Our Evidence-Based Happiness: An Experiential Approach course through MOLLI at the University of Montana is starting soon. Note: THIS MOLLI COURSE IS OPEN TO ALL INTERESTED ADULTS, AND NOT JUST OLDER ADULTS.
This course combines one 90 min lecture, followed by 5 weeks of home assignments and small group discussion. We believe this format will offer a great balance of information, experiential learning, and talking and listening with others who are working on positive psychology practices.
You can get more info on the MOLLI course from my previous post . . . or on the MOLLI website. The clock is ticking on this one as the first meeting is Tuesday, April 2, at 1pm (Mountain Time).
We’ve been talking about emotions in our Group Counseling course at the University of Montana. Even though focusing on emotions has grown immensely in popularity within contemporary counseling and psychotherapy, some students seem to be missing a few basics. Last week, when I took time to talk about the differences between (a) reflection of feeling, (b) interpretive reflection of feeling, and (c) feeling validation most of the students found the information useful. Consequently, I’m including here (and in a following blog post or two) excerpts from the latest edition of our Clinical Interviewing textbook. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Clinical+Interviewing%2C+7th+Edition-p-9781119981985
The foundation that guides how clinicians respond to clients is described in our “Listening Continuum” (see below).
This excerpt is from the section in Chapter 4 on Reflection of Feeling.
*****************************
Reflection of Feeling (aka Empathy)
The primary purpose of a reflection of feeling is to let clients know, through an emotionally focused paraphrase, that you’re tuned in to their emotional state. Nondirective reflections of feeling encourage further emotional expression. Consider the following example of a 15-year-old male (he/him) talking about his teacher:
Client: That teacher pissed me off big time when she accused me of stealing her phone. I wanted to punch her.
Counselor: You were pretty pissed off.
Client: Damn right.
In this example, the feeling reflection focuses only on what the client clearly articulated. This is the rule for nondirective feeling reflections: Restate or reflect only the emotional content that you clearly heard the client say. No probing, interpreting, or speculation are included. Although we might guess at underlying dynamics contributing to this boy’s fury, a nondirective feeling reflection focuses on obvious emotions.
Emotions are personal. Every attempt to reflect feelings is a move toward closeness or intimacy. Some clients who don’t want relational connection with you may react negatively to reflections of feeling. You can minimize negative reactions to reflections of feeling by phrasing them tentatively, especially during an initial interview:
When using reflection to encourage continued personal exploration, which is the broad goal of reflective listening, it is often useful to understate slightly what the person has offered. This is particularly so when emotional content is involved. (W. R. Miller & Rollnick, 2013, p. 59)
Emotional accuracy is your ultimate goal. However, if you miss the emotional target, it’s better to miss with an understatement than an overstatement. If you overstate emotional intensity, clients will often backtrack or deny their feelings. As we’ll discuss in Chapter 12, there’s a proper time to intentionally overstate client emotions. Generally, however, you should aim for accuracy while proceeding tentatively and understating rather than overstating clients’ emotions. Rogers (1961) would sometimes use clarification with clients after giving a reflection of feeling (e.g., “I’m hearing sadness and pain in your voice… am I getting that right?”).
If you understate a reflection of feeling, your client may correct you.
Client: That teacher pissed me off big time when she accused me of stealing her watch. I wanted to punch her.
Counselor: Seems like you were a little irritated about that. Is that right?
Client: Irritated? Fuck no—I was pissed.
Counselor: You were way more than irritated. You were pissed.
In this example, a stronger emotional descriptor is better because the client expressed more than irritation. However, any adverse effect of “missing” the emotion is minimized because the counselor phrased the reflection tentatively with “Seems like…” and then added a clarifying question at the end. Then, perhaps most important, when the client corrected the counselor, the counselor repaired the reflection to fit with the client’s emotional experience. From a psychoanalytic perspective, the repairing of emotional mirroring or empathy might be the most therapeutic part of listening (Kohut, 1984; see Practice and Reflection 4.3 to practice emotional responses to clients).
Reflections of feeling are often labeled as empathy. If only empathy were so simple. As Clark noted, “Rogers . . . was appalled by this . . . as the rich and nuanced process of empathy was reduced to trivial and repetitive expressions of a therapist identifying a client’s feelings” (p. 23). As we move forward through this chapter and other content on more directive interviewer responses, remember that empathy should be woven into nearly every therapist utterance, including confrontation, advice, and behavioral homework (Clark, 2023).
With clients, mental health professionals engage in emotional clarification, exploration, validation, and education. Your role varies depending on your clients’ needs and situation. As a technique, reflection of feeling aids clients in clarifying and exploring their emotions. For this chapter and reflection of feeling, the best path is a tentative one, wherein you function as a mirror to help clients experience and articulate their emotions with greater clarity. Doing so can serve to help clients explore and gain greater understanding of their emotional worlds. To accomplish your interviewing goals, you don’t need to know everything about the academic and popular debates over emotions; instead, you partner with clients to deepen your mutual understanding of the emotional experiences.
[Several pages of the text are skipped here]
Gender, Culture, and Emotion
Imagine you’re in an initial clinical interview with a Latino (he/him) cisgender male husband and father. He looks unhappy and your impression is that he’s angry about his wife’s employment outside the home. You’re aware that some Latine/x people have traditional ideas about male and female family roles. This knowledge provides you with a foundation for using a reflection of feeling to focus on his anger:
I’m getting the sense that you’re a little angry about your wife deciding to go back to work.
He responds,
Nah. She can do whatever she wants.
You hear his words. He seems to be empowering his wife to do as she pleases. But his voice is laden with annoyance. This leads you to try again to connect with him on a deeper level. You say,
Right. But I hear a little annoyance in your voice.
This reflection of feeling prompts an emotional response, but not the one you hoped for.
Sure. You’re right. I am annoyed. I’m fucking annoyed with you and the fact that you’re not listening to me and keep focusing on all this feelings shit.
This is a dreaded scenario for many clinicians. You take a risk to reflect what seems like an obvious emotion, and you get hostility in return. Your emotional sensitivity and effort at empathy backfires. The client moves to a defensive and aggressive place, and a relationship rupture occurs (see Chapter 7 for more on dealing with relationship ruptures).
It’s tempting to use culture and gender to explain this client’s negative reaction to your reflection of feeling. But it’s not that simple.
Although culture, gender, race, and other broad classification-based variables can sometimes predict whether specific clients will be comfortable with emotional expression, individual client differences are probably more substantial determinants. Comfort in expressing emotion is often a function of whether the client comes from a family-neighborhood-cultural context where emotional disclosure was a norm. For example, Knight (2014) reported that Black and Latino males who were unlikely to disclose to their peers attributed this tendency to their experiences living in violent communities. These young men learned that emotional expression and trusting others were bad ideas in their neighborhoods. Conversely, emotional disclosure is more likely in the comfort range of Black and Latine/x males raised in safer communities. This makes good common sense: Whether clients perceive you as safe to talk with about emotional concerns probably has more to do with their backgrounds and past experiences than you.
Overall, it’s likely that clients’ willingness to tolerate feeling reflections is based on a mix of their cultural, gender, and individual experiences. Although biogenetics may be involved too, how people handle emotions is largely socialized (McDermott et al., 2019). If you have reason to suspect that your client is socialized to be uncomfortable with emotions, you should avoid emotionally specific words. Examples of emotionally specific words include angry, sad, scared, and guilty.
Instead of emotionally specific words, you can substitute words that are emotionally vague (and less intense). Later, as trust develops, you might be able to use specific emotional words. Consider the following phrases:
You found that frustrating.
It seems like that bothered you a bit.
It’s a little upsetting to think about that.
Practice and Reflection 4.4 lists examples of emotionally vague words you might use instead of emotionally specific words.
PRACTICE AND REFLECTION 4.4: USING VAGUE AND EMOTIONALLY SAFE WORDS
Emotionally Specific Words
Substitute (Safer) Words
Angry
Frustrated, upset, bothered, annoyed
Sad
Down, bad, unlucky, “that sucked”
Scared
Bothered, “didn’t need that,” “felt like leaving”
Guilty
Bad, sorry, unfortunate, “bad shit”
Note: These words may work as substitutes for more emotionally specific words, but they also may not. It will be more effective for you to work with your classmates or in your work setting to generate less emotionally threatening words and phrases that are culturally and locally specific.
[End of Practice and Reflection 4.4]
Gender diverse clients may be emotionally sensitive in ways different than clients on the gender binary. Due to their neutrality, reflections of feeling—even when accurate—can be activating if clients are sensing you’re coming from a place of judgment. Consider the following:
Counselor: You said your family is rejecting your sexual identity, and you’re feeling terribly sad about that.
Client: Wouldn’t you?
When clients have a substantial history of interpersonal rejection, emotional invalidation, and/or oppression, neutral comments from clinicians can be perceived as judgmental. In this exchange, the counselor uses an accurate simple paraphrase along, with an emotional reflection, but the client feels judged and responds defensively. Given the client’s history, feeling judged in response to neutral reflections is natural. What the client needs (to feel connected and supported) is a response that’s explicitly affirming or validating (Alessi et al., 2019). In this case, at least until rapport is established, rather than a feeling reflection, the client would likely react better to a feeling validation (“Your sadness in response to your family’s rejection of your sexual identity seems totally normal”; see Chapter 5 for information on feeling validations).
*******************************
Thanks for reading. In the coming week, there will be additional posts on the basics and nuances of working with emotions in counseling and psychotherapy.
In my Group Counseling class, I’ve experienced predictable questioning of or resistance to evidence-based happiness ideas from positive psychology. . . and so I wrote out some of my thoughts . . . which went on and on and ended with a video clip.
Hello Group Class,
I’m writing my group takeaway to your all this week. Feel free to read at your leisure . . . or not at all . . . because I’m a writer and obviously, sometimes I get carried away and write too much.
When I responded to a question last week expressing reservations about the use of positive psychology—perhaps generally and perhaps more specifically with oppressed populations—I launched into a psychoeducational lecture. Upon reflection, I wish I had been more receptive to the concerns and encouraged the class as a group chew on the pros and cons of positive psychology in general and positive psychology with oppressed populations, in particular. I suspect this would have been an excellent discussion.
Given that we have limited time for discussion in class, I’ll share more reflections on this topic here.
1. The concerns that were expressed (and others have expressed in your takeaways) are absolutely legitimate. I’m glad you all spoke up. Some people have used positive psychology as a bludgeon (claiming things like “happiness is a choice”) in ways that make people feel worse about themselves. Never do that!
2. Positive psychology is poorly named (even the great positive psych researcher, Sonja Lyubomirsky, hates the name). Among its many naming problems, the word positive implies that it’s better, preferable, and the opposite of negative—which must then be the correct descriptor for all other psychology. None of this is true; positive psychology is not “better” and, in fact, it’s not even exclusively positive.
3. The point of positive psychology is not to “take over” psychology, but to balance our focus from being nearly always on psychopathology, to being equally about strengths, joy, happiness, etc., and psychopathology. If you think of it as an effort to balance how we work with individuals, it makes more sense. The point isn’t, and never has been, that we should only focus on positive mental health regardless of how our clients and students are feeling. That would be silly and insensitive.
4. As someone reminded me in the takeaways, the sort of happiness we focus on in positive psych is called eudaimonic happiness. This term comes from Aristotle. It refers to a longer form of happiness that emphasizes meaning, interpersonal connection, and finding the sweet spot where our own virtues intersect with the needs of the community. The other side of happiness is referred to as “hedonic” happiness. Hedonic happiness is more about hedonism, which involves immediate pleasure and material acquisitions. Nearly everyone in positive psychology advocates primarily for eudaimonic happiness, but also recognizes that we all usually need some pleasure as well.
5. Individuals and groups who have been historically (and currently) oppressed are naturally sensitive to coercion, judgment, and possibility of repeated oppression. What this means for counselors (among many things) is that we need to careful, sensitive, and responsive to their needs and not our assumptions of their needs. They may appreciate us being positive and supportive. Or they may appreciate us explicitly acknowledging their pain and affirming the legitimacy of the reasons for their pain. There’s substantial research indicating that certain ethnic group expect counselors to be experts and offer guidance. If that’s the case, should we avoid offering guidance because a particular theorist (or supervisor) said not to offer guidance? I think not. Many clients benefit from going deep and processing their disturbing emotions and sensations. There are probably just as many who don’t really want to go deep and would prefer a surface-focused problem-solving approach. Either way, my point is that we respond to them, rather than forcing them to try to benefit from a narrow approach we learned in grad school.
6. Good counselors . . . and you will all become good counselors . . . can use virtually any approach to make connection, begin collaborating, remain sensitive to what clients and students are saying (verbally and non-verbally), and work constructively with them on their emotions, thoughts, sensations/somatics, behaviors, and the current and/or historical conditions contributing to their distress.
7. We should not blame clients for their symptoms or distress, because often their symptoms and distress are a product of an oppressive, traumatic, or invalidating environment. This is why reflections of feeling can fall flat or be resisted. Feeling reflections are tools for having clients sit with and own their feelings. While that can be incredibly important, if you do a feeling reflection and you don’t have rapport or a rationale, feeling reflections will often create defensiveness. Instead, it can be important to do what the narrative and behavioral folks do, and externalize the problem. When it comes to issues like historical trauma, often clients or students have internalized negative messages from a historically oppressive society, and so it makes perfect sense to NOT contribute to their further internalization of limits, judgments, discrimination, and trauma that has already unjustly taken hold in their psyche. The problem is often not in the person.
8. I know I said this in class, but it bears repeating that many people practice simple, superficial, and educational positive psychology using bludgeon-like strategies. Obviously, I’m not in support of that. That said, many people practice simplistic implementation of technical interventions in counseling (think: syncretism from theories class), and many counselors do bad CBT, bad ACT, bad DBT, bad behaviorism, bad existentialist therapy, and bad versions of every form of counseling out there. No matter which approach you embrace, you should do so using your excellent fundamental listening skills . . . so that if your client or student doesn’t like or isn’t benefiting from your approach, you can change it!
I want to end this little 1K word writing project with a video. In the linked clip, I’m doing about a 3 1/2 minute opening demonstrating a “Strengths-based approach” to suicide assessment and treatment planning with a 15-year-old. As you watch, ask yourself, “Is this strengths-based?” Can you identify anything that makes this approach strengths-based or as including even a whiff of positive psychology. [Again, you’re not required to watch this, I’m just rambling.]
Group this week was chaotic, great, and disconcerting. As the leader-instructor, I felt perhaps I didn’t get the students prepared enough to run their in-class discussion and color groups. I worried that now we’ve got too much experiencing and not enough educational content.
These feelings and thoughts are familiar; maybe they’re familiar to other educators. To learn, students need experiences, but they also need knowledge, information, and educational content to put experiences in context. They also need external feedback, to go along with the internal feedback process in which they naturally engage. How hard is it to hit the sweet spot? Very hard!
While observing one group, I noticed conflict emerging between co-leaders. I didn’t intervene. During their self-evaluation process, the leaders acknowledged their tension. My response? I normalized their experience of co-leader conflict and the challenges of co-leader conflict management.
Later, while debriefing the various group experiences with the whole class, I spontaneously began speaking about group leader conflict. Words came out of my mouth in advance of a clear mental formulation of what I wanted to say.
“Group co-leader conflict will occur. Sometimes your co-leader will go a different direction. You’ll be watching and wondering, ‘What’s going on here?’ You may have a negative reaction. You may feel critical and annoyed. When this happens, we need to give each other grace.”
Another theme bubbling up this week involved vulnerability. The group leaders feel vulnerable and on-the-spot for obvious reasons; I expected that. What I’ve been less prepared for is the vulnerability students felt as group members who were prompted to share “happy” and “meaningful” songs. Here’s their group leadership assignment:
Some students seemed sensitive to perceived coercion, and the related expectation that they were obligated to be vulnerable. I got enough takeaway emails about vulnerability that I’m sharing a few of my responses (I’m not sharing the emails from the students; I’m sharing my email responses)
Emails on Vulnerability
I’m glad to hear the music activity felt connecting for you with your group. It’s interesting how music might seem like a “light” topic, but it certainly can get emotional and vulnerable, sometimes very quickly.
Thanks for sharing your reactions from your color group experience. I’ve heard similar reactions from others. I too, found myself surprised that some members felt the activity involved vulnerability . . . but then I remembered several things, not the least of which is the emotional power of music and the fact that talking about happiness nearly always, at some point, elicits sadness and vulnerability.
Your comments about the diverse reactions to the music assignment reminds me of a point I want to make in class tomorrow. The point being: When we talk about happiness, the emotional reaction is often the opposite! Initially, I felt surprised that some groups felt the assignment was pretty vulnerable, but then I thought, of course! Sharing anything feels vulnerable. . . and music is a powerful emotional activator.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts/reactions from your Color Group. Noticing and appreciating others’ discomfort is so important, partly because it involves empathy, but also because what causes some people discomfort may not even be a blip for others, including you. It IS a great thing to be mindful about.
Reading and responding to student emails is helping me be more thoughtful and accepting of their experiences. Although their experiences naturally activate my memories about my grad school group experiences, more importantly, reading about their experiences helps me move past my own memories and my own narrow lived experiences. My students are giving me a chance to have greater appreciation for the wide range of simple and complex factors that activate their vulnerabilities. For me, that’s one (of many) lessons from this week: My surprise regarding students’ feeling vulnerable is countertransference. As countertransference, it’s a good thing to notice. But the point is to give myself grace around my countertransference, while nurturing and growing my ability to move around my surprise and seek deeper understanding of my students’ experiences . . . just as I hope they will do with their clients.
Spring is coming: it’s a good time to try something new.
In collaboration with the MOLLI program on campus at the University of Montana, I’m offering a unique “Happiness” class that combines an initial lecture with 5 small group experiential discussions. The course begins in about 1 month (April 2, 2024). Here’s the course description:
Evidence-Based Happiness: An Experiential Approach
In this course, participants will learn about and experience seven different research-based approaches to achieving greater happiness. Using a unique format, participants will have one week of traditional lecture, followed by five weeks of small-group experiential learning sessions. Each small group (aka happiness lab) will meet to practice, experience, and discuss specific happiness interventions. Before each lab group, participants will be provided with a short reading and a short video to guide their weekly happiness practice. Specific positive psychology interventions to be covered include (a) three good things, (b) savoring, (c) gratitude, (d) cognitive behavior therapy, (e) forgiveness, (f) acts of kindness, (g) and the best possible self. Labs will be facilitated by graduate students in counseling and supervised by John Sommers-Flanagan.
The course is live and offered simultaneously in virtual and in-person formats. To enroll, you need to become a MOLLI member, which costs $0. The cost of the course is $70. If you do the math, you’ll see that’s about $12 per educational hour . . . which is a fantastic deal. The other fantastic part is that research indicates your participation may contribute to you feeling greater meaning and happiness.
For remote users, there are no borders. You can take it from anywhere: To enroll in the VIRTUAL (remote) course, click here, and if you’re not a MOLLI member, start by clicking on sign-in to become a member and then register: https://www.campusce.net/umtmolli/course/course.aspx?C=844&pc=38&mc=42&sc=0
Last summer, when I taught our Happiness for Teachers course along with Lillian Martz, one of the most powerful assignments involved forgiveness. Even though we emphasized that the teachers taking our class didn’t need to actually engage in a forgiveness process, they shared incredibly deep and profound stories of betrayal, forgiveness, and the struggles in between. Here’s the assignment. Again, we’re not saying you need to engage in a forgiveness process. All we’re suggesting is for you to read this and think about forgiveness. Here’s the assignment:
Whether we’re talking self-forgiveness, forgiving others, or spiritual forgiveness, forgiveness is a big deal and a big ask.
For this learning activity, we don’t expect you to purge yourself of all personal guilt or become free from all resentments. Nevertheless, for this assignment, your job is to explore what forgiving yourself, forgiving others, and being forgiven might look like AND how forgiving yourself, forgiving others, and being forgiven might feel to you.
To do this activity, you’re not expected to actually do the forgiveness work; instead, you get to think about doing the forgiveness work and speculate on its effects. . . FOR YOU. Although forgiveness is probably the biggest issue we’ve tackled in this Happiness Challenge, the plan is for you to just take a small sip from the very large cup of potential forgiveness issues that we all have. If you want to go deeper and take a bigger drink, that’s perfectly fine, but that’s all up to you.
To get yourself oriented toward forgiveness you could (if you want) consider and access some of the following ideas and online resources:
Consider that forgiving others can improve your physical health. As Anne Lamott wrote in Traveling Mercies: “Not forgiving is like drinking rat poison and then waiting for the rat to die.” Is there anyone other there toward whom you might offer forgiveness? You don’t even have to talk with them (although you can, if that works for you). You can just bring yourself to a place where you’ve let go of any lingering anger or resentment that you’re holding.
Last week was about emotional journaling. This week, we stick with the power of words and writing and take a dive into an evidence-based therapeutic writing activity called the Best Possible Self.
You all already know about optimism and pessimism.
Some people see the glass half full. Others see the glass half empty. Still others, just drink and savor the water, without getting hung up on how much is in the glass. Obviously, there are many other responses, because some people spill the water, others find a permanent water source, and others skip the water and drink the wine or pop open a beer.
Reducing people to two personality types never works, but that doesn’t stop people from labeling themselves or others as optimists or pessimists. This week’s activity—The Best Possible Self—is an optimism activity. You don’t have to be a so-called optimist to use it. And the good news is, regardless of your labels, the Best Possible Self writing activity is supposed to crank up your sense of optimism. That’s cool, because generally speaking, optimism is a good thing. Here’s what the researchers say about the Best Possible Self (BPS) activity.
[The following is summarized from Layous, Nelson, and Lyubomirsky, 2012]. Writing about your Best Possible Self (also seen as a representation of your goals) shows long-term health benefits, increases life satisfaction, increases positive affect, increases optimism, and improves overall sense of well-being. Laura King, a professor at U of Missouri-Columbia developed the BPS activity.
King’s original BPS study involved college students writing about their Best Possible Selves for 15 minutes a day for two weeks. The process has been validated with populations other than college students. If you want to jump in that deep, go for it. On the other hand, if you want a lighter version, here’s a less committed alternative:
Spend 10 minutes a day for four consecutive days writing a narrative description of your “best possible future self.”
Pick a point in the future – write about what you’ll be doing/thinking then – and these things need to capture a vision of you being “your best” successful self or of having accomplished your life goals.
As with all these activities, monitor your reactions. Maybe you’ll love it and want to keep doing it. Maybe you won’t.
If you feel like it, you can share some of your #writing on social media.
Berkeley’s Greater Good website includes a nice summary of the BPS activity. Here’s a pdf from their website:
Being a counseling and psychotherapy theories buff, I should mention that this fantastic assignment is very similar to the Adlerian “Future Autobiography.” Adler was way ahead of everyone on everything, so I’m not surprised that he was thinking of this first. Undoubtedly, Adler saw the glass half full, sipped and savored his share, and then shared it with his community. We should all be more like Adler.
Nothing works for everyone. Not everyone is comfortable writing about their experiences and not everyone can benefit from therapeutic writing. But, for those keen on the expressive writing modality, you can get out your pen or laptop and make a little therapeutic magic.
For this week’s Montana Happiness Challenge, I phrased it this way: What if, by engaging in a simple procedure for three consecutive days, you could obtain the following benefits?
A reduced need to go see a physician
Improved immune functioning
Fewer physical ailments or symptoms
Less distress
Less negative affect
Less depression
Improved GPA
Less absenteeism from work
As it turns out, according to social psychologist and prominent researcher, James Pennebaker, there is a simple procedure for accomplishing all of the above, right at your fingertips. Literally. At. Your. Fingertips. All you have to do is write about hard, difficult, or traumatic experiences. Here’s an example (summarized) of his instructions:
For the next three days write about your very deepest thoughts and feelings about an extremely important emotional issue that has affected you and your life. When writing, really let go and explore your deepest emotions and thoughts. You might want to tie your writing into your relationships with others or to your past/present/future, or to who you’ve been, who you are, and who you’d like to be in the future. You can write about the same topic every day or a new one every day. Keep your writing confidential. Don’t worry about spelling, grammar, etc., just write for 15-30 minutes straight. (adapted from Pennebaker, 1997)
I’ve been gobsmacked (aka astounded) by Pennebaker’s research for three decades. So much so that I remember where I was when I first read his 1986 article. Despite my gob-smacked-ness, I think it’s important to remember that Pennebaker is a social psychologist; he isn’t a clinical or counseling psychologist, a clinical mental health counselor, or a clinical social worker. As a consequence, I’m not asking you to leap right into his assignment without support. In fact, most researchers, including Pennebaker, believe you can gain the same benefits by talking about painful emotional experiences with a counselor or psychotherapist. One additional caveat: Pennebaker has also found that when writing or talking about traumatic experiences, often people feel distressed or emotionally worse to start, but over time they begin feeling better than they did in the beginning.
To do this activity, just think about Pennebaker’s method and his claims, and notice: (a) what you think of his idea, (b) whether you would ever like to try his technique, and (c) if you chose to try to process some deeper emotional issues, whether you would prefer writing or talking about them.
If you decide to really try Pennebaker’s method (that’s up to you), remember that your first reaction might be to feel worse. Therefore, having someone you trust to confide in about how you’re feeling through the process might be a good idea.
For me–and I know I’m weird–I like to go back and read some of the early research on these “therapeutic techniques.” Sometimes there’s no research to be found (think: somatic approaches or polyvagal theory); other times, the gaps between what was studied and what the media and popular psychology reports is huge (think: adverse childhood experiences and the research on predicting divorce); but on occasion, the original research is stunningly good. Here’s one of Pennebaker’s early studies. It’s really worth a read:
This post is for Montana Educators. Please forward this message to any Montana Educators you know. Due to support from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, we have an opportunity to support Montana Educators with VERY LOW COST graduate credit courses on “Evidence-Based Happiness” through the University of Montana. We’re doing this because we deeply appreciate the work of Montana teachers and we believe this course and the added credits to their payscale is one way for us to support them.
Thanks for your help. Please share. Montana Educators are awesome.
Dear Montana Educators,
In collaboration with the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, the Montana Safe Schools Center, UMOnline, and the Montana Happiness Project, the Phyllis J. Washington College of Education at the University of Montana is pleased to offer very low-cost Graduate Credit courses on “Evidence-Based Happiness” exclusively designed for Montana Educators.
We have 3-credit ($195) and 1-credit ($70) options available, beginning January 18.
Although seats are limited, please forward this information to other potentially interested Montana teachers. We will open as many sections as we can handle.
When I was teaching social skills to elementary school-aged youth, one boy couldn’t stop talking about himself. Because I wanted the students to be interactive with and interested in each other, I intervened.
“Ask a question about her.”
He nodded, in apparent understanding. Returning to the activity, he followed my instructions (sort of), immediately asking,
“What do you think of me?”
The question, “What do you think of me?” is powerful. We all wonder this, at least occasionally, and perhaps constantly. As I just wrote in a previous blog post, being seen and known by others is a profound experience. Having your strengths and positive qualities reflected back to you by others is a gift: https://johnsommersflanagan.com/2023/12/25/the-gift-of-being-seen/
The Natural Talent Interview requires vulnerability; it’s a challenging and potentially awkward assignment. I recommend it anyway. 😲
Here’s a link to the version of the Natural Talent Interview that we assign in the Happiness Course. Note: It includes a nice description of self-awareness and the Johari Window.
John Sommers-Flanagan 