Dr. B's Blog

Text messaging can help save your life, too.

There has been no end of bad press for the scourge of text messaging. You can hardly listen to the news or read a newspaper without stumbling upon some other negative consequence of texting. There are clearly some issues with text messaging, from the danger while driving to the inordinate amount of time some people spend doing it. So, finally, texting has found a little bit of positive news in a pair of studies out recently. Text messaging helps smokers break the habit:

"Text messaging may be an ideal delivery mechanism for tailored interventions because it is low-cost, most people already possess the existing hardware and the messages can be delivered near-instantaneously into real world situations," said the study, which is scheduled to appear this week in Health Psychology, the journal of the American Psychological Association.

 

There is so much value in getting therapy out of the office and this study highlights why it is key. Behavior change needs to occur in your context, not in the context of a therapy room. We like immediate gratification and if there's some way to help with that immediacy, treatment is going to be much more likely to be successful.

Paying penance or distracting?

When reminded of an immoral deed, people are motivated to experience physical pain.


This is the opening line of the discussion section in a recent article published in Psychological Science. The hook is alluring, isn’t it? Thinking about times that you were “bad” makes you want to punish yourself. I was attracted to this article for review because of my interest in working with self-injurious patients. There are two predominant reasons people engage in self-injurious behavior (SIB):

1) He/She wants to regulate his/her emotions through distraction or 2) He/She wants to punish him/herself for some perceived wrong or defect.

As a starting point in understanding SIB, these two perspectives are helpful. They give us a framework to begin to explain possible motivations and the function of that particular SIB. In other words, how do we get those needs met without having to engage in SIB?

The Article

Getting back to the article, the authors engaged in a simple experimental manipulation in which participants were assigned to either the recall of “immoral”[1] interpersonal behavior or more generic interpersonal behavior. Participants rated their affect using the PANAS[2] and then engaged in the pain part of the study. Following the painful/non-painful experience, their level of “guilt” was measured by completing the PANAS again.[3]

The researchers found that participants in the guilt inducing/pain condition expressed lower levels of guilty feelings after the manipulation, leading them to conclude that the painful experience caused a drop in guilt ratings.[4]

The participants in the guilt/pain condition also perceived more physical pain during the manipulation than those in the non-guilt/pain condition.[5]

Reading the Tea Leaves

The authors go on to claim that the motivation for causing pain is to reduce guilt. I believe they’ve got their conclusions backwards. Guilt is reduced because of the pain, not the other way around. Getting into divining motivation is a specious area at best. Unfortunately, I don’t see how the results of their study supports that explanation. This reading of the data is basically saying that the second of my two reasons for SIB listed above is the reason for engaging in the behavior. However, I believe that emotion regulation aspect of painful experience is not to be understated.

Pain as Emotion Regulation

The explanation of this article is a long way around to talk about my favorite therapeutic technique — mindfulness. Specifically, using mindfulness as a way to stop thinking about particular experiences can help reduce the intensity of those thoughts and the subsequent emotion. Rumination on particular misdeeds fires off a host of strong emotions and breaking into that ruminative cycle prevents continued emotional experience. In this particular case, the ice was an unavoidable mental focus and we can see support for this supposition in the subjective experience of the pain.

To further draw out the supposition, without too much of a stretch, we can say that people actively avoid thinking about times they did something “wrong”. When the participants were presented with a mental “out”, they took it. Ice is painful and it’s relatively easy to focus on pain. Focus on the physical pain increases the subjective experience of the pain. Two conclusions can be drawn from this:

  • For those who were suffering from emotional pain as a result of the manipulation — those in the “guilt” condition — this physical pain was deemed to be less intense, so they focused on the ice.
  • For those in the non-guilt — those without emotional pain — the physical pain was more uncomfortable to they focused away from it, leading to subjectively less pain.

Mindfulness as Emotion Regulation

The revealing thing about this article is that a mindful experience can be emotionally regulating. In DBT, we talk about using ice as a distress tolerance skill. This research, coming from a non-DBT perspective, corroborates that belief. I don’t believe that you necessarily need to subject yourself to physical pain to get the same sense of relief — you don’t need to punish yourself to feel better, at least all the time — you just need to be able to mindfully turn away from your rumination.

The process isn’t as easy as it sounds since being able to turn away from your ruminative thoughts is work. Our minds have a tendency to stick to things that we least like them to stick to. Cultivating mental control through regular practice and developing a sense of forgiveness and genuine caring for yourself can help. You should not let yourself violate your values if you can avoid it, but if you have, make up for it and then move on.

Footnotes

[1] The authors defined “immoral” behavior as ostracizing someone. I’d buy that as a particularly embarrassing experience.

[2] The PANAS is a well-validated measure of affect. I’m not sure how well it measures guilt, but since this is a peer-reviewed article, I’m going to give the authors the benefit of the doubt.

[3]This type of within subject/repeated measure design is common in psychological research. It’s designed to measure change across time or via experimental manipulation and has much theoretical support. It’s an especially powerful design because each subject is his/her own control.

[4]Given that this was an experimental design, causal conclusions are warranted.

[5]This finding, I believe, is particularly salient.

One molecule at a time

The concept of mindfulness is often referred to when initially helping clients with feeling overwhelmed - with work, family, emotions - to help them control and manage their thoughts and feelings. The concept taught during DBT skills groups often revolves around doing one thing in the moment. Technically, this is called the skill of "one-mindfulness" when teaching the Core Mindfulness section of DBT. During teaching, we often refer to multitasking In Real Life like we do when we try to multitask on a computer.

The metaphor goes something like this: before we could multitask, focusing on one window at a time made us more productive. Or rather, we maintain that computers are not able to be as efficient when multitasking because they get bogged down with too many programs open.

That was the way things were back then. We walked both ways, uphill, in the snow, to school and we liked it, darn it!

As a power computer user, I always found this analogy to be lacking. Well, as a power Mac computer user, I found it to be lacking. I'm typing this article on a computer that weighs less than 3 lbs. with a processor that is "slow" by many standards with probably 20 applications open. And my computer isn't slowing down at all. (For those interested, this is what I'm using.)

The truth is, I like multitasking on my computer. As a "good" "mindful" person, I've felt guilty about that. I admit it, it always drives me crazy to see someone use a full screen view on their Word document, with big white borders on the sides (my eyes hate to see all that white screen), or even worse, with text stretching across the length of their computer's widescreen monitor (how does that make for comfortable reading?). It always struck me as a waste of valuable screen real estate to make a window actually full screen. Modern computers have advanced windowing systems and memory management specifically so we could multitask. How could technology be so focused on giving us the ability to multitask if the act is inherently inefficient?

I couldn't reconcile my view on being one-mindful and its importance in developing a sense of balance with my avid use of multiple windows and applications on my computer. That is, until I read an article by Lukas Mathis about how we are incorrectly equating multitasking on a computer with multitasking in real life.

However, the argument that multitasking on computers is bad because humans can’t multitask is flawed. It uses the word «multitasking» in two different ways, but implies that the two kinds of multitasking are somehow the same thing. They’re not: a task (or an app) on a computer, and a task performed by a human don’t map to each other one-to-one. In fact, a single task performed by a human can easily make use of several applications running concurrently on a computer.

(Ed. note: emphasis mine)

Computers and programs are like single atoms. Well designed apps do one thing and do them very well. The idea I'm proposing is that we be mindful one molecule of behavior at a time. In chemistry, a molecule is the smallest unit of a compound that still retains the properties of that compound. Nothing added and nothing taken away. You can't have a molecule of water without 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen atom. No one would claim that H2O is anything other than one thing - a molecule of water. Similarly, many of the complex tasks we undertake as humans involve more than one atom of behavior but can be grouped into molecules of behavior. Within the molecule of writing, there's typing, reading, cutting, pasting, etc. There isn't, however, listening to music, watching YouTube or responding to emails. Those are impurities in your compound.

One molecule of behavior at a time.

So, while multitasking for computers is a desired state, it's not in humans. We're more complex than computers and necessarily work on the molecular level. There. In one article, I solved my cognitive dissonance of having 20 applications running at once (and liking it!), justifying how I can be mindful while doing it and proving we're better than Watson. That's a trifecta if I ever read one!

More disheartening treatment utilization news

The NIMH reports on a recent study released in Archives of General Psychiatry:

About 3 percent of U.S. adolescents are affected by an eating disorder, but most do not receive treatment for their specific eating condition, according to an NIMH-funded study published online ahead of print March 7, 2011, in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

While the data on the success of treatment for an eating disorder in adolescence is unclear, the fact that most of anyone suffering from a major mental disorder isn't getting treatment is quite disturbing. Given the extremely powerful reinforcement contingencies in place for an eating disorder, earlier intervention is needed.

Bipolar disorder vastly undertreated

Reuters reports on an issue that has been troubling me for some time: the under-treatment of serious mental health conditions. Along with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder is responsible for a phenomenon called downward social drift that we see occur as a result of major mental illness.

Bipolar disorder is responsible for the loss of more disability-adjusted life-years than all forms of cancer or major neurologic conditions such as epilepsy and Alzheimer's disease, primarily because of its early onset and chronicity across the life span," Kathleen Merikangas of the National Institute of Mental Health and colleagues wrote in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

I think the Affordable Care Act will help in this respect since we may be able to see a time when one's health insurance isn't tied to being employed at a place that offers benefits. It would be very difficult for someone with a condition like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia left under/untreated to hold a full-time job long enough to get benefits. It happens far too frequently and with the mental illness untreated, the likelihood of holding a job with benefits decreased. It's an awful cycle and one that does not end well for anyone - the sufferer or society at large.

Exercise and memory

I stumbled upon this article while surfing the web (which, despite my assertions, is not really exercise). It's a little on the technical side but here's a choice quote:

Our data show that 14 days of exercise increased the rate of acquisition in the Y maze, improved retention of previously ac- quired information, and facilitated reversal learning. The fact that exercise had a positive effect on Y-maze acquisition ... We show for the first time that physical exercise not only promotes the acquisition of a spatial learning task but also is beneficial for the retrieval of spatial reference memory.

It's fascinating how the brain can work like this. We know that exercise helps you sleep and eat better and help your mood in the process, but that it can also help your memory? Now we just need something to help us remember to exercise and we'll be golden.

Emotional distress and college freshman

The New York Times had an article several weeks back describing the levels of stress students face in college as being at an all-time high. Given what I'm seeing in my DBT-U, with full groups every semester and our recent addition of a second group in Durham, which is also full, I'm not surprised. The NYT reports:

“Most people probably think emotional health means, ‘Am I happy most of the time, and do I feel good about myself?’ so it probably correlates with mental health,” said Dr. Mark Reed, the psychiatrist who directs Dartmouth College’s counseling office.

“I don’t think students have an accurate sense of other people’s mental health,” he added. “There’s a lot of pressure to put on a perfect face, and people often think they’re the only ones having trouble.”

I chose this part of the article to highlight because it seems quite important to point out what many in our groups find: there are others out there who are struggling, too, and getting validation of that can be therapeutic in itself. Clearly, just having a support group isn't enough to deal more effectively with emotions - DBT skills group is much more than a support group - but it does help to know that you're not alone.

Addiction is addiction

Slate asks: Exercise and drug use: What do they have in common?

There's another, slightly more disturbing theory for why exercise helps stave off relapse—that working out helps people (and rats) resist drugs because of its similarity to those drugs. Have you ever felt irritable after skipping a yoga class or two? Or a little depressed and lethargic when you don't have time for the gym? These might be construed as withdrawal symptoms—the eventual outcome of an activity or habit that mimics, in some important ways, the effects of morphine and cigarettes and dope.

It's an interesting question. I've worked with women who have had extreme cases of exercise addiction and I've also worked with many people with substance use histories. If I were to read transcripts of our discussions with one or another of these types of clients, and the transcripts were scrubbed of the words "exercise" and "drugs", I'd be hard pressed to tell who was talking about what. The addictions are scarily similar.

Give this article a read and follow-up on some of the links therein. There is a raft of research on exercise addiction and its harmful effects on the body and the mind. As with many things, it's all in moderation.

4 vs. 5. What's the difference?

[Part one of this series of blog posts (because it has to be a series or I'm never going to get any of is published) will be a quick orientation to the concept of psychiatric diagnosis. Future parts will be much more extensive and go into the ongoing discussion regarding categories vs. dimensions in the DSM-5.] If you answered “1” to the question posed in the title of this article, you’d be right and wrong depending on what the units were measuring. When it comes to mental health diagnoses, it’s all in what is being measured. It could be a difference this >< large or one quite a bit bigger.

The debate about the "correct" way to make a diagnosis is at least as old as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and its categorical definition of mental illness. A quick lit search for the terms "categorical" "dimensional" and "diagnosis" reveals a discussion going back over 25 years.(1, 2, 3, 4 ).

Why the ongoing debate? The question essentially boils down to whether psychopathology is different in kind or merely in degree from typical emotional experience. That is, do people who experience what is considered a diagnosable mental illness have a qualitatively different experience of emotion than others?

Is sadness in Major Depressive Disorder a different kind of sadness? Or is it just a difference in how intense it is?

Is the anxiety someone with Generalized Anxiety Disorder experiences a different kind of anxiety? Or is it just more intense or pervasive?

How does a psychologist make a diagnosis?

The "right" way to make a diagnosis is to ascertain the level of severity of one's symptoms through either a structured or unstructured interview or questionnaire or other form of assessment. Using the information gleaned from this assessment, symptoms are compared to what's listed in the DSM to see if enough symptoms have been endorsed to be given a particular diagnosis. A thorough psychologist/assessor would make sure that there are no rule-outs or disorders that supercede the one being considered. 5

The decision after an assessment is a binary one: does the person meet enough criteria to be given this diagnosis? Take the diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. There are 9 criteria that can be considered. Five of those nine criteria must be met, with one of them being the first criteria. If a person meets 5, they can be given the diagnosis. If a person meets 4 of them, they cannot. That person would be considered to have "subthreshold" depression.

What's the difference between those two people? It could be just a matter of 1 fewer day of sadness or it could be a lack of something more substantive like hopelessness. The former is much less of an actual difference than the latter, obviously, and can make a significant difference in presentation and outlook.

(More to come on this topic in a future post, probably next week.)


  1. A recent article in Wired Magazine talks about this debate.
  2. Some more discussion of the Wired article can be found on mindhack. These articles are just a couple of the many on the subject.
  3. Thomas Widiger’s classic article on Axis II and categories back in 1993.↩
  4. Lorna Smith Benjamin’s response to Widiger.
  5. For example, if a person has ever had a manic episode, future diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder are ruled-out because Bipolar Disorder would supercede the diagnosis due to the history of a manic episode.

Being an expert isn't all that great.

For a long time, psychologists have known about the heuristics people use to make sense of their worlds. One of the better known is the idea of chunking information into to smaller, more manageable pieces of information. Try memorizing this number (no cheating!):

8 2 8 4 3 2 5 7 6 1

Some of the more astute among you might notice that's a 10-digit number with an area code somewhere in the vicinity of Asheville, NC (a beautiful place to visit if you ever get a chance!). So, you're probably ahead of the game.

We memorize a new 10-digit phone number by making chunks of 3, 3, and 4. That translates into a mental load of just 3 things you need to remember rather than the 10-digits you might try to memorize. This is great for information that we're familiar with and translates into useful mechanisms for learning.

Wired describes the phenomenon in other terms:

[T]hat talent wasn’t about memory – it was about perception. The grandmasters didn’t remember the board better than amateurs. Rather, they saw the board better, instantly translating the thirty-two chess pieces into a set of meaningful patterns. They didn’t focus on the white bishop or the black pawn, but instead grouped the board into larger strategies and structures, such as the French Defense or the Reti Opening.

I'm an avid NPR listener and everyday at 9:00 AM, they have the BBC World Service's broadcast. During this program, the host often calls for feedback from listeners and announces a string of numbers that I just can't get my head around. It's because they chunk the information differently. The host announces the numbers in a series of 2 digits at a time for that same 10-digit length phone number. But my brain can't handle the different presentation.

Wired goes on to say:

The problem with our cognitive chunks is that they’re fully formed – an inflexible pattern we impose on the world – which means they tend to be resistant to sudden changes, such as a street detour in central London. They also are a practiced habit, and so we tend to rely on them even when they might not be applicable. (A chess grandmaster has to be careful about applying his chess chunks to checkers.)

So, next time you're having a hard time committing something to memory, try thinking about it as a naive person. Use what Suzuki calls Beginner's Mind.