tagged as , ,