I’m in Memphis for the big AAMFT Conference, and today saw probably the best presentation in the 10-ish years I’ve been going to the thing.
The new issue of the Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy is out, and it gives me the rare and happy opportunity to put in a plug for my own work. It includes a couple of surprises.
In a study I coauthored on marriage and family therapists’ attitudes toward marriage, MFTs suffered the same steady, age-related decline in positivity toward marriage previously seen among non-therapists. The big surprise was that experience doing couples therapy more than offset this decline. As therapists gained experience working with couples over the years, they grew more positive about marriage — a strong testament to the power of our field to influence clients and therapists alike.
So, ideally, if you want a supremely marriage-positive therapist, you should find someone who is about 30 years old and has about 40 years of experience.
Other findings in the new JCRT:
- The RELATE test can identify fairly easily those couples at heightened risk of divorce, from the time before they even marry. Once couples are identified as being at-risk, they can be targeted with specific services. Some of the biggest roadblocks to strengthening the at-risk marriage: time and money. Lack of knowledge is a factor too. Score one for the marriage education movement.
- Demand-withdraw cycles of communication in couples are strongly linked with attachment style. Attachment-based therapies may be the best option for couples caught in such cycles. But then, we already knew that.
- Couples with internet access might benefit from specific writing tasks assigned as a part of the therapy. Emphasis here on “might,” as this article is just a proposed process, and not an outcome evaluation.
As an aside, I’ll be spending the rest of the week and the weekend at the AAMFT Annual Conference in Memphis, TN. I look forward to sharing what I learn upon my return to beautiful Los Angeles.
- MFTs should be aware that using the Internet as a social tool is now normal for kids and adolescents. There are assessment tools now available, including the Internet Sex Screening Test – Adolescent Version, to determine whether an adolescent’s behavior warrants treatment.
- Just like in non-Internet relationships, men show greater concern over women’s sexual infidelity, and women show greater concern over men’s emotional infidelity.
- Among a sample of university students, neither men nor women believed that a cybersex relationship implied a love relationship (or vice versa).
- Over the past two years, therapists report an increased frequency of clients coming to therapy to address cybersex issues. Many therapists feel unprepared for this work.
- Therapists apparently allow several biases to impact their assessment and treatment of internet infidelity cases. Therapist decisions are impacted by factors including the client’s gender, therapist’s age, therapist’s gender, therapist’s religiosity, and therapist’s personal experiences with infidelity. In regard to client gender, men are far more likely to be labeled “sex addicts” than are women engaging in identical behaviors.
- For family members concerned about a loved one’s cybersex behavior, there is an empirically-supported and manualized method for bringing that person into treatment, known as the ARISE model.
All fascinating stuff. I’ve seen in my own practice a number of couples dealing with issues of internet infidelity over the past few years, and suspect that this will only become more common. It’s good to see our field pursuing assessment and treatment models that specifically address it.
The print version of the LA Times in late July ran a story with the headline “Go Ahead, Hold It In.” (The headline on the web version is a little less pithy.) Apparently new research suggests that emotional expression after a traumatic event is not as helpful as once thought:
“In the immediate aftermath of a collective trauma, it’s perfectly healthy to not want to express your thoughts and feelings,” [University of Buffalo Psychologist Mark Seery] says.
In fact, it can do more harm than good. Some people have periods of what psychologists call “healthy denial.” Like Scarlet O’Hara, they cope by promising themselves to think about it tomorrow. Being pushed to give voice to their worst reactions too soon could embed the worst of it in memory and cause them to dwell on the tragedy. And if they can’t or won’t talk, urging them to act against their instincts could make them think that something is wrong with them.
In the aftermath of major traumas like the September 11 terrorist attacks, shootings at Virginia Tech, or natural disasters, counselors and therapists are often brought in by the hundreds. They provide what is called Critical Incident Stress Debriefing, a process in which victims or family members, usually in a group setting, are encouraged to express their emotions and talk about their experiences around the event.
The LA Times puts it politely in saying such work “has gotten ahead of the evidence on the best course of mental healthcare after a disaster.” Unfortunately, we’ve known this for some time, and the CISD business is booming.
This 2003 research summary in Psychological Science in the Public Interest summed up what we knew five years ago:
Although the majority of debriefed survivors describe the experience as helpful, there is no convincing evidence that debriefing reduces the incidence of PTSD, and some controlled studies suggest that it may impede natural recovery from trauma. Most studies show that individuals who receive debriefing fare no better than those who do not receive debriefing.
Two years later, in 2005, we had this summary of the state of CISD research:
The National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH), in conjunction with the Departments of Justice, Defense, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs and the American Red Cross, held a consensus conference on the mental health response to victims and survivors of mass violence. The researchers did not recommend CISM/CISD.
Finally, a 2006 article in the Review of General Psychology found that debriefing sessions accomplished nothing, good or bad, for those who participated in them.
Certainly, the method has its defenders. There’s a lively and mostly well-written defense of the field, dissecting many of the research findings (pro and con) about CISD here. You may want to skip to the end, where they discuss and attempt to refute the negative research, and address the issue of possible harm.
All of this is not an attempt to diminish the importance of having mental health services available after a disaster. Some individuals experience very real difficulties in coping and can be helped. And localized systems can easily become overwhelmed. But a massive influx of counselors and therapists after a disaster, acting as though therapy is somehow a necessity for all involved, is probably not helpful.
Getting back to the science, the whole debate on CISD reminds me a lot of the research-and-usage arc of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program in the 1980s and 1990s. DARE continued to be used for many years even after research had overwhelmingly declared it ineffective. Part of the reason for the continued use was that communities wanted to feel like they were doing something to combat adolescent drug use, even when they had clear evidence that their efforts were unproductive. (The fallback argument for DARE proponents, of course, begins with “If we helped even one child…” This argument ignores the studies that found DARE exposure actually increased later drug use among some groups.)
Similarly, here, we as therapists want to feel like we can be helpful in the wake of a tragic or traumatic event. Those who employ, contract with, or call upon debriefers similarly want to feel like they are doing something good. But until we devise and validate a better way to offer services in the wake of a crisis, we may be better off to stand a bit farther to the sidelines, and simply say, we’re here if you need us.
Bledsoe, B. (2005). Trying to reason with hurricane season. Available online at http://www.jems.com/columnists/bledsoe/articles/15303/ .
McNally RJ, Bryant RA, & Ehlers A. (2003). Does early psychological intervention promote recovery from posttraumatic stress? Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 4(2), 45-79.
So reads the headline on this CNN.com story, a first-person account from one of the network’s producers who was gathering information for their “Black In America” series. In it, she talks of her experience as an unmarried African-American woman who is hoping to be married someday. She also relates just one of the many startling statistics on the racial divide in marriage: 45 percent of African-American women have never been married, almost double the percentage of never-married white women.
Kay Hymowitz, who wrote the spectacular-until-the-final-essay Marriage and Caste in America, put it a bit more directly:
When [fellow marriage researcher Stephanie Coontz] assures us that marriage is not on the verge of extinction, she’s right – if you’re white and went to college.
The white, college-educated crowd is especially likely to marry. That is, likely to marry someone else who is also white and college-educated. That white, college-educated couple will then probably proceed to have children (marriage and childbearing remain more closely linked in the white, college-educated community than elsewhere), and the children will eventually become college-educated.
Presumably they will remain white.
The separation of marriage from childbearing is particularly dramatic in the black community, Hymowitz adds, with about 70% of births to African-American women now occurring outside of marriage.
Whatever your perspective on the issue, it is clear that marriage patterns are becoming more distinct among specific classes in the US, both ethnically and economically. Whether that means that “marriage” belongs on Stuff White People Like, I’m not sure.
There’s a great deal more research on marital trends in the masterfully-done State of Our Unions report, published annually by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers. Recent editions have highlighted specific trends for focus, including the future of marriage in America, life without children, and which men marry and why. All are good reading.
Welcome! I created this space when I realized how quickly things are changing for the profession of marriage and family therapy, both in California with legislation, and around the world through both scientific and regulatory advances.
I’m Ben Caldwell, and I’ll do my best to use this space for informative and timely discussion on topics important to our changing field. As I write this, I am a California-licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, an Assistant Professor and Site Director for the MFT master’s degree program at Alliant International University in Los Angeles, and chair of the Legislative and Advocacy Committee for AAMFT-California Division. Each of these positions are sources of tremendous joy and learning for me.
Of course, the opinions expressed here are my own. Unless explicitly labeled as such, the opinions expressed here do not in any way represent official positions of either Alliant or AAMFT-CA.
I learn something new in this field every day. Some days, every hour. I’m sure that some items I post here will reflect my knowledge, and others my ignorance. Whether you are in or outside the field, your comments and questions will continue to educate me on how MFTs can best help couples and families in distress. If you have thoughts on what topics should be covered in this space, please post them in the comments thread.